ALBENSON ENTERPRISES CORP., JESSE YAP, AND BENJAMIN MENDIONA, petitioners, vs.

THE COURT OF APPEALS AND EUGENIO S. BALTAO, respondents. G.R. No. 88694 January 11, 1993 Puruganan, Chato, Chato & Tan for petitioners. Lino M. Patajo, Francisco Ma. Chanco, Ananiano Desierto and Segundo Mangohig for private respondent. BIDIN, J.: This petition assails the decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 14948 entitled "Eugenio S. Baltao, plaintiff-appellee vs. Albenson Enterprises Corporation, et al, defendants-appellants", which modified the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch XCVIII in Civil Case No. Q-40920 and ordered petitioner to pay private respondent, among others, the sum of P500,000.00 as moral damages and attorney's fees in the amount of P50,000.00. The facts are not disputed. In September, October, and November 1980, petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corporation (Albenson for short) delivered to Guaranteed Industries, Inc. (Guaranteed for short) located at 3267 V. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila, the mild steel plates which the latter ordered. As part payment thereof, Albenson was given Pacific Banking Corporation Check No. 136361 in the amount of P2,575.00 and drawn against the account of E.L. Woodworks ( Rollo, p. 148). 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." Upon further inquiry, Albenson was informed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry that E.L. Woodworks, a single proprietorship business, was registered in the name of one "Eugenio 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, Albenson, through counsel, made 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. He further alleged that Guaranteed was a defunct entity and hence, could not have transacted business with Albenson. 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 Pambansa Bilang 22. Submitted to support said charges was an affidavit of petitioner Benjamin Mendiona, an employee of Albenson. In said affidavit, the above-mentioned circumstances were stated. 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 the Baltao Building, 3267 V. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila, the very same business address of Guaranteed. On September 5, 1983, Assistant Fiscal Ricardo Sumaway filed an information against Eugenio S. Baltao for Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. In filing said information, Fiscal Sumaway claimed that he had given Eugenio S. Baltao opportunity to submit controverting evidence, but the latter failed to do so and therefore, was deemed to have waived his right.

Respondent Baltao, claiming ignorance of the complaint against him, immediately filed with the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal a motion for reinvestigation, alleging that it was not true that he had been given an opportunity to be heard in the preliminary investigation conducted by Fiscal Sumaway, and that he never had any dealings with Albenson or Benjamin Mendiona, consequently, the check for which he has been accused of having issued without funds was not issued by him and the signature in said check was not his. On January 30, 1984, Provincial Fiscal Mauro M. Castro of Rizal reversed the finding of Fiscal Sumaway and exonerated respondent Baltao. He also instructed the Trial Fiscal to move for dismissal of the information filed against Eugenio S. Baltao. Fiscal Castro found that the signature in PBC Check No. 136361 is not the signature of Eugenio S. Baltao. He also found that there is no showing in the records of the preliminary investigation that Eugenio S. Baltao actually received notice of the said investigation. Fiscal Castro then castigated Fiscal Sumaway for failing to exercise care and prudence in the performance of his duties, thereby causing injustice to respondent who was not properly notified of the complaint against him and of the requirement to submit his counter evidence. Because of the alleged unjust filing of a criminal case against him for allegedly issuing a check which bounced in violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 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. In its decision, the lower court observed that "the check is drawn against the account of "E.L. Woodworks," not of Guaranteed Industries of which plaintiff used to be President. Guaranteed Industries had been inactive and had ceased to exist as a corporation since 1975. . . . . The possibility is that it was with Gene Baltao or Eugenio Baltao III, a son of plaintiff who had a business on the ground floor of Baltao Building located on V. Mapa Street, that the defendants may have been dealing with . . . ." (Rollo, pp. 41-42). The dispositive portion of the trial court 's decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants ordering the latter to pay plaintiff jointly and severally: 1. actual or compensatory damages of P133,350.00; 2. moral damages of P1,000,000.00 (1 million pesos); 3. exemplary damages of P200,000.00; 4. attorney's fees of P100,000.00; 5 costs. Defendants' counterclaim against plaintiff and claim for damages against Mercantile Insurance Co. on the bond for the issuance of the writ of attachment at the instance of plaintiff are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. (Rollo, pp. 3839). On appeal, respondent court modified the trial court's decision as follows: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED by reducing the moral damages awarded therein from P1,000,000.00 to P500,000.00 and the attorney's fees from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00, said decision being hereby affirmed in all its other aspects. With costs against appellants. (Rollo, pp. 50-51) Dissatisfied with the above ruling, petitioners Albenson Enterprises Corp., Jesse Yap, and Benjamin Mendiona filed the instant Petition, alleging that the appellate court erred in:

