G.R. No.

151866 September 9, 2004

SOLEDAD CARPIO, petitioner,
vs.
LEONORA A. VALON!E, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
!INGA, J.:
Assailed in the instant petition for review is the Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
!"#$,
%
pro&ul'ated on %$ (anuar) *++*.
*
,he appellate -ourt reversed the trial -ourt.s de-ision den)in'
respondent.s -lai& for da&a'es a'ainst petitioner and ordered the latter to pa) &oral da&a'es to the
for&er in the a&ount of/%++,+++.++.
Respondent 0eonora Val&onte is a weddin' -oordinator. 1i-helle del Rosario and (on Sierra en'a'ed
her servi-es for their -hur-h weddin' on %+ O-to2er %!!. At a2out 34#+ p.&. on that da), Val&onte went
to the 1anila 5otel where the 2ride and her fa&il) were 2illeted. 6hen she arrived at Suite #*-A, several
persons were alread) there in-ludin' the 2ride, the 2ride.s parents and relatives, the &a7e-up artist and
his assistant, the offi-ial photo'raphers, and the fashion desi'ner. A&on' those present was petitioner
Soledad Carpio, an aunt of the 2ride who was preparin' to dress up for the o--asion.
After reportin' to the 2ride, Val&onte went out of the suite -arr)in' the ite&s needed for the weddin' rites
and the 'ifts fro& the prin-ipal sponsors. She pro-eeded to the 1a)nila Restaurant where the re-eption
was to 2e held. She paid the suppliers, 'ave the &eal allowan-e to the 2and, and went 2a-7 to the suite.
8pon enterin' the suite, Val&onte noti-ed the people starin' at her. It was at this 9un-ture that petitioner
alle'edl) uttered the followin' words to Val&onte4 "Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto, nasaan ang dala
mong bag? Saan ka pumunta? Ikaw lang and lumabas ng kwarto, ikaw ang kumuha." /etitioner then
ordered one of the ladies to sear-h Val&onte.s 2a'. It turned out that after Val&onte left the roo& to
attend to her duties, petitioner dis-overed that the pie-es of 9ewelr) whi-h she pla-ed inside the -o&fort
roo& in a paper 2a' were lost. ,he 9ewelr) pie-es -onsist of two :*; dia&ond rin's, one :%; set of
dia&ond earrin's, 2ra-elet and ne-7la-e with a total value of a2out one &illion pesos. ,he hotel se-urit)
was -alled in to help in the sear-h. ,he 2a's and personal 2elon'in's of all the people inside the roo&
were sear-hed. Val&onte was alle'edl) 2odil) sear-hed, interro'ated and trailed 2) a se-urit) 'uard
throu'hout the evenin'. 0ater, poli-e offi-ers arrived and interviewed all persons who had a--ess to the
suite and fin'erprinted the& in-ludin' Val&onte. Durin' all the ti&e Val&onte was 2ein' interro'ated 2)
the poli-e offi-ers, petitioner 7ept on sa)in' the words <Si)a lan' an' lu&a2as n' 7warto.< Val&onte.s -ar
whi-h was par7ed at the hotel pre&ises was also sear-hed 2ut the sear-h )ielded nothin'.
A few da)s after the in-ident, petitioner re-eived a letter fro& Val&onte de&andin' a for&al letter of
apolo') whi-h she wanted to 2e -ir-ulated to the newl)weds. relatives and 'uests to redee& her s&eared
reputation as a result of petitioner.s i&putations a'ainst her. /etitioner did not respond to the letter. ,hus,
on *+ =e2ruar) %!!$, Val&onte filed a suit for da&a'es a'ainst her 2efore the Re'ional ,rial Court :R,C;
of /asi' Cit), >ran-h *?. In her -o&plaint, Val&onte pra)ed that petitioner 2e ordered to pa) a-tual,
&oral and e@e&plar) da&a'es, as well as attorne).s fees.
