Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Tenth Judicial Region
Branch ___ Misamis Oriental

EENTOR N. SALVAR, ERA Civil Action No. _____

SALVAR, ANTE L. SALVAR,
EGAN L. SALVAR, ONALD L. For: Damages
SALVAR, and ERIE SALVAR,
Plaintiffs,

- versus -

ELMER RESPONDE,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiffs, by undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Court most

respectfully states:

I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT

Honeste vivere, non alterum laedere et jus suum

cuique tribuere. To live virtuously, not to injure others
and to give everyone his due. These supreme norms of
justice are the underlying principles of law and order in
society. 1

II
NATURE AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

1. This is a Complaint for Damages against defendant Elmer

Responde who willfully acted in bad faith, deliberately abused his rights,
intending to and resulting in damages to the plaintiffs, and are thereby
responsible and liable under Article 20 and 21 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.

1
Uypitching v. Quiamco, G.R. No. 146322, 06 December 2006.
Complaint for Damages
Page 2 of 12

2. This Complaint is well within the reglementary period within

which to file the complaint for damages as prescribed in the Rules of Court. The
corresponding docket and other lawful fees and deposit for costs are paid
simultaneously with the filing of this Complaint.

III
THE PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Entor N. Salvar is of legal age, Filipino, married, a

resident of Poblacion, Municipality of Tsada, Province of Misamis Oriental and
was the former Mayor of Tsada, Misamis Oriental, and may be served with
notices and other processes of this Honorable Court through the undersigned
counsel with postal address herein below indicated;

4. Plaintiff Era Salvar is of legal age, Filipino, married, a resident of

Poblacion, Municipality of Tsada, Province of Misamis Oriental and is the
incumbent Mayor of Tsada, Misamis Oriental, and may be served with notices
and other processes of this Honorable Court through the undersigned counsel
with postal address herein below indicated;

5. Plaintiff Ante L. Salvar is of legal age, Filipino, married, a

resident of Poblacion, Municipality of Tsada, Province of Misamis Oriental and
is a medical doctor by profession and the incumbent Vice-Mayor of Tsada,
Misamis Oriental, and may be served with notices and other processes of this
Honorable Court through the undersigned counsel with postal address herein
below indicated;

6. Plaintiffs Egan L. Salvar, Erie Salvar, and Onald L. Salvar are

children of plaintiff Entor Salvaleon and siblings of plaintiffs Era Salvar and Dr.
Ante L. Salvar, of legal ages, Filipinos, residents of Poblacion, Municipality of
Tsada, Province of Misamis Oriental and is the incumbent Mayor of Tsada,
Misamis Oriental, and may be served with notices and other processes of this
Honorable Court through the undersigned counsel with postal address herein
below indicated;

7. Defendant Elmer Responde is of legal age, Filipino, married, a

resident of Poblacion, Municipality of Tsada, Province of Misamis Oriental
where he may be served with notices and other processes of this Honorable
Court.
Complaint for Damages
Page 3 of 12

IV
STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. Defendant Elmer Responde wrote a Letter dated 04 June 2018 to

Secretary Eduardo Año of the Department of Interior and Local Government
relative to the alleged anomalous acts of plaintiff Entor Salvar. He alleged,
among others, (1) that plaintiff Entor Salvar, through a municipal resolution,
was authorized to purchase a property for the purpose of constructing a new
municipal building, but plaintiff Entor Salvar also personally purchased the
remaining 3.3 hectares and divided among his children, which, according to the
malicious mind of defendant Elmer Responde, is a show of conflict of interest;
(2) that plaintiff Entor Salvar managed the construction of the municipal
building instead of the contractor named Allan Peter C. Aetano; (3) that the
supplier of the building materials was plaintiff Erie Salvar; (4) that plaintiff
Entor Salvar has a one-hectare plantation of marijuana located in Brgy.
Malagana, Tsada, Misamis Oriental; and that the younger brothers of incumbent
Mayor Era Salvar and Vice-Mayor Ante Salvar are both TOKHANG
surrenderer because both of them are on the PDEA hit list, but still illegal drug
activities are rampant in the municipality.

