II. HUMAN RELATIONS Flashcards
II. HUMAN RELATIONS
A. Abuse of Rights (Civil Code, arts. 19-22)
- Acts Contra Bonus Mores
- Breach of Promise of Marriage
Art19 ERPoD AG Oh
ActwJ, GivEhD & ObsH.Gf
ARTICLE 19. 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.
ARTICLE 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
ARTICLE 21. 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.
ARTICLE 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other 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.
II. HUMAN RELATIONS
B. Unjust Enrichment (Civil Code, arts. 22-23 and 2142-2143)
LVU acts creates JuRel of Qc : No1 shall be U E at Exp of Another
ARTICLE 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other 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.
ARTICLE 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.
Quasi-contracts
ARTICLE 2142. Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another. (n)
ARTICLE 2143. The provisions for quasi-contracts in this Chapter do not exclude other quasi-contracts which may come within the purview of the preceding article. (n)
II. HUMAN RELATIONS
C. Thoughtless Extravagance (Civil Code, art. 25)
Court may order to stop
ARTICLE 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.
II. HUMAN RELATIONS
D. Tortious Interference (Civil Code, art. 1314)
Induces A to Vio his C - liab for D
ARTICLE 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.
Scenario 1:
Alice agrees to sell her car to Bob for a mutually agreed price. However, before the transaction can be completed, Carol, a friend of Bob, convinces him to breach the contract with Alice and buy a different car from someone else instead. As a result, Alice is left without a buyer for her car and suffers financial losses.
Scenario 2:
John enters into a lease agreement with Mary to rent her apartment for a specified period. However, before the lease term begins, Peter, a competitor of Mary in the real estate business, persuades John to back out of the lease agreement with Mary and rent an apartment from him instead. Mary is left without a tenant for her apartment and incurs losses as a result.
Answer:
In both scenarios, Carol and Peter induced Bob and John, respectively, to violate their contracts with Alice and Mary. According to Article 1314 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.
Basis in Law:
Article 1314 of the Civil Code of the Philippines explicitly states the liability of any third person who induces another to breach a contract. This provision aims to protect the rights and interests of contracting parties and holds third parties accountable for their interference in contractual relationships.
Analysis:
The conclusion drawn from Article 1314 is clear: third parties who induce contract breaches are liable for damages. This principle is rooted in the fundamental legal concept of contractual obligations and the importance of upholding the integrity of contracts. Through this provision, the law seeks to deter wrongful interference in contractual relationships and ensure that parties are held accountable for their actions. In both scenarios, the actions of Carol and Peter disrupted the contractual arrangements between Alice and Bob, and Mary and John, leading to financial harm. Therefore, they should be held liable for the damages incurred by Alice and Mary due to their inducement of contract breaches.
Scenario 1:
John, a homeowner, hires a contractor, Mark, to renovate his kitchen. They agree on the scope of work and the price for the renovation. However, after completing the renovation, Mark presents an invoice that is significantly higher than the agreed-upon price, citing unexpected material costs and additional labor. John refuses to pay the inflated invoice, arguing that the agreed-upon price should be honored. Despite negotiations, they cannot reach a resolution, and Mark threatens to take legal action to recover the purported balance.
Scenario 2:
Samantha, a car owner, accidentally rear-ends another vehicle while driving in heavy traffic. Both vehicles sustain minor damages, and no one is injured. Samantha apologizes to the other driver, Steve, and offers to cover the repair costs for his vehicle. Steve agrees and provides Samantha with an estimate from an auto repair shop. However, when Samantha receives the final bill from the repair shop, it exceeds the initial estimate by a significant amount due to unforeseen damages discovered during the repair process. Samantha disputes the inflated bill, arguing that she only agreed to pay the amount specified in the estimate.
Answer:
In both scenarios, the lawful, voluntary, and unilateral acts of the parties give rise to the juridical relation of quasi-contract to prevent unjust enrichment or benefit at the expense of another.
Basis in Law:
Articles 2142 and 2143 of the Civil Code of the Philippines establish the principles governing quasi-contracts. Article 2142 stipulates that certain lawful, voluntary, and unilateral acts create quasi-contractual obligations to prevent unjust enrichment or benefit at the expense of another party. Meanwhile, Article 2143 clarifies that the provisions for quasi-contracts in the Civil Code are not exhaustive, and other quasi-contractual situations may arise beyond those explicitly mentioned.
