PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS > ARTICLE 19-22 CIVIL CODE > Flashcards
ARTICLE 19-22 CIVIL CODE Flashcards
Recite Article 19 of the Civil Code.
“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.”
Recite Article 20 of the Civil Code.
“Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.”
Recite Article 21 of the Civil Code.
“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.”
Recite Article 22 of the Civil Code.
Every person who through an act of performance by another, or by any means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.”
Define Damnum Absque Injuria.
“The law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not amount to legal injury or wrong.”
“A person who only exercises his legal right does no injury, provided that such legal right is exercised in good faith.”
Define Damnum Absque Injuria.
“The law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not amount to legal injury or wrong.”
Define Human Relations.
Human relations, in connection with the Civil Code, refers to the rules needed to govern the inter-relationships of human beings in a society for the purpose of maintaining social order.
What is Good Faith?
Good Faith is an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through the forms or technicalities of the law.
What is Good Faith?
Good Faith is an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through the forms or technicalities of the law.
T or F
When there is a violation of Article 19, Article 20 and 21 generally provides remedy for its violation.
True.
What are the elements of abuse of rights?
- There is a legal right or duty
- The legal right or duty is exercised in bad faith
- The sole intent is to prejudice or injure another
(FEBTC vs Pacilan)
Define Bad Faith.
Bad faith presupposes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious performance of a wrong.
T or F
Bad judgment and negligence automatically means there is bad faith.
False. Bad judgment and negligence does not necessarily mean bad faith.
T or F
Bad faith is always presumed.
False. Bad faith is never presumed.
T or F
Good faith is not presumed.
False. Good faith is always presumed.
In the case of Sesbreno vs CA & VECO, Sesbreno said his rights against unwarranted searches under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution was violated and therefore the same violation was committed under Article 19. Was his contention correct?
No. Article III Section 2 of the Constitution pertains only to rights against unwarranted searches committed by the Government through its agents.
In this case, the search was done by a private entity (VECO) and therefore no search warrant was needed. The search was also valid because VOC team had the continuing authority from Sesbreño as the consumer to enter his premises at all reasonable hours to conduct an inspection of the meter without being liable for trespass to dwelling.
As to Article 19, Sesbreno could not prove the violation of rights because of material inconsistencies and lack of evidence.
In the case of Saladaga vs Astorga, how did respondent violate Article 19?
Astorga, being a lawyer, violated Art 19 through his misrepresentation in drafting and executing the deed of sale because it turns out that the property he sold was under a mortgage unbeknownst to the petitioner. There was clear bad faith and malice in his performance of his duties as a lawyer, because lawyers have sworn an oath to “obey the laws,” “do no falsehood,” and “conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion,
Differentiate damages and injury.
Injury is the illegal invasion of a right
Damages is the loss, hurt or harm which results from the injury.
T or F
There can be damage without injury.
True. (Damnum Absque Injuria)
T or F
Generally, breach of promise to marry is not actionable.
True. Exception is when there have already been payments made in preparation for the marriage(actual damages), in which case the party breaking the engagement shall be obliged to return what he or she has received from the other.
T or F
Article 22 embodies the doctrine that no person shall be unjustly enriched at the expense of another.
True.
What was the issue and ruling in the case of FEBTC vs Pacilan?
WN FEBTC is liable for damages for violating Art. 19 of the New Civil Code.
NO, FEBTC IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES BECAUSE IT DID NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 19 OF THE CIVIL CODE.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA - “The law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not amount to legal injury or wrong.”
RTC and CA ruled that Pacilan be entitled to damages but this was reversed by the SC, because THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19.
No law or rule gave respondent the LEGAL RIGHT to make good his check or deposit. Also, it was found out that this has occurred in many instances. FEB had the right to close his account because of FREQUENT DRAWING OF CHECKS WITH INSUFFICIENT FUNDS, under the Banking Rules to which the respondent had consented to when making an account with FEB.
FEB in this case did not violate any legal right nor acted in malice or bad faith. (No violation of Article 19 paragraph A and B)
What was the issue and ruling in the case of Uypitching vs Quiamco?
1.) Whether or not petitioner, as the mortgagee, has the right to recover the property, which in this case the motorcycle, from the respondent.
