Scribd
Upload
45 views2 pages

METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS Vs ACT THEATER

The Metropolitan Waterworks Authority (MWA) cut off water service to the Act Theater without notice after some of the theater's employees were caught tampering with a water meter. Act Theater sued MWA for damages, alleging the cutoff was arbitrary and affected the health and sanitation of patrons and surrounding premises. The court found that MWA failed to act with justice and give Act Theater its due by unceremoniously cutting off water service, justifying damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed this ruling.

Uploaded by

handugan joecel
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
45 views2 pages

METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS Vs ACT THEATER

The Metropolitan Waterworks Authority (MWA) cut off water service to the Act Theater without notice after some of the theater's employees were caught tampering with a water meter. Act Theater sued MWA for damages, alleging the cutoff was arbitrary and affected the health and sanitation of patrons and surrounding premises. The court found that MWA failed to act with justice and give Act Theater its due by unceremoniously cutting off water service, justifying damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed this ruling.

Uploaded by

handugan joecel
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/ 2

METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS v. ACT THEATER, GR No.

147076, 2004-
06-17
(Persons and Family Law)
Facts:
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 filed 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 filed 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.
Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed the civil aspect of the aforesaid decision to
the CA.
Issues:
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
Ruling:
The petition is devoid of merit.
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.
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.
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.
There is, thus, no reason to deviate from the uniform findings 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.
the petition is DENIED.

You might also like