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, privacy, and peace of mind under Article 26 of the Civil Code.
It's a Ping Thing 