Submitted by: Cela Paciteng

VIII. Human Relations TORTS

A. Abuse of Rights

Art. 19. 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 honest and good faith.

Globe Mackay v. CA, August 25, 1989

FACTS:
Tobias was employed by Globe Mackay as a purchasing agent. He uncovered certain
fraudulent transactions. However, Hendry, an EVP, accused him of being a crook and a
swindler. Tobias was charged with Estafa. The cases against him were dismissed. Despite
this, Tobias was fired. Hendry then sent a letter to Tobias’ potential employer alleging his
dishonesty. Tobias filed an action for damages against Hendry and Globe.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Tobias was entitled to damages.

HELD:
YES. There is no rigid test to determine when Art.19 has been violated; this is to be
determined upon the unique circumstances of each case. Upon the facts of the present
case, it is clear that the petitioners abused the right that they invoke – right to dismiss an
employee. Although an employer who suspects an employee to be dishonest may dismiss
the latter, the employer may not do so in an abusive manner.

Albenson v. CA, January 11, 1993

FACTS:
Guaranteed issued Albenson a check as payment for the mild steel plates it ordered. The
check bounced. Albenson found out that the check belonged to Eugenio Baltao. It filed a
complaint for violation of BP 22 against Eugenio S. Baltao. However, it appears that the
respondent had a namesake, his son Eugenio Baltao III. The elder Baltao then filed a suit
for damages against Albenson.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Albenson was liable for damages.

HELD:
NO. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms
of Article 19 and results in damage to another, a LEGAL WRONG is
committed for which the Wrongdoer Must be held responsible.
The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19are:
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, Albenson’s complaint was a sincere attempt to find the best possible means
to collect the money due to them. The law does not impose a penalty on the right
to litigate.

Amonoy v. Gutierrez, February 15, 2001

FACTS:
The lot on which the Gutierrez spouses built their house was bought by Amonoy in an
auction sale. Amonoy was granted an order for the demolition of the house. However, a
temporary restraining order was granted enjoining the demolition. The SC then made the
TRO permanent. However, by the time the decision was rendered, the house was already
destroyed. The Gutierrez spouses then filed a suit for damages.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not Amonoy was liable for damages.

HELD:
YES.Even though Amonoy’s were
legally justified at the start, their continuation even after the issuance of the TRO was
issued amounted to an abuse of his right. The exercise of a right ends when the right
disappears, and it disappears when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of
others. Amonoy’s acts constituted not only an abuse of a right, but an invalid exercise of
a right that was suspended.

UE v. Jader , February 17, 2000

FACTS:
Jader was a law student at the University of the East. He failed to take the regular exam
for Practice Court I so he was given an incomplete grade. He took the removals but he
was given a grade of five. Jader attended the graduation and prepared for the bar. He later
learned of his deficiency. Jader sued UE for damages. UE’s defence was that Jader
should have verified grade.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not UE was liable for damages. YES

HELD:
UE had the contractual obligation to inform its students as to whether or not all the
requirements for the conferment of a degree have
been met. It also showed bad faith in belatedly informing Jader of the result of
his removals, particularly when he was already preparing for the bar. ​ABSENCE OF
GOOD FAITH MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED FOR A
SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION BY THE AGGRIEVED PARTY IN ABUSE OF
RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE19. ​Good faith connotes an honest Intention to
abstain from taking undue advantage of another, even though the forms and technicalities
of the law, together with the absence of all
information or belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious.
On Art. 19​:-intended to expand the concept of torts by granting
adequate legal remedy for the untold moral wrongs which is impossible
for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law.-the ultimate thing in the
theory of liability is justifiable reliance under conditions of civilized society-A person
should be protected only when he acts with providence and in GF, but
not when he acts with negligence or abuse.

Pantaleon v American Express, Supra, 2009

While on a European tour, Pantaleon and his family attempted to purchase diamond
pieces at Coster Diamond House using their American Express. This they did 10 minutes
before their tour group had to leave for Amsterdam. The purchases were approved by
American Express only after 45 minutes. The trip to Amsterdam had to be cancelled. The
tour group became annoyed and irritated with them. Upon his complaint, the SC ruled
that American Express had not duty to act upon the purchases within a specific period of
time. As such, there was not breach of duty. Also, it had the right to review and either
approve or disapprove of the purchases. While it is bound by the principle of abuse of
rights, no bad faith was shown on its part.