Respondin' to the -o&plaint, petitioner denied havin' uttered words or done an) a-t to -onfront or sin'le
out Val&onte durin' the investi'ation and -lai&ed that ever)thin' that transpired after the theft in-ident
was purel) a poli-e &atter in whi-h she had no parti-ipation. /etitioner pra)ed for the dis&issal of the
-o&plaint and for the -ourt to ad9ud'e Val&onte lia2le on her -ounter-lai&.
,he trial -ourt rendered its Decision on *% Au'ust *+++, dis&issin' Val&onte.s -o&plaint for da&a'es. It
ruled that when petitioner sou'ht investi'ation for the loss of her 9ewelr), she was &erel) e@er-isin' her
ri'ht and if da&a'e results fro& a person e@er-isin' his le'al ri'ht, it is damnum absque injuria. It added
that no proof was presented 2) Val&onte to show that petitioner a-ted &ali-iousl) and in 2ad faith in
pointin' to her as the -ulprit. ,he -ourt said that Val&onte failed to show that she suffered serious an@iet),
&oral sho-7, so-ial hu&iliation, or that her reputation was 2es&ir-hed due to petitioner.s wron'ful a-t.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals alle'in' that the trial -ourt erred in findin' that petitioner did
not slander her 'ood na&e and reputation and in disre'ardin' the eviden-e she presented.
,he Court of Appeals ruled differentl). It opined that Val&onte has -learl) esta2lished that she was
sin'led out 2) petitioner as the one responsi2le for the loss of her 9ewelr). It -ited the testi&on) of Serena
1andin', -orro2oratin' Val&onte.s -lai& that petitioner -onfronted her and uttered words to the effe-t that
she was the onl) one who went out of the roo& and that she was the one who too7 the 9ewelr). ,he
appellate -ourt held that Val&onte.s -lai& for da&a'es is not predi-ated on the fa-t that she was
su29e-ted to 2od) sear-h and interro'ation 2) the poli-e 2ut rather petitioner.s a-t of pu2li-l) a--usin' her
of ta7in' the &issin' 9ewelr). It -ate'oriAed petitioner.s utteran-e defa&ator) -onsiderin' that it i&puted
upon Val&onte the -ri&e of theft. ,he -ourt -on-luded that petitioner.s ver2al assault upon Val&onte was
done with &ali-e and in 2ad faith sin-e it was &ade in the presen-e of &an) people without an) solid
proof e@-ept petitioner.s suspi-ion. Su-h unfounded a--usation entitles Val&onte to an award of &oral
da&a'es in the a&ount of /%++,+++.++ for she was pu2li-l) hu&iliated, deepl) insulted, and
e&2arrassed. 5owever, the -ourt found no suffi-ient eviden-e to 9ustif) the award of a-tual da&a'es.
5en-e, this petition.
/etitioner -ontends that the appellate -ourt.s -on-lusion that she pu2li-l) hu&iliated respondent does not
-onfor& to the eviden-e presented. She adds that even on the assu&ption that she uttered the words
-o&plained of, it was not shown that she did so with &ali-e and in 2ad faith.
In essen-e, petitioner would want this Court to review the fa-tual -on-lusions rea-hed 2) the appellate
-ourt. ,he -ardinal rule adhered to in this 9urisdi-tion is that a petition for review &ust raise onl) Buestions
of law,
#
and 9udi-ial review under Rule 3" does not e@tend to an evaluation of the suffi-ien-) of eviden-e
unless there is a showin' that the findin's -o&plained of are totall) devoid of support in the re-ord or that
the) are so 'larin'l) erroneous as to -onstitute serious a2use of dis-retion.
3
,his Court, while not a trier
of fa-ts, &a) review the eviden-e in order to arrive at the -orre-t fa-tual -on-lusion 2ased on the re-ord
espe-iall) so when the findin's of fa-t of the Court of Appeals are at varian-e with those of the trial -ourt,
or when the inferen-e drawn 2) the Court of Appeals fro& the fa-ts is &anifestl) &ista7en.
"
Contrar) to the trial -ourt.s findin', we find suffi-ient eviden-e on re-ord tendin' to prove that petitioner.s
i&putations a'ainst respondent was &ade with &ali-e and in 2ad faith.
