HUMAN RELATIONS

ALBENSON
ENTERPRISES
MENDIONA, petitioners, vs.
THE
BALTAO, respondents.
G.R. No. 88694

CORP.,
COURT

JESSE
YAP,
OF
APPEALS

January 11, 1993

and
BENJAMIN
and
EUGENIO
S.
217 SCRA 16

Facts: Albenson Ent. delivered a 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 extrajudical 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 for the alleged unjust filing of a criminal case against him for allegedly issuing a
check which bounced in violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
Issue: Whether there is indeed cause for the damages against Albenson Enterprise.
Held:Based on the provisions of Article 19, 20, 21 of the Civil Code, petitioners does not 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 the
inquiries.Records showed that President to Guaranteed was Eugene Baltao, Bank said signature
belonged to Eugene Baltao.
The elements under Article 21 are there is an act which is legalbut which is contrary to
morals, good custom, public order or public policy. 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.

SPOUSES CRISTINO, BRIGIDA CUSTODIO, SPOUSES LITO and MARIA CRISTINA
SANTOS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF PACIFICO C. MABASA and
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, METRO MANILA, BRANCH 181 , respondents.
G.R. No. 116100

February 9, 1996

253 SCRA 483

FACTS: The original plaintiff Pacifico Mabasa owns a parcel of land with a two-door apartment
erected thereon situated at Interior P. Burgos St., Palingon, Tipas, Taguig, Metro Manila. The
plaintiff was able to acquire said property through a contract of sale with spouses Mamerto
Rayos and Teodora Quintero as vendors last September 1981. Said property may be described
to be surrounded by other immovables pertaining to defendants herein. Taking P. Burgos Street
as the point of reference, on the left side, going to plaintiff’s property, the row of houses will be
as follows: That of defendants Cristino and Brigido Custodio, then that of Lito and Maria
Persons and Family Relations Case Digest- Block C

Burgos Street from plaintiff’s property. That decision of the court below has become final as against them and can no longer be reviewed. there were tenants occupying the premises and who were acknowledged by plaintiff Mabasa as tenants. hence they are presumed to be satisfied with the adjudication therein. Defendant Morato constructed her adobe fence and even extended said fence in such a way that the entire passageway was enclosed and it was then that the remaining tenants of said apartment vacated the area. it is about 26 meters. The second passageway is about 3 meters in width and length from plaintiff Mabasa’s residence to P. Cristina Santos testified that she constructed said fence because there was an incident when her daughter was dragged by a bicycle pedalled by a son of one of the tenants in said apartment along the first passageway. She also mentioned some other inconveniences of having (at) the front of her house a pathway such as when some of the tenants were drunk and would bang their doors and windows. Some of their footwear were even lost. In passing thru said passageway. the issue of propriety of the grant of right of way has already been laid to rest. The appellee can only advance any argument that he may deem necessary to defeat the appellant’s claim or to uphold the decision that is being disputed. by this Court. there are two possible passageways. Burgos Street. but not for the purpose of reversing or modifying the judgment in the appellee’s favor and giving him other affirmative reliefs.HUMAN RELATIONS Cristina Santos and then that of Ofelia Mabasa. On the right side (is) that of defendant Rosalina Morato and then a Septic Tank.) Whether or not the grant of right of way to herein private respondent is proper 2.Block C . However. Petitioners did not appeal from the decision of the court a quo granting private respondents the right of way. one of said tenants vacated the apartment and when plaintiff Mabasa went to see the premises. Issues: 1. With the finality of the judgment of the trial court as to petitioners. in turn. As an access to P. Such path is passing in between the previously mentioned row of houses. herein petitioners are already barred from raising the same. Pacifico Mabasa. The award of damages has no substantial legal basis. The first passageway is approximately one meter wide and is about 20 meters distan(t) from Mabasa’s residence to P. For failure to appeal the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals. When said property was purchased by Mabasa. The rule in this jurisdiction is that whenever an appeal is taken in a civil case. an appellee who has not himself appealed may not obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than what was granted in the decision of the lower court. a less than a meter wide path through the septic tank and with 5-6 meters in length has to be traversed.) Whether or not the award of damages is in order Held: With respect to the first issue. and he can assign errors in his brief if such is required to strengthen the views expressed by the court a quo. may be considered by the appellate court solely to maintain the appealed decision on other grounds. sometime in February. However. A reading of the decision of the Court of Appeals will show that the award of damages was based solely on the fact that the original plaintiff. These assigned errors. petitioners cannot obtain any affirmative relief other than those granted in the decision of the trial court. we agree with petitioners that the Court of Appeals erred in awarding damages in favor of private respondents. much less reversed. Said adobe fence was first constructed by defendants Santos’ along their property which is also along the first passageway. with respect to the second issue. incurred losses Persons and Family Relations Case Digest. Defendant Ma. Burgos Street. he saw that there had been built an adobe fence in the first passageway making it narrower in width. 1982.