A copy of the Letter dated 04 June 2018 is attached as Annex “A” and
made an integral part of this Complaint.

9. On 20 June 2018, Police Senior Superintendent Ronaldo Bato,

Acting SPA to the SILG, issued a Memorandum for RD, PRO 10 re the letter
from defendant Elmer Responde relative to the alleged anomalous acts of local
officials of the town, which includes plaintiffs Mayor Era Salvar and Vice
Mayor Ante Salvar as well as plaintiff former Mayor Entor Salvar.

A copy of the Memorandum dated 20 June 2018 is attached as Annex

“B” and made an integral part of this Complaint.

10. On 15 July 2018, the Acting Chief of Police Bong Go of Tsada

Police Station submitted to the Acting Provincial Director of the Philippine
National Police an Investigation report re alleged anomalous acts of plaintiff
Entor Salvar.

A copy of the Investigation Report dated 15 July 2018 is attached as

Annex “A” and made an integral part of this Complaint.

11. In the investigation report, SPO4 Harry D. Rock, Duty

Investigator, verified the report of defendant Elmer Responde of the alleged raid
conducted by the PDEA in 2013 in the marijuana plantation of plaintiff Entor
Complaint for Damages
Page 4 of 12

Salvar. The Investigator found that “there was neither . . . similar incident
recorded the blotter nor any knowledge from personnel assigned in this office in
the mentioned year as described by [defendant] Responde.” The Investigator
noted that plaintiff Entor Salvar has been a successful farmer even before he
was elected Mayor in the Municipality of Tsada, Misamis Oriental.

12. The Investigator also belied the report of defendant Responte that
both Onald Salvar and Egan Salvar were TOKHANG surrenderer, but pointed
out that they only heeded the plea and surrendered to the office for
BIOGRAPHICAL PROFILING; and that Onald Salvar completed the 90 day
CBRTP facilitated by the LGU on 02 May 2017 while Egan Salvar attended the
rehabilitation in PATH WAY, Cagayan de Oro City.

13. The Investigator further noted Onald Salvar and Egan Salvar were
monitored by the Police which received no information that the two siblings are
once involved in any drug activities.

14. The Investigator also reported that out of the 24 barangays of the
Municipality of Tsada, Misamis Oriental, two (2) of which were categorized as
Unaffected, while five (5) barangays were recently declared as Drug Cleared in
2017, and seven (7) barangays were endorsed by the MADAC for drug clearing
in the Office of the PDEA 10 and are subject for validation by an oversight
committee.

15. The Investigator also found that defendant Elmer Responde was a
former escort/security and avid supporter of former Mayor Joseph Estrada, who
is expected to run this coming 2019 local election for a mayoralty position.

16. The Investigator concluded that the report of defendant Elmer

Responde is groundless and “may be a scheme to tarnish the character of the
incumbent Mayor and [her] kin and a classic example of Character
assassination.”

17. Thus, plaintiffs respectfully invoke Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the
Civil Code, and prays for Damages to this Honorable Court against the
malicious, and injurious act of defendant Elmer Responde.
Complaint for Damages
Page 5 of 12

V
GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPLAINT

Defendant abused his rights under Article 19 of the Civil

Code, intending to and resulting in damages to the plaintiffs,
which is an actionable wrong under Articles 20 and 21 of the
Civil Code.

VI
DISCUSSION

18. The law, as set forth in Article 19 of the Civil Code, prescribes a
“primordial limitation on all rights” by setting certain standards that must be
observed in the exercise thereof. Thus:

Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his

rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

19. This provision of law sets standards which must be observed in the
exercise of ones rights as well as in the performance of its duties, to wit: to act
with justice; give everyone his due; and observe honesty and good faith. 2

20. The Supreme Court speaking through Justice Irene Cortes, in

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp., v. Court of Appeals,3 instructively said:

One of the more notable innovations of the New Civil

Code is the codification of “some basic principles that are to
be observed for the rightful relationship between human
beings and for the stability of the social order.” [REPORT
ON THE CODE COMMISSION ON THE PROPOSED
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, p. 39]. The framers
of the Code, seeking to remedy the defect of the old Code
which merely stated the effects of the law, but failed to draw
out its spirit, incorporated certain fundamental precepts
which were “designed to indicate certain norms that spring
from the fountain of good conscience" and which were also
meant to serve as "guides for human conduct [that] should
run as golden threads through society, to the end that law

2
Yuchengco v. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation et al., G.R. No. 184315, 28 November
2011.
3
G.R. No. 81262, 25 August 1989.
Complaint for Damages
Page 6 of 12

may approach its supreme ideal, which is the sway and

dominance of justice” (Id.) Foremost among these principles
is that pronounced in Article 19 which provides:

Art. 19. Every person must, in the

exercise of his rights and in the performance of
his duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith.

This article, known to contain what is commonly

referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain
standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of
one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties.
These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give
everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith.
The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all
rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set
forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by
itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such,
may nevertheless become the source of some illegality.
When a right is exercised in a manner which does not
conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results
in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for
which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But while
Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of
human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it
does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an
action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21
would be proper.

21. In Carpio v. Valmonte,4 which was re-echoed in the 2013 case of

California Clothing Inc., v. Quiñones,5 the Supreme Court said:

In the sphere of our law on human relations, the

victim of a wrongful act or omission, whether done willfully
or negligently, is not left without any remedy or recourse to
obtain relief for the damage or injury he sustained.
Incorporated into our civil law are not only principles of
equity but also universal moral precepts which are designed
to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of
good conscience and which are meant to serve as guides for
human conduct.

4
G.R. No. 151866, 09 September 2004.
5
G.R. No. 175822, 23 October 2013.
Complaint for Damages
Page 7 of 12

22. Thus, complementing the principle of abuse of rights are the

provisions of Articles 20 and 2 of the Civil Code which read:

Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law,

willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same.

Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or

injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals or
good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter
for the damage.

23. Article 20 speaks of the general sanctions of all other provisions of

law which do not especially provide for its own sanction. Article 21 deals with
acts contra bonus mores, or that which is contrary to morals, good custom,
public order, or public policy. 6 Thus, when a right is exercised in a manner
which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in
damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the
wrongdoer must be held responsible.

24. In Albenson Enterprises Corporation et al v. Court of Appeals,7 the

Supreme Court further elucidated:

Although the requirements of each provision [are]

different, these three (3) articles are all related to each other.
As the eminent Civilist Senator Arturo Tolentino puts it:
“With this article (Article 21), combined with articles 19 and
20, the scope of our law on civil wrongs has been very
greatly broadened; it has become much more supple and
adaptable than the Anglo-American law on torts. It is now
difficult to conceive of any malevolent exercise of a right
which could not be checked by the application of these
articles” (Tolentino, 1 Civil Code of the Philippines 72).

25. Indeed, these rules provide the legal bedrock for the award of
damages to a party who suffers damage whenever one commits an act in
violation of some legal provision, or an act which though not constituting a
transgression of positive law, nevertheless violates certain rudimentary rights of
the party aggrieved. 8

6
Albenson Enterprises Corporation et al v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88694, 11 January 1993.
7
G.R. No. 88694, 11 January 1993.
8
Carpio v. Valmonte, supra.
Complaint for Damages
Page 8 of 12

26. The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 of the Civil

Code are as follows: (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. 9

27. Under the abuse of rights principle found in Article 19 of the Civil
Code, a person must, in the exercise of legal right or duty, act in good faith. He
would be liable if he instead acted in bad faith, with intent to prejudice another.
Accordingly, the exercise of a right shall always be in accordance with the
purpose for which it has been established, and must not be excessive or unduly
harsh there must be no intention to injure another. A person will be protected
only when he acts in the legitimate exercise of his right, that is, when he acts
with prudence and in good faith, not when he acts with negligence or abuse.

