During all the time Valmonte was being interrogated

by the police officers, petitioner kept on saying the

words "Siya lang ang lumabas ng kwarto." Valmonte’s
car which was parked at the hotel premises was also
searched but the search yielded nothing.

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
SECOND DIVISION newlyweds’ relatives and guests to redeem her
smeared reputation as a result of petitioner’s
G.R. No. 151866             September 9, 2004 imputations against her. Petitioner did not respond to
the letter. Thus, on 20 February 1997, Valmonte filed
SOLEDAD CARPIO, petitioner, a suit for damages against her before the Regional
vs. Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 268. In her
LEONORA A. VALMONTE, respondent. complaint, Valmonte prayed that petitioner be ordered
to pay actual, moral and exemplary damages, as well
DECISION as attorney’s fees.

TINGA, J.: Responding to the complaint, petitioner denied having

uttered words or done any act to confront or single out
Assailed in the instant petition for review is Valmonte during the investigation and claimed that
the Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV everything that transpired after the theft incident was
No. 69537,1 promulgated on 17 January 2002.2 The purely a police matter in which she had no
appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision participation. Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the
denying respondent’s claim for damages against complaint and for the court to adjudge Valmonte liable
petitioner and ordered the latter to pay moral on her counterclaim.
damages to the former in the amount of P100,000.00.
The trial court rendered its Decision on 21 August
Respondent Leonora Valmonte is a wedding 2000, dismissing Valmonte’s complaint for damages.
coordinator. Michelle del Rosario and Jon Sierra It ruled that when petitioner sought investigation for
engaged her services for their church wedding on 10 the loss of her jewelry, she was merely exercising her
October 1996. At about 4:30 p.m. on that day, right and if damage results from a person exercising
Valmonte went to the Manila Hotel where the bride his legal right, it is damnum absque injuria. It added
and her family were billeted. When she arrived at that no proof was presented by Valmonte to show that
Suite 326-A, several persons were already there petitioner acted maliciously and in bad faith in pointing
including the bride, the bride’s parents and relatives, to her as the culprit. The court said that Valmonte
the make-up artist and his assistant, the official failed to show that she suffered serious anxiety, moral
photographers, and the fashion designer. Among shock, social humiliation, or that her reputation was
those present was petitioner Soledad Carpio, an aunt besmirched due to petitioner’s wrongful act.
of the bride who was preparing to dress up for the
occasion. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals alleging
that the trial court erred in finding that petitioner did
After reporting to the bride, Valmonte went out of the not slander her good name and reputation and in
suite carrying the items needed for the wedding rites disregarding the evidence she presented.
and the gifts from the principal sponsors. She
proceeded to the Maynila Restaurant where the The Court of Appeals ruled differently. It opined that
reception was to be held. She paid the suppliers, gave Valmonte has clearly established that she was singled
the meal allowance to the band, and went back to the out by petitioner as the one responsible for the loss of
suite. Upon entering the suite, Valmonte noticed the her jewelry. It cited the testimony of Serena Manding,
people staring at her. It was at this juncture that corroborating Valmonte’s claim that petitioner
petitioner allegedly uttered the following words to confronted her and uttered words to the effect that
Valmonte: "Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto, nasaan she was the only one who went out of the room and
ang dala mong bag? Saan ka pumunta? Ikaw lang that she was the one who took the jewelry. The
and lumabas ng kwarto, ikaw ang kumuha." Petitioner appellate court held that Valmonte’s claim for
then ordered one of the ladies to search Valmonte’s damages is not predicated on the fact that she was
bag. It turned out that after Valmonte left the room to subjected to body search and interrogation by the
attend to her duties, petitioner discovered that the police but rather petitioner’s act of publicly accusing
pieces of jewelry which she placed inside the comfort her of taking the missing jewelry. It categorized
room in a paper bag were lost. The jewelry pieces petitioner’s utterance defamatory considering that it
consist of two (2) diamond rings, one (1) set of imputed upon Valmonte the crime of theft. The court
diamond earrings, bracelet and necklace with a total concluded that petitioner’s verbal assault upon
value of about one million pesos. The hotel security Valmonte was done with malice and in bad faith since
was called in to help in the search. The bags and it was made in the presence of many people without
personal belongings of all the people inside the room any solid proof except petitioner’s suspicion. Such
were searched. Valmonte was allegedly bodily unfounded accusation entitles Valmonte to an award
searched, interrogated and trailed by a security guard of moral damages in the amount of ₱100,000.00 for
throughout the evening. Later, police officers arrived she was publicly humiliated, deeply insulted, and
and interviewed all persons who had access to the embarrassed. However, the court found no sufficient
suite and fingerprinted them including Valmonte. evidence to justify the award of actual damages.
Hence, this petition. Q After that what did she do?