a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. on credit. On 29 October 1987.. in order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains. damage is the loss. Held: Petitioner does not deny private respondent’s rights to institute an action for collection and Persons and Family Relations Case Digest. There is a material distinction between damages and injury. defendant purchased. INC. Under the sales invoices issued by plaintiff to defendant for the subject purchases. alleging that it suffered injury to its reputation due to Phelps Dodge’s acts. 126486 petitioner. Petitioner. No. he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff .HUMAN RELATIONS in the form of unrealized rentals when the tenants vacated the leased premises by reason of the closure of the passageway. As such dealer.. 1973. there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant. 1973. defendant wrote plaintiff requesting the latter if it could pay its outstanding account in monthly installments plus 1% interest per month. Thus. private respondent Phelps Dodge Phils. or damage without wrong. PHILS. These wires and cables were in turn sold. Inc.. does not constitute a cause of action. To warrant the recovery of damages. plaintiff wrote defendant demanding payment of its outstanding obligations. and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. filed a complaint before the Pasig Regional Trial Court against petitioner Barons Marketing Corporation for the recovery of the amount representing the value of the wires and cables the former had delivered to the latter. private respondent herein] appointed defendant [petitioner Barons Marketing. BARONS MARKETING CORP. admitted purchasing the wires and cables from private respondent but disputed the amount claimed by the latter. or harm which results from the injury. rejected defendant’s offer and accordingly reiterated its demand for the full payment of defendant’s account. 1987. Plaintiff. defendant was given by plaintiff 60 days credit for its purchases of plaintiff’s electrical products. Petitioner likewise interposed a counterclaim against private respondent. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right. by defendant to MERALCO. 1998 286 SCRA 96 Facts: On August 31. COURT OF APPEALS and PHELPS DODGE February 9. 1987. respondents. the mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses does not give rise to a right to recover damages. Corporation] as one of its dealers of electrical wires and cables effective September 1. On several occasions. in its answer. since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong. however. Wrong without damage. plaintiff [Phelps Dodge. During the period covering December 1986 to August 17. from plaintiff various electrical wires and cables. Such acts were purportedly calculated to humiliate petitioner and constituted an abuse of rights. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria. the former being the accredited supplier of the electrical requirements of the latter. thereby leaving an unpaid account on the aforesaid deliveries. G. On September 7. This credit term was to be reckoned from the date of delivery by plaintiff of its products to defendant. Issues: Whether or not private respondent Phelps Dodge not guilty of “creditor’s abuse”. pursuant to previous arrangements. and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. vs. hurt. In response. it is stipulated that interest at 12% on the amount due for attorney’s fees and collection. Inc.Block C . defendant paid plaintiff an amount out of its total purchases as above-stated. However. R. Philippines. including interest.

Unless there is an express stipulation to that effect. the creditor cannot be compelled partially to receive the presentations in which the obligation consists. private respondent’s right to reject petitioner’s offer to pay in installments is guaranteed by Article 1248 of the Civil Code which states: ART. Thus. respondents. Private Persons and Family Relations Case Digest. In 1972. petitioner’s right to file an action for collection is beyond cavil. ART. G. the illicit act cannot be concealed under the guise of exercising a right. 19.R. contrary to its socio-economic purpose. – Modern jurisprudence does not permit acts which.Block C . HENDRY. Likewise. however. there must be no intention to injure another. that the petitioner had been a good and reliable dealer enjoying a good credit standing during the period before it became delinquent in 1987. Every person must. is an abuse that will give rise to liability. that the petitioner exerted its outmost efforts to settle its obligations and avoid a suit. or when there has been an abuse of right. petitioners. prescribes a primordial limitation on all rights” by setting certain standards that must be observed in the exercise thereof. Neither may the debtor be required to make partial payments. Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GLOBE MACKAY) in a dual capacity as a purchasing agent and administrative assistant to the engineering operations manager. and must not be excessive or unduly harsh. because they violate the concept of social solidarity which considers law as rational and just. courts. that the relationship between the parties had been a fruitful one especially for the private respondent. give everyone his due. claiming that private respondent abused its rights when it rejected petitioner’s offer of settlement and subsequently filed the action for collection considering that the relationship between the parties started in 1973 spanning more than 13 years before the complaint was filed. GLOBE MACKAY discovered fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions for which it lost several thousands of pesos. Hence. 1989 176 SCRA 778 Facts: Private respondent Restituto M. are anti-social.. Indeed. 1248. When the objective of the actor is illegitimate. Petitioner now invokes Article 19 and Article 21 of the Civil Code. Both parties agree that to constitute an abuse of rights under Article 19 the defendant must act with bad faith or intent to prejudice the plaintiff. They cite the following comments of Tolentino as their authority: Test of Abuse of Right. act with justice. However. and HERBERT C. the creditor may demand and the debtor may affect the payment of the former without waiting for the liquidation of the latter. when the debt is in part liquidated and in part unliquidated. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and RESTITUTO M. vs. as set forth in Article 19 of the Civil Code. Ultimately. 81262 August 25. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. and in practice. GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP. the law. although not unlawful. without utility or legitimate purpose cause damage to another. that the petitioner did not evade in the payment of its obligation to the private respondent. and observe honesty and good faith. and that the petitioner was just asking a small concession that it be allowed to liquidate its obligation to eight (8) monthly installments plus 1% interest per month on the balance which proposal was supported by post-dated checks. There is undoubtedly an abuse of right when it is exercised for the only purpose of prejudicing or injuring another. will have to determine all the facts and circumstances when the exercise of a right is unjust. in the sound exercise of their discretion. Indeed. TOBIAS. every abnormal exercise of a right. The principle does not permit acts which. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established.HUMAN RELATIONS to claim full payment. No.

