SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 147076. June 17, 2004.]

METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM , petitioner,

vs . ACT THEATER, INC. , respondent.

DECISION

CALLEJO , SR. , J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari led by the Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision
1 dated January 31, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 58581, which a rmed
the civil aspect of the Decision 2 dated May 5, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 77, directing the petitioner MWSS to pay the respondent Act Theater, Inc.
damages and attorney's fees.
The present case stemmed from the consolidated cases of Criminal Case No. Q-89-
2412 entitled People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Tabian, et al ., for violation of Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 401, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 876, and Civil Case No. Q-88-
768 entitled Act Theater, Inc . v. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System. The two
cases were jointly tried in the court a quo as they arose from the same factual
circumstances, to wit:
On September 22, 1988, four employees of the respondent Act Theater, Inc., namely,
Rodolfo Tabian, Armando Aguilar, Arnel Concha and Modesto Ruales, were apprehended
by members of the Quezon City police force for allegedly tampering a water meter in
violation of P.D. No. 401, as amended by B.P. Blg. 876. The respondent's employees were
subsequently criminally charged (Criminal Case No. Q-89-2412) before the court a quo. On
account of the incident, the respondent's water service connection was cut off.
Consequently, the respondent led a complaint for injunction with damages (Civil Case No.
Q-88-768) against the petitioner MWSS.
In the civil case, the respondent alleged in its complaint led with the court a quo
that the petitioner acted arbitrarily, whimsically and capriciously, in cutting off the
respondent's water service connection without prior notice. Due to lack of water, the health
and sanitation, not only of the respondent's patrons but in the surrounding premises as
well, were adversely affected. The respondent prayed that the petitioner be directed to pay
damages.
After due trial, the court a quo rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
In Criminal Case No. Q-89-2412
WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, the four (4) above-named Accused are hereby
ACQUITTED of the crime charged. 3

In Civil Case No. Q-88-768

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 xxx xxx xxx

1. Ordering defendant MWSS to pay plaintiff actual or compensatory

damages in the amount of P25,000.00; and to return the sum of
P200,000.00 deposited by the plaintiff for the restoration of its
water services after its disconnection on September 23, 1988;

2. Defendant's counterclaim for undercollection of P530,759.96 is

dismissed for lack of merit;

3. Ordering defendant MWSS to pay costs of suit;

4. Ordering defendant MWSS to pay plaintiff the amount of P5,000.00

as attorney's fees;
5. Making the mandatory injunction earlier issued to plaintiff Act
Theater, Inc. permanent.

SO ORDERED. 4

Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed the civil aspect of the aforesaid decision to the
CA. The appellate court, however, dismissed the appeal. According to the CA, the court a
quo correctly found that the petitioner's act of cutting off the respondent's water service
connection without prior notice was arbitrary, injurious and prejudicial to the latter
justifying the award of damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code. aHADTC

Undaunted, the petitioner now comes to this Court alleging as follows:

I

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEAL[S] VALIDLY AFFIRMED

THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN RESOLVING THE
PETITIONER'S APPEAL;
II

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS VALIDLY UPHELD

THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES;

III

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEAL[S] CORRECTLY

APPLIED THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE WITHOUT
CONSIDERING THE APPLICABLE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 429 OF THE SAME
CODE. 5

Preliminarily, the petitioner harps on the fact that, in quoting the decretal portion of
the court a quo's decision, the CA erroneously typed P500,000 as the attorney's fees
awarded in favor of the respondent when the same should only be P5,000. In any case,
according to the petitioner, whether the amount is P500,000 or P5,000, the award of
attorney's fees is improper considering that there was no discussion or statement in the
body of the assailed decision justifying such award. The petitioner insists that in cutting
off the respondent's water service connection, the petitioner merely exercised its
proprietary right under Article 429 of the Civil Code.
The petition is devoid of merit.
Article 429 of the Civil Code, relied upon by the petitioner in justifying its act of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 disconnecting the water supply of the respondent without prior notice, reads:
Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he
may use such force as may be reasonable to repel or prevent an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.

A right is a power, privilege, or immunity guaranteed under a constitution, statute or

decisional law, or recognized as a result of long usage, 6 constitutive of a legally
enforceable claim of one person against the other. 7
Concededly, the petitioner, as the owner of the utility providing water supply to
certain consumers including the respondent, had the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposal thereof. However, the exercise of rights is not without limitations.
Having the right should not be confused with the manner by which such right is to be
exercised. 8
Article 19 of the Civil Code precisely sets the norms for the exercise of one's rights:
Art. 19. 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.

When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in

damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which actor can be held accountable. 9
In this case, the petitioner failed to act with justice and give the respondent what is due to
it when the petitioner unceremoniously cut off the respondent's water service connection.
As correctly found by the appellate court:
While it is true that MWSS had sent a notice of investigation to plaintiff-
appellee prior to the disconnection of the latter's water services, this was done
only a few hours before the actual disconnection. Upon receipt of the notice and
in order to ascertain the matter, Act sent its assistant manager Teodulo Gumalid,
Jr. to the MWSS o ce but he was treated badly on the imsy excuse that he had
no authority to represent Act. Act's water services were cut at midnight of the day
following the apprehension of the employees. Clearly, the plaintiff-appellee was
denied due process when it was deprived of the water services. As a consequence
thereof, Act had to contract another source to provide water for a number of days.
Plaintiff-appellee was also compelled to deposit with MWSS the sum of
P200,000.00 for the restoration of their water services. 1 0

There is, thus, no reason to deviate from the uniform ndings and conclusion of the
court a quo and the appellate court that the petitioner's act was arbitrary, injurious and
prejudicial to the respondent, justifying the award of damages under Article 19 of the Civil
Code.
Finally, the amount of P500,000 as attorney's fees in that portion of the assailed
decision which quoted the fallo of the court a quo's decision was obviously a
typographical error. As attorney's fees, the court a quo awarded the amount of P5,000
only. It was this amount, as well as actual and compensatory damages of P25,000 and the
reimbursement of P200,000 deposited by the respondent for the restoration of its water
supply, that the CA a rmed, as it expressly stated in its dispositive portion that " nding no
cogent reason to reverse the appealed Decision which is in conformity with the law and
evidence, the same is hereby AFFIRMED." 1 1

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 The award of P5,000 as attorney's fees is reasonable and warranted. Attorney's fees
may be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his
interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party. 1 2
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
January 31, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 58581 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez and Tinga, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Fermin
A. Martin, Jr. and Mercedes Gozo-Dadole concurring.

2. Penned by Judge Normandie B. Pizarro.

3. Rollo, p. 35.
4. Id. at 37.
5. Id. at 13–14.
6. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Ed., p. 1324.
7. Rellosa v. Pellosis, 362 SCRA 486 (2001).
8. Paguio v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc., 393 SCRA 379 (2002).
9. Rellosa v. Pellosis, supra.
10. Rollo, p. 26.
11. Id. at 27.
12. Terminal Facilities and Services Corporation vs. Philippine Ports Authority, 378 SCRA
82 (2002).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com