Case Digests

Art. 19 Principle of Abuse of Rights

1. Albetz Investment, Inc, v Court of Appeals

The prevailing party in an Ejectment case which will bring about a
demolision of the house of the defendant, was still held liable for damages for they
did not give the defendant sufficient time to remove his belongings, which were lost
or destroyed in the course of the demolition.

2. Go vs Cordero
Cordero was not given commission as exclusive distributor for AFFA and Go,
Robinson, Tecson and Landico acted with malice in failing to act with fairness,
honesty, and good faith in securing better terms for the purchase of high-speed
catamarans (vessel) from AFFA, to the prejudice of Cordero as the duly appointed
exclusive distributor.

3. Meralco vs Court of Appeals

MERALCO acted in bad faith, when they cut the electricity supply of a
customer without prior notice. They are held liable for damages.

4. Velayo vs Shell Co. Phil

A co-creditor did not observe honesty and good faith in its dealings with
other creditors in an Insolvency proceeding was held liable for damages because its
action causes damages to the latter.

5. Cebu Country Club vs Elizagaque

Board of Directors of Cebu Country Club (corporation for non-profit, non-
stock private membership club) favored the owner for disapproving an application
for proprietary membership. The Board should not have exercised their right
arbitrarily (only one black ball, unanimous vote of the directors was not printed on
the application form and he was not informed) which results to a damage to another.
Hence, they are held liable for damages.

Art. 20- Willfull or Negligent Acts Contrary to Law

1. Felipe vs. Leuterio et al

The issue is on whether the courts have the authority to reverse the award of
the board of judges of an oratorical competition. The complainant claimed that she
should have been declared the winner due to mathematical computations of the
scores. The court ruled that she had no right to the prize for she was not declared
the winner. The court should not interfere in similar competitions for once, it is an
unwritten law that the boards decision is final and unappealable .
2. University of the East vs Jader
The school was held liable for actual damages due to its negligence in
including a student in the list of graduation, but not for moral damages it is the duty
of the student to verify whether he has completed all the necessary requirements.
(Hes name was called in the investiture ceremony, filed the complaint when he
knew he would not be qualified to take the bar exams because of his deficiency after
being enrolled in a pre-bar review class)

Art. 21- Contrary to Morals, Good Customs or Public Policy (Causing injury)
1. Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals
A Filipina was asked for marriage by an Iranian citizen who was then an
exchange student of Medicine. Planning of the said marriage was done proven in the
visitation of the latter to the formers hometown. The latter asked her to live with
him in Dagupan. It was then that his maltreatment to her started.
Fraudulent and deceptive protestations of love and for promise to marry her
made a woman consent to a sexual act (meaning made her surrender her virtue and
womanhood believing that hell marry her) could justify for liability for damages.

2. Cecilio Pe vs Alfonso Pe
A married man enticed a woman to elope (run for secret marriage), taking
advantage of his closeness to the family, teaching her rosary but through a scheme
of trickery seduced the woman to fall in love with him has committed injury to the
womans family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.

3. Wassmer vs Velez

4. Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals