HUMAN RELATIONS TORTS

A. ABUSE OF RIGHTS
ARCO PULP V LIM
ART. 19
- Persons who have the right to enter into contractual relations must
- Every person must
exercise that right with honesty and good faith.
- In the EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS and PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES
- Failure to do so results in an abuse of that right, which may become
1. Act with justice
the basis of an action for damages.
2. Give everyone his due
- Article 19, however, cannot be its sole basis:
3. Observe honesty and good faith
- Article 19 is the general rule which governs the conduct of
human relations.
- Principle of abuse of rights:
- By itself, it is not the basis of an actionable tort.
- Better if no harm principle or good faith principle
- Article 19 describes the degree of care required so that an
- Because it creates a duty/obligation and pertains to
actionable tort may arise when it is alleged together with
performance of duty
Article 20 or Article 21.44
- Cardinal rule on human conduct
- To be actionable, Article 20 requires a violation of law,
- ARTS. 19&20 - principle of good dealings
- It allows recovery should the act have been willful or
- Rationale:
negligent.
- In civilized society, Men must be able to assume that other
- Willful may refer to the intention to do the act and the desire
will do them no intended injury. (UE v Jader)
to achieve the outcome which is considered by the plaintiff in
- Those with whom they deal in the general course of society
tort action as injurious.
will do so in good faith. (UE v Jader)
- Negligence may refer to a situation where the act was
- Primordial limitation on all rights: Principle sets standards which must
consciously done but without intending the result which the
be observed not only in the exercise of ones rights but also in the
plaintiff considers as injurious.
performance of duties (Globe Mackay v CA)
- while Article 21 only concerns with lawful acts that are contrary to
- Purpose:
morals, good customs, and public policy:
- Expand the concept of torts
- concerns injuries that may be caused by acts which are not
- By granting remedy for moral wrongs which is impossible for
necessarily proscribed by law.
human foresight to provide in statutory law (UE v Jader)
- requires that the act be willful, that is, that there was an
- Effect of application of Art. 19:
intention to do the act and a desire to achieve the outcome.
1. A right , though by itself legal, may nevertheless become the
- the legal issues revolve around whether such outcome should
source of some illegality
be considered a legal injury on the part of the plaintiff or
- Legal wrong is committed
whether the commission of the act was done in violation of
- When a right is exercised in a manner which
the standards of care required in Article 19.
does not conform with the nors in Art. 19
- And results in damage to another
 2. It precludes the defense of damnum absque injuria - A dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
- damnum absque injuria: legitimate exercise of rights, even if it doing of a wrong;
causes loss to another, does not automatically result in an - a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill
actionable injury will
- This doesnt apply when there is an abuse of rights (Amonoy v - Partakes of the nature of fraud
Gutierrez)

- Art. 19 is a mere declaration of principle GLOBE MACKAY V CA

- Implemented by ARt. 20 or 21 Key: dismissal of Tobias on suspicion of swindling
- Enumerates standards of conduct (Pantaleon v AMEX)
- Art. 21 provides the remedy of action for damages FACTS
- But there are cases where court granted damages based on - Restituto Tobias was employed by Globe Mackay as purchasing agent
Art. 19 without ruling on W 20 or 21 had been proved and administrative assistant to the engineering operations manager
- Elements - Globe discovered fictitious purchases and fraudulent transactions
1. A legal right or duty worth several thousands of pesos
2. Exercised in bad faith - It was Tobias who discovered and reported transactions to
3. For the SOLE intent of prejudicing or injuring another immediate superior Ferraren and PET Herbert Hendry, the
- Isnt this bad faith? Executive Vice-President and GM
- Too high a standard - all DEF has to do is prove that he - After one day
had other intentions apart from injuring the plaintiff - Hendry said that he was number one suspect
- Court does not always adhere to these elements (UE v Jader, - One week forced leave
Globe Mackay) - Not to communicate with office
- Thus principle may be invoked if proven that right or - Leave table drawers open
duty was exercised in bad faith - Leave the office keys
- It is the absence of good faith which is essential for application of Art. - After forced leave
19. - Hendry called him crook, swindler
- Good faith: - Lie detector test
- State of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual - Specimen of handwritings, signatures, and initials
- An honest intention to abstain from taking undue advantage - Manila Police investigators
