DOCTRINE OF ABUSE RIGHTS

CASES:
VICENTE RELLOSA, CYNTHIA ORTEGA assisted by husband Roberto Ortega, petitioners ,vs.
GONZALO PELLOSIS, INESITA MOSTE, and DANILO RADAM, respondents G.R. No.
138964, August 9, 2001, THIRD DIVISION, J. VITUG

The abuse of rights rule established in Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person to act with
justice, to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. When a right is exercised in a
manner which discards these norms resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for
which the actor can be held accountable.
In this instance, the issue is not so much about the existence of the right or validity of the order of
demolition as the question of whether or not petitioners have acted in conformity with, and not in
disregard of, the standard set by Article 19 of the Civil Code.
At the time petitioners implemented the order of demolition, barely five days after respondents received a
copy thereof, the same was not yet final and executory.

FACTS:
Respondents were lessees of a parcel of land owned by Victor Reyes. In 1986, Victor informed
respondents that, for being lessees of the land for more than twenty (20) years, they would have a
right of first refusal to buy the land. However, in the early part of 1989, without the knowledge of
respondents, the land occupied by them was sold to petitioner Cynthia Ortega who was able to
ultimately secure title to the property in her name.
After the sale, Cynthia Ortega filed a petition for condemnation of the structures on the land. After
due hearing in the condemnation case, the Office of the Building Official issued a resolution
ordering the demolition of the houses of respondents. However, due to the timely intervention of a
mobile unit of the Western Police District, the intended demolition did not take place following
talks between petitioner Rellosa and counsel who pleaded that the demolition be suspended since
the order sought to be implemented was not yet final and executory
On 11 December 1989, respondents filed their appeal contesting the order of the Office of the
Building Official. On 12 December 1989, petitioners once again hired workers and proceeded with
the demolition of respondents' houses.
Resultantly, respondents filed a case praying that petitioners be ordered to pay moral and
exemplary
damages, as well as attorney's fees, for the untimely demolition of the houses. After trial, the court
dismissed the complaint of respondents and instead ordered them to pay petitioners moral
damages.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, reversed the decision of the trial court and ordered petitioners to
pay respondents moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Hence, the present petition.
ISSUE:
W/N the premature demolition of the respondents’ houses entitled them to the award of damages
(YES)
HELD:
A right is a power, privilege, or immunity guaranteed under a constitution, statute or decisional law,
or recognized as a result of long usage, constitutive of a legally enforceable claim of one person
against another.
Petitioner might verily be the owner of the land, with the right to enjoy and to exclude any person
from the enjoyment and disposal thereof, but the exercise of these rights is not without limitations.
When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in damage to another, a
legal wrong is committed for which the actor can be held accountable. In this instance, the issue is
not so much about the existence of the right or validity of the order of demolition as the question of
whether or not petitioners have acted in conformity with, and not in disregard of, the standard set
by Article 19 of the Civil Code.

At the time petitioners implemented the order of demolition, barely five days after respondents
received a copy thereof, the same was not yet final and executory. The law provided for a fifteen-
dayappeal period in favor of a party aggrieved by an adverse ruling of the Office of the Building
Official but by the precipitate action of petitioners in demolishing the houses of respondents (prior
to the expiration of the period to appeal),the latter were effectively deprived of this recourse.
The action of petitioners up to the point where they were able to secure an order of
demolition was not condemnable but implementing the order unmindful of the right of respondents
to contest the ruling was a different matter and could only be held utterly indefensible.

