Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 292 views

    Cebu Country Club, Inc. vs. Elizagaque

    Uploaded by

    jane
    Cebu Country Club, Inc. vs. Elizagaque concerned a proprietary membership application that was initially approved but later disapproved by the Board of Directors. The respondent filed a complaint for damages which was ruled in his favor by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court also found the petitioners liable for damages, ruling that disapproving the application violated rules of human relations and was done in evident bad faith and contrary to morals. The exercise of rights must be in accordance with proper norms, and arbitrarily or unjustly exercising rights that damage others is a legal wrong for which one is responsible.

    Copyright:

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

    Cebu Country Club, Inc. vs. Elizagaque

    Uploaded by

    jane
    292 views2 pages
    Cebu Country Club, Inc. vs. Elizagaque concerned a proprietary membership application that was initially approved but later disapproved by the Board of Directors. The respondent filed a complaint for damages which was ruled in his favor by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court also found the petitioners liable for damages, ruling that disapproving the application violated rules of human relations and was done in evident bad faith and contrary to morals. The exercise of rights must be in accordance with proper norms, and arbitrarily or unjustly exercising rights that damage others is a legal wrong for which one is responsible.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cebu Country Club, Inc. vs. Elizagaque concerned a proprietary membership application that was initially approved but later disapproved by the Board of Directors. The respondent filed a complaint for damages which was ruled in his favor by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court also found the petitioners liable for damages, ruling that disapproving the application violated rules of human relations and was done in evident bad faith and contrary to morals. The exercise of rights must be in accordance with proper norms, and arbitrarily or unjustly exercising rights that damage others is a legal wrong for which one is responsible.

    Copyright:

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

    Cebu Country Club, Inc. vs. Elizagaque

    Uploaded by

    jane
    Cebu Country Club, Inc. vs. Elizagaque concerned a proprietary membership application that was initially approved but later disapproved by the Board of Directors. The respondent filed a complaint for damages which was ruled in his favor by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court also found the petitioners liable for damages, ruling that disapproving the application violated rules of human relations and was done in evident bad faith and contrary to morals. The exercise of rights must be in accordance with proper norms, and arbitrarily or unjustly exercising rights that damage others is a legal wrong for which one is responsible.

    Copyright:

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

    Cebu Country Club, Inc. vs.

    Elizagaque
    G.R. 160273 January 18, 2008
    Sandoval-Gutierrez, J

    Facts:
    Cebu Country Club, Inc. (CCCI), petitioner, is a domestic corporation operating as
    a non-profit and non-stock private membership club, having its principal place of
    business in Banilad, Cebu City.

    In 1996, respondent filed with CCCI an application for proprietary membership.


    The application was indorsed by CCCI’s two (2) proprietary members, namely:
    Edmundo T. Misa and Silvano Ludo.

    As the price of a proprietary share was around the P5 million range, Benito
    Unchuan, then president of CCCI, offered to sell respondent a share for only P3.5
    million. Respondent, however, purchased the share of a certain Dr. Butalid for
    only P3 million. Consequently, on September 6, 1996, CCCI issued Proprietary
    Ownership Certificate No. 1446 to respondent.

    During the meetings dated April 4, 1997 and May 30, 1997 of the CCCI Board of
    Directors, action on respondent’s application for proprietary membership was
    deferred. In another Board meeting held on July 30, 1997, respondent’s
    application was voted upon. Subsequently, or on August 1, 1997, respondent
    received a letter from Julius Z. Neri, CCCI’s corporate secretary, informing him
    that the Board disapproved his application for proprietary membership.

    On August 6, 1997, Edmundo T. Misa, on behalf of respondent, wrote CCCI a


    letter of reconsideration. As CCCI did not answer, respondent, on October 7,
    1997, wrote another letter of reconsideration. Still, CCCI kept silent. On
    November 5, 1997, respondent again sent CCCI a letter inquiring whether any
    member of the Board objected to his application. Again, CCCI did not reply.
    Respondents filed with the RTC a complaint for damages against the petitioners;
    judgment was rendered in favor to respondents and was affirmed by the Court of
    Appeals with modifications.

    The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. It was denied by the appellant
    court for lack of merit.

    Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are liable for damages in disapproving
    respondent’s application for proprietary membership.

    Ruling: Yes.
    In rejecting the respondent’s application for proprietary membership, the
    court find that the petitioners violated the rules governing human relations, the
    basic principles to be observed for the rightful relationship between human
    beings and for the stability of social order. The RTC and the CA aptly held that
    petitioners committed fraud and evidently bad faith in disapproving respondent’s
    applications. This is contrary to morals, good custom or public policy. Hence,
    petitioners are liable for damages pursuant to Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of
    the same code.

    The exercise of a right, though legal by itself, must nonetheless be in accordance


    with the proper norm. When the right is exercised arbitrarily, unjustly or
    excessively and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for
    which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. It bears reiterating that the trial
    court and the Court of Appeals held that petitioners’ disapproval of respondent’s
    application is characterized by bad faith.
    As to petitioners’ reliance on the principle of damnum absque injuria or damage
    without injury, suffice it to state that the same is misplaced. In Amonoy v.
    Gutierrez, we held that this principle does not apply when there is an abuse of a
    person’s right, as in this case.

    You might also like