No. A mortgagee may take steps to recover the mortgaged property to enable it to enforce or protect its foreclosure right thereon. There is, however, a well-defined procedure for the recovery of possession of mortgaged property: if a mortgagee is unable to obtain possession of a mortgaged property for its sale on foreclosure, he must bring a civil action either to recover such possession as a preliminary step to the sale, or to obtain judicial foreclosure.
2.) Whether or not petitioner observed due process in retrieving the alleged mortgaged motorcycle from the respondent.
In this case, the manner by which the motorcycle was taken was not only attended by bad faith but also contrary to the procedure laid down by law. Considered in conjunction with the defamatory statement, petitioners’ exercise of the right to recover the mortgaged vehicle was utterly prejudicial and injurious to Quiamco. The precipitate act of filing an unfounded complaint could not in any way be considered to be in accordance with the purpose for which the right to prosecute a crime was established. Thus, the totality of petitioners’ actions showed a calculated design to embarrass, humiliate and publicly ridicule Quiamco.
What was the issue and ruling in the case of Cebu Country Club vs Elizagaque?
Whether or not Elizagaque is entitled to payment of damages.
Yes, Elizagaque is entitled to payment of damages. In rejecting respondent’s application for proprietary membership, we find that petitioners violated the rules governing human relations, the basic principles to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of social order. The trial court and the Court of Appeals aptly held that petitioners committed fraud and evident bad faith in disapproving respondent’s applications. This is contrary to morals, good custom or public policy. Hence, petitioners are liable for damages pursuant to Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the same Code.
Also, it bears stressing that the amendment to Section 3(c) of CCCI’s Amended By-Laws requiring the unanimous vote of the directors present at a special or regular meeting was not printed on the application form respondent filled and submitted to CCCI. What was printed thereon was the original provision of Section 3(c) which was silent on the required number of votes needed for admission of an applicant as a proprietary member.
It is clear that respondent was left groping in the dark wondering why his application was disapproved. He was not even informed that a unanimous vote of the Board members was required. When he sent a letter for reconsideration and an inquiry whether there was an objection to his application, petitioners apparently ignored him. At the very least, they should have informed him why his application was disapproved.
It also bears reiterating that the trial court and the Court of Appeals held that petitioners’ disapproval of respondent’s application is characterized by bad faith.
As to petitioners’ reliance on the principle of damnum absque injuria or damage without injury, suffice it to state that the same is misplaced.
Under Article 2219 of the New Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered, among others, in acts and actions referred to in Article 21. We believe respondent’s testimony that he suffered mental anguish, social humiliation and wounded feelings as a result of the arbitrary denial of his application.
What was the issue and ruling in the case of Calatagan Golf Club vs Clemente?
Whether or not Calatagan acted in bad faith when it sold Clemente’s share.
Calatagan acted in bad faith because Calatagan had failed to duly observe both the spirit and letter of its own by-laws. The by-law provisions was clearly conceived to afford due notice to the delinquent member of the impending sale, and not just to provide an intricate facade that would facilitate Calatagan’s sale of the share. But then, the bad faith on Calatagan’s part is palpable. As found by the Court of Appeals, Calatagan very well knew that Clemente’s postal box to which it sent its previous letters had already been closed, yet it persisted in sending that final letter to the same postal box. What for? Just for the exercise, it appears, as it had known very well that the letter would never actually reach Clemente.
What was the issue and ruling in the case of Ardiente vs Javier?
Whether or not Ardiente and COWD, are solidarily be held liable for the disconnection of the water supply of the respondent.
The Spouses Pastorfide are entitled to moral damages based on the provisions of Article 2219, 19 in connection with Articles 20 20 and 21 21 of the Civil Code. Petitioner’s acts which violated the abovementioned provisions of law is her unjustifiable act of having the respondent spouses’ water supply disconnected, coupled with her failure to warn or at least notify respondent spouses of such intention. On the part of COWD and Gonzalez, it is their failure to give prior notice of the impending disconnection and their subsequent neglect to reconnect respondent spouses’ water supply despite the latter’s settlement of their delinquent account.
What was the issue and ruling in the case of Sesbreno vs CA?