Tagle. submitted a report finding Tobias guilty. the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the labor arbiter's decision. a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. Petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals. reinstated the labor arbiter's decision. the RTC rendered judgment in favor of private respondent. Whereupon. However. though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such. not to communicate with the office. However. an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper. it does not provide a remedy for its violation. and initials appearing in the checks and other documents involved in the fraudulent transactions were not those of Tobias. Unemployed.Block C . The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint. submitted a second laboratory crime report reiterating his previous finding that the handwritings. petitioner Hendry suspended Tobias from work preparatory to the filing of criminal charges against him. 1973. malicious. Thus. may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. On appeal. the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. Held: One of the more notable innovations of the New Civil Code is the codification of some basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of the social order”.HUMAN RELATIONS respondent claims that it was he who actually discovered the anomalies and reported them to his immediate superior Eduardo Ferraren and to petitioner Herbert C. he was informed to be the number one suspect. Lt. but the Manila police investigators cleared private respondent of participation in the anomalies. Tobias was then ordered to take a lie detector test. During the pendency of the appeal with said office. and to leave the office keys. who. On January 17. Jose G. retired Col. The lie detector tests conducted on Tobias also yielded negative results. acting on petitioners' appeal from the NLRC ruling. but one day after private respondent Tobias made the report. petitioners and private respondent Tobias entered into a compromise agreement regarding the latter's complaint for illegal dismissal. Article 20 of Civil Code pertains to the damages arising from a violation of law. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order. Generally. Tobias filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Tobias appealed the Secretary of Labor's order with the Office of the President. 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 right. oppressive. which provides that: Persons and Family Relations Case Digest. to leave his table drawers open. and abusive acts of petitioners. and initials for examination by the police investigators to determine his complicity in the anomalies. Tobias received a notice from petitioners that his employment has been terminated effective December 13. Tobias sought employment with the Republic Telephone Company (RETELCO). Petitioner Hendry. wrote a letter to the latter stating that Tobias was dismissed by GLOBE MACKAY due to dishonesty. recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights that in their exercise. The law. Private respondent Tobias filed a civil case for damages anchored on alleged unlawful. signature. therefore.1972. Dioscoro V. and was forced to a one week leave. Hendry who was then the Executive Vice-President and General Manager of GLOBE MACKAY. 1972. the Secretary of Labor. He was also instructed to submit specimen of his handwriting. signatures. after investigating other documents pertaining to the alleged anomalous transactions. On December 19. Fernandez. Petitioners hired a private investigator. Issue: Whether or not petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent. Metro Manila Police Chief Document Examiner.

The basis of the complaint against the defendant corporation is a telegram sent through its Manila Office to the offended party. Moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 of said Code. However. 20.R. (RCPI).” According to the principle of damnum absque injuria. 1986 petitioner. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Moreover. L-44748 August 29. damage or loss which does not constitute a violation of a legal right or amount to a legal wrong is not actionable." Hence. which leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless. wilfully or negligently causes damage to another. petitioners claim that they did not violate any provision of law since they were merely exercising their legal right to dismiss private respondent. 21. This does not. It bears repeating that even granting that petitioners might have had the right to dismiss Tobias from work. leave private respondent with no relief because Article 21 of the Civil Code provides that: Art. APPEALS and LORETODIONELA. shall indemnify the latter for the same.] should "vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which it is impossible for human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes. Dionella filed for damages and was granted by the trial court and was affirmed by the Court of Appealsthe liability of petitioner company employer predicated under Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code. RCPI now comes to the Supreme Court for review by certiorari. respondents. No. adopted to remedy the "countless gaps in the statutes. This article. Loreto Dionela. the damage incurred by Tobias was not only in connection with the abusive manner in which he was dismissed but was also the result of several other quasi-delictual acts committed by petitioners. the abusive manner in which that right was exercised amounted to a legal wrong for which petitioners must now be held liable. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. vs. G.. In the case at bar. This principle finds no application in this case. RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS.. the Court of Appeals committed no error in awarding moral damages to Tobias. reading as follows: 176 AS JR 1215PM 9 PAID MANDALUYONG JUL 22-66 LORETO DIONELA CABANGAN LEGASPI CITY Persons and Family Relations Case Digest.HUMAN RELATIONS Art.Block C . COURT OF 143 SCRA 657 Facts: Loreto Dionella alleges that the defamatory words on the telegram sent to him by the operator RCPI not only wounded his feelings but also caused him undue embarrassment and affected adversely his business as well because other people have come to know said defamatory words. INC. however. even though they have actually suffered material and moral injury" [Id. Every person who contrary to law.

