In one civil case,
we handled, involving the issue of nuisance and damages, we submitted a memorandum
of authorities, excerpts of which are quoted hereinbelow for legal research purposes
of our readers. The topics discussed were: Nuisance, Good faith/Bad faith, Presumption
of Regularity, Damages, and Attorney’s Fees.
NUISANCE is defined by Art. 694 of the Civil Code as
follows:
“A nuisance is any act,
omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else
which:
(1) Injures or endangers
the health or safety of others; or
(2) Annoys or offends
the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defies or
disregards decency or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or
interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body
of water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs
the use of property.”
The subject signage of the Defendant does not, in
any way, “injure
or endanger the health
or safety of others”; or “annoy or offend the senses”; or “shock,
defy or disregard decency or morality”; or “obstruct or interfere
with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water”;
or “hinder or impair the use of property.”
Plaintiff failed to show that the signage of the Defendant caused “injuries,
endangerments, annoyance, offense, shock, defiance, disregard, hindrance, or
impairment” required by Art. 694 of the Civil Code as to constitute a “nuisance”.
There is no evidence showing that the subject signage “affects a community or neighborhood or any
considerable number of persons”. (Art. 695, NCC).
Please note that under Art. 701 of
the Civil Code, it is provided that “if a civil action is brought by reason of
the maintenance of a public nuisance, such action shall be commenced by the
city or municipal mayor”. This is not what the Plaintiff has done in this
case.
GOOD FAITH.
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY.
The Defendant acted in good faith. It installed the subject signage only after
securing a formal Authority/Permission by former Barangay Chairman Xxx, who
issued a formal written Authority/Permission for the purpose.
He who acts in good
faith, without any malicious intent to cause any injury or harm to
any party cannot be held liable for damages.
The Defendant did
not act in bad faith.
What is bad faith?
In the case of Ford
Philippines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 99039, February 3, 1997, the Supreme
Court held:
1.
That “bad
faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence”;
2.
That bad
faith “imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
doing of wrong”;
3.
That “it means a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest
or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud”;
4.
That “it
must be reiterated that bad faith should be established by clear and
convincing evidence”; and
5.
That “settled rule is that the law always presumes
good faith such that any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to
acts of another has the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or
with ill motive”.
DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES MUST BE PROVED.
– A claim for DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES, and LITIGATION EXPENSES MUST BE
PROVED. All affirmative allegations and claims must be properly proved. The Plaintiff failed to comply with this
evidentiary rule.
In the case of JOSEFINA ESTOLAS and RICARDO SALVADOR vs. RAYMUNDO ACENA, G.R. No.
157070, January 14, 2005, the Supreme Court, inter alia, held:
1.
“that in order that one can have redress
for an act which caused him damage, the
act must not only be hurtful, it must also be wrongful”;
2.
that “there must be damnum et enjuria;
that “in order to recover
moral damages, the claimant must prove the following:
(1) there must be an injury, whether physical,
mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant;
(2) there must be a culpable act or
omission factually established;
(3) the wrongful act or omission of the
defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and
(4) the
award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of
the Civil Code.”
The aforecited case also held that:
1.
“The law on damages prescribes that in
order that one can have redress for an act which caused him damage, the act must not only be hurtful, it
must also be wrongful”.
2.
“There must be damnum et enjuria”.
3.
“All in all, in order to recover moral
damages, the claimant must prove the following:
“(1) there must be an injury, whether
physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant;
(2) there must be a culpable act or
omission factually established;
(3) the wrongful act or omission of the
defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and
(4) the award of damages is predicated on
any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.”
Further, the aforecited case held that:
1.
“This being a civil case, it was
incumbent upon respondent xxx, as complainant in the lower court, to prove that which he alleged”.
2.
“To this burden, respondent xxx fell short.
Thus, the presumption of good faith
holds”.
3.
“It
is axiomatic that “to support a judgment for damages, facts which justify the
influence of a lack or absence of bad faith must be alleged and proven.”
Furthermore, the aforecited case held that:
1.
“The lower court, as well as the Court of
Appeals, missed out one very crucial fact, i.e.,
damages are not presumed;
2.
“The first requisite for the recovery of
moral damages is that there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or
psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant”.
3.
There
must be proof of physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
etc.”
4.
“The
claimant must satisfactorily prove the factual basis and causal connection
thereof with the defendant’s acts.”
Finally, the aforecited case held that “considering that petitioner Salvador
cannot be made liable for moral damages, neither can he answer for exemplary
damages, the latter being allowed only in addition to moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages”.
ATTORNEY’S FEES. -
In the case of RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TRANSOCEAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, G.R.
No. 96727. August 28, 1996, the Supreme Court held that “it is well settled that attorney’s fees
should not be awarded in the absence of stipulation except under the instances
enumerated in Art. 2208 of the New Civil Code”; that “an award thereof demands, nevertheless, a factual,
legal or equitable justification”; that “the matter cannot and should not be left
to speculation and conjecture”. THUS:
“x x x.
Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows attorney’s fees to be awarded by
a court when its claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to
incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act or
omission of the party from whom it is sought. While judicial
discretion is here extant, an award thereof demands, nevertheless, a
factual, legal or equitable justification. The matter cannot
and should not be left to speculation and conjecture (Mirasol vs. De la Cruz, 84 SCRA 337; Stronghold Insurance Company,
Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 173 SCRA 619).
In the case at bench, the records do not show enough basis for
sustaining the award for attorney’s fees and to adjudge its payment
by petitioner. x x x”
Atty. MANUEL LASERNA JR.
Partner
Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices.
