allegedly uttered the following words to Valmonte: "Ikaw lang ang

lumabas ng kwarto, nasaan ang dala mong bag? Saan ka pumunta?

Ikaw lang and lumabas ng kwarto, ikaw ang kumuha." Petitioner then
ordered one of the ladies to search Valmonte’s bag. It turned out that
after Valmonte left the room to attend to her duties, petitioner discovered
that the pieces of jewelry which she placed inside the comfort room in a
paper bag were lost. The jewelry pieces consist of two (2) diamond rings,
one (1) set of diamond earrings, bracelet and necklace with a total value
of about one million pesos. The hotel security was called in to help in the
SECOND DIVISION search. The bags and personal belongings of all the people inside the
room were searched. Valmonte was allegedly bodily searched,
G.R. No. 151866 September 9, 2004 interrogated and trailed by a security guard throughout the evening.
Later, police officers arrived and interviewed all persons who had access
SOLEDAD CARPIO, petitioner, to the suite and fingerprinted them including Valmonte. During all the time
vs. Valmonte was being interrogated by the police officers, petitioner kept on
LEONORA A. VALMONTE, respondent. saying the words "Siya lang ang lumabas ng kwarto." Valmonte’s car
which was parked at the hotel premises was also searched but the
DECISION search yielded nothing.

TINGA, J.: A few days after the incident, petitioner received a letter from Valmonte
demanding a formal letter of apology which she wanted to be circulated
to the newlyweds’ relatives and guests to redeem her smeared reputation
Assailed in the instant petition for review is the Decision of the Court of
as a result of petitioner’s imputations against her. Petitioner did not
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 69537,1promulgated on 17 January
respond to the letter. Thus, on 20 February 1997, Valmonte filed a suit for
2002.2 The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision denying
damages against her before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City,
respondent’s claim for damages against petitioner and ordered the latter
Branch 268. In her complaint, Valmonte prayed that petitioner be ordered
to pay moral damages to the former in the amount ofP100,000.00.
to pay actual, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees.
Respondent Leonora Valmonte is a wedding coordinator. Michelle del
Responding to the complaint, petitioner denied having uttered words or
Rosario and Jon Sierra engaged her services for their church wedding on
done any act to confront or single out Valmonte during the investigation
10 October 1996. At about 4:30 p.m. on that day, Valmonte went to the
and claimed that everything that transpired after the theft incident was
Manila Hotel where the bride and her family were billeted. When she
purely a police matter in which she had no participation. Petitioner prayed
arrived at Suite 326-A, several persons were already there including the
for the dismissal of the complaint and for the court to adjudge Valmonte
bride, the bride’s parents and relatives, the make-up artist and his
liable on her counterclaim.
assistant, the official photographers, and the fashion designer. Among
those present was petitioner Soledad Carpio, an aunt of the bride who
was preparing to dress up for the occasion. The trial court rendered its Decision on 21 August 2000, dismissing
Valmonte’s complaint for damages. It ruled that when petitioner sought
investigation for the loss of her jewelry, she was merely exercising her
After reporting to the bride, Valmonte went out of the suite carrying the
right and if damage results from a person exercising his legal right, it
items needed for the wedding rites and the gifts from the principal
is damnum absque injuria. It added that no proof was presented by
sponsors. She proceeded to the Maynila Restaurant where the reception
Valmonte to show that petitioner acted maliciously and in bad faith in
was to be held. She paid the suppliers, gave the meal allowance to the
pointing to her as the culprit. The court said that Valmonte failed to show
band, and went back to the suite. Upon entering the suite, Valmonte
that she suffered serious anxiety, moral shock, social humiliation, or that
noticed the people staring at her. It was at this juncture that petitioner
her reputation was besmirched due to petitioner’s wrongful act.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals alleging that the trial court Contrary to the trial court’s finding, we find sufficient evidence on record
erred in finding that petitioner did not slander her good name and tending to prove that petitioner’s imputations against respondent was
reputation and in disregarding the evidence she presented. made with malice and in bad faith.

