Carpio v. Valmonte, G.R. No. 151866, Sept. 09, 2004

FACTS: Respondent Leonora Valmonte is a wedding coordinator. On October 10, 1996, about 4:30 p.m. Valmonte went to the Manila Hotel where the bride and her family were billeted.  When she arrived at room several persons were already there including petitioner Soledad Carpio, an aunt of the bride who was preparing to dress up for the occasion. After reporting to the bride, Valmonte went out of the suite carrying the items needed for the wedding rites and the gifts from the principal sponsors.   She proceeded to the Maynila Restaurant where the reception was to be held.  When she went back to the suite, Valmonte noticed the people staring at her.  Carpio uttered the following words to her: “Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto, nasaan ang dala mong bag? Saan ka pumunta? Ikaw lang and lumabas ng kwarto, ikaw ang kumuha.” Petitioner then ordered one of the ladies to search Valmonte’s bag.  It turned out that after Valmonte left the room to attend to her duties, petitioner discovered that the pieces of jewelry which she placed inside the comfort room in a paper bag were lost.  The jewelry pieces consist of 2 diamond rings, 1 set of diamond earrings, bracelet and necklace with a total value of about one million pesos. The hotel security was called in to help in the search.  The bags and personal belongings of all the people inside the room were searched.  Valmonte was allegedly bodily searched, interrogated and trailed by a security guard throughout the evening.  Later, police officers arrived and interviewed all persons who had access to the suite and fingerprinted them including Valmonte. During all the time Valmonte was being interrogated by the police officers, petitioner kept on saying the words “Siya lang ang lumabas ng kwarto.” Valmonte’s car which was parked at the hotel premises was also searched but the search yielded nothing.

ISSUE: W/N Valmonte could recover damages from petitioner

HELD: By openly accusing respondent as the only person who went out of the room before the loss of the jewelry in the presence of all the guests therein, and ordering that she be immediately bodily searched, petitioner virtually branded respondent as the thief.  True, petitioner had the right to ascertain the identity of the malefactor, but to malign respondent without an iota of proof that she was the one who actually stole the jewelry is an act which, by any standard or principle of law is impermissible. Petitioner had willfully caused injury to respondent in a manner which is contrary to morals and good customs.  Her firmness and resolve to find her missing jewelry cannot justify her acts toward respondent.  She did not act with justice and good faith for apparently, she had no other purpose in mind but to prejudice respondent.  Certainly, petitioner transgressed the provisions of Article 19 in relation to Article 21 for which she should be held accountable. Considering her social standing and profession which involves gaining trust of her clients, she is entitled for moral damages. Valmonte was awarded with 100,000.