Was Sesbreño entitled to recover damages for abuse of rights?
Article 19 was not violated because Sesbreno cannot prove the violation due to material inconsistencies and lack of witnesses. Also, there was no violation of Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution or the right against warrantless searches.
What was the issue and ruling in the case of Saladaga vs Astorga?
Whether or not Atty Astorga transgressed the laws and the fundamental tenet of human relations as embodied in Article 19 of the Civil Code.
When respondent was admitted to the legal profession, he took an oath where he undertook to “obey the laws,” “do no falsehood,” and “conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion.” He gravely violated his oath. A lawyer who drafts a contract must see to it that the agreement faithfully and clearly reflects the intention of the contracting parties. Otherwise, the respective rights and obligations of the contracting parties will be uncertain, which opens the door to legal disputes between the said parties. Indeed, the uncertainty caused by respondent’s poor formulation of the “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase”
The actions of respondent in connection with the execution of the “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase” clearly fall within the concept of unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. They violate Article 19 of the Civil Code. They show a disregard for Section 63 of the Land Registration Act. They also reflect bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit on respondent’s part. Thus, respondent deserves to be sanctioned.
What was the issue and ruling in the case of Coca Cola Bottlers vs Bernardo?
1.) Whether or not Articles 19 , 20, 21 and 28 were violated.
(Yes, there was violations of these provisions. Both the RTC and the CA found that petitioner had employed oppressive and high-handed schemes to unjustly limit the market coverage and diminish the investment returns of respondents. This cut-throat competition is precisely what appellant did in order to take over the market. As a result, the wholesalers suffered losses, and in respondent’s case, laid off a number of employees and alienated the patronage of its major customers including small-scale stores.
It must be emphasized that petitioner is not only a beverage giant, but also the manufacturer of the products; hence, it sets the price. In addition, it took advantage of the information provided by respondents to facilitate its takeover of the latter’s usual business area.
Distributors like respondents, who had assisted petitioner in its marketing efforts, suddenly found themselves with fewer customers.
The merchant was also the producer who, with the use of a list provided by its distributor, knocked on the doors of the latter’s customers and offered the products at a substantially lower price. Unsatisfied, the merchant even sold its products at a preferential rate to another store within the vicinity.
Jurisprudence bolds that when a person starts an opposing place of business, not for the sake of profit, but regardless of loss and for the sole purpose of driving a competitor out of business, in order to take advantage of the effects of a malevolent purpose, that person is guilty of a wanton wrong.
Both the RTC and the CA found that respondents had similarly suffered pecuniary loss by reason of petitioner’s high-handed machinations to eliminate competition in the market.
Supreme Court sees no grave error on the part of the RTC when it ruled that the unpaid obligation of respondents shall be offset against the temperate damages due them from petitioner.
2.) Whether RTC has jurisdiction to award temperate and exemplary damages to respondent, even when the latter did not pray for the same in respondent’s complaint.
Yes, RTC and CA had jurisdiction, there being no meritorious argument raised by petitioner, the award of exemplary damages must be sustained to caution powerful business owners against the use of oppressive and high-handed commercial strategies to target and trample on the rights of small business owners, who are striving to make a decent living. Also, the CA correctly ruled that the award of temperate damages was justified, even if it was not specifically prayed for, because
1) respondents did pray for the grant of “other reliefs,” and
2) the award was clearly warranted under the circumstances. Indeed, the law permits judges to award a different kind of damages as an alternative to actual damages:
What was the issue and ruling in the case of St Martin Polyclinic vs LWV Construction?
Whether or not petitioner was negligent in issuing the Medical Report declaring Raguindin “fit for employment” and hence, should be held liable for damages.
NO. PETITIONER WAS NOT NEGLIGENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1.) The courts a quo (MTC AND RTC) erroneously anchored their respective rulings on the provisions of Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code. This is because respondent did not proffer (nor have these courts mentioned) any law as basis for which damages may be recovered due to petitioner’s alleged negligent act. In its amended complaint, respondent mainly avers that had petitioner not issue a “fit for employment” Medical Report to Raguindin, respondent would not have processed his documents, deployed him to Saudi Arabia, and later on - in view of the subsequent findings that Raguindin was positive for HCV and hence, unfit to work - suffered actual damages in the amount of P84,373.41.Thus, as the claimed negligent act of petitioner was not premised on the breach of any law, and not to mention the incontestable fact that no pre-existing contractual relation was averred to exist between the parties, Article 2176 - instead of Articles 19, 20 and 21 - of the Civil Code should govern.
