Documents

Uypitching V Quiamco, GR NO 146322.docx

Description
Description:
Categories
Published
of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Ernesto Ramas Uypitching and Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc., petitioner vs. Ernesto Quiamco, respondent G.R. No. 146322, December 6, 2006 Facts: in 1982, respondent Ernesto Quiamco was approached by Juan Davalan, Josefino Gabutero and Raul Generoso to amicably settle the civil aspect of a criminal case for robbery filed by Quiamco against them. They surrendered to him a red Honda XL-100 motorcycle and a photocopy of its certificate of registration. Respondent asked for the srcinal certificate of registration but the three accused never came to see him again. The motorcycle was parked in an open space inside respondent’s business establishment, Avesco AVNE Enterprises, where it is visible and accessible to the public. It turned out that the motorcycle had been sold on installment basis to Gabutero by the petitioner Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc., managed by Atty. Ernesto Ramas Uypitching. To secu re its payment, the motorcycle was mortgaged to petitioner’s corporation. When Gabutero could no longer pay the installments, Davalan assumed the obligation but stopped paying the remaining installments and told the collector that the motorcycle had been a llegedly “taken by respondent’s men”. Nine years later, Uypitching, accompanied by policemen went to Avesco-AVNE Enterprise to recover the motorcycle. While the police leader and the clerk in charge were talking, Uypitching paced back and forth inside the establishment uttering “Quiamco is a thief of motorcycle.” The policemen left to look for respondent in his residence while the petitioner stayed in the establishment and take photographs of the motorcycle. Unable to find the respondent, he instructed the policemen to take the motorcycle regardless of the clerk’s objection.  Issue: Whether or not the acts of the petitioner are contrary to the principle of abuse of right. Held: Yes. Article 19, also known as the “principle of abuse of right” prescribes that  a person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise he opens himself to liability. There is an abuse of right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure another. In this case, the manner by which the motorcycle was taken at petitioners’ instance was not only attended by bad faith but also contrary to the procedure laid down by law. Considered in conjunction with the defamatory statement, petitioners’ exercise of the right to recover the mortgaged vehicle was utterly prejudicial and injurious to respondent. On the other hand, the precipitate act of filing an unfounded complaint could not in any way be considered to be in accordance with the purpose for which the right to prosecute a crime was established. Thus, the totality of petitioner’s actions showed a calculated design to embarrass, humiliate and publicly ridicule  respondent. Petitioners acted in an excessively harsh fashion to the prejudice of respondent. Contrary to law, petitioners willfully caused damaged to respondent. Hence, they should indemnify him. By: Michelle Fajardo, 1Q
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x