Petitioner contends that the appellate court’s A Then Leo came out from the other room she
conclusion that she publicly humiliated respondent said, she is (sic) the one I only saw from the
does not conform to the evidence presented. She comfort room.
adds that even on the assumption that she uttered the
words complained of, it was not shown that she did so Q Now, what exact word (sic) were said by
with malice and in bad faith. Mrs. Carpio on that matter?

In essence, petitioner would want this Court to review A She said "siya lang yung nakita kong galing
the factual conclusions reached by the appellate sa C.R."
court. The cardinal rule adhered to in this jurisdiction
is that a petition for review must raise only questions Q And who was Mrs. Carpio or the defendant
of law,3 and judicial review under Rule 45 does not referring to?
extend to an evaluation of the sufficiency of evidence
unless there is a showing that the findings complained
A Leo Valmonte.
of are totally devoid of support in the record or that
they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute
serious abuse of discretion.4 This Court, while not a Q Did she say anything else, the defendant?
trier of facts, may review the evidence in order to
arrive at the correct factual conclusion based on the A Her jewelry were lost and Leo was the only
record especially so when the findings of fact of the one she saw in the C.R. After that she get
Court of Appeals are at variance with those of the trial (sic) the paper bag then the jewelry were
court, or when the inference drawn by the Court of already gone.
Appeals from the facts is manifestly mistaken. 5
Q Did she confront the plaintiff Mrs. Valmonte
Contrary to the trial court’s finding, we find sufficient regarding that fact?
evidence on record tending to prove that petitioner’s
imputations against respondent was made with malice A Yes.
and in bad faith.
Q What did the defendant Mrs. Carpio tell the
Petitioner’s testimony was shorn of substance and plaintiff, Mrs. Valmonte?
consists mainly of denials. She claimed not to have
uttered the words imputing the crime of theft to A "Ikaw yung nakita ko sa C.R. nawawala
respondent or to have mentioned the latter’s name to yung alahas ko."
the authorities as the one responsible for the loss of
her jewelry. Well-settled is the rule that denials, if Q When the defendant Mrs. Carpio said that
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, to plaintiff Mrs. Valmonte were there other
are negative and self-serving which merit no weight in people inside the room?
law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value
over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify A Yes, sir.
on affirmative matters.6
Q Were they able to hear what Mrs. Carpio
Respondent, however, has successfully refuted said to Mrs. Valmonte?
petitioner’s testimony. Quite credibly, she has
narrated in great detail her distressing experience on
that fateful day. She testified as to how rudely she A Yes, sir.
was treated by petitioner right after she returned to
the room. Petitioner immediately confronted her and Q What was your thinking at that time that
uttered the words "Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto. Mrs. Carpio said that to Mrs. Valmonte?
Nasaan ang dala mong bag? Saan ka pumunta? Ikaw
ang kumuha." Thereafter, her body was searched A "Nakakahiya kasi akala ng iba doon na
including her bag and her car. Worse, during the talagang magnanakaw siya. Kasi marami na
reception, she was once more asked by the hotel kaming nandodoon, dumating na yung
security to go to the ladies room and she was again couturier pati yung video man and we sir.
bodily searched.7
Q Who was the person you [were] alleging "na
Sereña Manding, a make-up artist, corroborated nakakahiya" whose (sic) being accused or
respondent’s testimony. She testified that petitioner being somebody who stole those item of
confronted respondent in the presence of all the jewelry?
people inside the suite accusing her of being the only
one who went out of the comfort room before the loss A "Nakakahiya para kay Leo kasi
of the jewelry. Manding added that respondent was pinagbibintangan siya. Sa dami namin doon
embarrassed because everybody else in the room siya yung napagbintangan."
thought she was a thief.8 If only to debunk petitioner’s
assertion that she did not utter the accusatory Q And who is Leo, what is her full name?
remarks in question publicly and with malice,
Manding’s testimony on the point deserves to be A Leo Valmonte.
reproduced. Thus,
 Q Did the defendant tell this matter to other Complementing the principle of abuse of rights are the
people inside the room? provisions of Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code
which read, thus:
A Yes, the mother of the bride.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law,
Q And who else did she talk to? willfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the
A The father of the bride also. same.

