. Titus B. Villanueva vs. Emma M. Rosqueta; GR. No.
180764; January 19, 2010
DOCTRINE:
Article 19 of the Civil Code, a person must, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, act in good
faith. He would be liable if he instead acts in bad faith, with intent to prejudice another.
Complementing this principle are Articles 20[10] and 21[11] of the Civil Code which grant the
latter indemnity for the injury he suffers because of such abuse of right or duty.
FACTS:
Respondent Emma M. Rosqueta (Rosqueta), formerly Deputy Commissioner of the
Revenue Collection and Monitoring Group of the Bureau of Customs (the Bureau), tendered her
courtesy resignation from that post on January 23, 2001, shortly after President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo assumed office. But five months later on June 5, 2001, she withdrew her
resignation, claiming that she enjoyed security of tenure and that she had resigned against her
will on orders of her superior.
Meantime, on July 13, 2001 President Arroyo appointed Gil Valera (Valera) to
respondent Rosqueta’s position. Challenging such appointment, Rosqueta filed a petition for
prohibition, quo warranto, and injunction against petitioner Titus B. Villanueva (Villanueva),
then Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, and Valera with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manila in Civil Case 01-101539. On August 27, 2001 the RTC issued a
temporary restraining order (TRO), enjoining Villanueva and the Finance Secretary from
implementing Valera’s appointment. On August 28, 2001 the trial court superseded the TRO
with a writ of preliminary injunction.
On November 22, 2001 while the preliminary injunction in the quo warranto case was
again in force, petitioner Villanueva issued Customs Memorandum Order 40-2001, authorizing
Valera to exercise the powers and functions of the Deputy Commissioner.
During the Bureau’s celebration of its centennial anniversary in February 2002, its
special Panorama magazine edition featured all the customs deputy commissioners, except
respondent Rosqueta. The souvenir program, authorized by the Bureau’s Steering Committee
headed by petitioner Villanueva to be issued on the occasion, had a space where Rosqueta’s
picture was supposed to be but it instead stated that her position was “under litigation.”
Meanwhile, the commemorative billboard displayed at the Bureau’s main gate included Valera’s
picture but not Rosqueta’s.
On February 28, 2002 respondent Rosqueta filed a complaint for damages before the
RTC of Quezon City against petitioner Villanueva in Civil Case Q-02-46256, alleging that the
latter maliciously excluded her from the centennial anniversary memorabilia. Further, she
claimed that he prevented her from performing her duties as Deputy Commissioner, withheld her
salaries, and refused to act on her leave applications. Thus, she asked the RTC to award her
P1,000,000.00 in moral damages, P500,000.00 in exemplary damages, and P300,000.00 in
attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
RTC dismissed the case. CA reversed granting Villanueva to pay P500,000.00 in moral
damages, P200,000.00 in exemplary damages and P100,000.00 in attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in holding petitioner Villanueva liable in damages to
respondent Rosqueta for ignoring the preliminary injunction order that the RTC issued in the quo
warranto case, thus denying her of the right to do her job as Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau
and to be officially recognized as such public officer.
RULING:
Yes. Petitioner Villanueva cannot seek shelter in the alleged advice that the OSG gave
him. Surely, a government official of his rank must know that a preliminary injunction order
issued by a court of law had to be obeyed, especially since the question of Valera’s right to
replace respondent Rosqueta had not yet been properly resolved.
That petitioner Villanueva ignored the injunction shows bad faith and intent to spite
Rosqueta who remained in the eyes of the law the Deputy Commissioner. His exclusion of her
from the centennial anniversary memorabilia was not an honest mistake by any reckoning.
Indeed, he withheld her salary and prevented her from assuming the duties of the position.
The CA correctly awarded moral damages to respondent Rosqueta.
Here, respondent Rosqueta’s colleagues and friends testified that she suffered severe
anxiety on account of the speculation over her employment status. She had to endure being
referred to as a “squatter” in her workplace. She had to face inquiries from family and friends
about her exclusion from the Bureau’s centennial anniversary memorabilia. She did not have to
endure all these affronts and the angst and depression they produced had Villanueva abided in
good faith by the court’s order in her favor. Clearly, she is entitled to moral damages.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court
of Appeals dated April 30, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV 85931 with MODIFICATION in that petitioner
Titus B. Villanueva is ORDERED to pay respondent Emma M. Rosqueta the sum of
₱200,000.00 in moral damages, ₱50,000.00 in exemplary damages, and ₱50,000.00 in attorney’s
fees and litigation expenses.
