Carmel Debono et vs Rosaria Debono et

First Hall, Civil Court, Tonio Mallia - 18 May

This case concerned a claim for compensation for services rendered. For many years, the plaintiffs rendered services in favour of the defendant, Rosaria Debono and her husband, John Debono, the parents of Carmel Debono. John Debono died on 5 October 2001 and his universal heirs were plaintiff Carmel Debono and Celestina Camilleri, also a defendant in the case. The defendants were notified by an official letter to pay for services rendered to John Debono (deceased) and Rosaria Debono, however these requests were never acknowledged leading to the suit being filed.

The plaintiffs requested the court to:

• declare that the plaintiffs rendered services in favour of Rosaria Debono and John Debono (deceased);

• declare the defendant Rosaria Debono responsible for payment for such services rendered;

• declare that the defendant Celestina Camilleri as one of two universal heirs of the deceased John Debono, responsible for payment due for services rendered to John Debono (deceased);

• liquidate payments due by both defendants and condemn such payments in their favour.

The defendants claimed, among other things, that:

• the plaintiffs had to prove that Celestina Camilleri is the heir of John Debono (deceased);

• the pleas of the plaintiffs should be refused on the grounds that such plaintiffs did not carry out any services to the alleged people and if there were any services rendered, these were of a minor nature and done famiaritatis causa;

• with regard to services rendered to Rosaria Debono, these should be calculated for a period of five years until she entered an old people’s home about two years before;

• services rendered to the deceased, John Debono, were to be calculated for a period of five years until the case commenced.

The court considered all the evidence and decided:

The services allegedly rendered to John Debono lasted until he died in October 2001 and those rendered to Rosaria Debono until about 2000 when a dispute arose between the plaintiffs and the services stopped drastically. The plaintiffs’ mother, Rosaria Debono, died on 20 April 2002.

According to current case-law, the notion of servigi falls under the heading of quasi-contract. The court has recently held that there is presumed to be the intention to be compensated unless it is proved that such intention was indeed absent. This was stated in the case Delicata vs Saliba (1989).

As often happens in cases like these, the two siblings gave different versions as to how they assisted their parents. The court however, after analysing the facts of the case, held that the plaintiffs were successful in showing how they rendered various services to their parents over a long stretch of time.

It resulted that when the plaintiffs got married, they moved into a property belonging to the plaintiff’s father, John Debono, next door to his own house. At the time, John and Rosaria Debono were both in good health and did not need any assistance until 1992 when Rosaria Debono fell ill and became bedridden. Eventually John Debono also became ill and had to be looked after regularly. This had taken up a lot of their time and they barely had any time left for themselves. Although the plaintiff claimed that his father felt fussed about and would grumble about it, him and his wife did not do it with any ulterior motives.

A number of witnesses confirmed that the plaintiffs looked after these elderly people very well until Rosaria Debono was put in an old people’s home where she was visited regularly. This all changed when one day, the mother was spending a day at their house. She went hysterical and refused to go back to the home. The police were involved in this incident. The plaintiffs insisted on keeping her at this old people’s home because of her poor health conditions in spite of her resistance. It was only after this incident that the defendant started getting involved in her mother’s care and the plaintiffs’ involvement reduced.

In the light of all considerations, the court decided that the plaintiffs deserved compensation for services and assistance towards John and Rosaria Debono.

The court considered that in awarding compensation, the courts are careful in giving a moderate amount.

There was proof that the plaintiffs took some furniture belonging to John and Rosaria Debono.

Apart from this, when Rosaria Debono went into the old people’s home, John Debono used to give the plaintiffs some money per month for assistance. The defendant also claimed that money that her father kept in his house disappeared when he died. There was no proof however that this money ever existed. The fact that the plaintiffs were living in the father’s property for 25 years paying little rent was also considered. The court had to also take into consideration that that plaintiff Carmelo Debono was a co-heir with his sister (the defendant) and what he was claiming to be due to him (services rendered to his father) was essentially a debt of the deceased but included in the community of acquests existing between him and his wife.

The court considered both the nature of the services rendered to Debono as well as the benefits reaped by the plaintiffs. The court felt that in his regard, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any compensation.

With regard to Rosaria Debono, her only heir was her daughter, the defendant. Taking into consideration the assistance given to her by the plaintiffs, the court felt some compensation was due. Although the defendant insisted that the compensation should be for a period of five years, this plea was not accepted by the court.

For the above reasons, the court rejected the pleas of the defendant and partly upheld the demand of the plaintiffs. The court declared that although it recognised that the plaintiffs rendered services to both John and Rosaria Debono, it did not feel that the plaintiffs were entitled to any compensation for services rendered to both. The court however concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for services rendered to Rosaria Debono and concluded by condemning defendant Celestina Camilleri to pay Lm1,500 to the plaintiffs for services rendered in favour of her mother.