1. Concluding that private respondent's cause of action is not one based on malicious prosecution but one for abuse of rights under Article 21 of the Civil Code notwithstanding the fact that the basis of a civil action for malicious prosecution is Article 2219 in relation to Article 21 or Article 2176 of the Civil Code . . . . 2. Concluding that "hitting at and in effect maligning (private respondent) with an unjust criminal case was, without more, a plain case of abuse of rights by misdirection" and "was therefore, actionable by itself," and which "became inordinately blatant and grossly aggravated when . . . (private respondent) was deprived of his basic right to notice and a fair hearing in the so-called preliminary investigation . . . . " 3. Concluding that petitioner's "actuations in this case were coldly deliberate and calculated", no evidence having been adduced to support such a sweeping statement. 4. Holding the petitioner corporation, petitioner Yap and petitioner Mendiona jointly and severally liable without sufficient basis in law and in fact. 5. Awarding respondents 5.1. P133,350.00 as actual or compensatory damages, even in the absence of sufficient evidence to show that such was actually suffered. 5.2. P500,000.00 as moral damages considering that the evidence in this connection merely involved private respondent's alleged celebrated status as a businessman, there being no showing that the act complained of adversely affected private respondent's reputation or that it resulted to material loss. 5.3. P200,000.00 as exemplary damages despite the fact that petitioners were duly advised by counsel of their legal recourse. 5.4. P50,000.00 as attorney's fees, no evidence having been adduced to justify such an award (Rollo, pp. 4-6). Petitioners contend that the civil case filed in the lower court was one for malicious prosecution. Citing the case of Madera vs. Lopez (102 SCRA 700 [1981]), they assert that the absence of malice on their part absolves them from any liability for malicious prosecution. Private respondent, on the other hand, anchored his complaint for Damages on Articles 19, 20, and 21 ** of the Civil Code. 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. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes the primordial limitation on all rights: that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. Although the requirements of each provision is different, these three (3) articles are all related to each other. As the eminent Civilist Senator Arturo Tolentino puts it: "With this article (Article 21), combined with articles 19 and 20, the scope of our law on civil wrongs has been very greatly broadened; it has become much more supple and adaptable than the AngloAmerican law on torts. It is now difficult to conceive of any malevolent exercise of a right which

could not be checked by the application of these articles" (Tolentino, 1 Civil Code of the Philippines 72). There is however, no hard and fast rule which can be applied to determine whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked. The question of whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated, resulting in damages under Articles 20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law, depends on the circumstances of each case. (Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 778 [1989]). 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. Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction (Tolentino, supra, p. 71). Thus, anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following elements: 1) There is an act which is legal; 2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; 3) and it is done with intent to injure. Thus, under any of these three (3) provisions of law, an act which causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages. There is a common element under Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act must be intentional. However, Article 20 does not distinguish: the act may be done either "willfully", or "negligently". The trial court as well as the respondent appellate court mistakenly lumped these three (3) articles together, and cited the same as the bases for the award of damages in the civil complaint filed against petitioners, thus: With the foregoing legal provisions (Articles 19, 20, and 21) in focus, there is not much difficulty in ascertaining the means by which appellants' first assigned error should be resolved, given the admitted fact that when there was an attempt to collect the amount of P2,575.00, the defendants were explicitly warned that plaintiff Eugenio S. Baltao is not the Eugenio Baltao defendants had been dealing with (supra, p. 5). When the defendants nevertheless insisted and persisted in filing a case a criminal case no less against plaintiff, said defendants ran afoul of the legal provisions (Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code) cited by the lower court and heretofore quoted (supra). Defendants, not having been paid the amount of P2,575.00, certainly had the right to complain. But that right is limited by certain constraints. Beyond that limit is the area of excess, of abuse of rights. (Rollo, pp. 44-45). Assuming, arguendo, that all the three (3) articles, together and not independently of each one, could be validly made the bases for an award of damages based on the principle of "abuse of right", under the circumstances, We see no cogent reason for such an award of damages to be made in favor of private respondent. Certainly, 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 Batas Pambansa Bilang 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 Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 private 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 propitious by filing an action for damages. The Court will not countenance this devious scheme. The criminal complaint filed against private respondent after the latter refused to make good the amount of the bouncing check despite demand was a sincere attempt on the part of petitioners to find the best possible means by which they could collect the sum of money due them. A person who has not been paid an obligation owed to him will naturally seek ways to compel the debtor to pay him. It was normal for petitioners to find means to make the issuer of the check pay the amount thereof. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded and that the adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate (Rubio vs. Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 488 [1986]). In the case at bar, private respondent does not deny that the mild steel plates were ordered by and delivered to Guaranteed at Baltao building and as part payment thereof, the bouncing check was issued by one Eugenio Baltao. Neither had private respondent conveyed to petitioner that there are two Eugenio Baltaos conducting business in the same building he and his son Eugenio Baltao III. Considering that Guaranteed, which received the goods in payment of which the bouncing check was issued is owned by respondent, petitioner acted in good faith and probable cause in filing the complaint before the provincial fiscal. To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, and that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. Concededly, the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution. (Manila Gas Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 602 [1980]). Still, private respondent argues that liability under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code is so encompassing that it likewise includes liability for damages for malicious prosecution under Article 2219 (8). True, a civil action for damages for malicious prosecution is allowed under the New Civil Code, more specifically Articles 19, 20, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, and 2219 (8) thereof. In order that such a case can prosper, however, the following three (3) elements must be present, to wit: (1) The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that the action was finally terminated with an acquittal; (2) That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; (3) The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice (Lao vs. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 58, [1991]). Thus, a party injured by the filing of a court case against him, even if he is later on absolved, may file a case for damages grounded either on the principle of abuse of rights, or on malicious

