Damage with injury

Basic is the principle embodied in our Civil Code (Article 19) that in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. “Everyone must act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.” Hence, even if we have rights or duties granted by laws, we should see to it that we do not cause damage or injury to others when we exercise or carry them out. This case between Noemi and Melanie explains this principle.

Noemi is a well-known wedding coordinator with lots of clients. Hence even after she got married, she continues to practice the same profession. One of the weddings she coordinated was that between Rose and Jim. On their wedding day, Noemi went to the hotel where Rose and her family were billeted. Upon entering the hotel room, several persons were already there including the bride, the bride’s parents and relatives, the make-up artist and his assistant, the official photographers and the fashion designer. Also present was the bride’s Auntie, Melanie who was preparing to dress up for the occasion.

After reporting to the bride, Noemi went out of the suite carrying items needed for the wedding rites and the gifts of the principal sponsors. She proceeded to the restaurant where the reception was to be held. She paid the suppliers, gave the meal allowance to the band and went back to the suite. Upon entering, Noemi noticed the people suspiciously staring at her. It turned out that after she left the room to attend to her duties, Melanie discovered that the pieces of jewelries she placed inside the comfort room in a paper bag consisting of two diamond rings and one set of diamond earrings, bracelet and necklace worth P1,000,000, were lost, So Melanie publicly accused Noemi of taking out said missing jewelries.”Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto? Nasaan ang dala mong bag? Saan ka pumunta, Ikaw ang kumuha.” 

Then the hotel security searched the belonging of all the people present. Noemi was bodily searched, interrogated and trailed by the security guard throughout the evening. Then the police likewise arrived and interviewed all persons who had access to the suite and fingerprinted them including Noemi. During all the time that Noemi was being interrogated Melanie kept on saying “siya lang ang lumabas ng kwarto.” So the police also searched Noemi’s car but the search yielded nothing.

A few days after the incident, Noemi wrote Melanie demanding that a letter of apology be circulated to the newlyweds, relatives, guests and friends to redeem her smeared reputation. But Melanie did not even respond. So Noemi filed a suit for damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Melanie praying that Melanie be ordered to pay actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

Melanie denied having uttered those words or done any act to confront or single out Noemi and claimed that everything that transpired after the incident was a police matter in which she had no participation. She therefore asked for the dismissal of the complaint and for Noemi to pay her damages by way of counterclaim.

The trial court dismissed Noemi’s complaint ruling that Melanie was merely exercising her right, and if damages results therefrom, it is considered damage without injury (damnum absque injuria).

On appeal by Noemi, the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled differently and declared that Noemi has clearly established that she was singled out by Melanie for the loss of her jewelries uttering that Noemi was the only one who left the suite. The CA said that Noemi’s claim is not predicated on the fact that she was subjected to bodily search and interrogated by the police but on Melanie’s act of publicly accusing her of taking the missing jewelry which was done with malice and bad faith.

This CA ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court (SC). The SC said that to warrant recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a wrong inflicted by the defendant and the damage to the plaintiff resulting therefrom. Wrong without damage or damage without wrong does not constitute a cause of action. In this case, Melanie’s verbal reproach was certainly uncalled for considering that she herself said that nobody knew that she brought such kind and amount of jewelry inside a paper bag. So she had no right to attack Noemi with her inquisitive and accusatory innuendoes. By openly accusing Noemi as the only person who went out of the suite before the loss of the jewelry in the presence of all the guests therein, and ordering that she be bodily searched immediately, Melanie virtually branded Noemi as the thief. So Melanie had willfully caused injury to Noemi in a manner contrary to morals and good custom. She did not act with justice and good faith in violation of the provisions of the Article 19 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 21 which provides that “ any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals or good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damages done. So Noemi is entitled to moral damages in the sum of P100,000.00 but not to actual damages which has not been proven (Carpio vs. Valmonte, G.R.151866, September 9, 2004)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]