He took the examination on March 28. In the first semester of his last year (School year 1987-1988). He enrolled for the second semester as fourth year law student and on February 1. Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of receiving and transmitting messages. Held: The cause of action of the private respondent is based on Articles 19 and 20 of the New Civil Code. As a corporation. Professor Carlos Ortega submitted his grade. In contracts the negligence of the employee (servant) is the negligence of the employer (master). libelous matters were included in the message transmitted. since negligence may be hard to substantiate in some cases. Every time a person transmits a message through the facilities of the petitioner. In the meantime. we may apply the doctrine of RES IPSA LOQUITUR (the thing speaks for itself). negligence must be proved in order that plaintiff may recover. The 35th Investitures & Commencement Ceremonies for the candidates of Bachelor of Laws was scheduled on the 16th of April 1988 and in the invitation for that occasion the name of the plaintiff appeared as one of the candidates. 1988 he filed an application for the removal of the incomplete grade given him by Professor Carlos Ortega which was approved by Dean Celedonio Tiongson after payment of the required fee. The plaintiff’s name appeared in the Tentative List of Candidates for graduation for the Degree of Bachelor of Laws (LL. he failed to take the regular final examination in Practice Court I for which he was given an incomplete grade. 1988.HUMAN RELATIONS WIRE ARRIVAL OF CHECK FER LORETO DIONELA-CABANGAN-WIRE ARRIVAL OF CHECK-PER 115 PM SA IYO WALANG PAKINABANG DUMATING KA DIYAN-WALA-KANG PADALA DITO KAHIT BULBUL MO Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the liability of RCPI is predicated under Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code. escorted by her Persons and Family Relations Case Digest. There is a clear case of breach of contract by the petitioner in adding extraneous and libelous matters in the message sent to the private respondent. In most cases. without the consent or knowledge of the sender. February 7. the petitioner can act only through its employees. This is the master and servant rule. During the program of which he went up the stage when his name was called. It was a grade of 5. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST. vs.Block C . There is no question that in the case at bar. GR No. Upon receipt of the rate or fee fixed. 132344 petitioner. However. On May 30. 1988. by considering the presence of facts or circumstances surrounding the injury.B) as of Second Semester (1987-1988). As well as on respondent's breach of contract thru the negligence of its own employees. 325 SCRA 804 Facts: Respondent Romeo Jader was enrolled in the defendants’ College of Law from 1984 up to 1988. the Dean and the Faculty Members of the College of Law met to deliberate on who among the fourth year students should be allowed to graduate. The plaintiff attended the investiture ceremonies. the petitioner undertakes to transmit the message accurately. a contract is entered into. Hence the acts of its employees in receiving and transmitting messages are the acts of the petitioner. 2000 respondent. To hold that the petitioner is not liable directly for the acts of its employees in the pursuit of petitioner's business is to deprive the general public availing of the services of the petitioner of an effective and adequate remedy. ROMEO A JADER.

Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of their academic status and not wait for the latter to inquire from the former. Upon petition by herein respondents (dismissed employees). to mechanize the maintenance and repair of all roads and bridges of the province. trauma. Upon appeal by both parties. with corespondents Mandeola and Castillo. bought heavy equipment worth 4 million pesos. Rama. friends and relatives who wished him good luck in the forthcoming bar examination. petitioner. Mendiola and Carillo) are personally liable for damages for adopting a resolution which abolished positions to the detriment of the occupants thereof. To implement such policy. Issue: Whether or not petitioners-public officials (Gov. 1988 and enrolled at the pre-bar review class in Far Eastern University. to economize in the expenditure of its Road and Bridges (R&B) Fund. OSMUNDO RAMA. He thereafter prepared himself for the bar examination. respondent. members Sangguniang Panlunsod of Cebu. The CA found that the employees were dismissed because of their different political affiliations. and his Tassel was turned from left to right. however. He took a leave of absence without pay from his job from April 20. and pain when he was informed that he could not graduate and will not be allowed to take the bar examinations as what CA held because it’s also respondent’s duty to verify for himself whether he has completed all necessary requirements to be eligible for the bar examinations. he should have been responsible in ensuring that all his affairs specifically those in relation with his academic achievement are in order. and he was thereafter handed by the Dean a rolled white sheet of paper symbolical of the Law Diploma. COURT OF APPEALS. Having learned of the deficiency he dropped his review class and was not able to take the bar examination. then CA affirmed the lower court’s decision. 1987 148 scra 496 Facts: A resolution was passed by herein petitioner Rama. the Provincial Board resolved to abolish around 30 positions and 200 employees were dismissed – the salaries of whom were derived from the R&B fund. it doesn’t only entail a mental preparation on the subjects but there are other prerequisites such as documentation and submission of requirements which prospective examinee must meet. 1988 to September 30. Thereafter. vs.Block C . respondent should not have been awarded moral damages though JADER suffered shock. There were pictures taken too during the blow-out. Before taking the bar examinations. Persons and Family Relations Case Digest. renovated the office of the provincial engineer and provided him with a Mercedes Benz. that they were identified with the Liberal Party of Sergio Osmeña Jr. Espina. The Local Government. etc. the then CFI of Cebu declared said Resolution null and void and ordered the reinstatements of 56 dismissed employees and pay their back wages. L-44842 March 16.HUMAN RELATIONS mother and his eldest brother who assisted in placing the Hood. then Vice Governor or Cebu. hired around 1000 new employees. However. plus an award of moral damages of P1000 for each of the employees. Issue: May an educational institution be held liable for damages for misleading a student into believing that the latter had satisfied all the requirements for graduation when such is not the case? Held: SC held that petitioner was guilty of negligence and this liable to respondent for the latter’s actual damages. As a senior law student. he tendered a blow-out that evening which was attended by neighbors. considering that the case involved quasi-delict. His relatives took pictures of the occasion. No.