California Clothing v Quinones, G.R. No. 175822 (October 23, 2013)

FACTS:
Respondent, Shirley G. Quiñones, a ticketing agent of Cebu Pacific Air, bought a pair of
black jeans worth P2, 098.00 from Guess USA Boutique. While she was on her way to
Mercury Drug Store, a Guess employee approached her and said that she failed to pay for
the black jeans. Nevertheless, she presented an official receipt and suggested that they
should talk about the matter in the Cebu Pacific Office located within the mall. While
they were in the office, the Guess employees allegedly humiliated her in front of the
clients of Cebu Pacific, repeatedly demanded payment and even searched the
respondent’s wallet to check how much money she had. Another argument ensued and
after that, respondent went home. The Guess employees submitted two letters to the
Director of Cebu Pacific narrating the incident but the said letters were not received.
Respondent filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners, California Clothing,
Inc. Excels is Villagonzalo, Imelda Hawayon and Michelle S. Ybañez, alleging that due
to the incident, she suffered physical anxiety, sleepless nights, mental anguish, fright,
serious apprehension, besmirched reputation, moral shock and humiliation. She
demanded payment for moral, nominal, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s
fees and litigation expenses.
Petitioners stated that they approached the respondent to clarify whether or not payment
was made and that they approached and talked to the respondent in a gentle and polite
manner. They sought payment for moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses as counter claim. The Regional Trial Court dismissed both the
complaint and counterclaim stating that the petitioners acted in good faith and the
respondent was the one who put herself in that situation by inviting the Guess employees
to the Cebu Pacific Office to discuss about the issue of payment. However, the Court of
Appeals reversed and set aside the Regional Trial Court decision stating that there was
preponderance of evidence showing the petitioners acted in bad faith but, Hawayon and
Villagonzalo were absolved from liability due to good faith. Since petitioners acted in
bad faith, respondent was entitled to damages and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners acted in bad faith which resulted to the Court of Appeals
awarding moral damages and attorney’s fees to respondent, Shirley G. Quiñones.

RULING:
Yes, petitioners acted in bad faith and the award for moral damages and attorney’s fees to
respondent was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision.
The principle of abuse of rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code is present in the case.
Respondent complained when petitioners embarrassed her and insisted that she did not
pay for the black jeans despite the issuance of an official receipt in her favour. The court
cited the case of Carpio vs. Valmonte in which the elements of abuse of rights were
enumerated. “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.” The elements stated are complete in the present case. First, petitioners
continued to insist that there was no payment made when respondent already presented
the black jeans with the original receipt. Second, they accused the respondent that not
only did she fail to pay for the black jeans but she intentionally stole it and quickly left
the shop. Third, the letters sent to the respondent’s employer was not only intended to ask
for assistance in collection of the payment but also to ruin the respondent’s reputation.
The exercise of rights is subject to limitations. Thus, it must be in accordance with the
purpose of its establishment and not abused. Respondent was awarded P50, 000.00 as
moral damages and P20, 000.00 as attorney’s fees.

Sesbreno v CA, G.R. No. 160689, March 26, 2014

FACTS:
VECO was a public utility corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines. VECO engaged in the sale and distribution of electricity within Metropolitan
Cebu. Sesbreño was one of VECO’s customers under the metered service contract they
had entered into on March 2, 1982.
It all has to do with an incident that occurred at around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of
May 11, 1989. On that day, the Violation of Contracts (VOC) Team of
defendants-appellees Constantino and Arcilla and their PC escort, Balicha, conducted a
routine inspection of the houses at La Paloma Village, Labangon, Cebu City, including
that of plaintiff-appellant Sesbreño, for illegal connections, meter tampering, seals,
conduit pipes, jumpers, wiring connections, and meter installations. After Bebe Baledio,
plaintiff-appellant Sesbreño’s maid, unlocked the gate, they inspected the electric meter
and found that it had been turned upside down. Defendant-appellant Arcilla took
photographs of the upturned electric meter. With Chuchie Garcia, Peter Sesbreño and one
of the maids present, they removed said meter and replaced it with a new one. At that
time, plaintiff-appellant Sesbreño was in his office and no one called to inform him of the
inspection. The VOC Team then asked for and received Chuchie Garcia’s permission to
enter the house itself to examine the kind and number of appliances and light fixtures in
the household and determine its electrical load. Afterwards, Chuchie Garcia signed the
Inspection Division Report, which showed the condition of the electric meter on May 11,
1989 when the VOC Team inspected it, with notice that it would be subjected to a
laboratory test. She also signed a Load Survey Sheet that showed the electrical load of
plaintiff-appellant.
Sesberano’s now contend that the inspection of hid residence by the VOC team was an
unreasonable search for being carried out without warrant and for being allegedly done
with malice or bad faith.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Sesberano is entitled to recover damages for abuse of rights?

HELD:
NO. The concept of abuse of rights prescribes that a person should not use his right
unjustly or in bad faith; otherwise, he may be liable to another who suffers injury.
Clearly, Sesbreno did not establish his claim for damages if the respondents were not
guilty of abuse of rights. Article 19 of the Civil Code sets the standards to be observed in
the exercise of one’s rights and in the performance of one’s duties, namely: (a) to act with
justice; (b) to give everyone his due; and (c) to observe honesty and good faith. The law
thereby recognizes the primordial limitation on all rights that in the exercise of the rights,
the standards under Article 19 must be observed. In order that liability may attach under
the concept of abuse of rights, the following elements must be present, to wit: (a) the
existence of a legal right or duty, (b) which is exercised in bad faith, and (c) for the sole
intent of prejudicing or injuring another

B. Illegal Acts

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Garcia v Salvador, supra, 2007

Salvador, who was then a trainee, was required by her employer to undergo, medical tests
as a prerequisite for regular employment. Garcia, a medical technologist, conducted the
test. The result showed that she was positive for hepatitis, he did not qualify for
regularization. Subsequent tests, however, revealed that she was negative for the disease.
She was rehired. In her complaint for damages, the SC awarded damages based on
Article 20, for the actionable conduct of Garcia. The testing center was not supervised by
a licensed physician, the test was administered without supervision of a pathologist, and
the result was released directly to Salvador, without authorization from a pathologist, all
in violation of law regulating clinical laboratories.

