LESSON TWO:

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING HUMAN RELATIONS

1. Term Bank
Independent civil action
An independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may
be brought by the injured party before or after the criminal action is instituted.
Constitutional civil liberties
“to those fundamental freedoms which, historically associated with the bill of
rights, aim at protecting the individual against oppression through government
action; they are the rights which are deemed essential to any enlightened scheme
of ordered liberty which endows the individual with the dignity of man in the
society of his equals.’’
Accion in rem verso
Every person 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.
Prejudicial question
A prejudicial question is one which must be decided first before a criminal action
may be instituted or may proceed because a decision therein is vital to the
judgment in the criminal case.
Abuse of rights
Article 19, also known as the “principle of abuse of right”, prescribes that a person
should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise
he opens himself to liability. (HSBC v. Catalan, G.R. No. 159590-91, October 18,
2004; 440 SCRA 498). It seeks to preclude the use of, or the tendency to use, a
legal right (or duty) as a means to unjust ends.
There is an abuse of right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure
another. (HSBC v. Catalan). The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the
purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh;
there must be no intention to harm another. (HSBC v. Catalan). Otherwise, liability
for damages to the injured party will attach.
Acts contra bonus
Article 21 refers to acts contra bonos mores and has the following elements: (1) an act
which is legal; (2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order or
public policy; and (3) is done with intent to injure.
2. Study Guide Questions:
1. What is the duty and obligation of every person in the exercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties?
According to Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, every person 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.
Why?
For the rightful relationship between human beings and the stability of social order.
Notes:
Bad faith – imparts a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious of doing
wrong. It does not simply connotes bad judgment or negligence. (The Board of
Liquidators v. Heirs of Maximo M. Kalaw, et al. L-18805, August, 14, 1967)
2. What is the obligation of one who causes damage to another?
According to Article 20 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, every person who,
contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify
the latter for the same.
According to Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, any person who willfully
causes loss or injury to another that is contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy shall compensate the latter for damages.
Article 20 and Article 21 distinguished
Article 20 Article 21
 The act is contrary to law  The act is contrary to morals, good
 The act is done either willfully or customs, or public policy
negligently  The act is done willfully

Notes:
Negligence – the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person
that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances greatly demand,
whereby such other person suffers injury.
Types of Damages
Moral - Awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements
that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of the
defendant’s culpable action.
Exemplary - Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary or corrective
damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in
addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Article 2231 of
the same Code further states that in quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be
granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.
Nominal – Granted for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded, and
not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. And this is
so even if actual damages be not proved
Temperate – Under Article 2224 of the New Civil Code, temperate damages may be
recovered when pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from
the nature of the case, be proven with certainty. In such cases, the amount of the
award is left to the discretion of the courts, according to the circumstances of each
case, but the same should be reasonable, bearing in mind that temperate damages
should be more than nominal but less than compensatory.
Actual - Awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained. They
simply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong.
Liquidated – Under Article 2226 of the Civil Code, liquidated damages are those
agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof. The
parties to a contract are allowed to stipulate on liquidated damages to be paid in case of
breach. It is attached to an obligation in order to ensure performance and has a double
function: (1) to provide for liquidated damages, and (2) to strengthen the coercive force
of the obligation by the threat of greater responsibility in the event of breach. The
amount agreed upon answers for damages suffered by the owner due to delays in the
completion of the project. As a pre-condition to such award, however, there must be
proof of the fact of delay in the performance of the obligation.

3. What is the duty of one who has acquired something unjustly or illegally?
According to Article 22 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, every person 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.
Duty to return what was acquired unjustly or illegally
No person should be unjustly enriched himself at the expense of the latter.
Exceptions
When property is obtain by virtue of final judgment of the court.
Essential Requisites of “Accion in Rem Verso”
(1) One party must be enriched and the other made poorer.
(2) There must be causal relation between the two.
 (3) The enrichment must not be justifiable.
Exceptions:
1. If the law allows the enrichment
2. Enrichment results from a contract
3. Negligence of the impoverished person

(4) There must be no other way to recover.

