MANALOTO

FACTS:
This was a petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the Court Appeals of an unlawful
detainer case in favor of respondent. The cause of action was for damages because the
respondent supposedl suffered embarrassment and humiliation when petitioners distributed
copies of the abovementioned MTC decision to the homeowners of !orseshoe "illage while
respondent#s appeal was still pending before the RTC. That from the time the said decision was
distributed to said homeowners$ the respondent became the sub%ect of conversation or tal& of the
town and b virtue of which$ greatl damaged respondent#s good name within the communit' his
reputation was besmirched' suffered sleepless night and serious an(iet' and was deprived of his
political career.
)etitioners reason that respondent has no cause of action against them since the MTC decision
in the unlawful detainer case was part of public records. On appeal$ the CA decreed that
although court decisions are public documents$ distribution of the same during the pendenc of
an appeal was clearl intended to cause respondent some form of harassment and*or humiliation
so that respondent would be ostraci+ed b his neighbors.
ISSUE: ,hether or not the act imputed to petitioner constitutes an of those enumerated in Arts.
-..
HELD:
/es. The philosoph behind Art. -. underscores the necessit for its inclusion in our civil law.
The Code Commission stressed in no uncertain terms that the human personalit must be
e(alted. 0nder this article$ the rights of persons are ampl protected$ and damages are provided
for violations of a person#s dignit$ personalit$ privac and peace of mind.
1t is alread settled that the public has a right to see and cop %udicial records and documents.
!owever$ this is not a case of the public see&ing and being denied access to %udicial records and
documents. The controvers is rooted in the dissemination b petitioner of the MTC %udgment
against respondent to !orseshoe "illage homeowners$ who were not involved at all in the
unlawful detainer case$ thus$ purportedl affecting negativel respondent#s good name and
reputation among said homeowners. ,hile petitioners were free to cop and distribute such
copies of the MTC %udgment to the public$ the 2uestion is whether the did so with the intent of
humiliating respondent and destroing the latter#s good name and reputation in the communit.