The Court of Appeals ruled differently. It opined that Valmonte has clearly Petitioner’s testimony was shorn of substance and consists mainly of
established that she was singled out by petitioner as the one responsible denials. She claimed not to have uttered the words imputing the crime of
for the loss of her jewelry. It cited the testimony of Serena Manding, theft to respondent or to have mentioned the latter’s name to the
corroborating Valmonte’s claim that petitioner confronted her and uttered authorities as the one responsible for the loss of her jewelry. Well-settled
words to the effect that she was the only one who went out of the room is the rule that denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
and that she was the one who took the jewelry. The appellate court held evidence, are negative and self-serving which merit no weight in law and
that Valmonte’s claim for damages is not predicated on the fact that she cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible
was subjected to body search and interrogation by the police but rather witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.6
petitioner’s act of publicly accusing her of taking the missing jewelry. It
categorized petitioner’s utterance defamatory considering that it imputed Respondent, however, has successfully refuted petitioner’s testimony.
upon Valmonte the crime of theft. The court concluded that petitioner’s Quite credibly, she has narrated in great detail her distressing experience
verbal assault upon Valmonte was done with malice and in bad faith on that fateful day. She testified as to how rudely she was treated by
since it was made in the presence of many people without any solid proof petitioner right after she returned to the room. Petitioner immediately
except petitioner’s suspicion. Such unfounded accusation entitles confronted her and uttered the words "Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto.
Valmonte to an award of moral damages in the amount of ₱100,000.00 Nasaan ang dala mong bag? Saan ka pumunta? Ikaw ang kumuha."
for she was publicly humiliated, deeply insulted, and embarrassed. Thereafter, her body was searched including her bag and her car. Worse,
However, the court found no sufficient evidence to justify the award of during the reception, she was once more asked by the hotel security to
actual damages. go to the ladies room and she was again bodily searched.7

Hence, this petition. Sereña Manding, a make-up artist, corroborated respondent’s testimony.
She testified that petitioner confronted respondent in the presence of all
Petitioner contends that the appellate court’s conclusion that she publicly the people inside the suite accusing her of being the only one who went
humiliated respondent does not conform to the evidence presented. She out of the comfort room before the loss of the jewelry. Manding added
adds that even on the assumption that she uttered the words complained that respondent was embarrassed because everybody else in the room
of, it was not shown that she did so with malice and in bad faith. thought she was a thief.8 If only to debunk petitioner’s assertion that she
did not utter the accusatory remarks in question publicly and with malice,
In essence, petitioner would want this Court to review the factual Manding’s testimony on the point deserves to be reproduced. Thus,
conclusions reached by the appellate court. The cardinal rule adhered to
in this jurisdiction is that a petition for review must raise only questions of Q After that what did she do?
law,3 and judicial review under Rule 45 does not extend to an evaluation
of the sufficiency of evidence unless there is a showing that the findings A Then Leo came out from the other room she said, she is (sic)
complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are the one I only saw from the comfort room.
so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.4 This
Court, while not a trier of facts, may review the evidence in order to arrive Q Now, what exact word (sic) were said by Mrs. Carpio on that
at the correct factual conclusion based on the record especially so when matter?
the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are at variance with those of
the trial court, or when the inference drawn by the Court of Appeals from
A She said "siya lang yung nakita kong galing sa C.R."
the facts is manifestly mistaken.5
Q And who was Mrs. Carpio or the defendant referring to?
A Leo Valmonte. A Leo Valmonte.

Q Did she say anything else, the defendant? Q Did the defendant tell this matter to other people inside the
room?
A Her jewelry were lost and Leo was the only one she saw in the
C.R. After that she get (sic) the paper bag then the jewelry were A Yes, the mother of the bride.
already gone.
Q And who else did she talk to?
Q Did she confront the plaintiff Mrs. Valmonte regarding that fact?
A The father of the bride also.
A Yes.
Q And what did the defendant tell the mother regarding this
Q What did the defendant Mrs. Carpio tell the plaintiff, Mrs. matter?
Valmonte?
A "Nawawala yung alahas ko." Sabi naman nung mother baka
A "Ikaw yung nakita ko sa C.R. nawawala yung alahas ko." naman hindi mo dala tignan mo munang mabuti.