28. Malice is at the core of Article 19 of the Civil Code. Malice is bad
faith or bad motive. Bad faith, as opposed to good faith, implies a conscious and
intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral
obliquity. On the other hand, good faith refers to the state of mind which is
manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention
to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of
another.10

29. In this case, all the elements of abuse of rights under Article 19 of
the Civil Code are present. Defendant Elmer Responde has a legal right or duty
to act with justice and give everyone his due, yet he willfully acted in bad faith
by maliciously prosecuting the plaintiffs – Entor Salvar and his children, Mayor
Era Salvar, Vice-Mayor Ante Salvar, Onald Salvar, Egan Salvar, and Erie Salvar
– for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring them. His acts are contrary to
law, morals, good custom, public order, or public policy, thus, under Article 20
and 21 of the Civil Code, he shall indemnify his victims, the plaintiffs, for the
damages or injuries they have suffered thereby.

30. Defendant Elmer Responde dishonestly and maliciously gave

report to the DILG and PNP against the plaintiffs, which is obviously done to
malign and tarnish the clean reputation of plaintiffs former Mayor Entor Salvar,
incumbent Mayor Era Salvar and Vice-Mayor Ante Salvar and the rest of the
family members including Onald Salvar, Egan Salvar, and Erie Salvar
especially that the next local elections is fast approaching, and so defendant
Elmer Responde intended to project negative public perception on the plaintiffs’
personal credibility and public leadership, and to cause injury or damage to the

9
California Clothing Inc., v. Quiñones, G.R. No. 175822, 23 October 2013, citing Dart Philippines,
Inc. v. Calogcog, G.R. No. 149241, 24 August 2009.
10
California Clothing Inc., v. Quiñones, supra, citing Dart Philippines, Inc. v. Calogcog, supra, and
Gonzales v. Philippine Commercial and International Bank, G.R. No. 180257, 23 February 2011.
Complaint for Damages
Page 9 of 12

plaintiffs both in their person and their service records by filing the
unsubstantiated, false, and malicious reports before the DILG and PNP for
alleged anomalous transactions and illegal drug activities of the plaintiffs.

31. In fine, defendant Elmer Responde is clearly engaged in dishonest,

malicious misinformation, which is obviously prompted by a sinister design to
vex and humiliate the plaintiffs, and that his malicious complaint before the
DILG and PNP has been initiated deliberately by defendant Elmer Responde
knowing that his charges were false and groundless. The timing of the
report/compliant which he filed in June 2018 before the DILG and PNP is
highly suspect coming as does at the time that the 2019 local election is getting
nearer. Without a doubt, his baseless report/complaint is intended to besmirch
plaintiffs’ reputation as well as muddle the possible political issues in this
coming local election.

32. Defendant Elmer Responde’s dishonest acts are willfully and

intentionally done to cause injury or damage to the plaintiffs. He acted with
malice or in bad faith. Thus, he is responsible for injuries/damages caused
against the plaintiffs. He has no right to maliciously prosecute the plaintiffs or
to outrightly accuse the plaintiffs of anomalous transactions and of illegal drug
activities which are all baseless and blatant lies. By openly accusing the
plaintiffs of illegal drug activities, defendant Elmer Responde put not only the
characters of the plaintiffs in bad light, but he actually put their lives in danger
for being exposed to TOKHANG activities, and he has willfully caused injury
to the plaintiffs in a manner which is contrary to morals and good customs. His
act, by any standard or principle of law, is impermissible. He has not acted with
justice and good faith for apparently, he has no other purpose in mind but to
prejudice the plaintiffs by trying to tarnish their family reputation considering
that the mayoralty and vice-mayoralty posts have been entrusted by the people
of Tsada, Misamis Oriental to the members of the family of the plaintiffs in the
past elections. He intends to shed bad light to the persons and public service
records of plaintiffs Entor Salvar, Era Salvar, and Ante Salvar, by attempting to
embarrass them and the entire family before the electorate of Tsada, Misamis
Oriental. Certainly, defendant Elmer Responde transgressed the provisions of
Article 19 in relation to Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code for which he
should all be held accountable.

