G.R. No. 147076 - Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. ... https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/metropolitan-waterworks-and-sewerage-sys...

Title
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. Act Theater, Inc.

Case Decision Date

G.R. No. 147076 Jun 17, 2004

MWSS disconnected water service without notice; Act Theater sued for
damages. Courts ruled disconnection arbitrary, awarded damages, and upheld
due process rights.

476 Phil. 486

SECOND DIVISION

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

METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. ACT

THEATER, INC., RESPONDENT.

DECISION

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Metropolitan Waterworks
and Sewerage System (MWSS), seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated January
31, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 58581, which affirmed the civil aspect of
the Decision2 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
attorneyas 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

1 of 6 2/15/25, 12:13 AM
G.R. No. 147076 - Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. ... https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/metropolitan-waterworks-and-sewerage-sys...

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 respondentas employees were subsequently
criminally charged (Criminal Case No. Q-89-2412) before the court a quo. On account of the
incident, the respondentas 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 respondentas
water service connection without prior notice. Due to lack of water, the health and sanitation,
not only of the respondentas 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

...

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. Defendantas 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 attorneyas fees;

5. Making the mandatory injunction earlier issued to plaintiff Act Theater, Inc. permanent.

SO ORDERED.4Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed the civil aspect of the aforesaid decision to

2 of 6 2/15/25, 12:13 AM
G.R. No. 147076 - Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. ... https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/metropolitan-waterworks-and-sewerage-sys...

the CA. The appellate court, however, dismissed the appeal. According to the CA, the court a
quo correctly found that the petitioneras act of cutting off the respondentas 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.

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 PETITIONERaS APPEAL;

II

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS VALIDLY UPHELD THE AWARD
OF ATTORNEYaS 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.5Preliminarily, the
petitioner harps on the fact that, in quoting the decretal portion of the court a quoas decision,
the CA erroneously typed P500,000 as the attorneyas 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 attorneyas 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 respondentas 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
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

3 of 6 2/15/25, 12:13 AM
G.R. No. 147076 - Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. ... https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/metropolitan-waterworks-and-sewerage-sys...

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 oneas 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 respondentas 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 latteras 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 office but he was treated badly on the
flimsy excuse that he had no authority to represent Act. Actas 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.10There is, thus, no reason to deviate from the
uniform findings and conclusion of the court a quo and the appellate court that the
petitioneras 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 attorneyas fees in that portion of the assailed decision
which quoted the fallo of the court a quoas decision was obviously a typographical error. As
attorneyas 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 affirmed, as it
expressly stated in its dispositive portion that afinding no cogent reason to reverse the
appealed Decision which is in conformity with the law and evidence, the same is hereby

4 of 6 2/15/25, 12:13 AM
G.R. No. 147076 - Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. ... https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/metropolitan-waterworks-and-sewerage-sys...

AFFIRMED.a11

The award of P5,000 as attorneyas fees is reasonable and warranted. Attorneyas 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.12

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, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur.

1 Penned by Associate Justice Portia AliAo-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 BLACKaS 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.

5 of 6 2/15/25, 12:13 AM
G.R. No. 147076 - Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. ... https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/metropolitan-waterworks-and-sewerage-sys...

11
Id. at 27.

12
Terminal Facilities and Services Corporation vs. Philippine Ports Authority, 378 SCRA 82
(2002).

6 of 6 2/15/25, 12:13 AM