of another, even through the forms or technicalities of the - Cleared Tobias of participation in anomalies
law, together with an absence of all information or belief of - Globe Mackay hired private investigator
fact which would render the transaction unconscientious - Report found Tobias guilty
- BUT expressly stated that further investigation was to be
conducted

- Bad faith:
 - Hendry suspended Tobias from work preparatory to filing criminal
charges
- Second report from Metro Manila Police Chief Document Examiner
- Handwritings, signatures, initials are not those of Tobias
- Lie detector test yielded negative results
- Globe Mackay still filed complaint for (5) estafa through falsification of
commercial documents and for Art 290 of RPC (Discovering of Secrets
through seizure of correspondence)
- ALL DISMISSED
- Tobias was terminated from employment
- Complaint for illegal dismissal
- Dismissed
- Tobias sought employment with RETELCO
- Hendry wrote a letter to RETELCO stating that Tobias was dismissed
due to dishonesty
- Tobias filed case for damages
- TC: in favor of Tobias
- CA: affirmed
ISSUE:
WN Globe Mackay is liable for damages
- codification of "some basic principles that are to be observed for the
rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of the
social order.
- Foremost among these principles is Art. 19
- The principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which must
be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the
performance of one's duties.
- These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give
everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith.
- law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that
in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19
must be observed.
- A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law
as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality.
- When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with
the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another,
a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must
be held responsible.
- it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for
damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper.
- in the case at bar, petitioners claim that they did not violate any
provision of law since they were merely exercising their legal right to
dismiss private respondent.
- Relief may be found in Art. 21
- legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which it
is impossible for human foresight to provide for specifically in
the statutes
- there is no rigid test which can be applied; depends on the
circumstances of each case
- In the instant case, the Court, after examining the record and
considering certain significant circumstances, finds that all petitioners
have indeed abused the right that they invoke, causing damage to
private respondent and for which the latter must now be indemnified.
- reaction towards the former upon uncovering the anomalies
was less than civil.
- the high-handed treatment accorded Tobias by petitioners
was certainly uncalled for.
- Considering that the first report made by the police
investigators was submitted only on December 10, 1972 [See
Exh. A] the statement made by petitioner Hendry was
baseless.
- The imputation of guilt without basis and the pattern of
harassment during the investigations of Tobias transgress the
standards of human conduct set forth in Article 19 of the Civil
Code.
- petitioners clearly failed to exercise in a legitimate manner their right
to dismiss Tobias, giving the latter the right to recover damages
OTHER TORTIOUS ACTS
- scornful remark about Filipinos as well as Hendry's earlier statements
about Tobias being a "crook" and "swindler"
- clear violations of 'Tobias' personal dignity
 - writing of a letter to RETELCO stating that Tobias had been dismissed
by GLOBE MACKAY due to dishonesty
- Prevented him from getting a job earlier
- Damages under 2176
- filing by petitioners of six criminal complaints against Tobias
- trial court made a finding that petitioners acted in bad faith in
filing the criminal complaints against Tobias
- petitioners, to prove their good faith, point to the fact that
only six complaints were filed against Tobias when they could
have allegedly filed one hundred cases, considering the
number of anomalous transactions committed against GLOBE
MACKAY. However, petitioners' good faith is belied by the
threat made by Hendry after the filing of the first complaint
that one hundred more cases would be filed against Tobias.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
- principle finds no application in this case. It bears repeating that even
granting that petitioners might have had the right to dismiss Tobias
from work, the abusive manner in which that right was exercised
amounted to a legal wrong for which petitioners must now be held
liable.
- Moreover, the damage incurred by Tobias was not only in connection
with the abusive manner in which he was dismissed but was also the
result of several other quasi-delictual acts committed by petitioners.