(5) The indemnity cannot exceed the loss or enrichment.

4. What is thoughtless extravagance and when should it be curtailed?

Thoughtless Extravagance refers to a desire to splurge during critical times.
According to Article 25 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, 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.
Reason for Curtailing Thoughtless Extravagance
Thoughtless extravagance during emergencies may incite the passions of those who
cannot afford to spend.
Who can bring action?
Only a charitable institution (whether government or private) may bring the action.
But first he/she must ask for a court order.
5. How shall the duty to respect the dignity and privacy of a person be
displayed?
According to Article 26 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, 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 on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life,
place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
According to Article 26 of the Civil Code, to respect the dignity and privacy of a person
the following act shall be displayed/observe:
1. Do not pry into the privacy of another’s residence;
Includes by implication respect for another’s name, picture, or personality except insofar
as is needed for publication of information and pictures of legitimate news value.
2. Do not meddle with or disturb the private life or family relations of another;
Includes alienation of the affections of the husband or the wife. Intriguing against
another’s honor (gossiping) is also included.
3. Do not intrigue to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
Includes gossiping, and reliance on hearsay.
4. Don’t vex or humiliate another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in
life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
Includes criticism of one’s health or features without justifiable legal cause. (138
A.L.R. 25). Religious freedom does not authorize anyone to heap obloquy and
disrepute upon another by reason of the latter’s religion.

Even though they may not constitute a criminal offense, this acts will produce a cause of
action for damages, prevention and other relief.
6. What is the rule when one suffers because of a public servant or
employee’s refusal or neglect to perform an official duty?
According to Article 27 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, 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.
Rational behind the article
The purpose of this article is end the bribery system, where the public official for
some flimsy excuse, delays or refuses the performance of his duty until he got some
bribery money.
Exceptions
One cannot sue for damages caused by the public servant or employee, if the act
committed is within his/her official capacity.
7. What is the effect on the civil action if an accused is acquitted in a criminal
case?
According to Article 29 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, when the accused in a
criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not yet been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or
omission may be instituted. Such action requires only preponderance of evidence.
Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer
for damages in case the complaint should be found malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the
court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred
from the text of the decision to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision
whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.
Criminal and Civil Liabilities
Under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 100) a person criminally liable is also civilly
liable. The two liabilities are separate and distinct from each other; the criminal
aspect affects the social order; the civil, private rights. One is for the punishment or
correction of the offender, while the other is for reparation of damages suffered by the
aggrieved party.
Criminal liability will give rise to civil liability ex delicto only if the same felonious
act or omission results in damage or injury to another and is the direct and
proximate cause thereof. Hence, extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
the extinction of civil liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final
judgment that the fact from which the civil case might arise did not exist.
Effect of Acquittal in Criminal Case
If the reason of the acquittal was because the accused could not have committed the
act, no civil action can later on be brought.
If the reason for the acquittal was because of an exempting circumstance, he would
still be civilly liable.
If there is an independent civil action allowed by the law, civil liability may still arised if
this action is instituted and the defendant’s liability is prived by mere preponderance of
evidence.