prosecution. As earlier stated, a complaint for damages based on malicious prosecution will prosper only if the three (3) elements aforecited are shown to exist. In the case at bar, the second and third elements were not shown to exist. It is well-settled that one cannot be held liable for maliciously instituting a prosecution where one has acted with probable cause. "Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. In other words, a suit will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause. The reason for this rule is that it would be a very great discouragement to public justice, if prosecutors, who had tolerable ground of suspicion, were liable to be sued at law when their indictment miscarried" (Que vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 169 SCRA 137 [1989]). The presence of probable cause signifies, as a legal consequence, the absence of malice. In the instant case, it is evident that petitioners were not motivated by malicious intent or by sinister design to unduly harass private respondent, but only by a well-founded anxiety to protect their rights when they filed the criminal complaint against private respondent. To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. Concededly, the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution. Proof and motive that the institution of the action was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person must be clearly and preponderantly established to entitle the victims to damages (Ibid.). In the case at bar, there is no proof of a sinister design on the part of petitioners to vex or humiliate private respondent by instituting the criminal case against him. While petitioners may have been negligent to some extent in determining the liability of private respondent for the dishonored check, the same is not so gross or reckless as to amount to bad faith warranting an award of damages. The root of the controversy in this case is founded on a case of mistaken identity. It is possible that with a more assiduous investigation, petitioners would have eventually discovered that private respondent Eugenio S. Baltao is not the "Eugenio Baltao" responsible for the dishonored check. However, the record shows that petitioners did exert considerable effort in order to determine the liability of private respondent. Their investigation pointed to private respondent as the "Eugenio Baltao" who issued and signed the dishonored check as the president of the debtor-corporation Guaranteed Enterprises. Their error in proceeding against the wrong individual was obviously in the nature of an innocent mistake, and cannot be characterized as having been committed in bad faith. This error could have been discovered if respondent had submitted his counter-affidavit before investigating fiscal Sumaway and was immediately rectified by Provincial Fiscal Mauro Castro upon discovery thereof, i.e., during the reinvestigation resulting in the dismissal of the complaint. Furthermore, the adverse result of an action does not per se make the act wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of moral damages. The law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate, such right is so precious that moral damages may not be charged on those who may even exercise it erroneously. And an adverse decision does not ipso facto justify the award of attorney's fees to the winning party (Garcia vs. Gonzales, 183 SCRA 72 [1990]). Thus, an award of damages and attorney's fees is unwarranted where the action was filed in good faith. If damage results from a person's exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria (Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 5 [1989]). Coming now to the claim of private respondent for actual or compensatory damages, the records show that the same was based solely on his allegations without proof to substantiate the same. He did not present proof of the cost of the medical treatment which he claimed to have undergone as a result of the nervous breakdown he suffered, nor did he present proof of

