Article 19-36

Development Bank of the Philippines v. CA

Spouses obtained a loan from DBP then they executed real
mortgage over the 7 parcels of land. DBP sent notice to the
spouses to pay the remaining balance of their loan within
10 days from notice thereof but they failed to pay. DBP
informed that it was going to have the mortgage foreclosed
for their failure to settle account. Spouses wrote a letter to
DBP requesting for the updated statements of their
accounts and application payments but on the same day
DBP filed an application for extrajudicial foreclosure of the
real estate mortgage in its favor. Spouses filed a
preliminary writ of injunction enjoining the public auction.
He also testified during the trial that he suffered mental
anguish and serious anxieties because of the threatened
extra judicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgages. Trial
court ordered DBP to pay Gotangcos 250,000 for moral
damages. DBP appealed and it was reduced to 50,000. SC
held that there was no basis of moral damages according
to ART. 19 because Charity Gotangco didnt event testify so
there is factual basis for the award of moral damages in her
favor. The Spouses Gotangco failed to prove malice on the
part of the petitioner. The bare fact that the petitioner filed
its application of the extrajudicial foreclosure of the
mortgage, notwithstanding those differences, cannot
thereby give rise to the conclusion that the petitioner did
so with malice, to harass the Spouses Gotangco. DBP had
sent several notices regarding the payment of their
balances but they still failed to comply.
Uypitching v. Quiamco
Davalan, Gabutero, Generoso gave a motorcycle to
Quiamco to settle the criminal charge of robbery against
them by the latter. Uypitching sold the motorcycle to
Gabutero and was mortgaged to him in case of default in
payment. Gabutero failed to pay, Davalan assumed the
liability but also failed to pay. Nine years later, Uypitching
accompanied by policemen went to the establishment of
Quiamco to see the latter but was not there so Uypitching
took the motorcycle and repeatedly said that Quiamco is a
thief of the motorcycle.
Uypitching filed a criminal
complaint for theft and or violation of anti-fencing law
against Quiamco. Quiamco moved to dismiss the case
because he argued that he neither stole nor bought the
motorcycle, the city prosecutor dismissed the case.
Quiamco filed an action for damages against petitioners in
RTC Dumaguete for unlawfully taking the motor, utterance
of defamatory remark and filing of a baseless complaint
that affected the reputation of Quiamco. SC ruled in favor
of respondent. Uypitching failed to bring proper civil action
necessary to acquire legal possession of motorcycle. He
also went to Quiamco's establishment and ordered seizure
of motor without a search warrant, and mentioned
slanderous statement. Uypitching blatantly disregarded the
lawful procedure for the enforcement of its right, to the
prejudice of respondent therefore an abuse of right.
Wassmer v. Velez
Francisco Velez and Beatriz P. Wassmer decided to get
married and set September 4 as the big day. On Sept. 2,
Velez left a note saying that he has to postpone the
wedding because his mother opposes it. On Sept 3, he sent
another telegram saying that he will return very soon but
he did not appear nor he was heard from again. Wassmer