/etitioner.s testi&on) was shorn of su2stan-e and -onsists &ainl) of denials. She -lai&ed not to have
uttered the words i&putin' the -ri&e of theft to respondent or to have &entioned the latter.s na&e to the
authorities as the one responsi2le for the loss of her 9ewelr). 6ell-settled is the rule that denials, if
unsu2stantiated 2) -lear and -onvin-in' eviden-e, are ne'ative and self-servin' whi-h &erit no wei'ht in
law and -annot 2e 'iven 'reater evidentiar) value over the testi&on) of -redi2le witnesses who testif) on
affir&ative &atters.

Respondent, however, has su--essfull) refuted petitioner.s testi&on). Cuite -redi2l), she has narrated in
'reat detail her distressin' e@perien-e on that fateful da). She testified as to how rudel) she was treated
2) petitioner ri'ht after she returned to the roo&. /etitioner i&&ediatel) -onfronted her and uttered the
words <Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto. Nasaan ang dala mong bag? Saan ka pumunta? Ikaw ang
kumuha.< ,hereafter, her 2od) was sear-hed in-ludin' her 2a' and her -ar. 6orse, durin' the re-eption,
she was on-e &ore as7ed 2) the hotel se-urit) to 'o to the ladies roo& and she was a'ain 2odil)
sear-hed.
$
SereDa 1andin', a &a7e-up artist, -orro2orated respondent.s testi&on). She testified that petitioner
-onfronted respondent in the presen-e of all the people inside the suite a--usin' her of 2ein' the onl)
one who went out of the -o&fort roo& 2efore the loss of the 9ewelr). 1andin' added that respondent was
e&2arrassed 2e-ause ever)2od) else in the roo& thou'ht she was a thief.
?
If onl) to de2un7 petitioner.s
assertion that she did not utter the a--usator) re&ar7s in Buestion pu2li-l) and with &ali-e, 1andin'.s
testi&on) on the point deserves to 2e reprodu-ed. ,hus,
C After that what did she doE
A ,hen 0eo -a&e out fro& the other roo& she said, she is :si-; the one I onl) saw fro& the
-o&fort roo&.
C Now, what e@a-t word :si-; were said 2) 1rs. Carpio on that &atterE
A She said <si)a lan' )un' na7ita 7on' 'alin' sa C.R.<
C And who was 1rs. Carpio or the defendant referrin' toE
A 0eo Val&onte.
C Did she sa) an)thin' else, the defendantE
A 5er 9ewelr) were lost and 0eo was the onl) one she saw in the C.R. After that she 'et :si-; the
paper 2a' then the 9ewelr) were alread) 'one.
C Did she -onfront the plaintiff 1rs. Val&onte re'ardin' that fa-tE
A Fes.
C 6hat did the defendant 1rs. Carpio tell the plaintiff, 1rs. Val&onteE
A <I7aw )un' na7ita 7o sa C.R. nawawala )un' alahas 7o.<
C 6hen the defendant 1rs. Carpio said that to plaintiff 1rs. Val&onte were there other people
inside the roo&E
A Fes, sir.
C 6ere the) a2le to hear what 1rs. Carpio said to 1rs. Val&onteE
A Fes, sir.
C 6hat was )our thin7in' at that ti&e that 1rs. Carpio said that to 1rs. Val&onteE
A <Na7a7ahi)a 7asi a7ala n' i2a doon na tala'an' &a'nana7aw si)a. Gasi &ara&i na 7a&in'
nandodoon, du&atin' na )un' -outurier pati )un' video &an and we sir.
C 6ho was the person )ou HwereI alle'in' <na na7a7ahi)a< whose :si-; 2ein' a--used or 2ein'
so&e2od) who stole those ite& of 9ewelr)E
A <Na7a7ahi)a para 7a) 0eo 7asi pina'2i2intan'an si)a. Sa da&i na&in doon si)a )un'
napa'2intan'an.<
C And who is 0eo, what is her full na&eE
A 0eo Val&onte.
C Did the defendant tell this &atter to other people inside the roo&E
A Fes, the &other of the 2ride.
C And who else did she tal7 toE
A ,he father of the 2ride also.
