Concepcion v. CA (2000)

CONCEPCION v. CA

GR No. 120706

January 31, 2000

FACTS:

·       Petitioner: Rodrigo Concepcion

·       Respondent: CA, Nestor Nicolas and Allem Nicolas (spouses)

BACKGROUND:

·       Nestor and Allem (spouses) leased an apartment owed by Florence "Bing Concepcion, who also resided in the same compound where the apartment is located

·       Nestor Nicolas was then engaged in business: supplying gov't agencies/private entities with office supplies and appliances (Florence later joined by contributing capital on condition that after her capital investment was returned to her, any profit earned would be divided equally between her and Nestor)

·       July 1985 - Rodrigo Concepcion (brother of deceased husband of Florence) accused Nestor of conducting an adulterous relationship with Florence; Florence denied the imputations during a confrontation at her terrace

·       As a result, Nestor felt extreme embarrassment and shame; could no longer face his neighbors

·       Florence Concepcion ceased to do business with him by not contributing capital anymore; business venture of Nicolas spouses declined (could no longer keep up with commitments to their clients)

·       Nestor was forced to write Rodrigo demanding public apology and payment for damages; Rodrigo ignored the demand

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

·       Nicolas spouses filed a civil suit against him for damages.

o   Rodrigo claimed he did not malign Nestor and only wanted to protect the Concepcion name.

·       CA affirmed RTC decision ordering Concepcion to pay damages to the Nicolas spouses (decision dated Dec. 12, 1994)

·       In contesting the Appellate court, Nestor raises the following issue:

o   Whether there is basis in law for the award of damages to private respondents, the Nicolas spouses

o   Whether there is basis to review the facts which are of weight an influence, but which were overlooked and misapplied by the respondent appellate court.

·       Concepcion argues that in awarding damages to Nestor, CA was without legal basis to justify the verdict:

o   Alleged act imputed to him does not fall under Art. 26 and 2219 of the Civil Code since it does not constitute libel, slander or any other form of defamation; neither does it involve prying into the privacy of other's residence or meddling with or disturbing private life/family relations of another

ISSUE:

·       Whether or not the award for damages is proper.

HOLDING/RATIONALE

·       Held.

·       Article 26: the sacredness of human personality is a concomitant consideration of every plan for human amelioration.

·       Rodrigo Concepcion invaded the privacy of Nestor Nicolas

·       No question that Nestor Nicolas suffered mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation as a proximate result of petitioner's abusive, scandalous and insulting language

JUDGMENT/RATIONALE

·       AFFIRMED judgment of RTC (holding Rodrigo Concepcion liable to the Nicolas spouses for P50,000 as moral damages, P25,000 for exemplary damages, P10,000 as attorney's fees plus costs of suit)

·       Factual findings provide enough basis in law for the award of damages by the CA in favor of respondents.

·       Incident charged of petitioner was no less than an invasion on the right of the respondent Nestor as a person.

DICTA:

·       If the statutes insufficiently protect a person from being unjustly humiliated, in short, if human personality is not exalted—then the laws are indeed defective.

·       It is petitioner’s position that the act imputed to him does not constitute any of those enumerated in Arts. 26 and 2219. In this respect, the law is clear.

·       The violations mentioned in the codal provisions are not exclusive but are merely examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts. Damages therefore are allowable for actions against a person’s dignity, such as profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous or abusive language