ARTICLE 19 TO 21

UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. JADER

G.R. No. 132344, 17 February 2000
FACTS:
Respondent Romeo Jader was enrolled in the University of the East College of Law
from 1984 to 1988. In the first semester of SY 1987-1988, he failed to take the
regular final examination in Practice Court 1 for which he was given
an incomplete grade. He enrolled the following semester, and filed an application for
the removal of the incomplete grade on February 1, 1988, given by Prof. Ortega
which was approved by Dean Tiongzon. Thereafter, he took the removal examination
on March 28, 1988. On May 30, 1988, Prof. Ortega submitted his grade of five (5).
Respondents name appeared in the Tentative List of Candidates for Graduation, with
the annotation that he had an incomplete grade in Practice Court 1.
The 35th Investitures & Commencement Ceremonies for the candidates of
Bachelor of Laws was scheduled on the 16th of April 1988 and in the invitation for
that occasion the name of the respondent appeared as one of the candidates, with
footnote that the list was tentative. Respondent attended the investiture ceremonies
and tendered a blow-out thereafter.
He took a leave from work for five (5) months to attend a review class in preparation
for the Bar examination. Upon learning of his deficiency, he dropped the review
class and was not able to take the Bar examination.
Respondent sued petitioner for damages alleging that he suffered moral shock,
mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and
sleepless nights when he was not able to take the 1988 bar examinations arising from
the latter's negligence. He prayed for an award of moral and exemplary damages,
unrealized income, attorney's fees, and costs of suit. The petitioner denied liability
arguing that it never led respondent to believe that he completed the requirements for
an LLB degree when his namewas included in the tentative list of graduating
students. The RTC ruled in respondents favor. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the
RTCs decision.
ISSUE: May an educational institution be held liable for damages for misleading a
student into believing that the latter had satisfied all the requirements for graduation
when such is not the case?
RULING:
YES. When a student is enrolled in any educational or learning institution, a contract
of education is entered into between said institution and the student. The professors,
teachers or instructors hired by the school are considered merely as agents and
administrators tasked to perform the school's commitment under the contract. 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.
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 successfulprosecution 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.
Petitioner ought to have known that time was of the essence in the performance of its
obligation to inform respondent of his grade. It cannot feign ignorance that
respondent will not prepare himself for the bar exams since that is precisely the
immediate concern after graduation of an LL.B. graduate.
Petitioners 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.
However, while petitioner was guilty of negligence and thus liableto respondent for
the latter's actual damages; we hold that respondent should not have been awarded
moral damages. It is also respondents duty to verify for himself whether he has
completed all necessary requirements to be eligible for 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.
Certainly, taking the bar examinations does not only entail a mental preparation on
the subjects thereof; there are also prerequisites of documentation and submission of
requirements which the prospective examinee must meet.
CARPIO vs. VALMONTE
G. R. No. 151866 September 9, 2004
FACTS:
Respondent Leonora Valmonte is a wedding coordinator. Michelle
del Rosario and Jon Sierra engaged her services for their church
wedding on 10 October 1996. At about 4:30 p.m. on that day,
Valmonte went to the Manila Hotel where the bride and her family
were billeted. When she arrived at Suite 326-A, several persons
were already there. Among those present was petitioner Soledad
Carpio, an aunt of the bride. After reporting to the bride, Valmonte
went out of the suite carrying the items needed for the wedding
rites and the gifts from the principal sponsors. After attending to
her duties, she went back to the suite and upon entering, Valmonte
notice the people staring at her. It was at this juncture that the
petitioner allegedly uttered the following words to Valmonte: Ikaw
lang ang lumabas ng kwarto, nasaan ang dala mong bag? Saan ka
pumunta? Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto, ikaw ang kumuha.