ALBENSON v CA Key: thre Eugenio Baltao, Sr. Jr. III, mild steel plates
FACTS:
- Albenson delivered to Guaranteed Industries at V maa building, mild
steel plates which Guaranteed ordered
- Albenson was given Pacific Banking Corporation Check for P2,575
drawn against account of EL Woodworks
- Check was dishonored for the reason of account closed
- Albenson traced origin of check
- SEC: The president of Guaranteed and recipient of steel plates
was one Eugenio Baltao
- Ministry of Trade and Industry: EL Woodworks is a single
proprietorship registered under the name of Eugenio Baltao
- Drawee bank, Pacific Banking Corp. signature belong to one
Eugenio Baltao
- Albenson made an extrajudicial demand upon RES Eugenio S. Baltao,
president of Guaranteed to replace/make good dishonored check
- Baltao replied
- Denied that he issued check
- Signature on check is not his
- Guaranteed was a defunct entity and it could not have
transacted business with Albenson
- Albenson filed complaint for violation of BP 22
- It appears that RES had a namesake, Eugenio Baltao III who manages
EL Woodworks on ground floor of Baltao bldg., same business address
of Guaranteed
- Baltao filed a complaint for damages against herein petitioners
Albenson Enterprises
- Because of the alleged unjust filing of a criminal case against
him for allegedly issuing a check which bounced in violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for a measly amount of P2,575.00
- TC & CA: In favor of Baltao
- ALBENSON: Case is for malicious prosecution so absence of malice
absolves them
- BALTAO: base on Art. 19,20,21
RULES:
ON Article 19,- principle of abuse of rights,
- sets certain standards which may be observed not only in the
exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties.
- These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give
everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith.
- The law, therefore, recognizes the primordial limitation on all rights:
that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in
Article 19 must be observed.
- A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law
as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality.
 - When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with
the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another,
a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must
be held responsible.
DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY OF ART 19,20,21
- no hard and fast rule which can be applied to determine whether or not the
principle of abuse of rights may be invoked.
- depends on the circumstances of each case
- The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are the following:
- (1) There is a legal right or duty;
- (2) which is exercised in bad faith;
- (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
- Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which
do not especially provide for their own sanction
- Thus, anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of
his legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his
victim for injuries suffered thereby.
- Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following
elements:
- 1) There is an act which is legal;
- 2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or
public policy;
- 3) and it is done with intent to injure.
- common element under Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act must be
intentional.
- However, Article 20 does not distinguish: the act may be done either
"willfully", or "negligently".
HELD
ON DECISION OF LOWER COURTS
- TC & CA lumped these three (3) articles together, and cited the same as the bases for
the award of damages in the civil complaint filed against petitioners, thus:
- Defendants, not having been paid the amount of P2,575.00, certainly had
the right to complain. But that right is limited by certain constraints. Beyond
that limit is the area of excess, of abuse of rights.
SUPREME COURT:
- Assuming, arguendo, that all the three (3) articles together could be
validly made the bases for an award of damages based on the
principle of "abuse of right", under the circumstances, We see no
cogent reason for such an award of damages to be made in favor of
private respondent.
- Certainly, petitioners could not be said to have violated the
aforestated principle of abuse of right.
- What prompted petitioners to file the case for violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against private respondent was
their failure to collect the amount of P2,575.00 due on a
bounced check which they honestly believed was issued to
them by private respondent.
- Petitioners had conducted inquiries regarding the origin of the
check
- In a letter dated December 16, 1983, counsel for petitioners
wrote private respondent demanding that he make good the
amount of the check.
- If Baltao wanted to clear himself from the baseless accusation made
against his person, he should have made mention of the fact that
there are three (3) persons with the same name
- petitioners had every reason to believe that the Eugenio Baltao who
issued the bouncing check is respondent Eugenio S. Baltao when their
counsel wrote respondent to make good the amount of the check and
upon refusal, filed the complaint for violation of BP Blg. 22.
- Private respondent, however, did nothing to clarify the case of
mistaken identity at first hand.
- Instead, private respondent waited in ambush and thereafter
pounced on the hapless petitioners at a time he thought was
propitious by filing an action for damages.
- The criminal complaint was a sincere attempt on the part of
petitioners to find the best possible means by which they could collect
the sum of money due them.
