November 14, 1984
Ponente: Aquino, J.
FACTS:
·
On December 15, 1968, St. Louis Realty caused
to be published in the Sunday Times an advertisement for property development
Brookside Hills with the heading "Where the Heart Is." The ad showed
the Arcadio family with their alleged house. In publishing said print ad, the
company secured the permission of Arcadio S. Arcadio. But as it turned out, the
house in the ad was not the Arcadio's, but was in fact owned by Dr. Conrado J.
Aramil. Both the Arcadios and Aramils reside in Brookside Hills. The same ad
appeared again in the Sunday Times on January 5, 1969.
·
Dr. Aramil, a neuropsychiatrist and a member
of the faculty of the U. E. Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Hospital, noticed the
mistake. He sent a letter to St. Louis Realty to complain about the
unauthorized use of his property in the subject ad. He demanded an explanation
from the company, which in turn contacted him to apologize. The publication of
the advertisement was stopped, but no rectification or apology was published.
·
On February 20, 1969, Aramil's counsel
demanded from St. Louis Realty actual, moral and exemplary damages of P110,000.
In its answer dated March 10, St. Louis Realty claimed that there was an honest
mistake and that if Aramil so desired, rectification would be published in the
Manila Times. On March 18, 1969, a new advertisement with the Arcadio family
and their real house was published, but the company did not publish any apology
to Dr. Aramil and an explanation of the error.
·
A month later, Aramil filed his complaint for
damages. It was only upon filing of this complaint when St. Louis Realty
published a notice of rectification.
·
Dr. Aramil's argument: Persons who know the
residence of Dr. Aramil, were confused by the distorted, lingering impression
that he was renting his residence from Arcadio or that Arcadio had leased it
from him. In his letter to the company, he wrote: "I believe [the
publication of the ad did] not only [cause] transgression to my private
property, but [was] also damaging to my prestige in the medical profession. I
have had invited in several occasions numerous medical colleagues, medical
students and friends to my house and after reading your December 15
advertisement some of them have uttered some remarks purporting doubts as to my
professional and personal integrity. Such sly remarks although in light vein as
'it looks like your house,' 'how much are you renting from the Arcadios?',
'like your wife portrayed in the papers as belonging to another husband,' etc.,
have resulted in no little mental anguish on my part."
·
The trial court ruled in favor of Dr. Aramil.
The court held that St. Louis Realty should have immediately published a
rectification and apology. The judge also found that as a result of St. Louis
Realty's mistake, magnified by its utter lack of sincerity, Dr. Aramil suffered
mental anguish and his income was reduced by about P1,000 to P1,500 a month.
Moreover, there was violation of Aramil's right to privacy (Art. 26, Civil
Code). As such, The trial court awarded Aramil P8,000 as actual damages,
P20,000 as moral damages and P2,000 as attorney's fees.
·
CA sustained the trial court's findings. It
reasoned that St. Louis Realty committed an actionable quasi-delict under
articles 21 and 26 of the Civil Code because the questioned advertisements
pictured a beautiful house which did not belong to Arcadio but to Doctor Aramil
who, naturally, was annoyed by that contretemps. Hence, this appeal.
RULING:
Whether
St. Louis Realty's erroneous ad is covered by Art. 26 of the Civil Code. – YES.
·
Contrary to St. Louis Realty's claim that the
CA ignored certain facts and resorted to surmises and conjectures, the Court
held that the CA merely adopted the facts as found by the trial court. Said
facts shall also be binding on the SC.
·
"Prying into the privacy of another's
residence" and "meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another" and "similar acts", "though
they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention and other relief."
·
St. Louis Realty's employee was grossly
negligent in mixing up the Aramil and Arcadio residences in a widely circulated
publication like the Sunday Times. To suit its purpose, it never made any
written apology and explanation of the mix-up. It just contented itself with a
cavalier "rectification."
·
Persons, who know the residence of Doctor
Aramil, were confused by the distorted, lingering impression that he was
renting his residence from Arcadio or that Arcadio had leased it from him.
Either way, his private life was mistakenly and unnecessarily exposed. He
suffered diminution of income and mental anguish.