7/23/2019 Tooooorts Digest
1/3
RODOLFO N. REGALA,Petitioner,versus FEDERICO P.
CARIN,Respondent
FACTS:
Petitioner and respondent are adjacent neighbors. When
petitioner decided to renovate his
one storey residence by constructing a second floor, ith a
terrace atop the dividing all, heunder the guise of !erely building
an e"tension to his residence, approached respondent
so!eti!e for per!ission to bore a hole through a peri!eter all
shared by both their respective
properties, to hich respondent verbally consented on condition
that petitioner ould clean thearea affected by the or#.
$n the course of the construction of the second floor,
respondent and his ife %arietta
suffered fro! the dust and dirt hich fell on their property and
forcing hi! to, a!ong otherthings, shut so!e of the indos of his
house. As petitioner failed to address the proble!
respondent filed a letter&co!plaint ith the 'ffice of the
City (ngineer and )uilding 'fficial of
*as Pias City. +espondent related that, despite thelack of a
building permifor the construction
of a second floor, petitioner had demoli!"ed "e di#iding $all,
failed o clean "e debri!fallingtherefro!, alloed his laborers to
co!e in and out of his respondents- property ithout
per!ission by si!ply%umping o#er "e $all, and rampled on "i!
#egeable garden&and thatdespite his protestations, petitioner
persisted in proceeding ith the construction.
As no satisfactory agree!ent as reached at the last barangay
conciliation proceedingsand petitioner having continued the
construction or# despite issuance of several stop&or#
notices fro! the City (ngineers 'ffice for lac# of building
per!it, respondent filed a co!plaint
for !oral and e"e!plary da!ages against petitioner before the
+TC.
Applying Article /01 of the Civil Code on 2uasi&delicts, the
trial court ruled that
petitioner as at fault and negligent for failing to underta#e
sufficient safety !easures to preventinconvenience and da!age to
respondent to thus entitle respondent to !oral and
e"e!plaryda!ages. 'n appeal by petitioner, the Court of Appeals
affir!ed the trial court3s decision.
$SS4(:Whether respondent is entitled to %oral da!ages5
6(*7:
+(SP'87(8T $S 8'T (8T$T*(7 T' %'+A* 7A%A9(S.
$n prayers for !oral da!ages, recovery is more an exception
rather than the rule. %oral
da!ages are not !eant to be punitive but are designed to
compen!ae and alle#iaethe physical
suffering, !ental anguish, fright, serious an"iety, bes!irched
reputation, ounded feelings,
!oral shoc#, social hu!iliation, and si!ilar har! unjustly
caused to a person. To be entitled to
such an aard, the clai!ant !ust !ai!facoril' pro#e "a "e "a!
!uffered damage! and that
the injury causing it has sprung fro! any of the cases listed in
Aricle! (()* and (((+ of "e
Ci#il Code. %oreover, the da!ages !ust be shon to be the proimae
re!ul of a rongful act