ON MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
- To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the prosecution was
prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, and that it was initiated
deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless.
- three (3) elements must be present, to wit:
 - (1) The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was FACTS
himself the prosecutor, and that the action was finally terminated with an
acquittal;
- (2) That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE WITH AMONOY AS COUNSEL
cause; - the settlement of the estate of the deceased Julio Cantolos, involving
- (3) The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice (Lao vs. Court six (6) parcels of land situated in Tanay, Rizal.
of Appeals, 199 SCRA 58, [1991]). - Amonoy was the counsel of therein Francisca Catolos, Agnes Catolos,
- the second and third elements were not shown to exist.
Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Formilda.
- ON SECOND ELEMENT: In the instant case, it is evident that petitioners were not
motivated by malicious intent or by sinister design to unduly harass private
- two (2) of the said lots were adjudicated to Asuncion Pasamba and
respondent, but only by a well-founded anxiety to protect their rights when they filed Alfonso Formilda.
the criminal complaint against private respondent. - The attorneys fees charged by Amonoy was P27,600.00
- ON THIRD ELEMENT:tno proof of a sinister design on the part of petitioners to vex or - Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Formilda executed a deed of real
humiliate private respondent by instituting the criminal case against him. estate mortgage on the said two (2) lots adjudicated to them, in favor
- the record shows that petitioners did exert considerable effort in order to determine
of Amonoy to secure the payment of his attorneys fees.
the liability of private respondent.
- Their error in proceeding against the wrong individual was obviously in the nature of
an innocent mistake, and cannot be characterized as having been committed in bad JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF AMONOY FOR ATTORNEYS FEES
faith. - Asuncion Pasamba died on 24 February 1969 while Alfonso Fornilda
passed away on 2 July 1969.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA - Among the heirs of the Fornilda was his daughter, plaintiff-appellant
- APPLICABLE: award of damages and attorney's fees is unwarranted Angela Gutierrez.
where the action was filed in good faith. If damage results from a - Because his attorneys fees thus secured by the two lots were not
person's exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria paid, Amonoy filed for their foreclosure
- The heirs opposed, contending that the attorneys fees charged [were]
unconscionable and that the agreed sum was only P11,695.92.
CONCLUSION - judgment was rendered in favor of Amonoy requiring the heirs to pay
- no proof or showing that petitioners acted maliciously or in bad faith within 90 days the P27,600.00 secured by the mortgage, P11,880.00
in the filing of the case against private respondent. as value of the harvests, and P9,645.00 as another round of attorneys
- they cannot be held liable for damages fees.
- No damages can be awarded in the instant case, whether based on - Failing in that, the two (2) lots would be sold at public auction.
the principle of abuse of rights, or for malicious prosecution.

AMONOY V GUTIERREZ FORECLOSURE

Key: demolition of house during existence TRO - They failed to pay and lots were foreclosed
Focus: Relationship between abuse of rights and damnum absque injuria - Amonoy was the highest bidder
 - Included in those sold was the lot on which the Gutierrez spouses had - CA set aside the lower courts ruling and ordered petitioner to pay
their house. respondents P250,000 as actual damages.

SUIT FOR ANNULMENT OF SALE ISSUE

- heirs filed a suit for the annulment Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in deciding that the
- The case was dismissed petitioner [was] liable to the respondents for damages - YEZ
- CFI: Writ of Possession and pursuant to which a notice to vacate
HELD
ORDERS FOR DEMOLITION
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
- On Amonoys motion of 24 April 1986, the Orders of 25 April 1986
- Under this principle, the legitimate exercise of a persons rights, even
and 6 May 1986 were issued for the demolition of structures in the
if it causes loss to another, does not automatically result in an
said lots, including the house of the Gutierrez spouses.
actionable injury.
- The law does not prescribe a remedy for the loss.
TRO
- This principle does not, however, apply when there is an abuse of a
- On a twin Musiyun (Mahigpit na Musiyon Para Papanagutin Kaugnay
persons right, or when the exercise of this right is suspended or
ng Paglalapastangan, and Musiyung Makahingi ng Utos sa
extinguished pursuant to a court order.