33. For defendant Elmer Responde’s abuse of rights, the plaintiffs are
entitled to an award of moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees under
Articles 19, 20 and 21, Articles 2217 and 2219, Articles 2229 and 2231, and
Article 2208 of the Civil Code.

34. Moral damages may be awarded whenever the defendant’s

wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s physical
Complaint for Damages
Page 10 of 12

suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,

wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury in the
cases specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil
Code. By express provision of Article 2219 (10) of the Civil Code, moral
damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 of said Code.

35. In this case, considering the social standing of some of the

plaintiffs as former Mayor, Mayor, and Vice Mayor of Tsada, Misamis Oriental,
and the fact that their public servant statuses are based primarily on trust
reposed in them by their constituents, the seriousness of the imputations made
by defendant Elmer Responde has greatly tarnished their reputation and will in
one way or the other, would affect their candidacy for mayoralty and/or vice
mayoralty posts in the incoming May 2019 local election.

36. Moral damages are, thus, appropriate. The accusation of illegal

drug activities has caused the plaintiffs mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, and wounded feelings. All these are grounds for an
award of moral damages under the Civil Code.11

37. The plaintiffs are also entitled to exemplary damages. Under

Article 2229 of the Civil Code, “[e]xemplary or corrective damages are
imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.” As the Supreme Court
has stated in the past: “Exemplary damages are designed by our civil law to
permit the courts to reshape behaviour that is socially deleterious in its
consequence by creating negative incentives or deterrents against such
behaviour.”12

38. Although Article 2231 of the Civil Code provides that “[i]n quasi-
delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross
negligence,” the Supreme Court, in Zulueta v. Pan American World Airways,
Inc.,13 ruled that if gross negligence warrants the award of exemplary damages,
with more reason is its imposition justified when the act performed is
deliberate, malicious and tainted with bad faith. Indeed, the nature of the
wrongful acts shown to have been committed by defendant Elmer Responde
against the plaintiffs is sufficient basis to award them of exemplary damages.

39. Finally, considering that the plaintiffs were compelled to litigate to

protect their interest, an award of attorney’s fees is likewise just and proper.

11
Civil Code, Article 2217.
12
Mecenas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88052, 14 December 1989.
13
G.R. No. L- 28589, 08 January 1973, cited in Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp., v. Court of
Appeals, supra.
Complaint for Damages
Page 11 of 12

Article 2208 of the Civil Code enumerates the instances when attorney’s fees
can be awarded:

Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s

fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs,
cannot be recovered, except:

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

(2) When the defendant’s act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with
third persons or to incur expenses to
protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious
prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil
action or proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and
evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the
plaintiff’s plainly valid, just and
demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of
household helpers, laborers and skilled
workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under
workmen’s compensation and employer’s
liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil
liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are
awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems
it just and equitable that attorney’s fees
and expenses of litigation should be
recovered.

In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of

litigation must be reasonable.

40. This case qualifies for the first and eleventh reasons why attorney’s
fees are awarded under the Civil Code.

41. In sum, it pays to reiterate: The basic principle of human relations,

embodied in Article 19 of the Civil Code, provides: “Every person must in the
exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.” It seeks to preclude the
Complaint for Damages
Page 12 of 12

use of, or the tendency to use, a legal right (or duty) as a means to unjust ends.
The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was
established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no
intention to harm another. Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured party
will attach. This case shall be a reminder for everyone that abuse of right,
which undermines principles of law and order in society, is not countenanced,
instead, is corrected.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that:

1. The instant Complaint be given due course; and

2. After notice and trial, defendant Elmer Responde be hereby ordered to

pay the plaintiffs:

a. Moral damages in the reasonable amount of One Million Pesos

(P1,000,000.00);
b. Exemplary damages in the reasonable amount of Five Hundred
Thousand pesos (P500,000.00); and,
c. Attorney’s fees in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P300,000.00).

Other forms of relief in law and equity are similarly invoked.

Respectfully submitted.