PERSONS Doctrine:  Article 19 of the New Civil Code

TITLE G.R. No. 146322

ERNESTO RAMAS UYPITCHING and Date: December 6, 2006
RAMAS UYPITCHING SONS, INC., Ponente: CORONA, J
petitioners,
vs
ERNESTO QUIAMCO, respondent.
UYPITCHING, petitioners ERNESTO QUIAMCO, respondent
Nature of the case: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the July 26, 2000
decision and October 18, 2000 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47571.
(The lower court ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent the damages he incurred.)
FACTS
Ernesto Quiamco was approached by Juan Davalan, Josefino Gabutero and Raul
Generoso to amicably settle the civil aspect of a criminal case of robbery filed by the former to
the latter. They surrendered to Quiamco, a red Honda XL-100 motorcycle as their payment.
It turned out that the said motorcycle was bought by Gabutero, in instalment, from
Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc. owned and managed by Atty. Ernesto Ramas Uypitching. To
secure its payment, the motorcycle was mortgaged to petitioner corporation.
Gabutero failed to pay the instalments. Davalan assumed the obligation but, in the end,
was unable to pay all the remaining balances. Davalan told Uypitching that the motorcycle had
allegedly been taken by Quiamco’s men.
Nine years later, Uypitching went to Quiamco’s business establishment where the
motorcycle was parked. Along with some police team, Uypitching took possession of the said
motorcycle without the proper civil action. Uypitching also paced back and forth inside the
establishment uttering, “Quiamco is a thief of a motorcycle.”
Uypitching filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-
Fencing Law against the respondent. Quiamco, on the other hand, filed an action for damages.
ISSUE/S
Did Petitioner abuse his rights and is liable for damages?
RATIO DECIDENDI
Yes. Petitoner has a legal right as a seller-mortgagee to recover the mortgaged vehicle.
However, he abused his rights in recovering the subject property without obtaining first the
proper civil action. Uypitching, blatantantly disregarded the lawful procedure. He recovered the
motorcycle without proper search warrant or court order. Worse, Uypitching slandered Quiamco.
Uypitching’s action violated the law as well as public morals, and transgressed the proper norms
of human relations. The enforcement of his right is prejudicial to Quiamco.
The motorcycle was taken contrary to the procedure laid down by law. Petitioner’s
actions showed a calculated design to embarrass Quiamco. Petitioner’s defamatory statement
was utterly prejudicial and injurious to respondent.
WHEREFORE
The petition is hereby DENIED. The July 26, 2000 decision and October 18, 2000
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R CV No. 47571 are AFFIRMED.
Triple costs against petitioners, considering that petitioner Ernest Ramas Uypitching is
a lawyer and an officer of the court, for his improper behaviour.
Notes
1.  Article 19 of the New Civil Code.
1-C 2015-16 (BASILLA, JOMARI ACE V.)