Petitioner then ordered to search Valmontes bag. It turned out that

after Valmonte left the room to attend to her duties, petitioner
discovered that the pieces of jewelry ( 2 diamond rings, 1 set of
diamond earrings, bracelet, and necklace with a total value of
about one million pesos) which she placed inside the comfort room
in a paper bag were lost. During all the time Valmonte was being
interrogated by the police officers, petitioner kept on saying the
words Siya lang ang lumabas ng kwarto. Valmontes car was also
search but the search yielded nothing. On February 1997, Valmonte
filed a suit against the petitioner for the damages against her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellate court erred in awarding moral
damages for finding that the petitioner slander the respondents
good name and reputation
HELD:
No. Petitioners verbal assault was done with malice and in bad
faith since it was made in the presence of many people without
solid proof except petitioners suspicion. Petitioners testimony was
shorn of substance and consists mainly of denials. Well-settled is
the rule that denials, if substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, are negative and self-serving which merit no weight in
law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over testimony
of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.
One is not allowed to exercise his right in a manner which would
cause unnecessary prejudice to another or if he would thereby
offend morals or good morals and good customs.
To find the existence of an abuse of right, 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.
Gashem vs Court of Appeals
FACTS:
Petitioner Gashem Shookat Baksh, Iranian, started courting the
private respondent Marilou T. Gonzales, Filipina, just a few days
after they first met in Dagupan City. Gashem later proposed to the
private respondent several times until the latter finally accepted
the former's proposal of marriage. The two went to the private
respondent's hometown to inform her parents about their
relationship and their intention to get married. However, when the
couple returned to Dagupan City, Gashem allegedly forced the

private respondent to live with him in his apartment. Gashem's

attitude towards her started to change; he maltreated and
threatened to kill her. The private respondent continued to live with
him and kept reminding him of his promise to marry her until the
petitioner lied and said that he was already married to a girl in
Bacolod. The private respondent then filed a complaint for
damages against the petitioner. The lower court, applying Article 21
of the Civil Code, rendered a decision favoring the private
respondent and ordering the petitioner to pay the latter damages
and attorney's fees. Petitioner filed an appeal seeking to review and
set aside the decision of the lower court affirmed by the
correspondent Court of Appeals. He claims that Article 21 is not
applicable because he had not committed any moral wrong or
injury or violated any good custom or public policy. He also
asseverates that even if it was to be assumed arguendo that he
had professed his love to the private respondent and had also
promised to marry her, such acts would not be actionable in view of
the circumstances of the case. The mere breach of promise is not
actionable.
ISSUE:
W/N damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry
on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
RULING:
RULING: YES. A breach in promise to marry per se is not an
actionable wrong. However, where a mans 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 her 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.
NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM vs. ROBERTO REYES
a.k.a AMAY BISAYA
In relation to Article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code
G.R. No. 154259 February 28 2005

FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the
Court of Appeals (CA). Robert Reyes at around 6 oclock in the evening,
while he was having coffee at the lobby of the Nikko Hotel Manila Garden
(Nikko Hotel), he spotted his friend Dr. Violeta Filart, who then approached
him. Mrs. Filart invited him to come with her in a birthday party in the hotels
penthouse, to which he agreed. At the party venue, he sat with the party of
Mrs. Filart. When the buffet dinner was ready, Mr. Reyes lined-up in the
buffet table, only to be stopped by Ruby Lim, the Executive Secretary of
Nikko Hotel. Lim advised the defendant in a loud voice to leave because Mr.
Reyes was not invited. He tried to explain that Mrs. Filart invited him, to
which the she ignored, adding the shame and humiliation on his part. After
the incident, he was escorted by the Makati policeman out of the hotel
premises.
On the other hand, defendant Lim, the organizer of the party for Mr.
Tsuruoka, argued that the guest list was limited to approximately sixty (60) of
Mr. Tsuruokas closest friends. Mindful of this matter, she requested various
guests to tell Mr. Reyes to leave the party as he was not invited. However,
Mr. Reyes still lingered that she had no choice but to speak to him herself as
there were no other guests in the immediate vicinity, wherein she politely told
him that he is not supposed to be here, and requested him to finish his food
and leave the vicinity. She then thought that he will heed to her request,
however, Mr. Reyes created a scene, and even threatened to dump food at
her. Mr. Reyes filed a complaint to RTC for the damages under the human
relations provisions of the Civil Code. RTC dismissed the case, leaning
towards Nikko Hotel and Lim. Upon the appeal, CA reversed the lower
courts decision, and ordered to compensate Mr. Reyes for moral damages.
Issue: Whether or not Nikko Hotel and Ruby Lim acted abusively in asking
Robert Reyes to leave the party.
Ruling:
No. Ms. Lim, having been in the hotel business for twenty years wherein
being polite and discreet are virtues to be emulated, the testimony of Reyes
that she acted to the contrary does not inspire belief and is indeed incredible.
During the cross-examination with the plaintiff, he admitted that when Ms.
Lim talked to him, she was very close enough for him to kiss. Considering the
proximity of Lim to Reyes, the request was meant to be heard only by him. It
was the latters reaction that made the other guests aware of what transpired
between them. Thus, having not abused her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave
the party to which he was not invited, they cannot be made liable to pay for
the damages under Article 19 and 21.
[Persons] [Article 21, NCC]
BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee vs. FRANCISCO X.
VELEZ, defendant-appellant December 26, 1964 GR No. L20089 Justice J.P. Bengzon Jr.

