ALBENSON ENTERPRISES CORP. vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
(G.R. No. 88694, Jan. 11, 1993)
STANDARDS IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHT:
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, maynevertheless 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 Anglo-American 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).
ELEMENTS:
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 hisvictim 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".
ALBENSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
Albenson Ent. 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 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.

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 p e r s e 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.