sued him for damages but he filed no answer and was

declared in default. Velez is liable not because of mere
breach of a promise to marry but because of the injury
and humiliation he caused to Wassmer. This is contrary to
good customs for which defendant must be answerable in
damages in accordance with Article 21.
Nikko Hotel Manila Gardens, et al. v. Reyes
Roberto Reyes saw his friend Dr. VioletaFilart at the lobby of
Hotel Nikko and invited him to join the birthday celebration
of the hotels manager Mr. Masakazu Tsuruoka. While lining
up for the buffet, he was stopped by Ruby Lim when she
said huwag ka ng kumain di ka imbitado, bumaba ka
nalang. Dr. Filart just ignored him which added to his
humiliation. Then after, a Makati policeman escorted him
out of the party. Ruby Lim cannot be made liable because
of absence of any proof or motive on her part to humiliate
Mr. Reyes.No evidence shown that Ms. Lim was driven by
animosity against him. Ms. Lim not having abused her
right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party to which he is not
invited, cannot be made liable to pay for damages under
Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Neither Nikko Hotel
can be liable. She can be guilty only of bad judgment not
resulting to bad faith.
Baksh v. CA
Respondent Marilou Gonzales met petitioner Gashem Baksh
an exchange student from Iran. He proposed marriage to
her and accepted it on the condition that they would get
married after end of school semester. Petitioner forced
private respondent to live with him in his apartment.
Respondent was still a virgin before she lived with him but
because of persuasive promise to marry her, she allowed
herself to be deflowered by petitioner. But petitioner
changed and started to maltreat her and repudiated their
marriage agreement, and asked her not to live with him
anymore because he is already married to someone else.
Respondent filed complaint for damages against petitioner.
He could be liable under Art. 21. She engaged in sexual
intercourse with the petitioner because she was led to
believe that petitioner would marry her. But 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 fraud
and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and
reputation which followed thereafter. Petitioner clearly
violated the Filipinos concept of morality and brazenly
defied the traditional respect Filipinos have for their
women.
Pe v. Pe
Plaintiffs are parents, brothers and sisters of Lolita Pe, an
unmarried woman 24 years of age. Defendant Alfonso, a
married man, frequently visited Lolitas house on the
pretext that he wanted her to teach him to pray the rosary.
They fell in love and conducted clandestine trysts. When
the parents learned about this they prohibited defendant
from going to their house. The affair continued just the
same. On April 14, 1957 Lolita disappeared from her
brothers house where she was living. A note in the
handwriting of the defendant was found inside Lolitas
aparador The lower court dismissed the action and

plaintiffs appealed. Defendant is liable for moral damages

for seducing an unmarried woman into an illicit relationship
on the ground that he has caused the woman and her
family immeasurable wrong. He has committed an injury to
the womans family in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs, and public policy as contemplated in Article 21.
Spouses Quisumbing v. MERALCO
The house of spouses Quisumbing were inspectioned by
inspectors of MERALCO asking permission through their
secretary. They discovered that the terminal seal of meter
was missing, and meter dials were misaligned. Orlino, the
inspector informed Quisumbings that they were liable to
pay amount of P 178,875.01 as differential billing for
tampering the meter unless they pay their electric supply
will be disconnected. At the time, the alleged meter
tampering was discovered only the MERALCO inspection
team
and
Quisumbings
secretary
were
present.
Quisumbings filed a case alleging that MERAL disconnected
their power supply without due process. RTC ruled in favor
of
the
Quisumbings.
CA
held
that
MERALCOs
representatives had acted in good faith when they
disconnected. But under Anti-Electricity and Electric
Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994 one of
the requisites is the personal witnessing and attestation by
an officer of the law or by an authorized Energy Regulatory
Board representative when discovery was made. MERALCO
is liable to spouses because there was no due process in
disconnecting and there was no officer of the law or ERB
rep at the time. Moreso, they should have given the
spouses ample opportunity to dispute the electric charges
brought about by the alleged meter-tampering. Also they
should have given reasonable notice to pay the bull and
notice to discontinue supply. As a public utility they have
the duty to see to it that they do not violate nor transgress
the rights of the consumers. Any act on their part that work
against the ordinarynorms of justice and fair play is
considered an infraction that gives rise to an action for
damages.
Globe Mackay Cable v. CA
Respondent Restituto Tobias, a purchasing agent and
administrative assistant to the engineering operations
manager, discovered fictitious purchases and other
fraudulent transactions, which caused Globe Mackay Cable
and Radio Corp loss of several thousands of pesos. He
reported it to his immediate superior Eduardo T. Ferraren
and to the Executive Vice President and General Manager
Herbert Hendry. A day after the report, Hendry told Tobias
that he was number one suspect and ordered him one
week forced leave. When Tobias returned to work after said
leave, Hendry called him a crook and a swindler,
ordered him to take a lie detector test, and to submit
specimen of his handwriting, signature and initials for
police investigation. Petitioners filed with the Fiscals Office
of Manila a total of six (6) criminal cases against private
respondent Tobias, but were dismissed. Tobias received a
notice of termination of his employment so he sought
employment with the Republic Telephone Company
(RETELCO); but Hendry wrote a letter to RETELCO stating
that Tobias was dismissed by Globe Mackay due to
dishonesty. Tobias, then, filed a civil case for damages. RTC
ruled in favor of private respondent, ordering petitioners to
pay him for moral and exemplary damages, attorneys
costs. Globe Mackay appealed. SC held that petitioners