Q When the defendant Mrs. Carpio said that to plaintiff Mrs. Q Who was that other person that she talked to?
Valmonte were there other people inside the room?
A Father of the bride.9
A Yes, sir.
Significantly, petitioner’s counsel elected not to pursue her cross-
Q Were they able to hear what Mrs. Carpio said to Mrs. examination of the witness on this point following her terse and firm
Valmonte? declaration that she remembered petitioner’s exact defamatory words in
answer to the counsel’s question.10
A Yes, sir.
Jaime Papio, Security Supervisor at Manila Hotel, likewise contradicted
Q What was your thinking at that time that Mrs. Carpio said that petitioner’s allegation that she did not suspect or mention the name of
to Mrs. Valmonte? respondent as her suspect in the loss of the jewelry.11

A "Nakakahiya kasi akala ng iba doon na talagang magnanakaw To warrant recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action, for
siya. Kasi marami na kaming nandodoon, dumating na yung a wrong inflicted by the defendant, and the damage resulting therefrom to
couturier pati yung video man and we sir. the plaintiff. Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong, does not
constitute a cause of action.12
Q Who was the person you [were] alleging "na nakakahiya"
whose (sic) being accused or being somebody who stole those In the sphere of our law on human relations, the victim of a wrongful act
item of jewelry? or omission, whether done willfully or negligently, is not left without any
remedy or recourse to obtain relief for the damage or injury he sustained.
A "Nakakahiya para kay Leo kasi pinagbibintangan siya. Sa dami Incorporated into our civil law are not only principles of equity but also
namin doon siya yung napagbintangan." universal moral precepts which are designed to indicate certain norms
that spring from the fountain of good conscience and which are meant to
serve as guides for human conduct.13 First of these fundamental precepts
Q And who is Leo, what is her full name?
is the principle commonly known as "abuse of rights" under Article 19 of act which, by any standard or principle of law is impermissible. Petitioner
the Civil Code. It provides that "Every person must, in the exercise of his had willfully caused injury to respondent in a manner which is contrary to
rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone morals and good customs. Her firmness and resolve to find her missing
his due and observe honesty and good faith." To find the existence of an jewelry cannot justify her acts toward respondent. She did not act with
abuse of right, the following elements must be present: (1) there is a legal justice and good faith for apparently, she had no other purpose in mind
right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent or but to prejudice respondent. Certainly, petitioner transgressed the
prejudicing or injuring another.14 When a right is exercised in a manner provisions of Article 19 in relation to Article 21 for which she should be
which discards these norms resulting in damage to another, a legal held accountable.
wrong is committed for which the actor can be held accountable.15 One is
not allowed to exercise his right in a manner which would cause Owing to the rule that great weight and even finality is given to factual
unnecessary prejudice to another or if he would thereby offend morals or conclusions of the Court of Appeals which affirm those of the trial
good customs. Thus, a person should be protected only when he acts in court,18 we sustain the findings of the trial court and the appellate court
the legitimate exercise of his right, that is when he acts with prudence that respondent’s claim for actual damages has not been substantiated
and good faith; but not when he acts with negligence or abuse.16 with satisfactory evidence during the trial and must therefore be denied.
To be recoverable, actual damages must be duly proved with reasonable
Complementing the principle of abuse of rights are the provisions of degree of certainty and the courts cannot rely on speculation, conjecture
Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code which read, thus: or guesswork.19

