G.R. No. 140420 . February 15, 2001.
SERGIO AMONOY, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES JOSE GUTIERREZ and ANGELA FORNIDA, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a foreclosure proceeding. Petitioner Atty. Sergio Amonoy, as counsel in a prior estate settlement, secured his attorney’s fees via a real estate mortgage over two lots adjudicated to his clients. Upon non-payment, he foreclosed the mortgage, emerged as the highest bidder at the auction sale, and obtained a writ of possession. The respondents, spouses Gutierrez, were heirs of one of the original clients and had a house on one of the foreclosed lots. The heirs challenged the foreclosure judgment in a separate annulment case, which was ultimately dismissed. Subsequently, the trial court issued orders for a writ of possession and demolition. While the respondents secured a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Supreme Court on June 2, 1986, enjoining the demolition of their house, the demolition was carried out anyway. The Supreme Court later ruled in G.R. No. L-72306 that the writ of possession and demolition orders were invalid. By then, however, the respondents’ house had already been destroyed. They subsequently filed a complaint for damages against Amonoy.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in holding petitioner Sergio Amonoy liable for damages to the respondents.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision ordering Amonoy to pay actual damages. The Court rejected Amonoy’s defense of damnum absque injuria (damage without injury), which posits that no liability arises from a loss resulting from the legitimate exercise of a person’s rights. This principle finds no application here because Amonoy’s actions constituted an abuse of right under Article 19 of the Civil Code. The legal exercise of a right is premised on acting with justice, giving everyone their due, and observing honesty and good faith. Amonoy’s act of proceeding with the demolition despite his knowledge and receipt of the Supreme Court’s TRO was a wanton violation of a court order. This transformed his conduct from a legitimate enforcement of a judicial decree into an unlawful and abusive act. Consequently, the resulting damage—the destruction of the respondents’ house—was attended by legal injury for which Amonoy must be held liable. His liability is anchored on the obligation to repair the damage caused to another by one’s act or omission, whether done intentionally or negligently. The petition was denied.