Pagpapapigil ng Pagpapagiba at Pananagutin sa Paglalapastangan)
- Indeed, in the availment of ones rights, one must act with justice,
with full titles as fanciful and elongated as their Petisyung (Petisyung
give others their due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Makapagsuri Taglay and Pagpigil ng Utos) (HAHAHA)
- a temporary restraining order was granted on 2 June 1986 enjoining
NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE
the demolition of the petitioners houses.
- Amonoy maintains that he was merely acting in accordance with the
Writ of Demolition ordered by the RTC. -NO
DECISION BY THE SC SETTING ASIDE DEMOLITION ORDER (5 October 1988)
- Amonoy commenced the demolition of respondents house on May
- Order for demolition set aside and the Temporary Restraining Order
30, 1986 under the authority of a Writ of Demolition issued by the
heretofore issued, is made permanent.
RTC.
- The six (6) parcels of land herein controverted are hereby ordered
- TRO was ISSUED by the Supreme Court on June 2, 1986.
returned to petitioners unless some of them have been conveyed to
- a copy of the TRO was SERVED on petitioner himself on June 4, 1986.
innocent third persons.

DEMOLITION
- But by the time the Supreme Court promulgated the
above-mentioned Decision, house had already been destroyed,
AMONOY PURSUED DEMOLITION UNTIL MIDDLE OF 1987
supposedly in accordance with a Writ of Demolition ordered by the
Guiterrezs testimony
lower court. Q. On May 30, 1986, were they able to destroy your house?
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BY GUTIERREZ A. Not all, a certain portion only
- RTC dismissed respondents suit. x x x x x x x x x
Q. Was your house completely demolished? - In insisting on his alleged right, he wantonly violated this Courts Order
A. No, sir. and wittingly caused the destruction of respondents house.
Q. How about the following day?
- petitioner cannot invoke damnum absque injuria, a principle premised
A. It was completely demolished
x x x x x x x x x on the valid exercise of a right.
Q. Until when[,] Mrs. Witness? - Anything less or beyond such exercise will not give rise to the legal
A. Until 1987. protection that the principle accords. And when damage or prejudice
Q. About what month of 1987? to another is occasioned thereby, liability cannot be obscured, much
A. Middle of the year. less abated.
- In the ultimate analysis, petitioners liability is premised on the
- The foregoing disproves the claim of petitioner that the demolition,
obligation to repair or to make whole the damage caused to another
which allegedly commenced only on May 30, 1986, was completed
by reason of ones act or omission, whether done intentionally or
the following day.
negligently and whether or not punishable by law.

AMONOYS ABUSE OF RIGHT

- acts of petitioner may have been legally justified at the outset but
their continuation after the issuance of the TRO amounted to an
insidious abuse of his right.
- Verily, his acts constituted not only an abuse of a right, but an invalid
exercise of a right that had been suspended when he received the
TRO from this Court on June 4, 1986.
- By then, he was no longer entitled to proceed with the demolition.

GONZALES DECANO
- Gonzales-Decano The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it
disappears when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of others. The mask of a right
without the spirit of justice which gives it life, is repugnant to the modern concept of
social law. It cannot be said that a person exercises a right when he unnecessarily
prejudices another x x x. Over and above the specific precepts of positive law are the
supreme norms of justice x x x; and he who violates them violates the law. For this
reason, it is not permissible to abuse our rights to prejudice others

CONCLUSION
- the demolition of respondents house by petitioner, despite his receipt
of the TRO, was not only an abuse but also an unlawful exercise of
such right.
 - handed by Dean Celedonio a rolled white sheet of paper
symbolical of the Law Diploma
UE V JADER
- His relatives took pictures of the occasion
Key: law school liable for not seasonably informing student of a failing grade
- He tendered a blow-out that evening
- He thereafter prepared himself for the bar examination.
FACTS:
- He took a leave of absence without pay from his job from
- Romeo Jader was enrolled UE College of Law.