Analysis:
In both scenarios, the parties’ actions result in obligations akin to contracts, even though there may not have been a formal agreement or intention to create legal relations. John and Mark’s disagreement over the renovation costs and Samantha and Steve’s dispute over the repair bill illustrate situations where one party seeks to enforce an obligation based on the principles of fairness and equity. By recognizing the existence of quasi-contractual relations, the law aims to ensure that individuals are not unfairly enriched or disadvantaged due to the voluntary acts of others. Therefore, in such cases, the courts may intervene to uphold the principles of justice and prevent unjust enrichment or benefit at the expense of another party.
Scenario 1:
During a period of acute public want caused by a natural disaster, such as a typhoon, Jake, a wealthy businessman, continues to host lavish parties and spend extravagantly on luxury items, ignoring the plight of the affected community. Despite widespread suffering and the urgent need for relief efforts, Jake’s thoughtless extravagance persists, drawing criticism from the public and authorities alike.
Scenario 2:
In the midst of a national economic crisis, characterized by widespread unemployment and poverty, Emily, a social media influencer, flaunts her extravagant lifestyle on various online platforms. She frequently posts pictures of her expensive vacations, designer outfits, and luxury purchases, disregarding the financial hardships faced by many of her followers and the general population.
Answer:
In both scenarios, the thoughtless extravagance of Jake and Emily during periods of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.
Basis in Law:
Article 25 of the Civil Code of the Philippines empowers the courts to intervene and halt thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during periods of acute public want or emergency. This provision reflects the principle of social responsibility and the obligation of individuals, particularly those with means, to exercise prudence and restraint in their spending habits during times of crisis or widespread need.
Analysis:
Article 25 of the Civil Code serves as a safeguard against thoughtless extravagance that exacerbates societal inequalities and disregards the welfare of the community during periods of acute public want or emergency. By authorizing the courts to intervene at the instance of government or charitable institutions, the law aims to promote social justice and prioritize the collective well-being over individual indulgence. In both scenarios, Jake and Emily’s actions demonstrate a lack of sensitivity to the prevailing circumstances and a disregard for the suffering of others. Therefore, the courts may rightfully step in to halt their extravagant spending and ensure that resources are directed towards alleviating the effects of the public want or emergency.
Scenario 1:
Emma, a struggling artist, lends her expensive camera to her friend, Alex, who promises to return it after using it for a photoshoot. However, instead of returning the camera, Alex sells it to another acquaintance, Lily, without Emma’s knowledge or consent. Lily, unaware that the camera was obtained without just or legal ground, happily accepts the purchase.
Scenario 2:
Mike accidentally causes damage to his neighbor’s fence while cutting down a tree on his property. Although Mike did not act negligently and the damage was unintentional, his neighbor, Sarah, is left with the cost of repairing the fence. However, Mike benefits indirectly from the incident as the removal of the tree enhances the view from his property, increasing its aesthetic appeal and potentially its value.
Answer:
In both scenarios, the principles outlined in Articles 22 and 23 of the Civil Code of the Philippines apply, requiring the individuals who benefited at the expense of others to return or compensate for the acquired property or damage caused, even if there was no fault or negligence involved.
Basis in Law:
Article 22 of the Civil Code establishes the principle that any person who acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of another without just or legal ground must return it to the rightful owner. This provision aims to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure fairness in transactions and dealings between individuals. Similarly, Article 23 imposes liability for indemnity on individuals who benefit from an act or event causing damage to another’s property, even in the absence of fault or negligence. The rationale behind this provision is to hold individuals accountable for any benefits derived from the harm caused to others, promoting accountability and equity in legal relationships.
Analysis:
In Scenario 1, Alex acquires Emma’s camera at her expense without any legal or justifiable reason, thereby triggering the obligation to return the camera to Emma under Article 22. Despite Lily’s innocent purchase, she indirectly benefits from Alex’s wrongful act and is therefore obligated to return the camera to Emma or compensate her for its value. In Scenario 2, although Mike did not act negligently, he indirectly benefited from the damage caused to Sarah’s fence due to the improved view from his property. Thus, under Article 23, Mike may be liable to indemnify Sarah for the repair costs or provide compensation for the benefit derived from the incident. These scenarios highlight the application of legal principles aimed at preventing unjust enrichment and ensuring accountability in situations where individuals acquire benefits at the expense of others.