a public officer by virtue of his office alone is not immune from damages in his personal capacity arising from illegal acts done in bad faith. 92 SCRA 312 (1979). The two eventually fell in love with each other and conducted clandestine trysts not only in the town of Gasan but also in Boac where Lolita used to teach in a barrio school.HUMAN RELATIONS Held: In principle. the officials were acting outside their official authority. Dismissed employees are entitled to damages because they suffered a special and peculiar injury from the wrongful act. 21. Such act of the petitioners of dismissing employees who are of rival political party. CC). CECILIO PE.R. Persons and Family Relations Case Digest. who.. 5 scra 200 Facts: Plaintiffs are the parents. and since then defendant was forbidden from going to their house and from further seeing Lolita. Defendant was an adopted son of a Chinaman named Pe Beco. This personal liability has been applied to cases where a public officer removes another officer or discharges an employee wrongfully. would generally incur considerable economic hardship. Marinduque. in 1955. L-17396 plaintiffs-appellants. The plaintiffs even filed deportation proceedings against defendant who is a Chinese national. CC) or for willfully causing loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. The rumors about their love affairs reached the ears of Lolita's parents sometime. watchman and drivers belonged to a low-salaried group. and if the work which they perform is done rather to injure an individual than to discharge a public duty. defendant became close to the plaintiffs who regarded him as a member of their family. Because of such fact and the similarity in their family name. ET AL. ALFONSO PE. to recommend their own protégées who even outnumbered the dismissed employees. good custom and/or public policy (Art. a collateral relative of Lolita's father. in Correa vs. in connection with his aforesaid occupation. Defendant is a married man and works as agent of the La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory. brothers and sisters of one Lolita Pe. CFI of Bulacan. They 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. He used to stay in the town of Gasan. At the time of her disappearance on April 14. Thus. No. defendant frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. 1962 defendant-appellee. 20. A public officer is civilly liable for failure to observe honestly and in good faith in the performance of their duties as public officers or for willfully or negligently causing loss or injury to another (Art. May 30. A different rule sould sanction the use of public office as a tool of oppression. the reported cases saying that by reason of non-compliance with the requirements of law in respect to removal from office. G. Sometime in 1952. The officials in these consolidated cases are personally liable for damages because their precipitate dismissal of provincial employees through an ostensibly legal means. Lolita was 24 years old and unmarried. The affair between defendant and Lolita continued nonetheless. Lolita was staying with her parents in the same town. The dismissed employees who were holding such positions as foreman. a mayor was held liable for illegally dismissing a policeman even if he had relinquished his position. vs. if deprived of wages.Block C . done in excess or beyond the scope of his duty is not protected by his office and is personally liable thereof like any private individual. The SC in that case held that a public officer who commits a tort or other wrongful act. 1957. Municipal officers are liable for damages if they act maliciously or wantonly. reflected the petitioners’ malicious intent.

