TITUS B. VILLANUEVA vs. EMMA M. ROSQUETA | G.R. No. 180764 | January 19, 2010

TITUS B. VILLANUEVA vs. EMMA M. ROSQUETA
G.R. No. 180764, January 19, 2010 

Facts

Respondent Emma M. Rosqueta (Rosqueta), formerly Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue Collection and Monitoring Group of the Bureau of Customs (the Bureau), tendered her courtesy resignation from that post on January 23, 2001, shortly after President Gloria MacapagalArroyo assumed office. But five months later on June 5, 2001, she withdrew her resignation, claiming that she enjoyed security of tenure and that she had resigned against her will on orders of her superior.  

Meantime, on July 13, 2001 President Arroyo appointed Gil Valera (Valera) to respondent Rosqueta‘s position. Challenging such appointment, Rosqueta filed a petition for prohibition, quo warranto, and injunction against petitioner Titus B. Villanueva (Villanueva), then Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, and Valera with the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner Villanueva, Valera, and the Secretary of Finance challenged the injunction order before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 66070. On September 14, 2001 the CA issued its own TRO, enjoining the implementation of the RTC‘s injunction order. But the TRO lapsed after 60 days and the CA eventually dismissed the petition before it.  

But the RTC dismissed respondent Rosqueta‘s complaint, stating that petitioner Villanueva committed no wrong and incurred no omission that entitled her to damages. The RTC found that Villanueva had validly and legally replaced her as Deputy Commissioner seven months before the Bureau‘s centennial anniversary. But the CA reversed the RTC‘s decision, holding instead that petitioner Villanueva‘s refusal to comply with the preliminary injunction order issued in the quo warranto case earned for Rosqueta the right to recover moral damages from him. 

Issue

Whether or not the CA erred in holding petitioner Villanueva liable in damages to respondent Rosqueta for ignoring the preliminary injunction order that the RTC issued in the quo warranto case (Civil Case 01-101539), thus denying her of the right to do her job as Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau and to be officially recognized as such public officer. 

Ruling

Under the abuse of right principle found in Article 19 of the Civil Code, a person must, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, act in good faith. He would be liable if he instead acts in bad faith, with intent to prejudice another. Complementing this principle are Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code which grant the latter indemnity for the injury he suffers because of such abuse of right or duty.  

But petitioner Villanueva cannot seek shelter in the alleged advice that the OSG gave him. Surely, a government official of his rank must know that a preliminary injunction order issued by a court of law had to be obeyed, especially since the question of Valera‘s right to replace respondent Rosqueta had not yet been properly resolved. That petitioner Villanueva ignored the injunction shows bad faith and intent to spite Rosqueta who remained in the eyes of the law the Deputy Commissioner. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MICIANO vs. BRIMO | G.R. No. L-22595 | November 1, 1927

MICIANO vs. BRIMO G.R. No. L-22595, November 1, 1927  Facts Joseph G. Brimo, a citizen of Turkey, died and left a partition of the estate. Juan Miciano, the judicial administrator of the estate left filed a scheme of partition. However, Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased, opposed it. Brimo‘s opposition is based on the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the provisions of Joseph Brimo‘s will which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality, for which reason they are void as being in violation of Article 10 of the Civil Code.  Issue Whether or not the national law of the testator is the one to govern his testamentary disposition.  Ruling Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen, though he declared in his will that Philippine laws must govern the disposition of his estate; however, it must not prejudice the heir or legatee of the testator. Therefore, the testator‘s national law must govern in accordance wit...
Read more

MICHAEL C. GUY vs. COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No. 163707 | September 15, 2006

MICHAEL C. GUY vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 163707, September 15, 2006    Facts On October 29, 1992, Sima Wei died in Makati City leaving an estate valued 10 million more or less. His known heirs are his spouse Shirley Guy with their children five children. On June 13, 1997, private respondents Karen Oanes Wei and Kamille Oanes Wei represented by their mother Remedios filed a petition for letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court alleging that they are duly acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei. However, petitioner and co-heirs alleged that private respondent‘s claim had been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished by Remedios‘ June 7, 1993 Release and Waiver of Claim stating that in exchange for the financial and educational support received from petitioner, Remedios and her minor children discharge the estate of Sima Wei and any and all liabilities.   The petition was denied in the lower court and the motion for reconsidered dis...
Read more

EDUARDO MANUEL vs. PEOPLE | GR. No. 165842 | November 29, 2005

EDUARDO MANUEL vs. PEOPLE GR. No. 165842, November 29, 2005    Facts This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, convicting the petitioner for the crime of bigamy.    Eduardo P. Manuel, herein petitioner, was first married to Rubylus Gaña on July 18, 1975, who, according to the former, was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned and was never seen again by him after his last visit. Manuel met Tina B. Gandalera in January 1996 when the latter was only 21 years old. Three months after their meeting, the two got married through a civil wedding in BaguioCity without Gandalera‘s knowledge of Manuel‘s first marriage. In the course of their marriage, things got rocky and Gandalera learned that Eduardo was in fact already married when he married him. She then filed a criminal case of bigamy against Eduardo Manuel. The latter‘s defense being that his decla...
Read more