have abused the right that they invoke, causing damage to

private respondent and for which the latter must now be
indemnified: when Hendry told Tobias to just confess or
else the company would file a hundred more cases against
him until he landed in jail; his (Hendry) scornful remarks
about Filipinos ("You Filipinos cannot be trusted.) as well as
against Tobias (crook, and swindler); the writing of a
letter to RETELCO stating that Tobias was dismissed by
Globe Mackay due to dishonesty; and the filing of six
criminal cases by petitioners against private respondent. All
these reveal that petitioners are motivated by malicious
and unlawful intent to harass, oppress, and cause damage
to private respondent. 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 also they are liable for
damages under either Art 20 or 21.
University of the East v. Jader
Romeo Jader took his law proper at UE from 1984-88.
During the first semester of his last year in law school, he
failed to take the examination for Practice Court I in which
he obtained an incomplete grade. He filed an application
for removal of the incomplete grade given by Prof. Carlos
Ortega on February 1, 1988, which was approved by Dean
Celedonio Tiongson after the payment of required fees. He
took the exam on March 28 and on May 30, the professor
gave him a grade of 5. His name was still on the tentative
list of candidates for graduation. Likewise, his named
appeared in the invitation for the commencement
exercises, which was held on April 16, 1988. When he
learnt of his deficiency, he dropped from his Bar Review
classes thereby made him ineligible to take the bar exam.
He filed a civil suit against UE for damages because he
suffered moral shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and sleepless
nights due to UEs negligence. The petitioner denied
liability arguing that it never led respondent to believe that
he completed the requirements for an LLB degree when his
name was included in the tentative list of graduating
students. The court ruled in favor of the respondent and
CA affirmed. The court ruled that the petitioners liability
arose from its failure to promptly inform the result of the
examination and in misleading respondent into believing
that the latter had satisfied all the requirements for
graduation. However, while petitioner was guilty of
negligence and thus liable to respondent for the latters
actual damages, we hold that respondent should not have
been awarded moral damages. 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.

Carpio v. Belmonte
Respondent Valmonte is a wedding coordinator. Michelle
del Rosario and Jon Sierra engaged her services for their
church wedding. On that day, Valmonte went to the Manila
Hotel to where the bride and her family were billeted. When
she arrived at the Suite, several persons were already there
including the petitioner Soledad Carpio, an aunt of the
bride who was preparing to dress up for the occasion. 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. She proceeded to the

Maynila Restaurant where the reception was to be held.

She went back to the suite after, and found several people
staring at her when sheentered. . It was at this juncture
that petitioner allegedly uttered the followingwords to
Valmonte: Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto, nasaan ang
dala mongbag? Saan ka pumunta? Ikaw lang and lumabas
ng kwarto, ikaw ang kumuha.Petitioner then ordered one
of the ladies 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 which she
placed inside the comfort room in a paper bag were lost. A
few days after the incident, petitioner received a letter
from Valmonte demanding a formal letter of apology which
she wanted to be circulated to the newly weds relatives
and guests to redeem her smeared reputation as a result of
petitioners imputations against her. Petitioner did not
respond to the letter. Thus, Valmonte filed a suit for
damages against petitioner. Valmonte is entitled to

damages. In the case at bar, petitioners verbal reproach

against respondent was certainly uncalled for considering
that by her own account nobody knew that she brought
such kind and amount of jewelry inside the paper bag. True,
petitioner had the right o ascertain the identity of the
malefactor but to malign respondent without an iota of
proof that she was the one who actually stole the jewelry is
an act which, by any standard or principle of law is
impermissible. Petitioner had willfully caused injury to
respondent in a manner which is contrary to morals and
good customs. She did not act with justice and good faith
for apparently, she had no other purpose in mind but to
prejudice respondent. Certainly, petitioner transgressed the
provisions of Article 19 in relation to Article 21 for which
she should be held accountable.