On April 14. L-14628 petitioner. 1954. defendant was forbidden from going to their house and even from seeing Lolita. respondents. The circumstances under which defendant tried to win Lolita's affection cannot lead.HUMAN RELATIONS Sometime in April. but denied having ever promised to marry complainant. to any other conclusion than that it was he who. seduced the latter to the extent of making her fall in love with him. succeeded in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the extent of having illicit relations with her. although he made no promise of marriage thereto. Soledad then a teacher and petitioner who was almost ten years younger than her used to go around together and were regarded as engaged. thru an ingenious scheme or trickery. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ET AL. This is shown by the fact that defendant frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA.R. When the rumors about their illicit affairs reached the knowledge of her parents. Nevertheless. filed with the said CFI acomplaint for the acknowledgment of her child. In 1951. but through a clever strategy. Quezon City. he has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals. brothers and sisters. But in spite of the fact that plaintiffs have clearly established that in illicit affair was carried on between defendant and Lolita which caused great damage to the name and reputation of plaintiffs who are her parents. was born in July 1917. 1957. Complainant Soledad Cagigas. Verily. since 1950. No. as a natural child of said petitioner. hereinafter referred to as complainant. Lolita was staying with her brothers and sisters at their residence at 54-B España Extension. Petitioner admitted the paternity of the child and expressed willingness to support the latter. Lolita disappeared from said house. Issue: Whether or not the defendant committed injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals. good customs and public policy. Held: There is no doubt that the claim of plaintiffs for damages is based on the fact that defendant. the two eventually fell in love with each other and conducted clandestine love affairs not only in Gasan but also in Boac where Lolita used to teach in a barrio school. being a married man. The present action was instituted under Article 21 of the Civil Code. Because of the frequency of his visits to the latter's family who was allowed free access because he was a collateral relative and was considered as a member of her family. 1957. vs. good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the New Civil Code. The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man. defendant continued his love affairs with Lolita until she disappeared from the parental home. carried on a love affair with Lolita Pe thereby causing plaintiffs injury in a manner contrary to morals. 1960 109 PHIL 629 Facts: An appeal by certiorari. good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code. September 30. A note in the handwriting of the defendant was found inside Lolita’s aparador. G. as well as for support of said child and moral damages for alleged breach of promise to marry. she Persons and Family Relations Case Digest. Soledad Cagigas. Indeed. Plaintiffs even filed deportation proceedings against defendant who is a Chinese national.Block C . The lower court dismissed the action and plaintiffs appealed. on October 4. Chris Hermosisima. the trial court considered their complaint not actionable for the reason that they failed to prove that defendant deliberately and in bad faith tried to win Lolita's affection. no other conclusion can be drawn from this chain of events than that defendant not only deliberately.

HUMAN RELATIONS gave up teaching and became a life insurance underwriter where intimacy developed between her and petitioner. 1960 109 PHIL 640 Facts:The plaintiff Erlinda Estopa. 1949. moral damages may be recovered from him under the provision of Article 2219. therefore.. "overwhelmed by her love" for him. 1954. However. and as highly enlightened as a former high school teacher and a life insurance agent are supposed to be — when she became intimate with petitioner... with her widowed mother. the award of moral damages made by the lower courts is. since one evening in 1953 when after coming from the movies. which admittedly does not exist in the present case. But it is clear that the creation of such causes of action at a time when so many States. accordingly. p. 1957. defendant married one Romanita Perez. Negros Occidental. paragraph 3. 58 Phil. stated that she fell in love and submitted herself completely to the defendant Loreta Piansay. plaintiffappellee. The history of breach of promise suit in the United States and in England has shown that no other action lends itself more readily to abuse by designing women and unscrupulous men. but. No. Syquia. in consequence of years of experience are doing away with them. (Congressional Record. it appearing that because of defendant-appellant's seduction power. because. and the language used in said paragraph strongly indicates that the "seduction" therein contemplated is the crime punished as such in Article as such in Article 337 and 338 of the Revised Penal Code. they had sexual intercourse in his cabin on board MV Escano to which he was then attached as apprentice pilot. Jr.R. In February 1954." ERLINDA ESTOPA. In the light of the clear and manifest intent of our law making body not to sanction actions for breach of promise to marry. or on July 24. 866. not only because he is approximately ten (10) years younger than the complainant — who around thirty-six (36) years of age. No. It is this experience which has led to the abolition of the rights of action in the so-called Balm suit in many of the American States.) The views thus expressed were accepted by both houses of Congress. G. Vol. sometime in September. the court of first instance found that. we hold that said defendant-appellant is liable for seduction and. 79. defendant-appellant. LORETA PIANSAY. also. May 19. we find ourselves unable to say that petitioner is morally guilty of seduction. Soledad advised petitioner that she was pregnant. may well prove to be a step in the wrong direction. The Commission perhaps though that it has followed the more progression trend in legislation when it provided for breach of promise to marry suits. subsequently. IV. she being a woman after all. Held: That breach of promise to marry is not actionable has been definitely decide in the case of De Jesus vs. a beautiful girl of twenty-three. of the new Civil Code. plaintiff-appellee.Block C . overwhelmed by her love for him finally yielded to his sexual desires in spite of her age and self-control. she "wanted to bind" "by having a fruit of their engagement even before they had the benefit of clergy. L-14733 September 30. after a Persons and Family Relations Case Digest. residing in Bago. Issue: Whether or not moral damages are recoverable under our laws for breach of promise to marry. Felicidad Estopa. whereupon he promised to marry her. The Court of Appeals said award: Moreover. JR. untenable. Thursday. 2352. particularly the paragraphs preceding and those following the one cited by the Court of Appeals. vs. complainant "surrendered herself" to petitioner because. then a mere apprentice pilot. Apart from the fact that the general tenor of said Article 2219.