FACTS:
Velez and Wassmer decided to get married and set Sept. 4,
1954 as the big day. However on Sept. 2, Velez left a note for his
bride-to-be postponing the marriage because his mother opposes it
and left on a Convair plane. The next day, Velez sent a telegram to
Wassmer reassuring her that he will return very soon. However,
Velez did not return and was never heard from again. Wassmer
sued Velez for damages and Velez filed no answer. He was declared
in default. On Apr. 29, 1955 judgment was rendered ordering
defendant to pay plaintiff P2000 as actual damages, P25000 as
moral and exemplary damages, P2500 as attorneys fees and the
costs. Velez asserted that the judgment is contrary to law as there
is no provision of the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of
marriage.
ISSUE/S:
1 W/N Francisco Velez is liable for breaching his promise to
marry Beatriz Wassmer
HELD:
1 Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that as a general rule mere
breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong
(Hermosisima vs. CA, L-14628). However, records show that
the bride already spent a considerable amount of money
preparing everything for the wedding. Hence, when the
plaintiff suffers damages resulting from the breach of
promise to marry, the defendant must be held answerable
for damages in accordance to Article 21 of the Civil Code.
Notes:
1 Judgment of the lower court AFFIRMED, with costs.
2 Article 21 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.
Pe vs Pe
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CIVIL CODE
Facts: Plaintiffs are the parents, brothers, and sisters of Lolita Pe,
who was at the time of disappearance, was 24 years old and
unmarried. The defendant (Alfonso Pe) is a married man and the
adopted son of Chinaman named Pe Beco, a collateral relative of
Lolitas father. Because of such fact and the similarity in their family
name, the defendant became close to the plaintiffs who regarded
him as a member of the family. Defendant then frequented the
house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him to
pray the rosary. The two eventually fell in love with each other and

conducted clandestine trysts. When the rumors about their love

affairs reached the ears of Lolitas parents, the defendant was
forbidden to go to their house and see Lolita. The plaintiffs even
filed deportation proceedings against the defendant, who is a
Chinese national. Nonetheless, the affair between defendant and
Lolita continued.
On April 14, 1957 Lolita disappeared from their house. Plaintiffs
found a note in the handwriting of the defendant on Lolitas
aparador.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant committed an injury to
Lolitas family on the ground of their affair, as it is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy.
HELD: YES. The circumstances under which defendant tried to
win Lolitas affection cannot lead to any other conclusion than that
it was he who, thru an ingenious scheme or trickery, seduced the
latter to the extent of making her fall in love with him. Indeed, no
other conclusion can be drawn from this chain of events than that
defendant not only deliberately, but through a clever strategy,
succeeded in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the extent
of having illicit relations with her. The wrong he has caused her and
her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a
married man. Verily, he has committed and injury to Lolitas family
in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy as
contemplated in Article 21 of the New Civil Code.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. Defendant is
hereby sentenced to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P5,000.00 as
damages and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees and expenses of
litigations. Costs against appellee.
ARTICLE 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.
Ernesto Ramas Uypitching and Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc.,
petitioner vs.
Ernesto Quiamco, respondent (G.R. No. 146322, December 6,
2006)
FACTS: In 1982, respondent Ernesto Quiamco was approached by
Juan Davalan, Josefino Gabutero and Raul Generoso to amicably
settle the civil aspect of a criminal case for robbery filed by
Quiamco against them. They surrendered to him a red Honda XL100 motorcycle and a photocopy of its certificate of registration.
Respondent asked for the original certificate of registration but the