ALBENSON ENTERPRISES CORP. v. CA GR No. 88694, DIVISION,

January 11, 1993, BIDIN, J.:
Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the 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. 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.
In this case, 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 BP 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. Moreover, private respondent 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 propituous by filing an action for damages.
FACTS:
Petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corporation delivered to Guaranteed Industries, Inc. the mild steel
plates which the latter ordered. As part payment thereof, Albenson was given by Pacific Banking
Corporation Check No. 136361 in the amount of P2,575.00 and drawn against the account of E.L.
Woodworks.
When presented for payment, the check was dishonored for the reason "Account Closed."
Thereafter,
petitioner Albenson, through counsel, traced the origin of the dishonored check. From the records
of
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Albenson discovered that the president of
Guaranteed, the recipient of the unpaid mild steel plates, was one "Eugenio S. Baltao." In addition,
upon verification with the drawee bank, Pacific Banking Corporation, Albenson was advised that
the
signature appearing on the subject check belonged to one "Eugenio Baltao".
After obtaining the foregoing information, Albensonmade an extrajudicial demand upon private
respondent Eugenio S. Baltao, president of Guaranteed, to replace and/or make good the
dishonored
check.
Respondent Baltao, through counsel, denied that he issued the check, or that the signature
appearing
thereon is his.
On February 14, 1983, Albenson filed with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal a complaint
against Eugenio S. Baltao for violation of Batas PambansaBilang 22. It appears, however, that
private
respondent has a namesake, his son Eugenio Baltao III, who manages a business establishment, E. L.
Woodworks, on the ground floor of Baltao Building, 3267 V. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila, the very
same business address of Guaranteed.
Because of the alleged unjust filing of a criminal case against him for allegedly issuing a check which
bounced in violation of Batas PambansaBilang for a measly amount of P2,575.00, respondent Baltao
filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for damages against herein
petitioners Albenson Enterprises, Jesse Yap, its owner, and Benjamin Mendiona, its employee.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners are liable for damages. (NO)

RULING:
Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the 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. 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.
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 BP 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, and yielded the following results: from the records of the SEC, it was discovered that the
President of Guaranteed (the recipient of the unpaid mild steel plates), was one "Eugenio S. Baltao";
an inquiry with the Ministry of Trade and Industry revealed that E.L. Woodworks, against whose
account the check was drawn, was registered in the name of one "Eugenio Baltao"; verification with
the drawee bank, the Pacific Banking Corporation, revealed that the signature appearing on the
check
belonged to one "Eugenio Baltao".
In a letter dated December 16, 1983, counsel for petitioners wrote private respondent demanding
that he make good the amount of the check. Counsel for private respondent wrote back and denied,
among others, that prkkivate respondent ever transacted business with Albenson Enterprises
Corporation; that he ever issued the check in question. Private respondent's counsel even went
further: he made a warning to defendants to check the veracity of their claim. It is pivotal to note at
this juncture that in this same letter, if indeed private respondent 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, i.e.: Eugenio Baltao Sr., Eugenio S. Baltao, Jr. (private
respondent), and Eugenio Baltao III (private respondent's son, who as it turned out later, was the
issuer of the check). He, however, failed to do this. The last two Baltaos were doing business in the
same building - Baltao Building - located at 3267 V. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila. The mild steel
plates were ordered in the name of Guaranteed of which respondent Eugenio S. Baltao is the
president and delivered to Guaranteed at Baltao building. Thus, 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 propituous by filing an action for damages.

CALIFORNIA CLOTHING v. SHIRLEY G. QUIÑONES GR No.175822,

DIVISION, October 23, 2013, PERALTA, J.
A person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise, he opens
himself to liability. 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. In this case, petitioners obviously abused their
rights.It is evident from the circumstances of the case that petitioners went overboard and tried to force
respondent to pay the amount they were demanding. In the guise of asking for assistance, petitioners
even sent a demand letter to respondent's employer not only informing it of the incident but obviously
imputing bad acts on the part of respondent.

