SOLEDAD CARPIO V. LEONORA VALMONTE GR No. 151866 September 9, 2004FACTS:Responde nt Leonora Valmonte is a wedding coordinator.

Michelle del Rosarioand Jon Sierra engaged her services for their church weddinng on October 10, 1996. Atabout 430 pm on that day, Valmonte went to the Manila Hotel and when she arrived atSuite 326-A, several persons were already there including Soledad Carpio, the aunt of thebride.After reporting to the bride, Valmonte went out of the suite to go to t he receptionhall to give the meal allowance to the band and to pay the suppliers . Upon entering thesuite, Valmonte noticed the people staring at her and it was at this juncture that SoledadCarpio allegedly uttered the following words to Val monte: " Ikaw lang ang lumabas ngkwarto, nasaan ang dala mong bag? Saan ka pumun ta? Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto,ikaw ang kumuha." It turned out that after V almonte left the room to attend to her duties,petitioner discovered that the pie ces of jewelry which she placed inside the comfort roomin a paper bag were lost and these include diamond rings, earrings, bracelet and diamongnecklace with a t otal value of about 1M pesos. Valmonte was allegedly bodily searched,interrogate d and trailed by the police officers, but the petitioner kept on saying the word s" Siya lang ang lumabas ng kwarto ". Valmonte's car was also searched but the s earchyielded nothing.Few days after the incident, petitioner received a letter f rom Valmonte demandinga formal letter of apology which she wanted to be circulat ed to the newlyweds' relativesand guests to redeem her smeared reputation but th e petitioner did not respond. Valmontefiled a suit for damages.The trial court d ismissed the complaint and ruled that when sought investigationfor the loss of h er jewelry, she was merely exercising her right and if damage results froma pers on exercising his legal right, it is damnum absque injuria. It added that no pro of was presented by Valmonte to show that petitioner acted maliciously and in ba d faith inpointing to her as the culprit.The CA ruled out differently and opined that Valmonte has clearly establishedthat she was singled out by the petitioner as the one responsible for the loss of her jewelry. However, the court find no sufficient evidence to justify the award of actualdamages.Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is entitled to the award of actual and mor aldamagesHELD: The Court ruled that the respondent in entitled to moral damages but not to actualdamages.In the sphere of our law on human relations, one of the fundamental precepts isthe principle known as " abuse of rights " under Article 19 of the Civil Code. To findexistence of an abuse of right, the following elem ents must be present: 1) there is legalright or duty; 2) which is exercised in b ad faith; 3) for the sole intent or prejudicing or injuring another. Thus, a per son should be protected only when he acts in the legitimateexercise of his right , that is when he acts with prudence and good faith; but not when heacts with ne gligence or abuse.The Court said that petitioner's verbal reproach against respo ndent was certainlyuncalled for considering that by her own account nobody knew that she brought suchkind and amount of jewelry inside the paper bag. This being the case, she had no right toattack respondent with her innuendos which were no t merely inquisitve but outrightlyaccusatory. By openly accusing respondent as t he only person who went out of the roombefore the loss of the jewelry in the pre sence of all the guests therein, and ordering thatshe be immediately bodily sear ched, petitioner virtually branded respondent as the thief.Petitioner had willfu lly caused injury to respondent in a manner which is contrary tomorals and good customs. Certainly, petitioner transgressed the provisions of Article 19in relat ion to Article 20 for which she should be held accountable.