Scribd
Upload
409 views1 page

Dole VS Rodriguez

Petitioner Dole Philippines entered into an agreement with Checkered Farms to purchase all bananas produced on Checkered's land. When a new owner took over the land, petitioner removed pipes and facilities, destroying banana plants and fruits. The new owner sued, arguing petitioner caused damage. The court ruled that while petitioner had a right to remove improvements, it exercised this right excessively and arbitrarily, damaging the plantation. Under civil law, a wrongdoer must compensate for willful actions known to cause injury, which petitioner's removal of pipes and failure to cover diggings were. Therefore, petitioner was liable for damages caused to the plantation.

Uploaded by

Paulo Villarin
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
409 views1 page

Dole VS Rodriguez

Petitioner Dole Philippines entered into an agreement with Checkered Farms to purchase all bananas produced on Checkered's land. When a new owner took over the land, petitioner removed pipes and facilities, destroying banana plants and fruits. The new owner sued, arguing petitioner caused damage. The court ruled that while petitioner had a right to remove improvements, it exercised this right excessively and arbitrarily, damaging the plantation. Under civil law, a wrongdoer must compensate for willful actions known to cause injury, which petitioner's removal of pipes and failure to cover diggings were. Therefore, petitioner was liable for damages caused to the plantation.

Uploaded by

Paulo Villarin
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

DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs REYNALDO B.

RODRIGUEZ excessively and results in damage to another, a legal


and LIBORIO AFRICA wrong is committed for which the wrongdoer must be
G.R. No. 174646 August 22, 2012 held responsible.

Civil Code, Article 21, any person who willfully causes


FACTS: loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate
Checkered Farms entered into an Exclusive Purchasing the latter for the damage; this refers to acts contra
Agreement with petitioner which bound itself to bonus mores. The act is within the article only when it is
purchase all the acceptable bananas that would be done willfully. The act is willful if it is done with
produced by the former. Checkered Farms, in return knowledge of its injurious effect; it is not required that
allow petitioner to introduce installations and the act be done purposely to produce the injury.
improvements on the land and to dismantle and
remove all non-permanent installations and Undoubtedly, petitioner removed the pipes with
improvements it has introduced upon the expiration of knowledge of its injurious effect which is the
the period of the contract. Rodriguez, the new owner of destruction of the banana plants and fruits; and failed
the said land, authorized petitioner to manage the to cover the diggings which caused ground destruction.
plantation under an interim arrangement pending final Petitioner should, therefore, be liable for damages.
resolution of their negotiation. In the same letter,
Rodriguez demanded for the accounting of fruits
harvested from the expiration of their contract,
petitioners failed and refused to pay, in fact, raided the
subject plantation destroying the facilities therein
arguing that the contract expires and have the right to
dismantle their own installations.

In the court, petitioner insists that it cannot be held


liable for damages' allegedly suffered by respondents
based on the principle of damnum absque injuria and
such act was acts contra bonus mores.

ISSUE:  Does the principle of damnum absque injuria


justifies the petitioner’s right to remove the
improvements on the subject plantation?

RULING: 

No.

Under the principle of damnum absque injuria, the


legitimate exercise of a person's rights, even if it causes
loss to another, does not automatically result in an
actionable injury. The law does not prescribe a remedy
for the loss. This principle, however, does not apply
when there is an abuse of a person's right as in this
case.[72] While we recognize petitioner's right to
remove the improvements on the subject plantation, it,
however, exercised such right arbitrarily, unjustly and
excessively resulting in damage to respondents'
plantation. The exercise of a right, though legal by itself,
must nonetheless be in accordance with the proper
norm. When the right is exercised arbitrarily, unjustly or

You might also like