GR 217806; (July, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 217806 , July 28, 2020
DIVISION ADELAIDA C. NAVARRO-BANARIA, PETITIONER, VS. ERNESTO A. BANARIA, PANFILO A. BANARIA, GRACIA SEVERA BANARIA-ESPIRITU, REINA CLARA BANARIA-MAGTOTO, MARCELINO S. BANARIA, PAULINA BANARIA-GELIDO, MARIA LOURDES DIVINE BANARIA-DURAN, GRACIA ISABELITA BANARIA-ESPIRITU, GEOFFREY BANARIA-ESPIRITU, ANNE MARIE ESPIRITU-PAPPANIA, JUSTIN BANARIA-ESPIRITU, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The respondents are the children, siblings, and grandchildren of the late Pascasio S. Banaria, Sr. The petitioner, Adelaida C. Navarro-Banaria, is Pascasio’s legal wife and stepmother to the Banaria siblings. Pascasio was frail and suffering from physical and mental infirmity. The respondents planned a grand 90th birthday celebration for him on February 22, 2004, starting preparations a year in advance. They were in continuous contact with Adelaida, who repeatedly confirmed Pascasio’s attendance, promising to bring him to the venue in the early morning before proceeding to her hometown in Tarlac for her mother’s death anniversary and then trying to attend the evening celebration. Respondents Reina and Gracia Severa, who flew in from the United States, visited Pascasio and Adelaida on February 14 and 15, 2004, and received the same promise. However, Pascasio did not appear at the celebration, causing dismay to the nearly 200 guests. Respondents could not contact Adelaida, reported Pascasio as a missing person, and later found him with Adelaida at their residence. When confronted, Adelaida stated Pascasio did not want to go and, when asked why she broke her commitment, uttered, “I am the wife.” Respondents filed a Complaint for Damages. Adelaida defended herself by claiming she was not privy to the plans and wanted to spare Pascasio potential embarrassment due to his age-related infirmities. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the respondents, awarding actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modifications, deleting the award for travel expenses and reducing the amounts for moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the petitioner violated Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code on Human Relations.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting damages to the respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision.
1. On the violation of Articles 19 and 21: The Court held that the petitioner violated Article 19 of the Civil Code, which embodies the principle of abuse of right, requiring every person to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith in the exercise of rights and performance of duties. The elements are: (a) a legal right or duty; (b) exercised in bad faith; (c) with the sole intent to injure another. As Pascasio’s legal wife, Adelaida had the right and duty to care for him. However, her repeated assurances of his attendance, followed by her failure to bring him without sufficient justification and her statement “I am the wife,” demonstrated the exercise of that right in bad faith and with intent to cause prejudice to the respondents. This violation gives rise to an action for damages under Article 21.
2. On the grant of damages: The Court affirmed the CA’s award of damages.
* Actual Damages: The awards of P61,200.00 for food and refreshments, P3,000.00 for the birthday cake, and P3,275.00 for balloon arrangements were upheld as these expenses were duly incurred for the celebration.
* Moral Damages: The reduced lump sum of P300,000.00 was proper to compensate the respondents for the serious anxiety, humiliation, and embarrassment they suffered in front of their guests.
* Exemplary Damages: The reduced award of P30,000.00 was correct, as exemplary damages are meant to set a public example and deter similar wanton, fraudulent, or oppressive conduct.
* Attorney’s Fees: The award of P50,000.00 was justified as the respondents were compelled to litigate due to the petitioner’s bad faith.
The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s claim of damnum absque injuria (damage without injury), as her act constituted an actionable wrong under the law.