FACTS:
On July 25, 2001, respondent, a Reservation Ticketing Agent of Cebu Pacific Air, went inside the
Guess
USA Boutique of Robinson's Department Store in Cebu City. She fitted four items: two jeans, a
blouse
and a shorts, then decided to purchase the black jeans. Respondent allegedly paid to the cashier
evidenced by a receipt issued by the store. While she was walking through the skywalk connecting
Robinson's and Mercury Drug Store, a Guess employee approached and informed her that she failed
to pay. She, however, insisted that she paid and showed the employee the receipt. She then
suggested
that they talk about it at the Cebu Pacific Office located at the basement of the mall.
When she arrived at the Cebu Pacific Office, the Guess employees allegedly subjected her to
humiliation in front of the clients of Cebu Pacific and repeatedly demanded payment. They
supposedly even searched her wallet to check how much money she had, followed by another
argument.
On the same day, the Guess employees allegedly gave a letter to the Director of Cebu Pacific Air
narrating the incident, but the latter refused to receive it as it did not concern the office and the
same
took place while respondent was off duty. Another letter was allegedly prepared and was supposed
to be sent to the Cebu Pacific Office in Robinson's, but the latter again refused to receive
it. Respondent also claimed that the Human Resource Department of Robinson's was furnished said
letter and the latter in fact conducted an investigation for purposes of canceling respondent's
Robinson's credit card. With the above experience, respondent claimed to have suffered physical
anxiety, sleepless nights, mental anguish, fright, serious apprehension, besmirched reputation,
moral
shock and social humiliation. She thus filed the Complaint for Damages against petitioners.
The RTC found no evidence to prove bad faith on the part of the Guess employees to warrant the
award of damages. On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners are guilty of abuse of right. (YES)
RULING:
The issuance 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 causing
damage or injury to another is actionable under the Civil Code.
The elements of abuse of rights are as follows: (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 case, it is evident from the circumstances of the case that petitioners went overboard and
tried
to force respondent to pay the amount they were demanding. In the guise of asking for assistance,
petitioners even sent a demand letter to respondent's employer not only informing it of the
incident
but obviously imputing bad acts on the part of respondent.
Petitioners accused respondent that not only did she fail to pay for the jeans she purchased but that
she deliberately took the same without paying for it and later hurriedly left the shop to evade
payment. These accusations were made despite the issuance of the receipt of payment and the
release
of the item purchased. There was, likewise, no showing that respondent had the intention to evade
payment. Contrary to petitioners' claim, respondent was not in a rush in leaving the shop or the
mall.
This is evidenced by the fact that the Guess employees did not have a hard time looking for her
when
they realized the supposed non-payment.
It can be inferred from the foregoing that in sending the demand letter to respondent's employer,
petitioners intended not only to ask for assistance in collecting the disputed amount but to tarnish
respondent's reputation in the eyes of her employer.
In view of the foregoing, respondent is entitled to an award of moral damages and attorney's fees.

GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., and HERBERT C. HENDRY v.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and RESTITUTO M. TOBIAS GR No.
81262, DIVISION, August 25, 1989, CORTES, J.

Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the NCC are known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of
abuse of rights, which 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. In this 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.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.
FACTS:
Restituto M. Tobias (Tobias) herein private respondent was an employee of Globe Mackay Cable
and
Radio Corp (GMCRC) herein petitioner. Herbert Hendry (Hendry) herein petitioner, was the
Executive Vice-President and General Manager of GMCRC.
Sometime in 1972, GMCRC discovered fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions for
which it lost several thousands of pesos. Thereafter, Hendry ordered Tobias to take a force leave so
as to have Tobias investigated. Hendry declared that Tobias was their number one suspect in the
anomaly. Thus, criminal complaints for estafa were filed against Tobias. These charges were,
however, dismissed for lack of probable cause. Subsequently, Hendry dismissed Tobias from
employment. Claiming that he was illegally dismissed, Tobias filed a complaint for damages against
GMCRC and Hendry with the RTC.
The RTC decided in favor of Tobias. On appeal, the CA affirmed. Now, GMCRC and Hendry assail the
decision of the CA. It asseverates that the dismissal of Tobias was in lawful exercise of its right.
Hence,
this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not GMCRC and Hendry exercised lawfully their right to dismiss Tobias. (NO)
RULING:
An employer who harbors suspicions that an employee has committed dishonesty might be
justified
in taking the appropriate action such as ordering an investigation and directing the employee to go
on a leave. Firmness and the resolve to uncover the truth would also be expected from such
employer.
But the high-handed treatment accorded Tobias by petitioners was certainly uncalled for. 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. 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. 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.

