SERGIO AMONOY, petitioner Vs Spouses JOSE GUTIERREZ and ANGELA FORNIDA,

respondents

Doctrine:
Damages can be claimed whenever there is abuse of right or exercise of a suspended or

extinguished right.
Facts:
On May 30, 1986, the petitioner commenced the demolition of the respondent’s house under the
authority of a Writ of Demolition issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). However, records
show that a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued by the Supreme Court (SC) on June
2 , 1986 enjoining the demolition. It was also found out that the copy of the said TRO was also
served to the petitioner on June 4, 1986. But the petitioner did not heed to the TRO and
continued the demolition until mid of 1987.

In this case, the petitioner was contending that the damages claimed by the respondent are not
valid because he is just exercising his right.

Issue:
Whether or not the contention of the petitioner is correct.

Held:
No, the petitioner’s contention is not correct.

Damnum absque injuria is theprinciple that damage resulting from legitimate exercise of a
person’s right is a loss without injury for which the law gives no remedy.
However, in the case at bar, the principle of damnum absque injuria cannot be applied because
he abuses his right and exercise his suspended and extinguished right to demolish the
respondent’s house.
Hence, petitioner is liable for the damages incurred in his abusive exercise of a suspended right.