8. What are the remedies of a person who files only a civil case base on a
criminal offense?
The available remedies of a person who files only a civil case base on a criminal
offense are:
In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It
shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover
damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.
The offended party have the right to reserve
9. What are the constitutional civil liberties?
According to Article 32 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, any public officer or
employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,
violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and
liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages.
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not
contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for
redress or grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process
to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one’s self, or from
being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or
reward to make such confession except when the person confessing becomes a
State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the
same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been
judicially declared unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts. In any of the cases referred to in this article,
whether or not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil
action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be
proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be
adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
Remedies
The Article allows an independent civil action, whether or not a crime has been
committed, with indemnification for moral and exemplary damages in addition to other
damages. In the case of exemplary damages, award thereof is discretionary with the
Court.
10. What are the instances where an independent civil action may be allowed?
(a) Art. 32 — (breach of constitutional and other rights)
(b) Art. 33 — (defamation, fraud, physical injuries)
(c) Art. 34 — (refusal or failure of city or municipal police to give protection)
(d) Art. 2177 — (quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana)
Entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured
party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and
shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
11. What is the effect of a prejudicial question?
According to Article 36 of the Civil Code, Prejudicial questions, which must be decided
before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, shall be
governed by rules of court which the Supreme Court shall promulgate and which
shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code.
Requisites of Prejudicial Questions
(a) The civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based;
(b) In the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil actions, the guilt or
innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined; and
(c) Jurisdiction to try, said question must be lodged in another tribunal.
Effects of a prejudicial question
The consequences of prejudicial questions are as follows. First, if there is a
prejudicial question, the criminal action is suspended. If there is none, the latter
shall proceed.

Second, if the prejudicial question is resolved in favor of the accused-defendant,

the criminal action against him will fail. If otherwise, such resolution shall work
against him because the findings of the civil court, if final, shall be conclusive upon the
criminal case.
3. Cases:
I. Grand Union Supermarket vs. Jose J. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. L-48250, December
28, 1979
Facts:
Jose J. Espino with his wife and two daughters went to shop at South
Supermarket in Makati. While his wife is shopping, Espino found a cylindrical “rat tail”
which he wanted to buy for his hobby. Thinking that it might get lost because of its tiny
size, Espino put it in front breast pocket of his shirt.
At the checkout counter Espino paid for his wife purchases, but he forgot to pay
for the cylindrical “rat tail”. Upon leaving Espino with his wife and two daughters, he was
approached by a uniform guard in the market and told Espino that he has something on
his pocket which he had not paid. Reminded of the file, Espino apologized, runs back to
the cashier and pay for the file. But the guard stopped him and led him instead toward
the rear of the supermarket when he was asked to fill out an Incident Report labeling
him as "Shoplifter". Espino felt embarrassed and humiliated because of this incident.
After trial, the Court of First Instance of Pasig, Rizal, Branch XIX dismissed the
complaint. Interposing the appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter reversed and set
aside the appealed judgment, granting and damages as earlier stated.
Issue:
W/N Grand Union Supermarket should be liable for public humiliation founded on Article
21 in relation to Article 2219 of the New Civil Code.
Ruling:
Yes, Grand Union Supermarket ordered to pay, jointly and severally moral damages P5,
000 and P2, 000 as and for attorney's fees; and to return the P5 fine
Jose did not intend to steal the file and that is act of picking up the file from the open
shelf was not criminal nor done with malice or criminal intent for on the contrary, he took
the item with the intention of buying and paying for it
Defendants willfully caused loss or injury to plaintiff in a manner that was contrary to
morals, good customs or Public policy, making them amenable to damages under
Articles 19 and 21 in relation to Article 2219 of the Civil Code."
The false accusation charged against the private respondent after detaining and
interrogating him by the uniformed guards and the mode and manner in which he was
subjected, shouting at him, imposing upon him a fine, threatening to call the police and
in the presence and hearing of many people at the Supermarket which brought and
caused him humiliation and embarrassment, sufficiently rendered the petitioners liable
for damages under Articles 19 and 21 in relation to Article 2219 of the Civil Code. We
rule that under the facts of the case at bar, petitioners willfully caused loss or injury to
private respondent in a manner that was contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy. It is against morals, good customs and public policy to humiliate, embarrass and
degrade the dignity of a person. Everyone must respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons (Article 26, Civil Code). And one
must act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith (Article
19, Civil Code).
II. Enrique J.L. Ruiz, et.al. vs. The Secretary of National Defense, G.R. No. L-
15526, December 28, 1963
Under Article 21 of the Civil Code Requires a legal right violated. The appellants'
contention in the case at bar that their claim for recognition as co-architects is
authorized under Article 21 of the Civil Code on the ground that the word "injury" in said
article refers also to honor or credit, is held to be without merit, because this Article
envisions a situation where a person has a legal right and such right is violated
by another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, and it
presupposes losses or injuries, material or otherwise, which one may suffer as a
result of said violation, which situation does not obtain in the case at bar.
III. Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA
778 (1989)
Facts:
 Restituto M. Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay Cable and Radio
Corporation who discovered anomalies and reported them to his immediate superior
and to the Executive Vice-president and General Manager of Mackay.
One day after private respondent Tobias made the report, petitioner confronted
him by stating that he was the number one suspect, and ordered him to take a one
week forced leave, not to communicate with the office, to leave his table drawers open,
and to leave the office keys.
When private respondent Tobias returned to work after the forced leave,
petitioner Hendry went up to him and called him a "crook" and a "swindler." Tobias was
then ordered to take a lie detector test. He was also instructed to submit specimen of
his handwriting, signature, and initials for examination by the police investigators to
determine his complicity in the anomalies.
Petitioner filed a complaint for estafa and five other criminal complaints despite
two police report exculpating Tobias from anomalies. Whereupon, Tobias filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal which later entered into a compromise agreement
regarding the latter’s complaint for illegal dismissal.
Unemployed, Tobias sought employment with the Republic Telephone Company
(RETELCO). However, petitioner Hendry, without being asked by RETELCO, wrote a
letter to the latter stating that Tobias was dismissed by GLOBE MACKAY due to
dishonesty. Private respondent Tobias filed a civil case for damages anchored on
alleged unlawful, malicious, oppressive, and abusive acts of petitioners.
Petitioners contend that they could not be made liable for damages in the lawful
exercise of their right to dismiss private respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent under the Civil
Code
Ruling:
YES. Petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent under the provisions of
the Civil Code.
Art. 19 of the Civil Code 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 Court
said that 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. Thus,
generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper
In the present case, petitioner Hendry showed belligerence and told private respondent
that he was the number one suspect and to take a 1 week vacation leave, not to
communicate with the office, and to leave his keys to said defendant (petitioner
Hendry). Moreover, the imputation of guilt without basis and the pattern of harassment
during the investigations of Tobias transgress the standards of human conduct set forth
in Article 19 of the Civil Code.
Hence, petitioners were ordered to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages to
private respondent.
IV. Abuse of rights