Jr. 2234. as plaintiff has no right to moral damages. but all her efforts were in vain. No. under the New Civil Code. that sometime in December. Persons and Family Relations Case Digest. there is no reason to require Piansay. wounded feeling and moral shock”. 1954. It is not actionable for there is no provision in the Civil Code but the case is not a mere breach of promise to marry. mental anguish. Velez left a note for his bride-to-be saying that he wants to postpone the marriage as his mother opposes it and that he is leaving. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the preparation and publicity. he sent her a telegram and told her that nothing has changed. is quite different. 4. Held: The court held that today’s jurisdiction. as plaintiff is not entitled to any damages at all. L-20089 petitioner. 1964 respondent. Francisco must still be punished for the damages in accordance with Article 21 of the Civil Code. Consistently with such ruling. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. n fact.Block C .R. Loreta Piansay. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved. temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded . decided to get married and set Sept. (Art. (Hermosisima vs. On Sept. The SC perpetuated that though breach of promise to marry is not actionable because there is no provision in the Civil Code. and plaintiff went to the extent of asking the help of defendant’s parents. 631). the mere breach of a promise to marry is not actionable. to satisfy attorney’s fees. Sept. she may not demand exemplary damages. but to demand from him a compensation for the damages that she sustained. G. not to compel defendant to marry her. the plaintiff was informed reliably that defendant was backing out from his promise of marriage so she demanded defendant’s compliance to his promise in order to vindicate her honor. Beatriz Wassmer. Jr. Now. 1954 as the big day. 3. besmirched reputation. December 26. 1957. may not be condemned to pay moral damages. Francisco Velez. Issue: Whether or not moral damages are recoverable under our laws for breach of promise to marry. 120 PHIL 1440 Facts: Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer. the defendant’s act is still punishable under Article 21 of the Civil Code which states that “any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. in this case. only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized. Supra. following their mutual promise of love. But the next day. vs.and we have reversed the Cebu court’s award for moral damages in breach of promise suit. she decided to file her complaint. Erlinda Estopa filed no brief here. Finally.HUMAN RELATIONS courtship that lasted for a couple of months during which period the defendant consistently promised and succeeded to make her believe in him that he was going to marry her. Wassmer sued him for damages. Thereafter. And her complaint merely alleged “social humiliation. that he is returning and he apologizes. Velez filed no answer and was declared in default. the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral. Issue: Whether or not a mere breach of promise to marry is actionable Held: No.” The defendant acted contrary to Article 21 because he was reckless and oppressive in calling the wedding off days before even if everything was already arranged for. realizing that her efforts were futile but knowing that her cause was not completely lost. Velez did not appear nor was he heard from again. Court of Appeals. New Civil Code) Therefore. 2.

In spite of that. 1987. the lower court ordered petitioner to pay the private respondent damages. an illegitimate child. Sexual contact of Ivan and Amelita in the first or second week of November. After trial on the merits. G.HUMAN RELATIONS AMELITA CONSTANTINO and MICHAEL CONSTANTINO. 1987 the latter courted and proposed to marry her. he admitted being a married man. single. Filipino and a pretty lass of good moral character and reputation duly respected in her country. 1993 219 SCRA 115 Facts: This is an appeal by certiorari. respondents. Issue: Whether or not the alleged illegitimate child is entitled for the monthly support. More so. they therefore agreed to get married. Private respondent then prayed for judgment ordering petitioner to pay her damages. before August 20. she accepted his love on the condition that they get married. On October 27. 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. petitioner’s attitude towards her started to change.R. acknowledging Michael as Ivan’s illegitimate child and giving monthly support to the latter which was set aside by CA.R. October and November. 1974. afterwards. petitioner claimed that he never proposed marriage to or agreed to be married with the private respondent and denied all allegations against him. his motherand natural guardian. sought monthly support from Ivan Mendez including Amelia’s complaint on damages. Amelita admitted that she was attracted to Ivan and their repeated sexual intercourse indicated that passion and not alleged promise to marriage was the moving force to submit herself with Ivan. petitioner. 57227 May 14. GASHEM SHOOKAT BASH. On the other hand. after a week before the filing of complaint. as a result of the complaint. He maltreated and threatened to kill her. The latter and Amelita met in a restaurant in Manila where she was working as a waitress. No. She alleges in said complaint that she is 20 years old. and is an exchange student. 1992 209 SCRA 18 Facts: Michael Constantino. on the other hand. respondents. Ivan invited him at his hotel and through promise of marriage succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Amelita. Guilig. The petitioner forced her to live with him in the Lozano apartments. Dagupan City. No. they repeated their sexual contact. other petitioner. Petitioner repudiated the marriage agreement and asked her not to live with him anymore and that the petitioner is already married to someone in Bacolod City. Trial court ruled in favor of Amelita providing actual and moral damages. she became pregnant and had to resign from work. as represented by Amelita. vs.Block C . G. Persons and Family Relations Case Digest. She was a virgin at that time. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU GONZALES. is an Iranian citizen residing at Lozano Apartments. her mother. Subsequently. 97336 February 19. the latter represented herein by the former. Held: Amelita Constantino has not proved by clear and convincing evidence her claim that Ivan Mendez is the father of her son Michael Constantino. vs. without the assistance of counsel. petitioners. IVAN MENDEZ and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. private respondent filed with the aforesaid trial court a complaint for damages against petitioner for the alleged violation of their agreement to get married.

the heirs of Telosa (who died earlier) filed a complaint seeking the nullification of the mortgage and/or its reformation to state the real intention of the parties with the Court of first instance of Quezon. Article 21. The CFI ruled in favor of the private respondents which was affirmed by the CA. No. VALENZUELA HARDWOOD AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC. the principal amount of the loan of Telosa was P5.000. good customs. Demand was made upon Telosa to pay. COURT OF APPEALS and SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION. To restrain the foreclosure. obtained a loan from the Rural Bank of Lucena sometime in 1960. Telosa paid a total of P411. Issue: Whether or not the provisions of Article 24 of the Civil Code can be invoked by the heirs. G. in reality.” In the light of the above laudable purpose of Article 21.032.. he executed an affidavit protesting the demand. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. respondent. or public policy.HUMAN RELATIONS Issue: Whether or not Article 21 of the Civil Code applies to the case at bar Held: The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. there being fault or negligence. Notwithstanding. and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. petitioner.000 square meters. Such fault or negligence. When the Monetary Board placed the Rural Bank of Lucena under liquidation. 102316 June 30. a fisherman and farmer with a very limited education. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. Because Telosa knew that his obligation to the rural bank was only P300. Article 2176 of the Civil Code. vs. the court held that where a man’s promise to marry 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 sexual congress. that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals.00. Claiming that the payments made did not satisfy the whole amount due because the record still showed a balance of P9.25.R. 1997 168 SCRA 623 Facts: Carlos Telosa.00. the Central Bank caused the foreclosure of the mortgage. The heirs invoked the provisions of Article 24 of the Civil Code. is obliged to pay for the damage done. It is essential however. the account of Telosa was found in the inventory. Persons and Family Relations Case Digest. which defines quasi-delicts thus: “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and obtain her consent to sexual act could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such breach of promise of marriage but because of the fraud and deceit behind it. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land with an area of 50. As per the Bank‘s records. which is designed to expand the concepts of torts and quasi-delicts 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.22. proof that he had.Block C .

good customs. It can — and in fact it usually does — enter into a free and voluntary agreement. may opt to set aside the protection of the law on common carriers. the parties in a contract of private carriage can stipulate the carrier's obligations and liabilities over the shipment which. In practice. in turn. the stringent provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers protecting the general public cannot justifiably be applied to a ship transporting commercial goods as a private carrier. Consequently. morals. Indeed. Article 1745 and other Civil Code provisions on common carriers which were cited by petitioner may not be applied unless expressly stipulated by the parties in their charter party. or public policy. Unlike in a contract involving a common carrier. a charterer in a contract of private carriage is not similarly situated. Thus. Indeed. the rule itself does not apply. where the reason for the rule ceases. Pursuant to Article 1306 of the Civil Code. determine the price or consideration of the charter. private carriage does not involve the general public.Block C . the public policy embodied therein is not contravened by stipulations in a charter party that lessen or remove the protection given by law in contracts involving common carriers. it cannot submit its own stipulations for the approval of the common carrier. public order. Thus. Compared to the general public. When the charterer decides to exercise this option. even if the public wants to. In a contract of private carriage. Thus.HUMAN RELATIONS Held: As adverted to earlier. invoices or other documents over which the riding public has no understanding or. exempting the shipowner from liability for loss of or damage to the cargo caused even by the negligence of the ship captain. it is undisputed that private respondent had acted as a private carrier in transporting petitioner's lauan logs. worse. The general public enters into a contract of transportation with common carriers without a hand or a voice in the preparation thereof. he takes a normal business risk. no choice. We stress that in a contract of private carriage. a charterer. such stipulation is valid because it is freely entered into by the parties and the same is not contrary to law. Persons and Family Relations Case Digest. The riding public merely adheres to the contract. in exchange for convenience and economy. their contract of private carriage is not even a contract of adhesion. the parties may freely stipulate their duties and obligations which perforce would be binding on them. Hence. the law on common carriers extends its protective mantle against one-sided stipulations inserted in tickets. the parties may validly stipulate that responsibility for the cargo rests solely on the charterer.

Block C .HUMAN RELATIONS Persons and Family Relations Case Digest.