Scribd
Upload
60 views1 page

Manaloto V Veloso CASE DIGEST

The case involves an unlawful detainer case filed by lessors against lessee Ismael Veloso III for failure to pay rent from May 1997 to December 1998. While the case was on appeal, the lessors published the trial court decision ruling in their favor. The Supreme Court ruled that publishing the decision while the case was still on appeal violated Veloso's good name and right to due process, as it caused him to be the talk of the town in a negative way. The lessors were obliged to respect Veloso's good name and reputation even as opposing parties in litigation.

Uploaded by

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

Manaloto V Veloso CASE DIGEST

The case involves an unlawful detainer case filed by lessors against lessee Ismael Veloso III for failure to pay rent from May 1997 to December 1998. While the case was on appeal, the lessors published the trial court decision ruling in their favor. The Supreme Court ruled that publishing the decision while the case was still on appeal violated Veloso's good name and right to due process, as it caused him to be the talk of the town in a negative way. The lessors were obliged to respect Veloso's good name and reputation even as opposing parties in litigation.

Uploaded by

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

Manaloto v.

Veloso III
G.R. No. 171365
October 6, 2010

Facts:
This case stems from an unlawful detainer case filed by Ermelinda Manaloto et
al., who are the lessors to of residential house, which was leased to respondent
Ismael Veloso III at the rate of Php17,000 per month. The action for unlawful
detainer was instituted because of Veloso’s failure to pay the monthly rent from
May 23, 1997 to December 22, 1998 despite the petitioner’s repeated demands.
Veloso, however, denied the nonpayment of rentals, alleging that he made
advance payments when he spent Php825,000 for the repairs done on the leased
property.

While the case was still on appeal, the petitioner lessors published the decision
of the Metropolitan Trial Court, who ruled in favor of the lessors. Copies of the
decision were distributed to the homeowners of Horseshoe Village, which
caused Veloso to be the talk of the town and his good name to be greatly
damaged.

Issue:
Were the petitioners correct in publishing the MeTC’s decision while the case
was still on appeal?

Ruling:
No. The petitioners are obliged to respect the respondent’s good name even
though they are opposing parties in a detainer case. Article 19 of the Civil Code
provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith. A violation of such principle constitutes an abuse of
rights, a tortuous conduct. Petitioners are also expected to respect Veloso’s
dignity, personality,

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