GR 113006; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113006; November 23, 2000
ONG CHIU KWAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ong Chiu Kwan was charged with unjust vexation for ordering the cutting of the electric wires, water pipes, and telephone lines servicing “Crazy Feet,” a business establishment owned by Mildred Ong, on April 24, 1990. He claimed the lines crossed his property line and posed a disturbance but failed to present any permit from the appropriate authorities authorizing such action. The Municipal Trial Court convicted him, imposing twenty days of imprisonment and ordering him to pay moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court, on appeal, affirmed the conviction in toto by merely adopting the lower court’s decision without stating its own factual and legal basis.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Regional Trial Court’s decision, which merely adopted the lower court’s ruling without a clear and distinct statement of facts and law, is valid. The secondary issue is whether the petitioner is guilty of unjust vexation and whether the awarded damages have legal basis.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court’s decision is a nullity for violating the constitutional mandate and procedural rules requiring that a judgment must state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. A decision cannot merely quote or adopt another court’s findings; it must contain the judge’s own personal determination. However, instead of remanding the case, the Court opted to review the evidence directly to serve the ends of justice given the case’s protracted pendency.
On the merits, the Court sustained the conviction for unjust vexation under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code. The petitioner’s act of ordering the cutting of utility lines without authorization, timed during the business’s peak hours, unjustly annoyed and vexed the complainant. Nonetheless, the Court modified the penalties. The proper penalty for unjust vexation is a fine, not imprisonment, absent a showing that the offender’s conduct constituted a “pressure” against the victim warranting arresto menor. The Court imposed a fine of P200.00. Furthermore, it deleted the awards for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Moral damages require proof of proximate result from the wrongful act, while exemplary damages require the presence of aggravating circumstances, neither of which was established by evidence. The decisions of the lower courts were reversed and set aside.