1. University of the East vs. Romeo A. Jader, G.R. No. 132344, February 17, 2000
Jader was a law student of the UE College of Law. For getting an incomplete grade
in his Practice Court I, he took a removal exam for the same. Unknown to him, however,
he was given a failing grade. But still, he was included in the list of graduates and was
able to enroll at the pre-bar review class. Later, he learned of his deficiency and thus,
dropped his review class and was not able to take the bar examinations. Jader filed an
action for damages against the university and both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals ruled in his favor.
ID.; HUMAN RELATIONS; GOOD FAITH; WANTING WHEN A STUDENT
WAS BELATEDLY INFORMED OF HIS FAILING GRADE IN CASE AT BAR. —
Petitioner, in belatedly informing respondent of the result of the removal examination,
particularly at a time when he had already commenced preparing for the bar exams,
cannot be said to have acted in good faith. Absence of good faith must be
sufficiently established for a successful prosecution by the aggrieved party in a
suit for abuse of right under Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith connotes an
honest intention to abstain from taking undue advantage of another, even though
the forms and technicalities of the law, together with the absence of all
information or belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious. It is
the school that has access to those information and it is only the school that can compel
its professors to act and comply with its rules, regulations and policies with respect to
the computation and the prompt submission of grades. Students do not exercise control,
much less influence, over the way an educational institution should run its affairs,
particularly in disciplining its professors and teachers and ensuring their compliance
with the school's rules and orders. Being the party that hired them, it is the school that
exercises general supervision and exclusive control over the professors with respect to
the submission of reports involving the students' standing. Exclusive control means that
no other person or entity had any control over the instrumentality which caused the
damage or injury.