C And what did the defendant tell the &other re'ardin' this &atterE
A <Nawawala )un' alahas 7o.< Sa2i na&an nun' &other 2a7a na&an hindi &o dala ti'nan &o
&unan' &a2uti.
C 6ho was that other person that she tal7ed toE
A =ather of the 2ride.
!
Si'nifi-antl), petitioner.s -ounsel ele-ted not to pursue her -ross-e@a&ination of the witness on this point
followin' her terse and fir& de-laration that she re&e&2ered petitioner.s e@a-t defa&ator) words in
answer to the -ounsel.s Buestion.
%+
(ai&e /apio, Se-urit) Supervisor at 1anila 5otel, li7ewise -ontradi-ted petitioner.s alle'ation that she did
not suspe-t or &ention the na&e of respondent as her suspe-t in the loss of the 9ewelr).
%%
,o warrant re-over) of da&a'es, there &ust 2e 2oth a ri'ht of a-tion, for a wron' infli-ted 2) the
defendant, and the da&a'e resultin' therefro& to the plaintiff. 6ron' without da&a'e, or da&a'e without
wron', does not -onstitute a -ause of a-tion.
%*
In the sphere of our law on hu&an relations, the vi-ti& of a wron'ful a-t or o&ission, whether done
willfull) or ne'li'entl), is not left without an) re&ed) or re-ourse to o2tain relief for the da&a'e or in9ur)
he sustained. In-orporated into our -ivil law are not onl) prin-iples of eBuit) 2ut also universal &oral
pre-epts whi-h are desi'ned to indi-ate -ertain nor&s that sprin' fro& the fountain of 'ood -ons-ien-e
and whi-h are &eant to serve as 'uides for hu&an -ondu-t.
%#
=irst of these funda&ental pre-epts is the
prin-iple -o&&onl) 7nown as <a2use of ri'hts< under Arti-le %! of the Civil Code. It provides that "Eer!
person must, in the e"ercise o# his rights and in the per#ormance o# his duties, act with justice, gie
eer!one his due and obsere honest! and good #aith." ,o find the e@isten-e of an a2use of ri'ht, the
followin' ele&ents &ust 2e present4 :%; there is a le'al ri'ht or dut)J :*; whi-h is e@er-ised in 2ad faithJ
:#; for the sole intent or pre9udi-in' or in9urin' another.
%3
6hen a ri'ht is e@er-ised in a &anner whi-h
dis-ards these nor&s resultin' in da&a'e to another, a le'al wron' is -o&&itted for whi-h the a-tor -an
2e held a--ounta2le.
%"
One is not allowed to e@er-ise his ri'ht in a &anner whi-h would -ause
unne-essar) pre9udi-e to another or if he would there2) offend &orals or 'ood -usto&s. ,hus, a person
should 2e prote-ted onl) when he a-ts in the le'iti&ate e@er-ise of his ri'ht, that is when he a-ts with
pruden-e and 'ood faithJ 2ut not when he a-ts with ne'li'en-e or a2use.
%
Co&ple&entin' the prin-iple of a2use of ri'hts are the provisions of Arti-les *+ and *% of the Civil Code
whi-h read, thus4
Art. *+. Ever) person who, -ontrar) to law, willfull) or ne'li'entl) -auses da&a'e to another, shall
inde&nif) the latter for the sa&e.
Art. *%. An) person who willfull) -auses loss or in9ur) to another in a &anner that is -ontrar) to
&orals or 'ood -usto&s or pu2li- poli-) shall -o&pensate the latter for the da&a'e.
,he fore'oin' rules provide the le'al 2edro-7 for the award of da&a'es to a part) who suffers
da&a'e whenever one -o&&its an a-t in violation of so&e le'al provision, or an a-t whi-h
thou'h not -onstitutin' a trans'ression of positive law, nevertheless violates -ertain rudi&entar)
ri'hts of the part) a''rieved.
In the -ase at 2ar, petitioner.s ver2al reproa-h a'ainst respondent was -ertainl) un-alled for -onsiderin'
that 2) her own a--ount no2od) 7new that she 2rou'ht su-h 7ind and a&ount of 9ewelr) inside the paper
2a'.
