Ong Chiu Kwan vs. Court of Appeals

A regional trial court decision that merely quotes the municipal trial court decision in full and affirms it in toto is a nullity for failing to clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based. On the merits, cutting off another's electric, water, and telephone lines without a permit and during peak business hours constitutes unjust vexation.

Mildred Ong owned and operated "Crazy Feet," a business establishment whose utility lines crossed Ong Chiu Kwan's property line. The legal backdrop includes Article 287, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code on unjust vexation and the constitutional requirement that every court decision clearly and distinctly express the facts and the law on which it is based.

Mildred Ong ran "Crazy Feet," a business establishment whose electric, water, and telephone lines crossed Ong Chiu Kwan's property line. At around 10:00 in the morning of April 24, 1990, Ong Chiu Kwan ordered Wilfredo Infante to "relocate" the telephone, electric, and water lines of "Crazy Feet" because the lines posed a disturbance. Ong Chiu Kwan did not present a permit from the appropriate authorities allowing him to cut the electric wires, water pipe, and telephone lines of the business establishment.

On January 31, 1991, Assistant City Prosecutor Andres M. Bayona of Bacolod filed with the MTC, Bacolod City, an information charging Ong Chiu Kwan with unjust vexation for cutting the electric wires, water pipes, and telephone lines of "Crazy Feet," a business establishment owned and operated by Mildred Ong.

At trial, Ong Chiu Kwan admitted that he had ordered the cutting of the electric, water, and telephone lines because they crossed his property line, but he failed to show evidence of any permit or authorization to relocate them. The interruption of electric, water, and telephone services was timed during peak hours of the operation of the business of "Crazy Feet." The MTC found that the abrupt cutting off of the lines caused the interruption of the business operations of "Crazy Feet" during peak hours, to the detriment of Mildred Ong.

• Validity of the RTC Decision: Whether the RTC decision, which merely quoted the MTC decision in full and affirmed it in toto, complied with the constitutional and procedural requirement that a decision clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based.
• Unjust Vexation: Whether Ong Chiu Kwan is liable for unjust vexation for ordering the cutting of the electric, water, and telephone lines of "Crazy Feet" without a permit and during peak business hours.
• Damages: Whether the awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees are supported by the evidence and law.

• Validity of the RTC Decision: No. The RTC decision is a nullity because it merely quoted the MTC decision in full and affirmed it in toto, failing to clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law as required by Article VIII, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 120, Section 2 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
• Unjust Vexation: Yes. Ong Chiu Kwan is liable for unjust vexation; he admitted ordering the cutting of the utility lines without a permit and timed the interruption during peak business hours, thereby unjustly annoying or vexing complainant.
• Damages: No. The awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees have no basis; moral damages require the wrongful act to be the proximate cause, exemplary damages require an aggravating circumstance, and no evidence supports the awards.

• Validity of the RTC Decision: The Constitution provides that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. The 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure require the judgment to be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge, signed by him, and contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts proved or admitted by the accused and the law upon which the judgment is based. A memorandum decision is permitted under certain conditions, but it cannot merely refer to the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the lower court; the court must make full findings of fact and conclusions of law of its own. The RTC merely quoted the MTC decision in full and added two paragraphs affirming it in toto, so its decision is a nullity. The SC noted that the case could be remanded for compliance, but because it had been pending for sometime, the ends of justice would be served by reviewing the evidence and deciding the case.
• Unjust Vexation: Petitioner admitted having ordered the cutting of the electric, water, and telephone lines of complainant's business establishment because these lines crossed his property line. He failed to show evidence that he had the necessary permit or authorization to relocate the lines. He also timed the interruption of electric, water, and telephone services during peak hours of the operation of the business. Thus, petitioner's act unjustly annoyed or vexed the complainant, making him liable for unjust vexation.
• Damages: Moral damages may be recovered if they were the proximate result of defendant's wrongful act or omission. An award of exemplary damages is justified if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. There is no evidence to support such award. Hence, the SC deleted the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

• Memorandum Decision — A memorandum decision is allowed under certain conditions, but it cannot merely refer to the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the lower court; the court must make full findings of fact and conclusions of law of its own. The RTC's full quotation of the MTC decision and in toto affirmance did not satisfy this rule.
• Contents of a Valid Judgment — The 1987 Constitution and the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure require a decision to clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based; the judgment must be personally and directly prepared by the judge, signed, and contain the facts proved or admitted and the law. The RTC decision failed this requirement and was a nullity.
• Unjust Vexation — The SC held that ordering the cutting of another's electric, water, and telephone lines without a permit, because the lines crossed the actor's property line, and timing the interruption during peak business hours, unjustly annoyed or vexed the complainant and constituted unjust vexation.
• Damages in Criminal Cases — Moral damages require that the wrongful act or omission be the proximate cause of the injury; exemplary damages require an aggravating circumstance. Absent evidence, the awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees were deleted.
• Remand vs. SC Review — Although a case may be remanded to the lower court for compliance with the constitutional requirement on the contents of a decision, the SC may instead review the evidence and decide the case on the merits where the case has been pending for sometime and the ends of justice will be served.

• "Although a memorandum decision is permitted under certain conditions, it cannot merely refer to the findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the lower court. The court must make a full findings of fact and conclusions of law of its own." — This passage states the rule the RTC violated when it merely quoted the MTC decision in full and affirmed it in toto.
• "Petitioner admitted having ordered the cutting of the electric, water and telephone lines of complainant’s business establishment because these lines crossed his property line. He failed, however, to show evidence that he had the necessary permit or authorization to relocate the lines. Also, he timed the interruption of electric, water and telephone services during peak hours of the operation of business of the complainant. Thus, petitioner’s act unjustly annoyed or vexed the complainant." — This passage is the SC's factual basis for holding petitioner liable for unjust vexation.
• "Moral damages may be recovered if they were the proximate result of defendant’s wrongful act or omission." — This passage is the rule the SC applied in deleting the award of moral damages for lack of evidence.
• "An award of exemplary damages is justified if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances." — This passage is the rule the SC applied in deleting exemplary damages for lack of evidence.

• Yao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132428, October 24, 2000 — Relied on as a recent precedent describing a similarly worded RTC decision as hollow, vacuous, and inadequate; supports the ruling that the RTC decision was a nullity.
• Francisco vs. Permskul, 173 SCRA 324, 335 (1989) — Cited for the rule on memorandum decisions: a memorandum decision cannot merely refer to the lower court's findings and conclusions; the court must make its own full findings and conclusions.
• People vs. Palomar, 278 SCRA 114, 151-152 (1997) — Cited in footnote for the requirement that the penalty be expressed in the terminology of the Revised Penal Code, specifically twenty days of arresto menor, rather than "imprisonment for twenty days."

• Article VIII, Section 14, 1987 Constitution — Requires every court decision to clearly and distinctly express the facts and the law on which it is based; applied to hold the RTC decision a nullity.
• Rule 120, Section 2, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended — Requires the judgment to be in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge, signed, and contain clearly and distinctly the facts proved or admitted and the law; applied to the RTC decision.
• Article 287, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Defines unjust vexation; the SC held petitioner liable under this provision.
• Article 2217, Civil Code — Moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission; no evidence supported the award, so it was deleted.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Exemplary damages are justified if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances; no evidence supported the award, so it was deleted.