CCI and Ybañez v.

Quinones
GR No. 175822 | October 23, 2013

Doctrine:
 Elements of Abuse of Rights: (1) Legal right or duty; (2) Exercised in bad faith; and (3) Sole intent of
injuring another.
 Any abuse in the exercise of such right and in the performance of duty causing damage or injury to another
is actionable under the Civil Code.

Facts:
 Respondent (Quiñones), an employee of Cebu Pacific Air in Robinson’s Cebu, went to the Guess USA
boutique in Robinson’s Department Store.
o She fitted: 2 jeans, a blouse and shorts.
o She purchased the jeans worth Php2,098, which she allegedly paid to the cashier, as evidenced by
a receipt issued to her.
 There was a miscommunication between Guess USA’s invoicer and cashier, that when the invoicer asked if
“ok na,” petitioner answered “ok na,” which gave the invoicer the impression that the respondent had
already paid, thereby issuing her a receipt for the jeans.
 After realizing that the error in the cash count was equivalent to the price of the jeans, the petitioner
(Ybañez) approached the respondent (while on the skywalk) and informed the latter that she had failed to
pay.
o Respondent insisted that she had paid, then suggested that they talk about it in the Cebu Pacific
office in the mall.
o Petitioners pointed out their conversation in Cebu Pacific:
 To whom she gave her payment = “I can’t remember.”
 How much she paid = “Php2,100; 2pcs Php1,000, and 1pc Php100.”
 How much change did she receive = “I don’t remember.”
 Upon arrival at the office, the petitioners allegedly subjected the respondent to humiliation in front of
clients of Cebu pacific and repeatedly demanded payment.
o Petitioners allegedly gave a letter to the Director of Cebu Pacific, narrating the incident, but the
latter refused to receive it as it did not concern the office since the incident took place while
respondent was off duty.
o Said letter was likewise furnished to the Human Resource Department of Robinson’s.
o The letter contained accusations that the respondent failed to pay and that she “deliberately took
the jeans” and “hurriedly left the shop to evade payment.”
 Petitioner filed a complaint for damages before the RTC.
o She claimed that she suffered physical anxiety, sleepless nights, mental anguish, fright, serious
apprehension, besmirched reputation, moral shock and social humiliation.
o Respondents filed their counterclaim of good faith in the belief that respondent had not paid.
o RTC dismissed both complaints and counterclaims, concluding that the petitioners and the other
defendants believed in good faith that respondent failed to make payment.
o CA reversed, finding preponderance of evidence showing that petitioners acted in bad faith in
sending the demand letter to respondent’s employer.

Issue/s:
1. Whether petitioners are liable for damages.
2. Whether respondent is entitled to moral damages.

Ruling:
1. Yes. The exercise of such right is not without limitations. Any abuse in the exercise of such right and in the
performance of duty causing damage or injury to another is actionable under the Civil Code.
o Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals or good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
 Elements of Abuse of Right doctrine:
 1. Legal right or duty;
2. Such is exercised in bad faith; and
3. Sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
 Good faith – the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous
advantage of another.
 Bad faith – a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest
purpose or moral obliquity.
o Petitioners did in fact have the right to question the respondent regarding the mistake or failure to
pay for the jeans bought.
 However, although the conversation started well, petitioners went overboard and tried to
force respondent to pay the amount they were demanding.
 In the guise of asking for assistance, petitioners even sent a demand letter to respondent’s
employer not only informing it of the incident but obviously imputing bad acts on the
part of respondent.
 There was no showing that respondent had the intention to evade payment – evidenced by
the fact that the Guess employees did not have a hard time looking for her when they
realized the supposed non payment.
2. Yes. Moral damages may be awarded whenever the defendant s wrongful act or omission is the proximate
cause of the plaintiffs physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury in the cases specified or analogous to
those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
o They are given to ease the defendant s grief and suffering – to enable the latter to obtain means,
diversions, or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone.

WHEREFORE, petition DENIED for lack of merit.