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently Respondent, however, is clearly entitled to an award of moral damages.
causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the Moral damages may be awarded whenever the defendant’s wrongful act
same. or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury20in the cases
in a manner that is contrary to morals or good customs or public specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Code.21 Though no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that
moral damages may be adjudicated, courts are mandated to take into
The foregoing rules provide the legal bedrock for the award of account all the circumstances obtaining in the case and assess damages
damages to a party who suffers damage whenever one commits according to their discretion.22 Worthy of note is that moral damages are
an act in violation of some legal provision, or an act which though not awarded to penalize the defendant,23 or to enrich a complainant, but
not constituting a transgression of positive law, nevertheless to enable the latter to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will
violates certain rudimentary rights of the party aggrieved. serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of
defendant’s culpable action. In any case, award of moral damages must
be proportionate to the sufferings inflicted.24
In the case at bar, petitioner’s verbal reproach against respondent was
certainly uncalled for considering that by her own account nobody knew
that she brought such kind and amount of jewelry inside the paper Based on the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements, we rule that the
bag.17 This being the case, she had no right to attack respondent with her appellate court did not err in awarding moral damages. Considering
innuendos which were not merely inquisitive but outrightly accusatory. By respondent’s social standing, and the fact that her profession is based
openly accusing respondent as the only person who went out of the room primarily on trust reposed in her by her clients, the seriousness of the
before the loss of the jewelry in the presence of all the guests therein, imputations made by petitioner has greatly tarnished her reputation and
and ordering that she be immediately bodily searched, petitioner virtually will in one way or the other, affect her future dealings with her clients, the
branded respondent as the thief. True, petitioner had the right to award of ₱100,000.00 as moral damages appears to be a fair and
ascertain the identity of the malefactor, but to malign respondent without reasonable assessment of respondent’s damages.
an iota of proof that she was the one who actually stole the jewelry is an
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED. Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81262, August 25,
1989, 176 SCRA 779.
Puno, Austria-Martinez*, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
14BPI Express Card Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil.
Footnotes 262 (1998); Globe Mackay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81262,
August 25, 1989, 176 SCRA 779; NPC v. Philipp Brothers
* On Official Leave. Oceanic, Inc., , G.R. No. 126204, November 20, 2001, 369 SCRA
629.
1Penned by Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. concurred in by
Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales and Sergio L. Pestaño.
15 Rellosa v. Pellosis, 414 Phil. 786 [2001].

2 Rollo, pp. 32-37.

16 See 1 Tolentino, The Civil Code, 1990 Ed. p. 61.

3Abalos v. Court of Appeals, 375 Phil. 419 (1999]; Viloria v. Court

17 TSN, March 17, 1998, pp. 15-16; p. 26.
of Appeals, 368 Phil. 851 (1999].
Bañas Jr., v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 144 [2000]; Compania
18

4 Lagrosa v. Court of Appeals, 371 Phil. 225 (1999). Maritima, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 278 [1999];
Borromeo v. Sun, 375 Phil. 595 [1999].
5Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72110, November 16, 1990, 191 SCRA
19Bayer Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109269,
411; Ferrer v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98182, March 1, 1993, September 15, 2000, 340 SCRA 437; Congregation of the
219 SCRA 302. Religious of the Virgin Mary v. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 591
[1998]; Marina Properties Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 355
Phil. 705 [1998].
6People v. Sernadilla, G.R. No. 137696, January 24, 2001, 350
SCRA 243; People v. Preciados, G.R. No. 122934, January 5,
2001, 349 SCRA 1; People v. Baway, G.R. No. 130406, January
20 Art. 2217, Civil Code.
22, 2001, 350 SCRA 29.
21Art.2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following
7 TSN, October 22, 1997, pp. 6, 13-19. and analogous cases:

8 TSN, December 15, 1998, pp. 10-12. (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

9 TSN, December 15, 1998, pp. 9-12. (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

10 TSN, February 9, 1999, p. 14. (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;

11 TSN, May 27, 1998, pp. 9,12, and 16. (4) Adultery or concubinage;

12 Sangco, Torts and Damages, Vol. II, 1994 Edition, p. 941. (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

13Report on the Code Commission on the Proposed Civil Code of (6) Illegal search;
the Philippines, p. 39 cited in Globe Mackay Cable and Radio
 (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution;

(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;

(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

xxxx

Fule v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 349 [1998]; Zulueta v. Pan

22

American Airways, Inc., 151 Phil. 1 (1973).

Simex International, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88013,

23

March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 360.

24Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 350 Phil. 820 [1998]; Radio

Communications of the Phils., Inc. v. Rodriguez , G.R. No. 83768,
February 28, 1990, 182 SCRA 899.