%$
,his 2ein' the -ase, she had no ri'ht to atta-7 respondent with her innuendos whi-h were not
&erel) inBuisitive 2ut outri'htl) a--usator). >) openl) a--usin' respondent as the onl) person who went
out of the roo& 2efore the loss of the 9ewelr) in the presen-e of all the 'uests therein, and orderin' that
she 2e i&&ediatel) 2odil) sear-hed, petitioner virtuall) 2randed respondent as the thief. ,rue, petitioner
had the ri'ht to as-ertain the identit) of the &alefa-tor, 2ut to &ali'n respondent without an iota of proof
that she was the one who a-tuall) stole the 9ewelr) is an a-t whi-h, 2) an) standard or prin-iple of law is
i&per&issi2le. /etitioner had willfull) -aused in9ur) to respondent in a &anner whi-h is -ontrar) to &orals
and 'ood -usto&s. 5er fir&ness and resolve to find her &issin' 9ewelr) -annot 9ustif) her a-ts toward
respondent. She did not a-t with 9usti-e and 'ood faith for apparentl), she had no other purpose in &ind
2ut to pre9udi-e respondent. Certainl), petitioner trans'ressed the provisions of Arti-le %! in relation to
Arti-le *% for whi-h she should 2e held a--ounta2le.
Owin' to the rule that 'reat wei'ht and even finalit) is 'iven to fa-tual -on-lusions of the Court of Appeals
whi-h affir& those of the trial -ourt,
%?
we sustain the findin's of the trial -ourt and the appellate -ourt that
respondent.s -lai& for a-tual da&a'es has not 2een su2stantiated with satisfa-tor) eviden-e durin' the
trial and &ust therefore 2e denied. ,o 2e re-overa2le, a-tual da&a'es &ust 2e dul) proved with
reasona2le de'ree of -ertaint) and the -ourts -annot rel) on spe-ulation, -on9e-ture or 'uesswor7.
%!
Respondent, however, is -learl) entitled to an award of &oral da&a'es. 1oral da&a'es &a) 2e awarded
whenever the defendant.s wron'ful a-t or o&ission is the pro@i&ate -ause of the plaintiff.s ph)si-al
sufferin', &ental an'uish, fri'ht, serious an@iet), 2es&ir-hed reputation, wounded feelin's, &oral sho-7,
so-ial hu&iliation, and si&ilar in9ur)
*+
in the -ases spe-ified or analo'ous to those provided in Arti-le **%!
of the Civil Code.
*%
,hou'h no proof of pe-uniar) loss is ne-essar) in order that &oral da&a'es &a) 2e
ad9udi-ated, -ourts are &andated to ta7e into a--ount all the -ir-u&stan-es o2tainin' in the -ase and
assess da&a'es a--ordin' to their dis-retion.
**
6orth) of note is that &oral da&a'es are not awarded to
penaliAe the defendant,
*#
or to enri-h a -o&plainant, 2ut to ena2le the latter to o2tain &eans, diversions
or a&use&ents that will serve to alleviate the &oral sufferin' he has under'one, 2) reason of defendant.s
-ulpa2le a-tion. In an) -ase, award of &oral da&a'es &ust 2e proportionate to the sufferin's infli-ted.
*3
>ased on the fore'oin' 9urisprudential pronoun-e&ents, we rule that the appellate -ourt did not err in
awardin' &oral da&a'es. Considerin' respondent.s so-ial standin', and the fa-t that her profession is
2ased pri&aril) on trust reposed in her 2) her -lients, the seriousness of the i&putations &ade 2)
petitioner has 'reatl) tarnished her reputation and will in one wa) or the other, affe-t her future dealin's
with her -lients, the award of /%++,+++.++ as &oral da&a'es appears to 2e a fair and reasona2le
assess&ent of respondent.s da&a'es.
"#ERE$ORE, the instant $etition is DENIED. Costs a'ainst petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
$uno, %ustria&'artine(
)
, *allejo, Sr., and *hico&Na(ario, ++., -on-ur.