April 20, 1988 to September 30, 1988
- In the first semester of his last year, he failed to take the regular final
- enrolled at the pre-bar review class in Far Eastern University.
examination in Practice Court I for which he was given an incomplete
LEARNING OF DEFICIENCY
grade
- Having learned of the deficiency he dropped his review class and was
- He enrolled for the second semester as fourth year law student
not able to take the bar examination.
- he filed an application for the removal of the incomplete grade
COMPLAINT
- He took the examination on March 28, 1988. On May 30, 1988,
- respondent sued petitioner for damages alleging that he suffered
Professor Carlos Ortega submitted his grade of five (5).
moral shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings and sleepless nights when he was not able to take
ACTS LEADING JADER TO BELIEVE THAT HE WILL GRADUATE
the 1988 bar examinations arising from the UEs negligence.
- In the meantime, the Dean and the Faculty Members of the College of
UE:
Law met to deliberate on who among the fourth year students should
- it never led respondent to believe that he completed the
be allowed to graduate.
requirements for a Bachelor of Laws degree when his name was
- The plaintiff's name appeared in the Tentative List of
included in the tentative list of graduating students.
Candidates for graduation
- in the invitation for the The investitures and commencement
TC&CA: in favor of Jader
ceremonies included the name of the plaintiff appeared as
one of the candidates.
UE IN SC APPEAL:
- Annotation: This is a tentative list Degrees will be
- proximate and immediate cause of the alleged damages incurred by
conferred upon these candidates who satisfactorily
the latter arose out of his own negligence in not verifying from the
complete requirements as stated in the University
professor concerned the result of his removal exam.
Bulletin and as approved of the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports
ISSUE:
INVESTITURES CEREMONIES
WN an educational institution be held liable for damages for misleading a
- Jader attended the investiture ceremonies
student into believing that the latter had satisfied all the requirements for
- he went up the stage when his name was called, escorted by
graduation when such is not the case? YES
her (sic) mother and his eldest brother who assisted in placing
the Hood,
HELD
- his Tassel was turned from left to right,
ON CONTRACTUAL REL BET STUDENT AND SCHOOL
 - When a student is enrolled in any educational or learning institution, a - The college dean is the senior officer responsible for the
contract of education is entered into between said institution and the operation of an academic program, enforcement of rules and
student. regulations, and the supervision of faculty and student
- The professors, teachers or instructors hired by the school are services.
considered merely as agents - The negligent act of a professor who fails to observe the
- Student is not duty-bound to deal with the former's agents, such as rules of the school, for instance by not promptly submitting
the professors with respect to the status or result of his grades, a student's grade, is not only imputable to the professor but
although nothing prevents either professors or students from sharing is an act of the school, being his employer.
with each other such information. ART 19&20
- It is the contractual obligation of the school to timely inform and - Considering further, that the institution of learning involved herein is
furnish sufficient notice and information to each and every student a university which is engaged in legal education, it should have
as to whether he or she had already complied with all the practiced what it inculcates in its students, more specifically the
requirements for the conferment of a degree or whether they would principle of good dealings enshrined in Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil
be included among those who will graduate. Code
The ultimate thing in the theory of liability is justifiable reliance under
UE BELATEDLY INFORMING DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH conditions of civilized society.
- UE in belatedly informing respondent of the result of the removal - Schools and professors cannot just take students for granted and be
examination, particularly at a time when he had already commenced indifferent to them, for without the latter, the former are useless.
preparing for the bar exams, cannot be said to have acted in good
faith. SCHOOLS DUTY TO INFORM STUDENTS OF ACAD STATUS
- Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of
their academic status and not wait for the latter to inquire from the
ABSENCE OF GOOD FAITH former.
- Absence of good faith must be established to file a suit for abuse of - Want of care to the conscious disregard of civil obligations coupled
right under Article 19 of the Civil Code. with a conscious knowledge of the cause naturally calculated to
- Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from produce them would make the erring party liable
taking undue advantage of another, even though the forms - Petitioner ought to have known that time was of the essence
and technicalities of the law, together with the absence of all in the performance of its obligation to inform respondent of
information or belief of facts, would render the transaction his grade.
unconscientious.5 - It cannot feign ignorance that respondent will not prepare
UES ACTS himself for the bar exams since that is precisely the
- It is the school that has access to those information and it is only the immediate concern after graduation of an LL.B. graduate.
school that can compel its professors to act and comply with its rules, - It failed to act seasonably
regulations and policies with respect to the computation and the - Petitioner cannot just give out its student's grades at any time
prompt submission of grades. because a student has to comply with certain deadlines set by the
Supreme Court on the submission of requirements for taking the bar.