the actual loss to his business caused by the unjust litigation against him. In determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on speculation, conjectures or guesswork as to the amount. Without the actual proof of loss, the award of actual damages becomes erroneous (Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan, 171 SCRA 382 [1989]). Actual and compensatory damages are those recoverable because of pecuniary loss in business, trade, property, profession, job or occupation and the same must be proved, otherwise, if the proof is flimsy and unsubstantiated, no damages will be given (Rubio vs. Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 488 [1986]). For these reasons, it was gravely erroneous for respondent court to have affirmed the award of actual damages in favor of private respondent in the absence of proof thereof. Where there is no evidence of the other party having acted in wanton, fraudulent or reckless, or oppressive manner, neither may exemplary damages be awarded (Dee Hua Liong Electrical Equipment Corporation vs. Reyes, 145 SCRA 488 [1986]). As to the award of attorney's fees, it is well-settled that the same is the exception rather than the general rule. Needless to say, the award of attorney's fees must be disallowed where the award of exemplary damages is eliminated (Article 2208, Civil Code; Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 375 [1990]). Moreover, in view of the fact that there was no malicious prosecution against private respondent, attorney's fees cannot be awarded him on that ground. In the final analysis, there is no proof or showing that petitioners acted maliciously or in bad faith in the filing of the case against private respondent. Consequently, in the absence of proof of fraud and bad faith committed by petitioners, they cannot be held liable for damages (Escritor, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 155 SCRA 577 [1987]). No damages can be awarded in the instant case, whether based on the principle of abuse of rights, or for malicious prosecution. The questioned judgment in the instant case attests to the propensity of trial judges to award damages without basis. Lower courts are hereby cautioned anew against awarding unconscionable sums as damages without bases therefor. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. C.V. No. 14948 dated May 13, 1989, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs against respondent Baltao. SO ORDERED. ALBENSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: AlbensonEnt delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed Industries Inc. A Pacific Banking Corporation Check was paid and drawn against the account of EL Woodworks. Check was later dishonored for the reason Account Closed. Company traced source of check and later discovered that the signature belonged to one Eugenio Baltao. Albenson made an extrajudicial demand upon Baltao but latter denied that he issued the check or that the signature was his. Company filed a complaint against Baltao for violation of BP 22. It was later discovered that private respondent had son: Eugene Baltao III, who manages the business establishment, EL Woodworks. No effort from the father to inform Albenson of such information. Rather the father filed complaint for damages against Albenson. ISSUE: Whether there is indeed cause for the damages against Albenson Enterprise. RULING: Based on Art 19, 20, 21 of the civil code, petitioners didnt have the intent to cause damage to the respondent or enrich themselves but just to collect what was due to them. There was no

abuse of right on the part of Albenson on accusing Baltao of BP 22. Albenson Corp. honestly believed that it was private respondent who issued check based on ff inquiries:

SEC records showed that president to Guaranteed was Eugene Baltao Bank said signature belonged to EB EB did not do his part in clarifying that there were in fact 3 Ebs, Jr., Sr. and the III.

There was no malicious prosecution on the part of Albenson: there must be proof that:

the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person and that damages was initiated deliberately by defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless

Elements of abuse of right under Article 19: 1. there is a legal right or duty 2. exercised in bad faith 3. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another Elements under Article 21: contra bonus mores: 1. there is an act which is legal 2. but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order or public policy 3. it is done with intent to injure A person who has not been paid an obligation owed to him will naturally seek ways to compel the debtor to pay him. It was normal for petitioners to find means to make the issuer of the check pay the amount thereof. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded and that the adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. C.V. No. 14948 dated May 13, 1989, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs against respondent Baltao. NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM vs. ROBERTO REYES, a.k.a. AMAY BISAYA G.R. No. 154259. February 28, 2005 Facts: On 13 October 1994, Roberto Reyes alleged that he was invited by Dr. Violeta Filart to join her in the party of Mr. Masakazu Tsuruoka, the former general manager of Nikko Hotel. The said party was organized by Ruby Lim, the Executive Secretary of the hotel for the past twenty (20) years. The guest list was limited to approximately sixty (60) of Mr. Tsuruokas closest friends and some hotel employees. Knowing that Mr. Reyes was not one of those invited, Ms. Lim asked the former to leave the party. Mr. Reyes claimed that he was asked to leave the party in a scandalous manner. On the other hand, Ms. Lim claimed that she asked Mr. Reyes politely and discreetly. The lower court ruled that Ms. Lim did not abuse her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party as she talked to him politely and discreetly. The appellate court, on the other hand, held that Ms. Lim is liable for damages as she needlessly embarrassed Mr. Reyes by telling him not to finish his food and to leave the place within hearing distance of the other guests. 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. Issue: Whether or not Ruby Lim is liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code. Ruling:

No. Ms. Ruby Lim is not liable under Article 21. Article 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements: (1) There is an act which is legal; (2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and (3) it is done with intent to injure. In the determination of the manner in which Mr. Reyes was asked to leave, the court reviewed the findings of fact. Mr. Reyes himself admitted that when Ms. Lim asked him to leave she was so close to him to a point that they almost kissed. This suggested that Ms. Lim did not intend herself to be heard by other people to the embarrassment of Mr. Reyes. The fact that these two did not personally know each other prior to the party, fails to show that the act of Ms. Lim was driven by animosity against Mr. Reyes. The attribution of the alleged misconduct of Ms. Lim to her age and working environment is a lame argument that cannot be considered. The absence of any proof of motive on the part of Ms. Lim to humiliate Mr. Reyes and expose him to ridicule and shame, makes it highly unlikely that she would shout at him from a very close distance. Ms. Lim having been in the hotel business for twenty years wherein being polite and discreet are virtues to be emulated, the testimony of Mr. Reyes that she acted to the contrary does not inspire belief and is indeed incredible. Under Article 21 the nature of the act to be able to claim damages must be intentional. In this case, it was not proven that Ms. Ruby Lim has a motive to intentionally embarrass Mr. Reyes in asking him to leave the party wherein he was not invited. Thus, Ms. Lim is not liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code. Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 97336, 19 February 1993 FACTS: Petitioner Gashem Shookat Baksh, an Iranian citizen and exchange medical student in Dagupan City, courted private respondent Marilou Gonzales and promised to marry her. On the condition that they would get married, she accepted his love. They then set the marriage after the end of the school semester. He visited Marilous parents to secure their approval of marriage. In August 1987, he forced her to live with him, which she did. However, his attitude toward her changed after a while; he would maltreat and even threatened to kill her, from which she sustained injuries. Upon confrontation with the barangay captain, he renounced their marriage agreement, saying that he was already married to someone living in Bacolod. Marilou then filed for damages before the RTC. Baksh denied the accusations and asserted that breach of promise is not actionable and the court should not invoke Filipino customs to him since he is an Iranian citizen. The RTC ruled in favor of Gonzales. The CA affirmed the RTC decision. ISSUE: Whether or not damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines HELD: Damages pursuant to Article 21 may be awarded not because of promise to marry but because of fraud and deceit behind it. The petitioner fraudulent and deceptive protestations of love for and promise to marry respondent that made her surrender her virtue and womanhood to him; and because of this deception on petitioners part that made plaintiffs parents prepare for the wedding. His acts are palpably and undoubtedly against morals, good customs, and public policy, and are even gravely and deeply derogatory and insulting to Filipino women, coming as they do from foreigner who has been enjoying the hospitality of Filipinos. The petitioner should compensate the respondent for the moral damages and injury that he caused under Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