2.) “Negligence cannot be presumed, and thus, must be proven by him who alleges it.”
If the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was damaged because of the negligent acts of the defendant, he has the burden of proving such negligence. It is even presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns.
The records of this case show that the pieces of evidence mainly relied upon by respondent to establish petitioner’s negligence are:
(a) the Certification dated April 28, 2008; and
(b) the HCV Confirmatory Test Report.
It was incumbent upon respondent to show that there was already negligence at the time the Medical Report was issued, may it be through evidence that show that standard medical procedures were not carefully observed or that there were already palpable signs that exhibited Raguindin’s unfitness for deployment at that time. This is hardly the case when respondent only proffered evidence which demonstrate that months after petitioner’s Medical Report was issued, Raguindin, who had already been deployed to Saudi Arabia, tested positive for HCV and as such, was no longer “fit for employment”.
- ) The CA erred in holding that “had petitioner more thoroughly and diligently examined Raguindin, it would likely have discovered the existence of the HCV because it was contrary to human experience that a newly-deployed overseas worker, such as Raguindin, would immediately have contracted the disease at the beginning of his deployment.” There is a reasonable possibility that Raguindin became exposed to the HCV only after his medical examination with petitioner. Acute HCV infection is usually asymptomatic, and is only very rarely associated with life-threatening diseases. The incubation period for HCV is two (2) weeks to six (6) months, and following initial infection, approximately 80% of people do not exhibit any symptoms.
- ). Petitioner could not be reasonably expected to predict, much less assure, that Raguindin’s medical status of being fit for employment would remain unchanged. Thus, the fact that the Medical Report’s expiration date of April 11, 2008 was only seventeen (17) days away from the issuance of the General Care Dispensary’s April 28, 2008 Certification finding Raguindin positive for HCV should not - as it does not - establish petitioner’s negligence. It does not, by any means, create legal basis to hold the issuer accountable for any intervening change of condition from the time of issuance up until expiration.
- ) There being no negligence proven by respondent through credible and admissible evidence, petitioner cannot be held liable for damages under Article 2176 of the Civil Code as above-discussed.
What was the issue and ruling in the case of Lomarda vs Fudalan?
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld the award of damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code.
Yes. It is clear that petitioners should be held liable for damages under Article 19, in relation to Article 21, of the Civil Code. While it appears that petitioners were engaged in a legal act, i.e., exacting compliance with the requirements for the installation of respondent’s electricity in his farmhouse, the circumstances of this case show that the same was conducted contrary to morals and good customs, and were in fact done with the intent to cause injury to respondent. Petitioners did not only fail to apprise respondent of the proper procedure to expedite compliance with the requirements, they also misled him to believe that everything can be settled, extorted money from him when only a meager amount was due, and worse, publicly humiliated him in front of many people which ended up in the disconnection of his electricity altogether.
To be sure, the clean hands doctrine - which was invoked by petitioners herein - should not apply in their favor, considering that while respondent may have technically failed to procure the required BAPA certification and proceeded with the tapping, the same was not due to his lack of effort or intention in complying with the rules in good faith. As exhibited above, it was, in fact, petitioners’ own acts which made compliance with the rules impossible. Hence, respondent was actually free from fault, negating the application of the clean hands doctrine.
What was the issue and ruling in the case of Banaria vs Banaria?
Whether or not there was a violation of Article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.
Adelaida’s right as a wife, as with any rights, cannot be exercised without limitation. The exercise of this right must conform to the exacting standards of conduct enunciated in Article 19. Adelaida was clearly remiss in this aspect. Glaring is the fact that long before the scheduled date of Pascasio’s 90th birthday celebration, Adelaida was already informed about the event. As early as February 2003 or a year before the scheduled event, Adelaida was already reminded of the event by the respondents to which she confirmed Pascasio’s attendance. Even though Adelaida alleges that she was not privy to any birthday celebration for Pascasio, the fact remains that she was continuously informed and reminded about the scheduled event. She even contributed P5,000.00 for the costs.