three accused never came to see him again. The motorcycle was
parked in an open space inside respondents business
establishment, Avesco AVNE Enterprises, where it is visible and
accessible to the public. It turned out that the motorcycle had been
sold on installment basis to Gabutero by the petitioner Ramas
Uypitching Sons, Inc., managed by Atty. Ernesto Ramas Uypitching.
To secure its payment, the motorcycle was mortgaged to petitioner
corporation. When Gabutero could no longer pay the installments,
Davalan assumed the obligation but stopped paying the remaining
installments and told the collector that the motorcycle had been
allegedly taken by respondents men. Nine years later,
Uypitching, accompanied by policemen went to Avesco-AVNE
Enterprise to recover the motorcycle. While the police leader and
the clerk in charge were taking, Uypitching paced back and forth
inside the establishment uttering Quiamco is a thief of
motorcycle. The policemen left to look for respondent in his
residence while the petitioner stayed in the establishment and take
photographs of the motorcycle. Unable to find the respondent, he
instructed the policemen to take the motorcycle regardless of the
clecks objection.
ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of the petitioner are contrary to the
principle of abuse of right.
RULING: YES. 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. There is an abuse of
right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure
another. In this case, the manner by which the motorcycle was
taken at petitioners instance was not only attended by bad faith
but also contrary to the procedure laid down by law. Considered in
conjunction with the defamatory statement, petitioners exercise of
the right to recover the mortgaged vehicle was utterly prejudicial
and injurious to respondent. On the other hand, the precipitate act
of filing an unfounded complaint could not in any way be
considered to be in accordance with the purpose for which the right
to prosecute a crime was established. Thus, the totality of
petitioners actions showed a calculated design to embarrass,
humiliate and publicly ridicule respondent. Petitioners acted in an
excessively harsh fashion to the prejudice of respondent. Contrary
to law, petitioners willfully caused damage to respondent. Hence,
they should indemnify him.
ARTICLE 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.

GLOBE MACKAY CABLE vs. CA

G.R. No. 81262 August 25, 1989
FACTS: Private respondent Restituto M. Tobias was employed by
petitioner Globe Mackay in dual capacity as purchasing agent and
administrative assistant to the engineering operations manager. In
1972, the respondent discovered fraudulent anomalies and
transactions in the said corporation for which it lost several
hundred thousands of pesos. The private respondent reported to
his superiors including Henry, the petitioner. However, he was
confronted by Hendry stating that Tobias was the number one
suspect. He was ordered to take a one week forced leave. When he
returned to work, Hendry called him crook and swindler, and left
a scornful remark to the Filipinos. The petitioners also charged six
criminal cases against the respondentfive cases of estafa and one
for violating Article 290 of the RPC (Discovering Secrets through
Seizure of Correspondence). The petitioner also sent a poison letter
to RETELCO causing the respondent to be unemployed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are liable for damages to the
respondent.
HELD: Petitioners invoked the right of damnun absque injuria or
the damage or loss which does not constitute a violation of legal
right or amount to a legal wrong is not actionable. However, this is
not applicable 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 be held
liable.
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.
This article, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the
principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which must be
observed not only in the exercise of ones rights but also in the
performance of ones duties.