Negligent Tort vs Strict Liability Tort

Elements of Abuse of Rights as Cause of Action

1. Grand Union Supermarket Et Al., V. Jose J. Espino, Jr., Et Al., (1979)

ISSUE: Where petitioners willfully caused loss or injury to private respondent in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy, they are liable for damages under
Arts. 19 and 21 in relation to Art. 2219 of the Civil Code.

HELD: The false accusation charged against respondent after detaining and
interrogating him by the uniformed guards and the mode and manner in which he
was subjected, shouting at him, imposing him a fine, threatening to call the police and
in the presence and hearing of many people at the Supermarket which brought and
caused him humiliation and embarrassment, sufficiently rendered the petitioners
liable for damages under Articles 19 and 21 relations to Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
Petitioners willfully caused loss or injury in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy. It is against morals, good customs and public policy to
humiliate, embarrass and degrade the dignity of a person. Everyone must respect the
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons
(Article 26, Civil Code). And one must act with justice, give everyone his due and
observe honesty and good faith (Article 19, Civil Code).

2. University of the East vs. Jader

HELD: It is the contractual obligation of the school to timely inform and furnish
sufficient notice and information to each and every student as to whether he or she had
already complied with all the requirements for the conferment of a degree or whether
they would be included among those who will graduate. -- The Court takes judicial
notice of the traditional practice in educational institutions wherein the professor
directly furnishes his/her students their grades. It is the contractual obligation of the
school to timely inform and furnish sufficient notice and information to each and every
student as to whether he or she had already complied with all the requirements for
the conferment of a degree or whether they would be included among those who will
graduate. Although commencement exercises are but a formal ceremony, it
nonetheless is not an ordinary occasion, since such ceremony is the educational
institution’s way of announcing to the whole world that the students included in the
list of those who will be conferred a degree during the baccalaureate ceremony have
satisfied all the requirements for such degree. Prior or subsequent to the ceremony,
the school has the obligation to promptly inform the student of any problem involving
the latter’s grades and performance and also most importantly, of the procedures for
remedying the same.

Absence of good faith must be sufficiently established for a successful prosecution by the
aggrieved party in a suit for abuse of right under Article 19 of the Civil Code. -- Petitioner, in
belatedly informing respondent of the result of the removal examination, particularly at a
time when he had already commenced preparing for the bar exams, cannot be said to have
acted in good faith. Absence of good faith must be sufficiently established for a successful
prosecution by the aggrieved party in a suit for abuse of right under Article 19 of the Civil
Code. Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking undue advantage of
another, even though the forms and technicalities of the law, together with the absence of all
information or belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious.

1
The negligent act of a professor who fails to observe the rules of the school, for instance by not
promptly submitting a student’s grade, is not only imputable to the professor but is an act of
the school, being his employer. -- The college dean is the senior officer responsible for the
operation of an academic program, enforcement of rules and regulations, and the supervision
of faculty and student services. He must see to it that his own professors and teachers,
regardless of their status or position outside of the university, must comply with the rules set
by the latter. The negligent act of a professor who fails to observe the rules of the school, for
instance by not promptly submitting a student’s grade, is not only imputable to the professor
but is an act of the school, being his employer.

Want of care to the conscious disregard of civil obligations coupled with a conscious knowledge
of the cause naturally calculated to produce them would make the erring party liable. --
Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of their academic status and
not wait for the latter to inquire from the former. The conscious indifference of a person to
the rights or welfare of the person/persons who may be affected by his act or omission can
support a claim for damages. Want of care to the conscious disregard of civil obligations
coupled with a conscious knowledge of the cause naturally calculated to produce them would
make the erring party liable.

3. Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

HELD: The employer is liable for damages to the employee if the dismissal is done
abusively. -- The Court has already ruled that the right of the employer to dismiss an
employee should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised and
the effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal is done abusively, then the employer is
liable for damages to the employee [Quisaba v. Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer and Plywood
Inc., G.R. No. L-38088, August 30, 1974, 58 SCRA 771; See also Philippine Refining
Co., Inc. v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-21871, September 27, 1966, 18 SCRA 107]. Under the
circumstances of the instant case, the petitioners clearly failed to exercise in a
legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias, giving the latter the right to recover
damages under Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code.

