GLOBE MACKAY VS CA AND TOBIAS

G.R. No. 81262 August 25, 1989

GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., and HERBERT C.

HENDRY, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and RESTITUTO M.
TOBIAS, respondents.

THIRD DIVISION, CORTES, J.

TOPIC

Article 19, 20 & 21 -- Abuse of Right

FACTS

Restituto M. Tobias (TOBIAS) was employed by Globe Mackay Cable and Radio
Corporation (GLOBE MACKAY) in a dual capacity as a purchasing agent and
administrative assistant to the engineering operations manager.

In 1972, Tobias discovered fictitious purchases and fraudulent transactions which caused
the company to loss several hundreds of thousand pesos. Tobias reported the discovery
to his immediate supervisors, including Herbert Hendry (HENDRY), Globe Mackay’s
general manager. However, Tobias was named as the primary suspect and was ordered to
take a one week forced leave. Upon his return to work, Tobias was called “crook” and
“swindler” by Hendry.

Thereafter, Tobias underwent a lie detector test and a police investigation, to which he
was found to be clear from any participation in the anomaly. Albeit, Globe Mackay
conducted a private investigation regarding the anomaly and suspended Tobias from
work.

Notwithstanding the negative results of both police report and private investigation,
Globe Mackay filed a complaint for estafa through falsification of commercial
documents against Tobias. And thereafter, dismissed Tobias from work.

Unemployed, Tobias applied with Republic Telephone Company (RETELCO). However,

Hendry, without any request from RETELCO, sent a letter stating that Tobias was
dismmised by Globe Mackay due to dishonesty.
Tobias filed a civil case for damages anchored on alleged unlawful, malicious,
oppressive, and abusive acts of Hendry. RTC rendered its judgment in favor of Tobias.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision in totoo, hence the instant petition for
review on certiorari.

ISSUE

WON Globe Mackay and Hendry are liable for damages to Tobias.

HELD

Yes, Globe Mackay and Hendry are liable for damages to Tobias.

Article 19 of the New Civil Code states that: Every person must, in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith.

This article, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of
rights, sets certain standards which must 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 a 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. But while Article
19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the
maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an
action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper.

Article 20, which pertains to damage arising from a violation of law, provides that:
Every person who contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same.

However, in the case at bar, petitioners claim that they did not violate any provision of
law since they were merely exercising their legal right to dismiss private respondent.
This does not, however, leave private respondent with no relief because Article 21 of the
Civil Code provides that: 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.

This article, adopted to remedy the "countless gaps in the statutes, which leave so many
victims of moral wrongs helpless, even though they have actually suffered material and
moral injury" [Id.] 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" [Id. it p. 40; See also PNB v. CA, G.R. No. L-27155, May 18,1978, 83
SCRA 237, 247].

In determining whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked, there is
no rigid test which can be applied. While the Court has not hesitated to apply Article 19
whether the legal and factual circumstances called for its application [See for e.g.,
Velayo v. Shell Co. of the Phil., Ltd., 100 Phil. 186 (1956); PNB v. CA, supra; Grand
Union Supermarket, Inc. v. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. L-48250, December 28, 1979, 94
SCRA 953; PAL v. CA, G.R. No. L-46558, July 31,1981,106 SCRA 391; United
General Industries, Inc, v. Paler G.R. No. L-30205, March 15,1982,112 SCRA 404;
Rubio v. CA, G.R. No. 50911, August 21, 1987, 153 SCRA 183] the question of whether
or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under
Article 20 or Article 21 or other applicable provision of law, depends on the
circumstances of each case. And in the instant case, the Court, after examining the record
and considering certain significant circumstances, finds that all petitioners have indeed
abused the right that they invoke, causing damage to private respondent and for which
the latter must now be indemnified.