Scribd
Upload
444 views2 pages

Carpio Vs Valmonte

This case involves a dispute between Leonora Valmonte, a wedding coordinator, and Soledad Carpio, the aunt of the bride. Carpio accused Valmonte of stealing jewelry from the hotel suite where the wedding party was staying. Carpio verbally assaulted Valmonte in front of many people and had her bag searched, but nothing was found. Valmonte filed a suit for damages against Carpio. The court ruled in favor of Valmonte, finding that Carpio's verbal assault was done with malice and without proof, damaging Valmonte's reputation. The court also established that one cannot exercise their legal rights in a way that intentionally prejudices or injures another person.

Uploaded by

Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
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
444 views2 pages

Carpio Vs Valmonte

This case involves a dispute between Leonora Valmonte, a wedding coordinator, and Soledad Carpio, the aunt of the bride. Carpio accused Valmonte of stealing jewelry from the hotel suite where the wedding party was staying. Carpio verbally assaulted Valmonte in front of many people and had her bag searched, but nothing was found. Valmonte filed a suit for damages against Carpio. The court ruled in favor of Valmonte, finding that Carpio's verbal assault was done with malice and without proof, damaging Valmonte's reputation. The court also established that one cannot exercise their legal rights in a way that intentionally prejudices or injures another person.

Uploaded by

Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
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

CARPIO vs.

VALMONTE
G. R. No. 151866 September 9, 2004
FACTS:
Respondent Leonora Valmonte is a wedding coordinator. Michelle del Rosario and
Jon Sierra engaged her services for their church wedding on 10 October 1996. At
about 4:30 p.m. on that day, Valmonte went to the Manila Hotel where the bride and
her family were billeted. When she arrived at Suite 326-A, several persons were
already there. Among those present was petitioner Soledad Carpio, an aunt of the
bride. After reporting to the bride, Valmonte went out of the suite carrying the items
needed for the wedding rites and the gifts from the principal sponsors. After
attending to her duties, she went back to the suite and upon entering, Valmonte
notice the people staring at her. It was at this juncture that the petitioner allegedly
uttered the following words to Valmonte: Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto, nasaan
ang dala mong bag? Saan ka pumunta? Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto, ikaw ang
kumuha. Petitioner then ordered to search Valmontes bag. It turned out that after
Valmonte left the room to attend to her duties, petitioner discovered that the pieces
of jewelry ( 2 diamond rings, 1 set of diamond earrings, bracelet, and necklace with
a total value of about one million pesos) which she placed inside the comfort room
in a paper bag were lost. During all the time Valmonte was being interrogated by
the police officers, petitioner kept on saying the words Siya lang ang lumabas ng
kwarto. Valmontes car was also search but the search yielded nothing. On
February 1997, Valmonte filed a suit against the petitioner for the damages against
her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellate court erred in awarding moral damages for finding that
the petitioner slander the respondents good name and reputation
HELD:
No. Petitioners verbal assault was done with malice and in bad faith since it was
made in the presence of many people without solid proof except petitioners
suspicion. Petitioners testimony was shorn of substance and consists mainly of
denials. Well-settled is the rule that denials, if substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, are negative and self-serving which merit no weight in law and cannot be
given greater evidentiary value over testimony of credible witnesses who testify on
affirmative matters.
One is not allowed to exercise his right in a manner which would cause unnecessary
prejudice to another or if he would thereby offend morals or good morals and good
customs.

To find the existence of an abuse of right, the following elements must be present:
(1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole
intent of prejudicing or injuring another.

You might also like