4. Uypitching vs. Quiamco

HELD: Abuse of Right; Human Relations; Article 19, also known as the “principle of
abuse of right” prescribes that a person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to
honesty and good faith, otherwise he opens himself to liability. The basic principle of
human relations, embodied in Article 19 of the Civil Code, provides: Art. 19. Every
person must in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give every one his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Article 19, also
known as the “principle of abuse of right,” prescribes that a person should not use his
right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise he opens himself to
liability. It seeks to preclude the use of, or the tendency to use, a legal right (or duty)
as a means to unjust ends.

There is an abuse of right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure another. -- There is
an abuse of right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure another. The exercise of a
right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be
excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to harm another. Otherwise, liability
for damages to the injured party will attach.

2
NO ABUSE OF RIGHTS
1. Petrophil Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
HELD: Under Article 20 of the Civil Code, there is no requirement that the act must
be directed at a specific person, but it suffices that a person suffers damage as a
consequence of a wrongful act of another in order that indemnity could be demanded
from the wrongdoer. -- Article 20 of the Civil Code provides that every person who,
contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the damage done. Petitioner might not have deliberately intended to injure
the respondent-drivers. But as a consequence of its willful act directed against Dr.
Cruz, respondent-drivers lost their jobs and consequently suffered loss of income. Note
that under Article 20, there is no requirement that the act must be directed at a
specific person, but it suffices that a person suffers damage as a consequence of a
wrongful act of another in order that indemnity could be demanded from the
wrongdoer. The appellate court did not err, given the circumstances of this case, in
awarding damages to respondent-drivers.

2. Dart Philippines vs. Sps. Calogcog

HELD: A person will be protected only when he acts in the legitimate exercise of his
right, that is, when he acts with prudence and in good faith, not when he acts with
negligence or abuse. -- Under Article 19 of the Civil Code, every person must, in the
exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. To find the existence of abuse
of right under the said article, the following elements must be present: (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. Accordingly, the exercise of a right shall always be in
accordance with the purpose for which it has been established, and must not be
excessive or unduly harsh—there must be no intention to injure another. A person
will be protected only when he acts in the legitimate exercise of his right, that is, when
he acts with prudence and in good faith, not when he acts with negligence or abuse.

3. Andrade vs. CA
HELD: While Article 19 of the New Civil Code may have been intended as a
declaration of principle, the “cardinal law on human conduct” expressed in said article
has given rise to certain rules, e.g., that where a person exercises his rights but does
so arbitrarily or unjustly or performs his duties in a manner that is not in keeping
with honesty and good faith, he opens himself to civil liability.—While Article 19 of
the New Civil Code may have been intended as a declaration of principle, the “cardinal
law on human conduct” expressed in said article has given rise to certain rules, e.g.,
that where a person exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or unjustly or performs
his duties in a manner that is not in keeping with honesty and good faith, he opens
himself to civil liability. The elements of abuse of one’s rights under the said 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. In this regard, it
appeared that the complaint of petitioner Andrade failed to meet the second and third
requirements.

Words and Phrases; Entrenched is the rule that bad faith does not simply connote bad
judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious

3
doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; and
partakes of the nature of fraud. -- Entrenched is the rule that bad faith does not simply
connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity
and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill
will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. In the case at bar, we find that there was no “dishonest
purpose,” or “some moral obliquity,” or “conscious doing of a wrong,” or “breach of a known
duty,” or “some motive or interest or ill will” that can be attributed to the private respondent.
It appeared that efforts to accommodate petitioner were made as she was offered to handle
two (2) nonteaching jobs, that is, to handle Developmental Reading lessons and be an
assistant Librarian, pending her re-assignment or transfer to another work station, but she
refused. The same would not have been proposed if the intention of private respondent were
to cause undue hardship on the petitioner. Good faith is always presumed unless convincing
evidence to the contrary is adduced. It is incumbent upon the party alleging bad faith to
sufficiently prove such allegation. Absent enough proof thereof, the presumption of good faith
prevails. In the case at bar, the burden of proving alleged bad faith therefore was with
petitioner but she failed to discharge such onus probandi. Without a clear and persuasive
evidence of bad faith, the presumption of good faith in favor of private respondent stands.

