Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 530 views

    Sesbreno V. Court of Appeals Facts

    Uploaded by

    Regina
    1) The VOC team inspected Sesbreño's electric meter and found it had been turned upside down. They removed the old meter and replaced it with a new one. 2) Sesbreño claimed the inspection was done without his permission and over the objections of his maids. He argued it was an unreasonable search. 3) The Court ruled the VOC team had authority under the contract to inspect meters at reasonable hours without liability for trespass. It was not an unlawful search under the constitution. 4) The Court also found Sesbreño did not prove abuse of rights by the VOC team, which requires bad faith and intent to prejudice, as the inspection was routine and confined to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sesbreno V. Court of Appeals Facts

    Uploaded by

    Regina
    530 views2 pages
    1) The VOC team inspected Sesbreño's electric meter and found it had been turned upside down. They removed the old meter and replaced it with a new one. 2) Sesbreño claimed the inspection was done without his permission and over the objections of his maids. He argued it was an unreasonable search. 3) The Court ruled the VOC team had authority under the contract to inspect meters at reasonable hours without liability for trespass. It was not an unlawful search under the constitution. 4) The Court also found Sesbreño did not prove abuse of rights by the VOC team, which requires bad faith and intent to prejudice, as the inspection was routine and confined to

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    SESBRENO v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The VOC team inspected Sesbreño's electric meter and found it had been turned upside down. They removed the old meter and replaced it with a new one. 2) Sesbreño claimed the inspection was done without his permission and over the objections of his maids. He argued it was an unreasonable search. 3) The Court ruled the VOC team had authority under the contract to inspect meters at reasonable hours without liability for trespass. It was not an unlawful search under the constitution. 4) The Court also found Sesbreño did not prove abuse of rights by the VOC team, which requires bad faith and intent to prejudice, as the inspection was routine and confined to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    530 views2 pages

    Sesbreno V. Court of Appeals Facts

    Uploaded by

    Regina
    1) The VOC team inspected Sesbreño's electric meter and found it had been turned upside down. They removed the old meter and replaced it with a new one. 2) Sesbreño claimed the inspection was done without his permission and over the objections of his maids. He argued it was an unreasonable search. 3) The Court ruled the VOC team had authority under the contract to inspect meters at reasonable hours without liability for trespass. It was not an unlawful search under the constitution. 4) The Court also found Sesbreño did not prove abuse of rights by the VOC team, which requires bad faith and intent to prejudice, as the inspection was routine and confined to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    SESBRENO v.

    COURT OF APPEALS

    FACTS:

    May 1989 the Violation of Contracts (VOC) Team of defendants-appellees Constantino and Arcilla and their PC
    escort, Balicha, conducted a routine inspection of the houses at La Paloma Village, Labangon, Cebu City, including that
    of plaintiff-appellant Sesbreño, for illegal connections, meter tampering, seals, conduit pipes, jumpers, wiring
    connections, and meter installations.

    They inspected the electric meter and found that it had been turned upside down. Defendant-appellant Arcilla
    took photographs of the upturned electric meter. With Chuchie Garcia, Peter Sesbreño and one of the maids present, they
    removed said meter and replaced it with a new one.

    Plaintiff-appellant Sesbreño was in his office and no one called to inform him of the inspection. The VOC Team
    then asked for and received Chuchie Garcia’s permission to enter the house itself to examine the kind and number of
    appliances and light fixtures in the household and determine its electrical load.

    But according to plaintiff-appellant Sesbreño there was nothing routine or proper at all with what the VOC Team
    did on May 11, 1989 in his house. Their entry to his house and the surrounding premises was effected without his
    permission and over the objections of his maids. They threatened, forced or coerced their way into his house. They
    unscrewed the electric meter, turned it upside down and took photographs thereof. He found that some of his personal
    effects were missing, apparently stolen by the VOC Team when they searched the house.

    RTC- complaint dismissed due to inconsistencies in the testimonies.

    CA- RTC affirmed.

    In petition, Sesbreno’s main contention was that the inspection of his residence by the VOC team was
    unreasonable search for being carried out without a warrant and for being allegedly done with malice or bad faith.

    Respondents on the other hand, asserts that the VOC team had the continuing authority from Sesbreno as
    consumer, to enter his premises at all reasonable hours to conduct inspection of the meter without being liable for
    trespass to dwelling.

    ISSUE:

    Was Sesbreño entitled to recover damages for abuse of rights?

    RULING:

    We do not accept Sesbreño’s conclusion. Paragraph 9 clothed the entire VOC team with unquestioned authority
    to enter the garage to inspect the meter. The members of the team obviously met the conditions imposed by paragraph 9
    for an authorized entry. Firstly, their entry had the objective of conducting the routine inspection of the meter. Secondly,
    the entry and inspection were confined to the garage where the meter was installed. Thirdly, the entry was effected at
    around 4 o’clock p.m., a reasonable hour. And, fourthly, the persons who inspected the meter were duly authorized for
    the purpose by VECO.

    The constitutional guaranty against unlawful searches and seizures is intended as a restraint against the
    Government and its agents tasked with law enforcement. It is to be invoked only to ensure freedom from arbitrary and
    unreasonable exercise of State power
    Clearly, Sesbreño did not establish his claim for damages if the respondents were not guilty of abuse of rights.
    To stress, the concept of abuse of rights prescribes that a person should not use his right unjustly or in bad faith;
    otherwise, he may be liable to another who suffers injury. The rationale for the concept is to present some basic
    principles to be followed for the rightful relationship between human beings and the stability of social order.

    Article 19 of the Civil Code23 sets the standards to be observed in the exercise of one’s rights and in the
    performance of one’s duties, namely:
    (a) to act with justice;
    (b) to give everyone his due; and
    (c) to observe honesty and good faith.

    Although the act is not illegal, liability for damages may arise should there be an abuse of rights, like when the
    act is performed without prudence or in bad faith. In order that liability may attach under the concept of abuse of rights,
    the following elements must be present, to wit:
    (a) the existence of a legal right or duty,
    (b) which is exercised in bad faith, and
    (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.

    There is no hard and fast rule that can be applied to ascertain whether or not the principle of abuse of rights is to
    be invoked. The resolution of the issue depends on the circumstances of each case.

    The RTC and the CA unanimously found the testimonies of Sesbreño’s witnesses implausible because of
    inconsistencies on material points. Considering that such findings related to the credibility of the witnesses and their
    testimonies, the Court cannot review and undo them now because it is not a trier of facts, and is not also tasked to
    analyze or weigh evidence all over again.

    You might also like