Doctrine: Article 20 provides the legal basis for the award of damages to a party
who suffers damage whenever one commits act in violation of some legal provision. This
was incorporated by the Code Commission to provide relief to a person who suffers
damage because another has violated some legal provision.

Comsavings Bank vs. Spa. Capistrano

FACTS

Spouses Danilo and Estrella Capistrano agreed on a constsruction contract with GCB
Builders. To finance the construction, spouses Capistrano executed a deed of assignment
in favour of GCB Builders transferring the proceeds of their loan from Comsavings Bank,
a National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation accredited originator. The Sps.
Capistrano was required to sign a certificate of house completion and acceptance.
After Comsavings Bank released the loan to GCB Builders as construction cost,the later
defaulted in complying with its obligations. Thereafter, NHMFC advised the Capistrano
spouse that they should start paying their monthly amortization payment considering that
they had not signed any certification and acceptance, it would have been forged. Then
they subsequently sued GCB Builders and Comsaving Bank for breach of contract and
damages, praying that the defendants be ordered jointly and severally liable; (1) to finish
the construction of the house according to the plans and specifications agreed upon at the
price stipulated in the construction contract; and (2) to pay them the equivalent of the
mortgage value in excess of the contract price; actual damages for the expenses incurred
by reason of the breach of contract; moral damages; attorney’s fees; and exemplary
damages. The Capistrano spouses amended their compliant to implead NHMFC as an
additional defendant.

ISSUE
Is Comsavings bank guilty of negligence in dealing with the Capistrano spouses?

RULIING
YES. Comsavings Bank is solidarily liable with GCB Builders for the damages sustained
by respondents. However, we point out that such liability did not arise from Comsavings
Bank’s breach of warranties under its purchase of loan agreement with NHMFC. On
Article 20 and Article 1170 of the Civil Code.
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of
fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof,
are liable for damages.
Based on the provisions, a banking institution like Comsavings Bank is obliged to
exercise the highest degree of diligence as well as high standards of integrity and
performance in all its transactions because its business is imbued with public interest.
Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one’s duties; it is a
negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a
conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. It
evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid
them.
There is no question that Comsavings Bank was grossly negligent in its dealings
with respondents because it did not comply with its legal obligation to exercise the
required diligence and integrity. As a banking institution serving as an originator under
the UHLP and being the maker of the certificate of acceptance/completion, it was fully
aware that the purpose of the signed certificate was to affirm that the house had been
completely constructed according to the approved plans and specifications, and that
respondents had thereby accepted the delivery of the complete house. Given the purpose
of the certificate, it should have desisted from presenting the certificate to respondents for
their signature without such conditions having been fulfilled. Yet, it made respondents
sign the certificate (through Estrella Capistrano, both in her personal capacity and as the
attorney-in-fact of her husband Danilo Capistrano) despite the construction of the house
not yet even starting. Its act was irregular per se because it contravened the purpose of the
certificate. Worse, the pre-signing of the certificate was fraudulent because it was thereby
enabled to gain in the process the amount of P17, 306.83 in the form of several
deductions from the proceeds of the loan on top of other benefits as an originator bank.
On the other hand, respondents were prejudiced, considering that the construction of the
house was then still incomplete and was ultimately defective. Compounding their plight
was that NHMFC demanded payment of their monthly amortizations despite the
non-completion of the house. Had Comsavings Bank been fair towards them as its
clients, it should not have made them pre-sign the certificate until it had confirmed that
the construction of the house had been completed.

C. Acts Contra Mores

Art. 21. Any person who will fully 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.
*​ Art. 21 is the actual catch-all provision according to Sangco.

Wassmer v. Velez​, December 26, 1964

FACTS:
Wassmer and Velez were about to get married. However, two days before the wedding,
Velez wrote a note stating that they would have to postpone the wedding because his
mother was opposed to it. A day before the wedding, he wired Wassmer a note saying
that he would return soon. He never showed up again. Wassmer sued for damages.

ISSUE:
Wehter or not Velez can be held liable for damages.

HELD:
YES. This is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. MERE BREACH OF
PROMISE TO MARRY IS NOT AN ACTIONABLE WRONG. But to formally set a
wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and publicity, only to walk
out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is
PALPABLY AND UNJUSTIFIABLY CONTRARY TO GOOD CUSTOMS for which
Velez must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.