Q And what did the defendant tell the mother Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss
regarding this matter? or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals or good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the
A "Nawawala yung alahas ko." Sabi naman
damage.
nung mother baka naman hindi mo dala
tignan mo munang mabuti.
The foregoing rules provide the legal bedrock
for the award of damages to a party who
Q Who was that other person that she talked
suffers damage whenever one commits an act
to?
in violation of some legal provision, or an act
which though not constituting a transgression
A Father of the bride.9 of positive law, nevertheless violates certain
rudimentary rights of the party aggrieved.
Significantly, petitioner’s counsel elected not to
pursue her cross-examination of the witness on this In the case at bar, petitioner’s verbal reproach against
point following her terse and firm declaration that she respondent was certainly uncalled for considering that
remembered petitioner’s exact defamatory words in by her own account nobody knew that she brought
answer to the counsel’s question.10 such kind and amount of jewelry inside the paper
bag.17 This being the case, she had no right to attack
Jaime Papio, Security Supervisor at Manila Hotel, respondent with her innuendos which were not merely
likewise contradicted petitioner’s allegation that she inquisitive but outrightly accusatory. By openly
did not suspect or mention the name of respondent as accusing respondent as the only person who went out
her suspect in the loss of the jewelry.11 of the room before the loss of the jewelry in the
presence of all the guests therein, and ordering that
To warrant recovery of damages, there must be both she be immediately bodily searched, petitioner
a right of action, for a wrong inflicted by the virtually branded respondent as the thief. True,
defendant, and the damage resulting therefrom to the petitioner had the right to ascertain the identity of the
plaintiff. Wrong without damage, or damage without malefactor, but to malign respondent without an iota
wrong, does not constitute a cause of action. 12 of proof that she was the one who actually stole the
jewelry is an act which, by any standard or principle of
In the sphere of our law on human relations, the victim law is impermissible. Petitioner had willfully caused
of a wrongful act or omission, whether done willfully or injury to respondent in a manner which is contrary to
negligently, is not left without any remedy or recourse morals and good customs. Her firmness and resolve
to obtain relief for the damage or injury he sustained. to find her missing jewelry cannot justify her acts
Incorporated into our civil law are not only principles toward respondent. She did not act with justice and
of equity but also universal moral precepts which are good faith for apparently, she had no other purpose in
designed to indicate certain norms that spring from mind but to prejudice respondent. Certainly, petitioner
the fountain of good conscience and which are meant transgressed the provisions of Article 19 in relation to
to serve as guides for human conduct.13 First of these Article 21 for which she should be held accountable.
fundamental precepts is the principle commonly
known as "abuse of rights" under Article 19 of the Civil Owing to the rule that great weight and even finality is
Code. It provides that "Every person must, in the given to factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals
exercise of his rights and in the performance of his which affirm those of the trial court,18 we sustain the
duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and findings of the trial court and the appellate court that
observe honesty and good faith." To find the respondent’s claim for actual damages has not been
existence of an abuse of right, the following elements substantiated with satisfactory evidence during the
must be present: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) trial and must therefore be denied. To be recoverable,
which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent actual damages must be duly proved with reasonable
or prejudicing or injuring another. 14 When a right is degree of certainty and the courts cannot rely on
exercised in a manner which discards these norms speculation, conjecture or guesswork.19
resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is
committed for which the actor can be held Respondent, however, is clearly entitled to an award
accountable.15 One is not allowed to exercise his right of moral damages. Moral damages may be awarded
in a manner which would cause unnecessary whenever the defendant’s wrongful act or omission is
prejudice to another or if he would thereby offend the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s physical
morals or good customs. Thus, a person should be suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
protected only when he acts in the legitimate exercise besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
of his right, that is when he acts with prudence and shock, social humiliation, and similar injury 20 in the
good faith; but not when he acts with negligence or cases specified or analogous to those provided in
abuse.16 Article 2219 of the Civil Code. 21 Though no proof of
pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral
damages may be adjudicated, courts are mandated to 10
 TSN, February 9, 1999, p. 14.
take into account all the circumstances obtaining in
the case and assess damages according to their 11
 TSN, May 27, 1998, pp. 9,12, and 16.
discretion.22 Worthy of note is that moral damages are
not awarded to penalize the defendant,23 or to enrich a  Sangco, Torts and Damages, Vol. II, 1994
12

complainant, but to enable the latter to obtain means, Edition, p. 941.

diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate
the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of
 Report on the Code Commission on the
13
defendant’s culpable action. In any case, award of
Proposed Civil Code of the Philippines, p.
moral damages must be proportionate to the
39 cited in Globe Mackay Cable and Radio
sufferings inflicted.24
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
81262, August 25, 1989, 176 SCRA 779.
Based on the foregoing jurisprudential
pronouncements, we rule that the appellate court did
 BPI Express Card Corporation v. Court of
14
not err in awarding moral damages. Considering
Appeals, 357 Phil. 262 (1998); Globe Mackay
respondent’s social standing, and the fact that her
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81262, August
profession is based primarily on trust reposed in her
25, 1989, 176 SCRA 779; NPC v. Philipp
by her clients, the seriousness of the imputations
Brothers Oceanic, Inc., , G.R. No. 126204,
made by petitioner has greatly tarnished her
November 20, 2001, 369 SCRA 629.
reputation and will in one way or the other, affect her
future dealings with her clients, the award of
₱100,000.00 as moral damages appears to be a fair
15
 Rellosa v. Pellosis, 414 Phil. 786 [2001].
and reasonable assessment of respondent’s
damages.  See 1 Tolentino, The Civil Code, 1990 Ed.
16

p. 61.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. Costs
against petitioner.
17
 TSN, March 17, 1998, pp. 15-16; p. 26.

SO ORDERED.
18
 Bañas Jr., v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 144
[2000]; Compania Maritima, Inc. v. Court of
Puno, Austria-Martinez*, Callejo, Sr., and Chico- Appeals, 376 Phil. 278 [1999]; Borromeo v.
Nazario, JJ., concur. Sun, 375 Phil. 595 [1999].

Footnotes
19
 Bayer Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 109269, September 15, 2000, 340
SCRA 437; Congregation of the Religious of
* On Official Leave.
the Virgin Mary v. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil.
591 [1998]; Marina Properties Corporation v.
1
 Penned by Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. Court of Appeals, 355 Phil. 705 [1998].
concurred in by Justices Conchita Carpio-
Morales and Sergio L. Pestaño. 20
 Art. 2217, Civil Code.
2
 Rollo, pp. 32-37. 21
 Art.2219. Moral damages may be recovered
in the following and analogous cases:
3
 Abalos v. Court of Appeals, 375 Phil. 419
(1999]; Viloria v. Court of Appeals, 368 Phil.
(1) A criminal offense resulting in
851 (1999].
physical injuries;
4
 Lagrosa v. Court of Appeals, 371 Phil. 225
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical
(1999).
injuries;
5
 Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. v.
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72110,
other lascivious acts;
November 16, 1990, 191 SCRA 411; Ferrer v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98182, March 1,
1993, 219 SCRA 302. (4) Adultery or concubinage;

6
 People v. Sernadilla, G.R. No. 137696, (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or
January 24, 2001, 350 SCRA 243; People v. arrest;
Preciados, G.R. No. 122934, January 5, 2001,
349 SCRA 1; People v. Baway, G.R. No. (6) Illegal search;
130406, January 22, 2001, 350 SCRA 29.
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of
7
 TSN, October 22, 1997, pp. 6, 13-19. defamation;

8
 TSN, December 15, 1998, pp. 10-12. (8) Malicious prosecution;

9
 TSN, December 15, 1998, pp. 9-12. (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

22
 Fule v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 349
[1998]; Zulueta v. Pan American Airways, Inc.,
151 Phil. 1 (1973).

 Simex International, Inc. v. Court of

23

Appeals, G.R. No. 88013, March 19, 1990,

183 SCRA 360.

 Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 350 Phil.

24

820 [1998]; Radio Communications of the

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