4. Cogeo-Cubao Operators and Drivers Association vs. Court of Appeals

HELD: Violation of legal rights. -- Although there is no question that petitioner can
exercise their constitutional right to redress their grievances with respondent
Lungsod Corp., the manner by which this constitutional right is to be exercised should
not undermine public peace and order nor should it violate the legal rights of other
persons. Article 21 of the Civil Code provides that any person who wilfully causes loss
or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. The provision covers a situation
where a person has a legal right which was violated by another in a manner contrary
to morals, good customs or public policy. It presupposes loss or injury, material or
otherwise, which one may suffer as a result of such violation. It is clear from the facts
of this case that petitioner formed a barricade and forcibly took over the motor units
and personnel of the respondent corporation. This paralyzed the usual activities and
earnings of the latter during the period of ten days and violated the right of
respondent Lungsod Corp. to conduct its operations thru its authorized officers.

5. Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes

HELD: Article 19 of the Civil Code, known to contain what is commonly referred to as
the principle of abuse of rights, is not a panacea for all human hurts and social
grievances, the object of the article being to set certain standards which must be
observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s
duties. -- Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle
of abuse of rights, is not a panacea for all human hurts and social grievances. Article
19 states: Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith. Elsewhere, we explained that 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
responsible.” The object of this article, therefore, is to set 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: act with justice, give everyone his

4
 due and observe honesty and good faith. Its antithesis, necessarily, is any act evincing
bad faith or intent to injure. Its elements 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. When Article 19 is violated, an action for damages is proper under
Articles 20 or 21 of the Civil Code.

ACTS OF CONTRA BONUS MORES

BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARY
Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals
HELD: Civil Law; Damages; The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per
se is not an actionable wrong.—The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry
per se is not an actionable wrong. Congress deliberately eliminated from the draft of
the New Civil Code the provisions that would have made it so.

Article. 21 of the Civil Code designed to expand the concept of torts or quasi-delict in this
jurisdiction grants adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is
impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books.—
This notwithstanding, the said Code contains a provision, Article 21, which is designed to
expand the concept of torts or quasi-delict in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal
remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to
specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books.

Same; Same; Same; Damages pursuant to Article 21 may be awarded not because of promise
to marry but because of fraud and deceit behind it—ln the light of the above laudable purpose
of Article 21, We are of the opinion, and so hold, that where a man's promise to marry is in
fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to
fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him
in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the
promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him
and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to
Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it
and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential,
however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy.

OTHER IMMORAL ACTS

Tenchavez vs. Escaño
HELD: Moral damages; Alienation of affection is incompatible with allegation of
contributory negligence. Movant plaintiff-appellant poses the novel theory that the
parents of the erring wife are undeserving of award of damages because they are
guilty of contributory negligence in failing to take proper and timely measures to
dissuade their daughter f rom leaving her husband, obtaining a foreign divorce and
marrying a foreigner. This theory cannot be considered, because it contradicts his
previous theory of alienation of affection. Contributory negligence involves an
omission to perform an act, while alienation of affection involves the performance of a
positive action.
Marriage; Refusal to perform wifely duties and desertion of husband. The award of moral
damages against the wife is assailed on the ground that her refusal to perform her wifely

5
duties, her denial of consortium and desertion of her husband are not included in the
enumeration of cases where moral damage may lie. The argument is untenable. The acts of
the wife (up to and including her divorce, for grounds not countenanced by law), constitute a
willful infliction 01 injury upon plaintiff’s feelings in a manner “contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy” (NCC, Article 21) for which paragraph 10 of Article 2219, authorizes
an award of moral damages.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: ELEMENTS

Manila Gas Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
HELD: Damages; Malicious Prosecution defined. To constitute malicious prosecution,
there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and
humiliate a person that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that
his charges were false and groundless. Concededly, the mere act of submitting a case
to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution.

MALICIOUS FILING OF CIVIL CASE

Gregorio vs. CA,
HELD: Elements; In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, the
plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence:
(1) the damages suffered by him;
(2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person to whose act he must
respond;
(3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages
incurred; and
(4) that there must be no preexisting contractual relation between the parties.

On the other hand, Article 26 of the Civil Code grants a cause of action for damages,
prevention, and other relief in cases of breach, though not necessarily constituting a criminal
offense, of the following rights:
(1) right to personal dignity;
(2) right to personal security;
(3) right to family relations;
(4) right to social intercourse;
(5) right to privacy; and
(6) right to peace of mind.

