NEMESIO G. ALMIA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GGC SECURITY AGENCY, REPRESENTED BY GWENDOLYN G. CODILLA, CESAR FRESNOZA, JOEMARIE ALARCON, AND LIDE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTE…

Almia versus GGC Security Agency

The Case

This is a case about a father who sued to protect his good name. Nemesio Almia, a worker at a smelting company inside an industrial estate, brought an action for damages against the security agency that guarded the estate, against its guards who prepared the reports, and against the management corporation that administered the estate. He claimed that these parties, in handling an incident involving teenagers, wrongly dragged his son and his family name into a criminal matter, causing him moral injury. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean illustration of the abuse of rights doctrine under Article 19 of the Civil Code: a right, though legal in itself, becomes a source of liability when exercised without justice and good faith.

Procedural History

Almia filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12 of Ormoc City. After trial, the court ruled in his favor, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable under Article 19 of the Civil Code and awarding moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The defendants LIDE Management Corporation and GGC Security Agency appealed to the Court of Appeals, but only LIDE Management filed its appellant's brief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision with modifications, reducing the amounts of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The case reached the Supreme Court by appeal from that decision.

Facts

Nemesio Almia worked for the Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation, one of the companies operating inside the Leyte Industrial Development Estate. The estate was administered by LIDE Management Corporation, which hired GGC Security Agency to keep peace and secure persons and property within the estate.

On the night of November 7, 1998, a security guard, Cesar Fresnoza, prepared a spot report on an incident involving a displaced manhole cover and some teenagers. Another guard, Joemarie Alarcon, fired his firearm and a splinter from the pavement injured one of the youngsters. The spot report named four persons, including, without a specific name, the son of Engineer Almia of the smelting company. Later documents were inconsistent: the police blotter named five persons, another affidavit named six, and in each the Almia son was never specifically named. Yet the affidavits attached to a complaint for malicious mischief filed against Sheerlan Almia positively named him, while all the other youngsters were referred to only as John Does.

Almia repeatedly asked the security agency to clear his son's name, but the guards refused to change the report. He brought the matter to the police and to the barangay, where the guards still could not identify his son. LIDE Management called a conference of parents, but the notice was sent only on the very morning of the conference, so Almia did not attend. LIDE Management then elevated the matter to the barangay authorities and forwarded the spot report to Almia's employer, and a criminal complaint for malicious mischief followed. Almia then sued for damages, claiming mental anguish, besmirched reputation, and harm to his family.

Issues

• Whether or not Almia, as the father, has a valid cause of action against LIDE Management Corporation.
• Whether or not the defendants violated Article 19 of the Civil Code, that is, whether or not they acted in bad faith and abused their rights.
• Whether or not the awards of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees are supported by the evidence and are reasonable.
• Whether or not LIDE Management Corporation may pass its liability to GGC Security Agency on its cross-claim.

Applicable Provisions

Article 19 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

This is the abuse of rights principle, and it is the very standard the Court found the defendants had violated.

Article 21 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

The Court used this article because Article 19 sets a rule of conduct but supplies no remedy of its own.

Article 2180 of the Civil Code, as applied by the trial court and sustained by the Court, makes LIDE Management answerable for the acts of its employee Eduardo Agustin.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Almia had a valid cause of action. The injury was done to him and to his family's name and reputation, so he was the proper party to seek redress.

On the second issue, the Court held that the defendants abused their rights. The basis was not merely the inclusion of Almia's son in the spot report, but how the defendants handled the matter afterward and why the son was singled out. They named only Sheerlan Almia in the malicious mischief complaint while calling all the others John Does, they failed to verify the report, and they forwarded it to Almia's employer. The Court stressed that the absence of good faith is essential to abuse of right, and that a right, though legal, may become the source of illegality when exercised without the norms of Article 19.

On the third issue, the Court held that Almia was entitled to moral damages under Article 2219 in relation to Articles 19 and 21, but reduced the award from 500,000 pesos to 250,000 pesos because the original amount was excessive. It reduced exemplary damages from 100,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos, and attorney's fees from 70,000 pesos to 30,000 pesos, since such awards must be reasonable, just, and equitable.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that LIDE Management could not pass its liability to GGC Security Agency. It was liable for its own acts and for those of its employee, Eduardo Agustin, under Article 2180.

Doctrine

Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. A right, though legal in itself, becomes a source of liability when exercised in a manner that discards these norms and causes damage to another. The absence of good faith is essential to abuse of right. Because Article 19 provides no remedy, the injured party may recover under Article 21, and moral damages may be awarded under Article 2219 in relation to Articles 19 and 21. Exemplary damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, but they must not be scandalously excessive, and attorney's fees must be reasonable, just, and equitable.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, and the trial court's decision was affirmed with modifications reducing the moral damages to 250,000 pesos, the exemplary damages to 50,000 pesos, and the attorney's fees to 30,000 pesos, with Almia prevailing.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that a legal right, exercised without justice and good faith, becomes an abuse of right that makes the actor liable for damages. Examiners use this case to test the abuse of rights doctrine under Article 19 and the rule that Article 19 supplies the standard while Article 21 supplies the remedy.