 - Petitioner's liability arose from its failure to promptly inform
respondent of the result of an examination and in misleading the
latter into believing that he had satisfied all requirements for the
course.
- University had been informed by professor but they still
included him the lists
- Allegedly in the hope that he would remedy the situationm
- But it was not shown how he could do this
ON GRANTING DAMAGES
- The modern tendency is to grant indemnity for damages in cases
where there is abuse of right, even when the act is not illicit.14
- If mere fault or negligence in one's acts can make him liable for
damages for injury caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or
bad faith make him liable.
- A person should be protected only when he acts in the legitimate
exercise of his right, that is, when he acts with prudence and in good
faith, but not when he acts with negligence or abuse.15
- We do not agree with the Court of Appeals' findings that respondent
suffered shock, trauma and pain when he was informed that he could
not graduate and will not be allowed to take the bar examinations.
- As a senior law student, respondent should have been responsible
enough to ensure that all his affairs, specifically those pertaining to his
academic achievement, are in order.
- If respondent was indeed humiliated by his failure to take the bar, he
brought this upon himself by not verifying if he has satisfied all the
requirements including his school records, before preparing himself
for the bar examination.
PANTALEON V AMEX
Key: delay in buying diamond
Focus:
- Art. 19 as basis of Courts ruling that AMEX did not have an unlimited
right to put off action on cardholders purchase requests
- AMEX must take care not to abuse its rights and cause injury to its
clients and/or third persons
FACTS:
- Polo pantaleon went on a european trip
- In a coster store in amsterdam, the bought diamonds using the amex
card at 915 AM
- Group should have left by 930
- By 10 AM, AMEX still has not yet approved purchase so they just left (
approval code was only transmitted at 10:38 AM or after 78 minutes
- City tour was cancelled due to lack of time
- In the US, he bought golf clubs but because of a 30 minute delay,
ended up borrowing from a friend
- 20 minute delay for buying childrens shoes
- He asked for an apology but AMEX did not apologize so he sued for
damages
HELD:
- Use of credit card is a mere offer to enter into a loan agreement
- AMEX is not obliged to accept all transaction and reserves the
right to refuse
- AMEX not under obligation to accept more so accept promptly
- No obligation yet so no delay
- AMEXs credit authorizer, Edgardo Jaurigue, explained that having no
pre-set spending limit in a credit card simply means that the charges
made by the cardholder are approved based on his ability to pay
- record (or 3 or 4 seconds in 12 years) does not establish that
Pantaleon had a legally enforceable obligation to expect AMEX to act
on his charge requests within a matter of seconds.
- practice or custom is not a source of a legally
- demandable or enforceable right
 - Contract between parties provides that no obligation on the
part of Pantaleon to approve transaction in matter of seconds
AMEX ACTED WITH GOOD FAITH
- we have already established that:
- (a) AMEX had neither a contractual nor a legal obligation to
act upon Pantaleons purchases within a specific period of
time; and
- (b) AMEX has a right to review a cardholders credit card
history.
- Our recognition of these entitlements, however, does not give AMEX
an unlimited right to put off action on cardholders purchase
requests for indefinite periods of time. I
- In acting on cardholders purchase requests, AMEX must take care not
to abuse its rights and cause injury to its clients and/or third
persons.
- Article 19
- pervades the entire legal system and ensures that a person
suffering damage in the course of anothers exercise of right or
performance of duty, should find himself without relief.
- It sets the standard for the conduct of all persons, whether
artificial or natural,
- and requires that everyone, in the exercise of rights and the
performance of obligations, must:
- (a) act with justice,
- (b) give everyone his due, and
- observe honesty and good faith.
- It is not because a person invokes his rights that he can do anything,
even to the prejudice and disadvantage of another.