Malicious Prosecution; In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, it must be

alleged and established that the defendant was impelled by legal malice or bad faith in
deliberately initiating an action against the plaintiff, knowing that the charges were false
and groundless, intending to vex and humiliate her.—Sansio and Datuin are in error when
they insist that Gregorio’s complaint is based on malicious prosecution. In an action to
recover damages for malicious prosecution, it must be alleged and established that Sansio
and Datuin were impelled by legal malice or bad faith in deliberately initiating an action
against Gregorio, knowing that the charges were false and groundless, intending to vex and
humiliate her. As previously mentioned, Gregorio did not allege this in her complaint.
Moreover, the fact that she prayed for moral damages did not change the nature of her action
based on quasi-delict. She might have acted on the mistaken notion that she was entitled to
moral damages, considering that she suffered physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,

6
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social
humiliation on account of her indictment and her sudden arrest.

PUBLIC HUMILIATION
Maria Ford vs. CA 51171
HELD: Civil Law; Damages; Act of petitioner in slapping private respondent on the
face in public caused the latter mental anguish. - The act of petitioner Ford in slapping
private respondent on the face in public is contrary to morals and good customs and
under the circumstances, could not but have caused the latter mental anguish, moral
shock, wounded feelings and social humiliation. Full responsibility attached to said
act of the late petitioner Ford and the corresponding sanctions should be imposed. Her
excuse that she was prompted by her desire to calm down private respondent and
prevent her from becoming hysterical is too lame a subterfuge upon which to premise
a plea for exoneration. We are not persuaded by such pretense. Private respondent
was in the performance of her duty when the incident took place and she had every
right to stay in her post. On the other hand, petitioner Ford had no legitimate business
inside the polling precinct. Definitely, she barged into the premises in response to the
report and importuning of petitioner Uy.

Patricio vs. Hon. Oscar Leviste 51832

HELD: Civil Law; Torts and Damages; Moral Damages; Private respondent’s act of
hitting the petitioner on the face is contrary to morals and good customs, and caused
the petitioner mental anguish, moral shock and wounded feelings, and social
humiliation, hence, an award of moral damages is warranted. –As to the petitioner’s
claim for moral damages, we find the same to be meritorious. There is no question
that moral damages may be recovered in cases where a defendant’s wrongful act or
omission has caused the complainant physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation and similar injury. An award of moral damages is allowed in cases
specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. x x x Private
respondent’s contention that there was no bad faith on his part in slapping petitioner
on the face and that the incident was merely accidental is not tenable. It was
established before the court a quo that there was an existing feud between the families
of both petitioner and private respondent and that private respondent slapped the
petitioner without provocation in the presence of several persons. The act of private
respondent in hitting petitioner on the face is contrary to morals and good customs
and caused the petitioner mental anguish, moral shock, wounded feelings and social
humiliation. Private respondent has to take full responsibility for his act and his claim
that he was unaware of what he had done to petitioner because of drunkenness is
definitely no excuse and does not relieve him of his liability to the latter.

California Clothing Inc. vs. Quinones 175822

HELD: Civil Law; Human Relations; Abuse of Rights; Any abuse in the exercise of
such right and in the performance of duty causing damage or injury to another is
actionable under the Civil Code. Respondent’s complaint against petitioners stemmed
from the prin-ciple of abuse of rights provided for in the Civil Code on the chapter of
human relations. Respondent cried foul when petitioners allegedly embarrassed her
when they insisted that she did not pay for the black jeans she purchased from their
shop despite the evidence of payment which is the official receipt issued by the shop.

7
 The issu-ance of the receipt notwithstanding, petitioners had the right to verify from
respondent whether she indeed made payment if they had reason to believe that she
did not. However, the exercise of such right is not without limitations. Any abuse in
the exercise of such right and in the performance of duty causing damage or injury to
another is actionable under the Civil Code.

Under the abuse of rights principle found in Article 19 of the Civil Code, a person must, in the
exercise of legal right or duty, act in good faith. Under the abuse of rights principle found in
Article 19 of the Civil Code, a person must, in the exercise of legal right or duty, act in good
faith. He would be liable if he in-stead acted in bad faith, with intent to prejudice another.
Good faith refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual
concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and
unscrupulous advantage of another. Malice or bad faith, on the other hand, implies a
conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral
obliquity.