Lessons Applicable: Violation of Human Dignity and Privacy (Torts and Damages)
Laws Applicable: article 26,Art. 2217 of the Civil Code
FACTS:
- Spouses Nestor Nicolas and Allem Nicolas resided in an apartment leased to them by the owner Florence "Bing" Concepcion who joined Nestor's business venture by contributing capital on condition that after her capital investment was returned to her, any profit earned would be divided equally among them
- Second week of July 1985: Rodrigo Concepcion, brother of the deceased husband of Florence, angrily accosted Nestor at their apartment in the presence of his wife and children, neighbors and friends and accused him of conducting an adulterous relationship with Florence by shouting "Hoy Nestor, kabit ka ni Bing! x x x Binigyan ka pa pala ni Bing Concepcion ng P100,000 para umakyat ng Baguio. Pagkaakyat mo at ng asawa mo doon ay bababa ka uli para magkasarilinan kayo ni Bing."
- To clarify matters, Nestor went with Rodrigo. But the same accusation was hurled by Rodrigo against Nestor when they confronted Florence at the terrace of her residence
- Rodrigo called Florence reiterating his accusations and threatening to kill her should something happen to his mother if she heard about the affair
- Nestor Nicolas felt extreme embarrassment and shame to the extent that he could no longer face his neighbors, Florence stopped contributing capital so their business declines, not being able to meet demands and the spouses had frequent bickerings and quarells as Allem was doubting his fidelity.
- Nestor was forced to write Rodrigo demanding public apology and payment of damages which Rodrigo ignored so the spouses filed a suit for damages against him.
- RTC and CA: favored the spouses granting P50,000 moral damages, P25,000 exemplary damages, P10,000 attorney's fees, plus costs of suit
- Rodrigo criticize the appellate court for not taking into account the fact that the trial judge who penned the decision was in no position to observe first-hand the demeanor of the witnesses of respondent spouses as he was not the original judge who heard the case
ISSUE: W/N Rodrigo should be held liable for damages
HELD: YES. CA affirmed
- The fact that the case was handled by different judges brooks no consideration at all, for preponderant evidence consistent with their claim for damages has been adduced by private respondents as to foreclose a reversal
- Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses with on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their testimonies.
- under article 26, the rights of persons are amply protected, and damages are provided for violations of a person’s dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind.
- The violations mentioned in the codal provisions are not exclusive but are merely examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts. Damages therefore are allowable for actions against a person’s dignity, such as profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous or abusive language
- Under Art. 2217 of the Civil Code, moral damages which include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury, although incapable of pecuniary computation, may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.
- a certain Atty. Causapin, to talk not to the Nicolas spouses but to Florence, asking her not to be involved in the case, otherwise her name would be messily dragged into it