Following Adelaida’s testimony that Pascasio had already decided not to attend his birthday celebration a day before such event, she should have contacted the respondents immediately for the respondents to be able to take appropriate action. Adelaida knew fully well that the respondents already spent a considerable amount of money and earnest efforts were already made to ensure the success of the event. The least that Adelaida could have done was to inform the respondents immediately of any unforeseen circumstance that would hinder its success and to avert any further damage or injury to the respondents. Moreover, considering that numerous guests were invited and have confirmed their attendance, she placed the respondents in a very embarrassing situation.
What was the issue and ruling in the case of Buenaventura vs CA?
Whether or not the wife can claim moral and exemplary damages because she suffered during the marriage with Noel Buenaventura.
She COULD NOT CLAIM DAMAGES, since the injury suffered by the wife during the marriage was due to PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY OF THE HUSBAND, therefore it WAS NOT WILLFUL (which is a requirement for claims of damage under Article 21). In effect, wife cannot claim the moral damages she prayed for. And since exemplary damages are imposed IN ADDITION to moral/temperate/actual/liquidated damages, Exemplary damages are not awarded.
How was Article 22 applied in the case of Filinvest vs Ngilay?
Ngilay should return to Filinvest the 14M downpayment it received, otherwise it would constitute UNJUST ENRICHMENT. Petitioner did not err in seeking the return of the money since the sale of land was declared VOID.
The rule is settled that declaration of nullity of contract which is void ab initio operates TO RESTORE THINGS TO THE STATE AND CONDITION IN WHICH THEY WERE FOUND BEFORE THE EXECUTION THEREOF.
How was Article 22 applied in the case of Gonzalo vs Ternate and what were the other issues?
Both parties were in the wrong, because every contractor is prohibited from subcontracting with or assigning to another person any contract or project that he has with the DPWH unless the DPWH Secretary has approved the subcontracting or assignment. However, in this case, there was unjust enrichment, since There is no question that Tarnate provided the equipment, labor and materials for the project in compliance with his obligations under the subcontract and the deed of assignment; and that it was Gonzalo as the contractor who received the payment for his contract with the DPWH as well as the 10% retention fee that should have been paid to Tarnate pursuant to the deed of assignment. Considering that Gonzalo refused despite demands to deliver to Tarnate the stipulated 10% retention fee that would have compensated the latter for the use of his equipment in the project, Gonzalo would be unjustly enriched at the expense of Tarnate if the latter was to be barred from recovering because of the rigid application of the doctrine of in pari delicto. The prevention of unjust enrichment called for the exception to apply in Tarnate’s favor.
T or F Unjust enrichment (Public Policy) is an exception to pari delicto.
True. (Gonazalo vs Ternate) Pari delicto is not always rigid.
Explain the doctrine of pari delicto.
The doctrine of in pari delicto is a universal doctrine that holds that no action arises, in equity or at law, from an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed to be paid, or damages for its violation; and where the parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief of any kind will be given to one against the other.
How was Article 22 applied in the case of Bliss Development vs Diaz?
Even though Diaz WAS NOT AN INNOCENT PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH (did not diligently inquire into the title before entering into the sale), BDC is nevertheless LIABLE TO RETURN TO DIAZ the amortizations which Diaz paid on the property, as well as improvements made thereon APPLYING THE RULE ON UNJUST ENRICHMENT.
Who is a purchaser in good faith?
For one to be considered a purchaser in good faith, the following requisites must concur:
(1) that the purchaser buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property; and
(2) that the purchaser pays a full and fair price for the property at the time of such purchase or before he or she has notice of the claim of another.
How was Article 22 applied in the case of Yon Mitori International vs Unionbank?
Tan would be UNJUSTLY ENRICHED at Unionbank’s expense if he were permitted to derive benefit from the funds erroneously credited to his account. Tan failed to prove UB’s negligence, while UB was able to prove in court that what transpired was merely a TECHNICAL ERROR. Tan failed to cite provisions of law, banking regulations and internal rules that were supposedly violated by UB.