BARONS MARKETING CORP., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and

PHELPS DODGE PHILS., INC., respondents. GR No. 126486, DIVISION,
February 9, 1998, KAPUNAN, J.

To constitute an abuse of rights under Article 19, the defendant must act with bad faith or intent to
prejudice the plaintiff. In the case at bar, petitioner has failed to prove bad faith on the part of private
respondent. Petitioner's allegation that private respondent was motivated by a desire to terminate its
agency relationship with petitioner so that private respondent itself may deal directly with Meralco is
not supported by the evidence. At most, such supposition is considered by the Court merely speculative.
FACTS:
On August 31, 1973, plaintiff [Phelps Dodge, Philippines, Inc. private respondent herein] appointed
defendant [petitioner Barons Marketing, Corporation] as one of its dealers of electrical wires and
cables effective September 1, 1973. As such dealer, defendant was given by plaintiff 60 days credit
for its purchases of plaintiff's electrical products. This credit term was to be reckoned from the date
of delivery by plaintiff of its products to defendant.
During the period covering December 1986 to August 17, 1987, defendant purchased, on credit,
from
plaintiff various electrical wires and cables in the total amount of P4,102,438.30. These wires and
cables were in turn sold, pursuant to previous arrangements, by defendant to MERALCO, the former
being the accredited supplier of the electrical requirements of the latter. Under the sales invoices
issued by plaintiff to defendant for the subject purchases, it is stipulated that interest at 12% on the
amount due for attorney's fees and collection. On September 7, 1987, defendant paid plaintiff the
amount of P300,000.00 out of its total purchases as above-stated, thereby leaving an unpaid
account
on the aforesaid deliveries of P3,802,478.20. On several occasions, plaintiff wrote defendant
demanding payment of its outstanding obligations due plaintiff. In response, defendant wrote
plaintiff on October 5, 1987 requesting the latter if it could pay its outstanding account in monthly
installments of P500,000.00 plus 1% interest per month commencing on October 15, 1987 until full
payment. Plaintiff, however, rejected defendant's offer and accordingly reiterated its demand for
the
full payment of defendant's account.
On 29 October 1987, private respondent Phelps Dodge Phils., Inc. filed a complaint before the Pasig
Regional Trial Court against petitioner Barons Marketing Corporation for the recovery of
P3,802,478.20 representing the value of the wires and cables the former had delivered to the latter,
including interest. Phelps Dodge likewise prayed that it be awarded attorney's fees at the rate of
25%
of the amount demanded, exemplary damages amounting to at least P100,000.00, the expenses of
litigation and the costs of suit.
After hearing, the trial court found Phelps Dodge Phils., Inc. to have preponderantly proven its case.
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision modifying the decision of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondent is guilty of abuse of right. (NO)

RULING:
Petitioner invokes Article 19 and Article 21[8] of the Civil Code, claiming that private respondent
abused its rights when it rejected petitioner's offer of settlement and subsequently filed the action
for collection.
It is an elementary rule in this jurisdiction that good faith is presumed and that the burden of
proving
bad faith rests upon the party alleging the same. In the case at bar, petitioner has failed to prove bad
faith on the part of private respondent. Petitioner's allegation that private respondent was
motivated
by a desire to terminate its agency relationship with petitioner so that private respondent itself
may
deal directly with Meralco is simply not supported by the evidence. At most, such supposition is
merely speculative.
Moreover, the SC found that private respondent was driven by very legitimate reasons for rejecting
petitioner's offer and instituting the action for collection before the trial court. As pointed out by
private respondent, the corporation had its own "cash position to protect in order for it to pay its
own obligations." This is not such "a lame and poor rationalization" as petitioner purports it to be.
For if private respondent were to be required to accept petitioner's offer, there would be no reason
for the latter to reject similar offers from its other debtors. Clearly, this would be inimical to the
interests of any enterprise, especially a profit-oriented one like private respondent. It is plain to see
that what we have here is a mere exercise of rights, not an abuse thereof. Under these
circumstances,
the SC did not deem private respondent to have acted in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs
or public policy as to violate the provisions of Article 21 of the Civil Code.