- Article 21
- provides the remedy for the person injured by the willful act,
an action for damages.
- In the context of a credit card relationship
- although there is neither a contractual stipulation nor a
specific law requiring the credit card issuer to act on the credit
card holders offer within a definite period of time
- these principles provide the standard by which to judge
AMEXs actions
- PANTALEON:
- AMEX abused this right when it unreasonably delayed the
processing of the Coster charge purchase,
- AMEX should have known that its failure to act immediately
on charge referrals would entail inconvenience and result in
humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety and distress to its
cardholders
GOOD FAITH OF AMEX
- we find no evidence to suggest that it acted with deliberate intent to
cause Pantaleon any loss or injury,
- or acted in a manner that was contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy.
- review procedure was done to ensure Pantaleons own protection as a
cardholder and to prevent the possibility that the credit card was
being fraudulently used by a third person.
- It is but natural for AMEX to want to ensure that it will extend credit
only to people who will have sufficient means to pay for their
purchases. AMEX, after all, is running a business, not a charity
- Edgardo Jaurigue clarified, the reason why Pantaleon had to wait for
AMEXs approval was because he had to go over Pantaleons credit
card history
- It would certainly be unjust for us to penalize AMEX for merely
exercising its right to review Pantaleons credit history meticulously.
PANTALEONS ACTION WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE FOR HIS INJURY
- under Article 21 is based on equity, and he who comes to court to
demand equity, must come with clean hands.
- Pantaleon is not a blameless party in all this.
- After 9:30 a.m.,Pantaleons son, who had boarded the bus ahead of his
family, returned to the store to inform his family that theywere the
only ones not on the bus and that the entire tour group was waiting
for them.
 - Significantly, Pantaleon tried to cancel the sale at 9:40 a.m.
because he did not want to cause any inconvenience to the
tour group.
- However, when Costers sale manager asked him to wait a few more
minutes for the credit card approval, he agreed, despite the
knowledge that he had already caused a 10-minute delay and that the
city tour could not start without him.
VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA
- The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (to which a person assents is not
esteemed in law as injury) refers to self-inflicted injury or to the
consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one
who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if
he is not negligent in doing so.
- Although the act is not illegal, liability for damages may arise should
there be an abuse of rights, like when the act is performed without
prudence or in bad faith.
- In order that liability may attach under the concept of abuse of
rights, the following elements must be present, to wit: (a) the
existence of a legal right or duty, (b) which is exercised in bad faith,
25
and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
- Sesbreo asserts that he did not authorize Baledio or Chuchie
Garcia to let anyone enter his residence in his absence; and that
Baledio herself confirmed that the members of the VOC team had
intimidated her into letting them in.
- The assertion of Sesbreo is improper for consideration in this
appeal. The RTC and the CA unanimously found the testimonies
1wphi1

- Pantaleon himself testified that the most basic rule when travelling in
of Sesbreos witnesses implausible because of inconsistencies on
a tour group is that you must never be a cause of any delay because material points; and even declared that the non-presentation of
the schedule is very strict Garcia as a witness was odd if not suspect.
DAMNUM ASBQUE INJURIA APPLICABLE - Considering that such findings related to the credibility of the
witnesses and their testimonies, the Court cannot review and undo
them now because it is not a trier of facts, and is not also tasked to
SOBRESENO analyze or weigh evidence all over again.
- Only when Sesbreo could make a clear showing of abuse in their
appreciation of the evidence and records by the trial and the
Clearly, Sesbreo did not establish his claim for damages if the
appellate courts should the Court do the unusual review of the
respondents were not guilty of abuse of rights.
factual findings of the trial and appellate courts.
- To stress, the concept of abuse of rights prescribes that a person
should not use his right unjustly or in bad faith; otherwise, he may
be liable to another who suffers injury.
23
- Article 19 of the Civil Code sets the standards to be observed in
the exercise of ones rights and in the performance of ones duties,
namely: (a) to act with justice; (b) to give everyone his due; and (c)
to observe honesty and good faith. The law thereby recognizes the
primordial limitation on all rights that in the exercise of the rights,
24
the standards under Article 19 must be observed.