GR 159224; (January, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159224 ; January 20, 2006
JOSE D. ONTIMARE, JR., and RENE D. ONTIMARE, as substituted heirs for JOSE M. ONTIMARE, SR., Petitioners, vs. SPS. RENATO and ROSARIO ELEP, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners’ predecessor, Jose Ontimare Sr., and respondents are neighbors. Respondents secured a building permit to construct an apartment on their lot. Ontimare Sr. opposed the construction, filing complaints with the Building Official, which initially resulted in a cease and desist order. After investigations, the complaints were dismissed, and respondents were issued a new permit. However, on July 15, 1996, while workers were plastering the firewall, Ontimare Sr. fired a shotgun to threaten them, causing the work to stop. This left a portion of the firewall unfinished, leading to water seepage that damaged the interior of respondents’ building.
Respondents filed an action for damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted a summary judgment in their favor, awarding actual, compensatory, and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications, specifically quantifying the unrealized rental income and bank interest. During the appeal, Ontimare Sr. died and was substituted by his sons, the petitioners.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the summary judgment was proper, and (2) whether the awards of damages were justified.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the propriety of the summary judgment, the Court held that while a summary judgment is generally rendered upon a party’s motion, the RTC did not err. The material facts were not genuinely disputed. The central fact—that Ontimare Sr. fired a shotgun to stop the construction, causing the delay and subsequent water damage—was established. His own motion for summary judgment indicated he saw no need for a full trial on the merits. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the case fell under any exception warranting a reversal of the factual findings.
Regarding the damages, the Court sustained the awards. The compensatory damages for unrealized income and bank interest were directly attributable to the construction delay caused by Ontimare Sr.’s unlawful act of intimidation. The reimbursement for property damage was also proper, as the water seepage was a direct consequence of the unfinished firewall. Exemplary damages were correctly imposed. Ontimare Sr.’s act of firing a shotgun to threaten workers was wanton, reckless, and posed a public danger, justifying an award by way of example for the public good. The Court found no reason to disturb the appellate court’s factual conclusions and computations.