CONSTANTINO vs. MENDEZ G.R. No. 57227 May 14, 1992

FACTS: It appears on record that on June 5, 1975, petitioner Amelita Constantino filed an action for acknowledgment, support and damages against private respondent Ivan Mendez. The case was filed with the then CFI of Davao, 10th Judicial District and docketed as Civil Case No. 8881. In her complaint, Amelita Constantino alleges, among others, that sometime in the month of August, 1974, she met Ivan Mendez at Tony's Restaurant located at Sta. Cruz, Manila, where she worked as a waitress; that the day following their first meeting, Ivan invited Amelita to dine with him at Hotel Enrico where he was billeted; that while dining, Ivan professed his love and courted Amelita; that Amelita asked for time to think about Ivan's proposal; that at about 11:00 o'clock in the evening, Amelita asked Ivan to bring her home to which the latter agreed, that on the pretext of getting something, Ivan brought Amelita inside his hotel room and through a promise of marriage succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the latter; that after the sexual contact, Ivan confessed to Amelita that he is a married man; that they repeated their sexual contact in the months of September and November, 1974, whenever Ivan is in Manila, as a result of which Amelita got pregnant; that her pleas for help and support fell on deaf ears; that Amelita had no sexual relations with any other man except Ivan who is the father of the child yet to be born at the time of the filing of the complaint; that because of her pregnancy, Amelita was forced to leave her work as a waitress; that Ivan is a prosperous businessman of Davao City with a monthly income of P5,000 to P8,000. As relief, Amelita prayed for the recognition of the unborn child, the payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees plus costs. In his answer dated August 5, 1975, Ivan admitted that he met Amelita at Tony's Cocktail Lounge but denied having sexual knowledge or illicit relations with her. He prayed for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action. By way of counterclaim, he further prayed for the payment of exemplary damages and litigation expense including attorney's fees for the filing of the malicious complaint On September 11, 1975, Ivan Mendez filed his answer to the amended complaint reiterating his previous answer denying that Michael Constantino is his illegitimate son. ISSUE: WON Ivan sired the still unborn child of Amelita. NO HELD: It is the conclusion of the Court of Appeals, based on the evidence on record, that Amelita Constantino has not proved by clear and convincing evidence her claim that Ivan Mendez is the father of her son Michael Constantino. Such conclusion based on the evaluation of the evidence on record is controlling on this Court as the same is supported by the evidence on record. Even the trial court initially entertained such posture. It ordered the recognition of Michael as the illegitimate son of Ivan only when acting on the motions for reconsideration, it reconsidered, on October 21, 1976, its earlier decision dated June 21, 1976. Amelita's testimony on crossexamination that she had sexual contact with Ivan inManila in the first or second week of November, 1974 (TSN, December 8, 1975, p. 108) is inconsistent with her response that she could not remember the date of their last sexual intercourse in November, 1974 (Ibid, p. 106). Sexual contact of Ivan and Amelita in the first or second week of November, 1974 is the crucial point that was not even established on direct examination as she merely testified that she had sexual intercourse with Ivan in the months of September, October and November, 1974. Michael Constantino is a full-term baby born on August 3, 1975 (Exhibit 6) so that as correctly pointed out by private respondent's counsel, citing medical science (Williams Obstetrics, Tenth Ed., p. 198) to the effect that "the mean duration of actual pregnancy,

counting from the day of conception must be close to 267days", the conception of the child (Michael) must have taken place about 267 days before August 3, 1975 or sometime in the second week of November, 1974. While Amelita testified that she had sexual contact with Ivan in November, 1974, nevertheless said testimony is contradicted by her own evidence (Exh. F), the letter dated February 11, 1975, addressed to Ivan Mendez requesting for a conference, prepared by her own counsel Atty. Roberto Saren as to whom she must have confided the attendant circumstances of her pregnancy while still fresh in her memory, informing Ivan that Amelita is four (4) months pregnant so that applying the period of the duration of actual pregnancy, the child was conceived on or about October 11, 1974. Petitioner's assertion that Ivan is her first and only boyfriend (TSN, December8, 1975, p. 65) is belied by Exhibit 2, her own letter addressed to Mrs. Mendez where she revealed the reason for her attachment to Ivan who possessed certain traits not possessed by her boyfriend. She also confided that she had a quarrel with her boyfriend because of gossips so she left her work. An order for recognition and support may create an unwholesome atmosphere or may be an irritant in the family or lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiations is established by clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof is on Amelita to establish her affirmative allegations that Ivan is the father of her son. Consequently, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence establishing paternity or filiation, the complaint must be dismissed. As regards Amelita's claim for damages which is based on Articles 19 3 & 21 4 of the Civil Code on the theory that through Ivan's promise of marriage, she surrendered her virginity, we cannot but agree with the Court of Appeals that more sexual intercourse is not by itself a basis for recovery. Damages could only be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a product of voluntariness and mutual desire. At the time she met Ivan at Tony's Restaurant, Amelita was already 28 years old and she admitted that she was attracted to Ivan (TSN, December 3, 1975, p. 83).Her attraction to Ivan is the reason why she surrendered her womanhood. Had she been induced or deceived because of a promise of marriage, she could have immediately severed her relation with Ivan when she was informed after their first sexual contact sometime in August, 1974, that he was a married man. Her declaration that in the months of September, October and November, 1974, they repeated their sexual intercourse only indicates that passion and not the alleged promise of marriage was the moving force that made her submit herself to Ivan.