Scribd
Upload
122 views1 page

Ardiente Vs Pastaforde

This case involves a dispute over ownership of a housing unit and responsibility for the water bill between Joyce Ardiente and Ma. Theresa Pastorfide. Ardiente sold the housing unit to Pastorfide in 1994 but kept the water account in her name. Pastorfide used the water connection for 4 years until Ardiente had it disconnected without notice. The court ruled that while Ardiente had the right to transfer the water bill, disconnecting it without notice was an abuse of rights. The court also found Ardiente liable for damages for the disconnection, as Article 20 provides indemnity for victims who suffer damage through another's actions when no other law provides compensation.

Uploaded by

Sarah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
122 views1 page

Ardiente Vs Pastaforde

This case involves a dispute over ownership of a housing unit and responsibility for the water bill between Joyce Ardiente and Ma. Theresa Pastorfide. Ardiente sold the housing unit to Pastorfide in 1994 but kept the water account in her name. Pastorfide used the water connection for 4 years until Ardiente had it disconnected without notice. The court ruled that while Ardiente had the right to transfer the water bill, disconnecting it without notice was an abuse of rights. The court also found Ardiente liable for damages for the disconnection, as Article 20 provides indemnity for victims who suffer damage through another's actions when no other law provides compensation.

Uploaded by

Sarah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Ardiente vs.

Pastorfide

Facts: Joyce V. Ardiente and her husband Dr. Roberto S. Ardiente are owners of a housing unit at Emily Homes, Balulang, Cagayan de Oro
City.

On June 2, 1994, Joyce Ardiente entered into a Memorandum of Agreement selling, transferring and conveying in favor of [respondent] Ma.
Theresa Pastorfide all their rights and interests in the housing unit at Emily Homes in consideration of P70,000.00. Under the MOA, It has
been agreed by the parties that the water bill will remain in the account of Ardiente.

For four (4) years, Ma. Theresa’s use of the water connection in the name of Joyce Ardiente was never questioned nor perturbed until on
March 12, 1999, without notice, the water connection of Ma. Theresa was cut off.

She complained to the Cagayan De Oro Water District (COWD) and she found out that the account has become delinquent. She paid the three
months due and wrote a letter through her counsel to the COWD to explain why her water supply was cut without notice.

Later, the COWD, through the general manager, [respondent] Gaspar Gonzalez, Jr., answered the letter dated March 15, 1999 and reiterated
that it was at the instance of Joyce Ardiente that the water line was cut off.

Aggrieved, a complaint for damages was filed against Ardiente, COWD and Gonzalez by Ma. Theresa.

RTC: ruled in favor of Ma. Theresa on the ground that the defendants committed abuse of their rights.

CA: Affirmed the RTC ruling.

Hence the instant case.

Issue/ Ratio:

1. WON PETITIONERS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR CAUSING THE DISCONNECTION OF THE WATER LINE - YES
a. While it is well within petitioner’s right to compel respondents to cause the transfer of the water bill in their name, she should have
done it while respecting respondent’s right. Causing the disconnection of the water line without even giving notice to the respondent
constitutes an abuse of petitioner’s rights.
b. Art. 19 sets the standards for the government of human relations and the maintenance of social order. Under the provision one
must (in the exercise of a right or performance of a duty):
- Act with justice
- Give everyone his due
- Observe honesty and good faith.

In this case, petitioners clearly failed to observe these standards.

2. WON THE PRESENT ACTION FOR DAMAGES SHOULD BE BASED ON ARTICLE 19- NO
a. Article 19 merely establishes the standard for the conduct of human relations, it does not provide a remedy for its violation.
Instead, Art. 20 and 21, when applicable, are the proper provisions.
Art. 20 provides a source of indemnity for victims when they suffer damage by reason of another when no other provision of law gives them
such.
In determining whether indemnity is already provided for by a certain provision of law (and corollary whether art. 20 is applicable) depends
wholly on the facts of the case. In this case, the SC found it proper to affirm the decision of the RTC finding petitioners liable for damages for
causing the disconnection of the water line without even notice to respondents.

RULING: WHEREFORE, instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated August
28, 2003 and December 17, 2003, respectively, in CA- G.R. CV No. 73000 are AFFIRMED.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy