Torts and Damages Group 8

D. VIOLATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY

Article 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind
of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not
constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention
and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another in account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life,
place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

Guanio v. Makati Shangri-la, 2011

Doctrine: Every person is entitled to respect of his dignity, personality, privacy and peace
of mind.

Facts: Spouses Guanio booked at the Shangri-la Hotel for their wedding reception.
However, at the reception, the catering director and the sales manager did not show
up, the service of dinner was delayed, certain items in the published menu were
unavailable, the waiters were rude, among other disappointments. When they sued for
breach of contract, the SC held that it was the Guanios who breached the contract
since they did not inform Shangri-la of the change in expected number of guests. In any
case, Shangri-la could have done better. Nominal damages were thus awarded, under
considerations of equity.

ISSUE: Is the injury caused to the sps.Guanio attributable to the proximate cause of their
own making?

HELD: NO. The Court finds that sps. Guanio’s complaint arose from a contract and that
the doctrine of proximate cause does not apply. The doctrine of proximate cause is
applicable only in actions for quasi-delicts, not in actions involving breach of contract.
What applies in the present case is Article 1170 of the Civil Code which reads, “Those who
in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those
who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.” Respondent
admitted that three hotel functions coincided with petitioners’ reception. To the Court,
the delay in service might have been avoided or minimized if respondent exercised
prescience in scheduling events. In the present petition, under considerations of equity,
the Court deems it just to award the amount of P50,000.00 by way of nominal damages
to petitioners, for the discomfiture that they were subjected to during the reception. The
Court recognizes that every person is entitled to respect of his dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind. Respondent’s lack of prudence is an affront to this right.
Torts and Damages Group 8

St. Louis Realty v. CA, 1984

Doctrine: Prying into the privacy of another's residence, meddling with or disturbing the
private life or family relations of another and similar acts, though they may not constitute
a criminal offense, produces a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief.

Facts:
St. Louis Realty Corp. published two advertisements in the Sunday Times depicting the
Arcadio family owning a house for only ₱31,000.00, picture of the house depicted therein
is not the house of the Arcadios but that it belong to the family of Dr. Aramil, was used in
the ads without the former’s permission. Said advertisements elicited some remarks from
Aramil’s medical students and friends purporting doubts as to his professional and
personal integrity. Such sly remarks resulted in no little mental anguish on Aramil’s part
and reduced his income. Moreover, there was violation of Aramil's right to privacy (Art.
26, Civil Code). Thus, the trial court awarded Dr.Aramil P8,000 as actual damages, P20,000
as moral damages and P2,000 as attorney's fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not St. Louis Realty committed an actionable wrong against Aramil?

HELD: The Supreme Court found St. Louis Realty to have committed an actionable quasi-
delict under article 21of the Civil Code which says, “Any person who wilfully 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.” Also, Article 26 of the Civil Code provides
that “every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of
his neighbors and other persons.” ”Prying into the privacy of another’s residence” and
“meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another” and “similar
acts”, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action
for damages, prevention and other relief”. In which case, the SC affirmed the decision
rendered by the RTC.

Gregorio v. CA, 2009

Doctrine: Article 26 grants a cause of action for damages, prevention, and other relief in
cases of breach, though not necessarily constituting a criminal offense, of: (1) right to
personal dignity; (2) right to personal security; (3) right to family relations; (4) right to social
intercourse; (5) right to privacy; and (6) right to peace of mind.

Facts: Sansio Philippines instituted a BP 22 case against Gregorio. A wrong address was
stated in the complaint, such that Gregorio was not able to controvert the allegations
against her. She was arrested. It turned out, however, that she did not issue the said
checks. The criminal case was dismissed. She sued for damages. Sansio moved to dismiss,
claiming that the case was for malicious prosecution, and it does not allege bad faith.

Issue: Are Sansio and Datuin liable for damages to Gregorio?

Held: Yes. The SC held that the basis for the action was Article 2176 in relation to Article
26, and that no allegation of bad faith was necessary. Gregorio’s rights to personal
Torts and Damages Group 8

dignity, personal security, privacy, and peace of mind were infringed by Sansio and
Datuin when they failed to exercise the requisite diligence in determining the identity of
the person they should rightfully accuse of tendering insufficiently funded checks. She
suffered embarrassment.

SPS.BILL & VICTORIA HING vs. CHOACHUY

FACTS: Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. (owned by Choachuy’s) filed a case for
Injunction and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining
Order against the Sps. Hing. The latter claimed that the Hing’s constructed a fence
without a valid permit and that it would destroy the walls of their building. The court
denied the application for lack of evidence. In order to get evidences for the case,
Choachuy illegally set-up two video surveillance cameras facing the Hing’s property.
Their employees even took pictures of the said construction of the fence. The Hing’s then
filed a case against the Choachuy’s for violating their right to privacy.

ISSUE: Is there is a violation of sps. Hing’s right to privacy?

HELD: YES. The Court explained that the right to privacy is "the right to be free from
unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in
such a way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities.” It is the right of an
individual "to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted
interference by the public in matters in which the public is not necessarily concerned."
Simply put, the right to privacy is "the right to be let alone.” The right to privacy under
Article 26(1) of the Civil Code covers business offices (the Choachuys insist that business
offices are excluded) where the public are excluded therefrom and only certain
individuals are allowed to enter. Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality,
privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar
acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action
for damages, prevention and other relief:(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s
residence; x xx This provision recognizes that a man’s house is his castle, where his right to
privacy cannot be denied or even restricted by others. It includes "any act of intrusion
into, peeping or peering inquisitively into the residence of another without the consent of
the latter.” The phrase "prying into the privacy of another’s residence," however, does
not mean that only the residence is entitled to privacy because it also includes "similar
acts." Installation of video surveillance cameras, however, should not cover places where
there is reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the consent of the individual, whose
right to privacy would be affected, was obtained. Nor should these cameras be used to
pry into the privacy of another’s residence or business office as it would be no different
from eavesdropping, which is a crime under the Anti-Wiretapping Law (RA4200).

E. DERELICTION OF DUTY
Article 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or
employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an
action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any
disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.
Torts and Damages Group 8

F. UNFAIR COMPETITION
Article 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in
labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust,
oppressive or high-handed method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who
thereby suffers damage.

WILLAWARE vs. JESICHRIS

FACTS: Jesichris Manufacturing Company (Jesichris) filed a complaint for damages for
unfair competition to enjoin Willaware Products Corporation (Willaware), the petitioner
from manufacturing and distributing plastic-made automotive parts similar to Jesichris
Manufacturing Company. Jesichris alleged that it is a duly registered partnership
engaged in the manufacture and distribution of plastic and metal products. Since its
registration, Jesichris has been manufacturing distributing plastic-made automotive
parts. Willaware, on the other hand, is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of
kitchenware items made of plastic and metal has its office near that of Jesichris. Jesichris
alleged that in view of the physical proximity of Willaware’s office to Jesichris’ office, and
in view of the fact that some of Jesichris employees had transferred to
Willaware,Willaware had developed familiarity with Jesichris’ products, especially its
plastic-made automotive parts. Jesichris discovered that Willaware had been
manufacturing and distributing the same automotive parts with exactly similar design,
same material and colors but was selling these products at a lower price as Jesichris’
plastic-made automotive parts and to the same customers. Jesichris alleged that it had
originated the use of plastic in place of rubber in the manufacture of automotive under
chassis parts. Willaware’s manufacture of the same automotive parts with plastic material
was taken from Jesichris’ idea of using plastic for automotive parts. Also, Willaware
deliberately copied Jesichris products all of which acts constitute unfair competition, is
and are contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy and have caused
Jesichris damages in terms of lost and unrealized profits in the amount of 2,000,000 as of
the date of Jesichris’ complaint.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is unfair competition under human relations when the parties
are not competitors and there is actually no damage on the part of Jesichris.

HELD: The SC explained that Article 28 of the Civil Code provides that "unfair competition
in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force,
intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed method
shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage." From the
foregoing, it is clear that what is being sought to be prevented is not competition per se
but the use of unjust, oppressive or high handed methods which may deprive others of a
fair chance to engage in business or to earn a living. Plainly, what the law prohibits is
unfair competition and not competition where the means used are fair and legitimate.
In sum, petitioner is guilty of unfair competition under Article 28 of the Civil Code.
However, since the award of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) in actual damages had
Torts and Damages Group 8

been deleted and in its place Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) in nominal
damages is awarded, the attorney's fees should concomitantly be modified and lowered
to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).