Cecilla Pe, et. al. v.

Alfonso Pe
Facts: Lolita Pes family filed an action for damages under Article 21 of the New Civil
Code against respondent Alfonso Pe, a Chinese citizen, for seducing Lolita to fall in
love with him, despite being a married man himself. Petitioners alleged that Alfonso
frequented Lolitas house under the guise of Lolita teaching him how to pray the
rosary, committed clandestine tryst not only in the town of Gasan but also in Boac,
where Lolita used to teach in a barrio school, and exchanged love notes with each
other, the contents of which reveal not only their infatuation for each other but also
the extent to which they had carried their relationship. In his defense, Alfonso
contended that the facts therein, even if true, do not constitute an action against
him. The trial court agreed with Alfonsos statement on the ground that Petitioners
failed to prove that respondent and in bad faith tried to win Lolitas affection.
Issue: Could respondent be sued for damages under Article 21 of the New Civil
Code?
Held: Yes. The circumstances under which defendant tried to win Lolita's 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 an injury to
Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy as
contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code.

Gasheem Shookat Baksh v. CA

Facts: Petitioner Baksh, 29 years old Muslim, filed an appeal on certiorari of the
decision of the Court of Appeals to affirm in toto the decision of the Regional Trial
Court in awarding damages under Article 21 of the New Civil Code to private
respondent Marilou T. Gonzales, 21 years old Christian, on the ground of breach of
promise to marry committed by petitioner. Baksh denied allegations that he
promised to marry Gonzales in order to use her for his personal pleasures involving
carnal knowledge. Also, He contended that Article 21 should not be applied to him
because he did not commit any wrong or injury or violated any custom or public
policy. As a muslim, he is not familiar with Catholic nor Christian ways. He also
criticized the lower court for invoking Filipino customs, traditions, and culture, and
ignoring the fact that he is a foreigner.
Issue: Should Baksh be held liable for damages under Article 21 of the New Civil
Code?

Held: Yes, for fuck sake! 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. In 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.

Globe Mackay Cable v. CA

Facts: Petitioner Globe Mackay Cable filed an action for certiorari of the decision of
the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial
awarding damages to private respondent Restituto Tobias, on the ground of
malicious prosecution committed by Petitioner. Tobias recalled that He was
previously charged by petitioner for the crime of estafa, after certain fictitious
purchases and fraudulent transactions were discovered. The lower court dismissed
the criminal complaint; however, private respondent was removed from
employment by Petitioner as a result. Tobias filed an action for illegal dismissal with
the NLRC, but to no avail. When applying for a job position in RETELCO, petitioner
allegedly sent a letter to said company, informing that Tobias was a thief and should
be denied employment. Petitioner contended that they could not be made liable for
damages in the lawful exercise of their right to dismiss private respondent.
However, private respondent contends that because of petitioners' abusive manner
in dismissing him as well as for the inhuman treatment he got from them, the
Petitioners must indemnify him for the damage that he had suffered.
Issue: Should Globe Mackay Cable be liable for damages under Article 21 of the New
Civil Code?
Held: Yes. To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the
prosecution was prompted by a design to vex and humiliate a person and that it
was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that the charges were false and
groundless. Concededly, the filing of a suit by itself does not render a person liable
for malicious prosecution. The mere dismissal by the fiscal of the criminal complaint
is not a ground for an award of damages for malicious prosecution if there is no

competent evidence to show that the complainant had acted in bad faith. In
addition to the observations made by the trial court, the Court finds it significant
that the criminal complaints were filed during the pendency of the illegal dismissal
case filed by Tobias against petitioners. This explains the haste in which the
complaints were filed, which the trial court earlier noted.