Case Brief: Concepcion V CA

Case Brief: Concepcion v CA
NOVEMBER 17, 2013 JEFF REY

G.R. No. 120706 January 31, 2000
RODRIGO CONCEPCION, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. NESTOR NICOLAS and
ALLEM NICOLAS, respondents.
Facts:
Nestor Nicolas and Allem Nicolas, the respondents,
resided in an apartment leased to them by the owner
thereof, Florence “Bing”Concepcion”. The Nicolas spouses
were engaged in business of supplying office equipment
appliances and other fixtures, and Florence Concepcion
joined this venture by contributing capital to the business
and sharing with the earned profit thereafter.
Sometime in the second week of July 1985, petitioner
Rodrigo Concepcion, brother of the deceased husband of
Florence, angrily accosted Nestor at his apartment and
accused him of conducting an adulterous relationship
with Florence. To clarify matters, Nestor went with
Rodrigo to see some members of Conception family to
clarify everything, but the family members including
Florence denied knowledge of such affair. Thereafter,
however, Rodrigo called Florence over the phone
reiterating his accusation and gave some death threats to
her.
As a result of the incident, Nestor Nicolas felt extreme
embarrassment and shame. Florence Concepcion also
ceased to do business with him by not contributing
capital anymore so much so that the business venture of
the Nicolas spouses declined. Additionally, Allem Nicolas
started to doubt Nestor’s fidelity. As such, petitioned
Rodrigo to express a public apology and pay the
damages. Rodrigo ignored the demand, which caused the
Nicolas spouses to file a civil suit against him for
damages.
Issues:
1. Whether there is basis to review the facts which are of

weight and influence by which were overlooked and
misapplied by the respondent appellate court.
2. Whether there is basis in law for the award of damages

to private respondents, the Nicolas spouses.
REPORT THIS AD
Held:
1. Yes.
Originally, petitioner alleged that certain facts and

circumstances of the case were manifestly overlooked by
respondent court on the grounds that the trial judge who
penned the decision was in no position to observe first-
hand the demeanor of the witnesses of respondent
spouses as he was not the original judge who heard the
case.
The Supreme Court contends that petitioner did not give
any sufficient reason to engender doubt as to the factual
findings of the court. The fact that the case was handled
by different judges brooks no consideration at all. The
Supreme Court accords the highest respect to the
evaluation made by the lower court of the testimonies of
the witnesses presented before it, and that it can be fairly
assumed under the performance of duties of public
officers that the transcripts of stenographic notes were
thoroughly scrutinized and evaluated by the judge
himself.
2. Yes.
Petitioner originally claimed that the lower courts were

without legal basis to justify its verdict as it does not fall
under Arts. 26 and 2219 of Civil Code since it does not
constitute libel, slander, or any other form of defamation,
nor involve prying into privacy of another’s residence or
meddling with or disturbing the private life or family
relation of another.
The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner’s contention
that no legal provision supports such award for damages.
It is understandable that the incident charged of
petitioner was no less than an invasion of right of the
respondent, Nestor, as a person. Under this article, the
rights of persons are protected, and damages are
provided for violations thereof. The violations mentioned
in the codal provisions are not exclusive but are merely
examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous
acts. Due to the incident, respondent Nestor Nicolas
suffered mental anguish, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings and social humiliation as a proximate
result of petitioner’s abusive, scandalous and insulting
language. As such, the Supreme Court held that the
incident clearly falls under the aforementioned articles
and the person who violated those rights should be liable
of the damages.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, the

assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the
judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Br.
167, holding Rodrigo Concepcion liable to the spouses
Nestor Nicolas and Allem Nicolas for F50,000.00 as moral
damages, P25,000.00 for exemplary damages,
P10,000.00 for attorney’s fees, plus costs of suit, is
AFFIRMED.

Case Brief: Concepcion V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Brief: Concepcion V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Brief: Concepcion V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Brief: Concepcion v CA

NOVEMBER 17, 2013 JEFF REY

1. Whether there is basis to review the facts which are of

2. Whether there is basis in law for the award of damages

Originally, petitioner alleged that certain facts and

Petitioner originally claimed that the lower courts were

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, the

You might also like