Love Law, Lovelife: On Ghosting and Civil Damages

The showbiz issue between Bea Alonzo, Gerald Anderson and Julia Baretto have moved
Filipinos of all ages and profession. Even the esteemed Justice Marvic Leonen himself and
several political personalities have also expressed a word or two. While we may not have
reached the point of relevancy and competency in the field of politics and judiciary, law students
are also among those who have adamantly shared their opinions on Facebook.
While studying my books and while reading an article entitled The Philippine Civil Code Chapter
on Human Relations and Contemporary Challenges written by a certain Perry L. Pe, it got me
thinking, just for the sake of nonsensical fun to apply the law on issue at hand: May the remedy
of civil damages be made available for any of the parties in the aforementioned showbiz issue?
To delve further on this matter, we should take one of the parties to be considered as our
“client”. Based on what Bea told the press, it appears that Bea was “ghosted” by Gerald. Gerald,
based on his statements, seems to have already expressed disinterest in continuing his
relationship with Bea. Meanwhile, Julia may have been the receiving end of the angst brought
about by the “LQ” (love quarrel) of the two, which brought her to retaliate by posting that
controversial statement on bullying on her Instagram account, which in turn prompted equally
notorious comments by her Aunt Gretchen and her mother Marjorie.
Since discussing all three sides would take us several pages, let’s just choose one side.
Assuming Bea came to us for legal advice because she wants to file a case against her ex-
beau, can Gerald be sued for “ghosting” Bea?
First we must determine if there is dating relationship between Bea and Gerald. Under R.A. No.
9262, dating relationship is defined as “a situation wherein the parties live as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a
continuing basis during the course of their relationship.” Both Gerald and Bea admit to
having been romantically involved on a continuing basis during the course of their relationship
until the “ghosting” part. Hence, they are indeed in a dating relationship.
It goes without saying that under the same law which by the way also defines psychological
violence, Gerald may have committed an act of violence against Bea under Section 5,
paragraph i by “causing mental or emotional anguish” due to the fact that without actually
breaking up with her, the guy went to court another woman. Considering that it is a well-
entrenched legal precept that a person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable.
Since we are on the topic of love and law, to determine civil liabilities we shall start with Article
19 which is the heart of the Civil Code, which states thusly:
" 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."
Correlatively, the subsequent provisions also support and fill the gap from the afore-quoted law.
Articles 20 and 21 states to wit:
“ARTICLE 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same”.
 And,
“ARTICLE 21. Any person who willfully 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.”
So how do we determine if there is civil liability incurred as an effect of the acts of Gerald? In the
unforgettable case of Chua-Qua vs. Clave (G.R. No. 49549, August 30, 1990), which also
revolves around matters of love, the Supreme Court gave a profound discussion of the matter,
stating to wit:

“In the sphere of our law on human relations, the victim of a wrongful act
or omission, whether done willfully or negligently, is not left without any remedy
or recourse to obtain relief for the damage or injury he sustained. Incorporated
into our civil law are not only principles of equity but also universal moral
precepts which are designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the
fountain of good conscience and which are meant to serve as guides for human
conduct.”

Article 21, in relation to Article 19 and 20 has been made a basis of imposing civil damages as a
consequence of a breach of promise to marry if preparations have already been made. In
California Clothing v. Shirley Quiñones, a woman who allegedly suffered humiliation after the
employees of the jeans store accused her of not paying for the jeans she bought was
indemnified. In that case, the Court reminded that even while the employees are at liberty to
ensure payment of items they are selling, it does not countenance excessive and humiliating
manner of doing so.
In line with the precepts of Article 21, it would be our position that Gerald willfully caused loss or
injury to Bea contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. As discussed in the above-
mentioned article by Perry L. Pe, this article “was enacted because of the countless gaps in
the statutes, which leave so many victims of moral wrongs, helpless, even though they
have actually suffered material and moral injury.”
Simply put, Gerald’s acts still qualifies as cheating considering that he and Bea still did not have
definite closure of their relationship prior to his courting Julia. Hence, Bea may ask to be civilly
indemnified on the basis of the emotional abuse she suffered out of the acts of Gerald.
Consequently, as Bea is our imaginary client, we advise her to file the appropriate case against
Gerald.
As for Julia, that’s a topic for another, probably lengthier discussion. 
But of course, I am but a law student still endeavoring to explore further the realms of the legal
profession. Nonetheless, while all these are mere products of this writer’s imagination, at the
end of the day we stand by the position of Justice Leonen who expressed his wisdom in just
four (4) words: IS HE WORTH IT?