2. Arturo P. Valenzuela, et.al. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et.al., G.R. No.
83122, October 19, 1990
At any rate, the question of whether or not the agency agreement is coupled with
interest is helpful to the petitioners' cause but is not the primary and compelling
reason. For the pivotal factor rendering Philamgen and the other private respondents
liable in damages is that the termination by them of the General Agency
Agreement was tainted with bad faith. Hence, if a principal acts in bad faith
and with abuse of right in terminating the agency, then he is liable in damages.
This is in accordance with the precepts in Human Relations enshrined in our Civil
Code 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: (Art. 19, Civil Code), and every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or
negligently causes damages to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same (Art.
20, id). "Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs and public policy shall compensate the latter for
the damages" (Art. 21, id.)
V. Acts contra bonus
1. De Jesus vs. Syquia, 58 Phil. 866

2. Wassmer vs. Velez, 12 SCRA 648 (1964)

Ordinarily, a mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to
formally set a wedding and go through all the necessary preparations and publicity, only
to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is
palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs, for which the erring promisor must
be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 of the New Civil Code.|||
(Wassmer v. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, [December 26, 1964], 120 PHIL 1440-1447)
When a breach of promise to marry is actionable under Article 21 of the Civil Code,
moral damages may be awarded under Article 2219 (10) of the said Code. Exemplary
damages may also be awarded under Article 2232 of said Code where it is proven that
the defendant clearly acted in a wanton, reckless and oppressive manner.||| (Wassmer
v. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, [December 26, 1964], 120 PHIL 1440-1447)
3. Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals, et.al. February 19, 1993
GASHEEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and
MARILOU T. GONZALES, respondents
G. R. No. 97336. February 19, 1993

FACTS:

Petitioner was a medicine student at Lyceum Northwestern Colleges at Dagupan City.

He was an Iranian exchange student and was 29 years old. Respondent was a former
waitress on a luncheonette, and was 22 years old. Petitioner was allegedly the lover of
the respondent, and was said to promise marriage to the latter, which convinced her to
live with him in his apartment. It was even alleged that the petitioner went to the house
of the respondent to inform her family about the marriage on the end of the semester.
However, the marriage did not materialize, with several beatings and maltreatment
experienced by the respondent from the petitioner.

The case was filed in the RTC of Pangasinan, and the decision was held in favor of the
respondent. However, the petitioner claimed that the judgment of the RTC was an error,
for the claims of the respondent are not true, and that he did not know about the custom
of the Filipinos; his acts were in accordance of his custom. The decision of the RTC was
affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal to the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent could claim payment for the damages incurred by the
petitioner.
RULING:
Mere breach of marriage is not punishable by law. However, since the respondent
was proved to have a good moral character, and that she had just let her virginity
be taken away by the petitioner since the latter offered a promise of marriage,
then she could ask for payment for damages. Furthermore, since she let her lover,
the petitioner, “deflowered” her since she believed that his promise to marry was true,
and not due to her carnal desire, then she could have her claims against the petitioner.
Moreover, the father of the respondent had already looked for pigs and chicken for the
marriage reception and the sponsors for the marriage, and then damages were caused
by the petitioner against the respondents, which qualified the claims of the respondent
against the petitioner.
In the light of the above laudable purpose of Article 21, We are of the opinion, and so
hold, that where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the
acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise
thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a
sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and
that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or
inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could
justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise
to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her
honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential, however, that such
injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy. In the instant case, respondent Court found that it was the petitioner's
"fraudulent and deceptive protestations of love for and promise to marry plaintiff that
made her surrender her virtue and womanhood to him and to live with him on the
honest and sincere belief that he would keep said promise, and it was likewise these
fraud and deception on appellant's part that made plaintiff's parents agree to their
daughter's living-in with him preparatory to their supposed marriage." In short, the
private respondent surrendered her virginity, the cherished possession of every single
Filipina, not because of lust but because of moral seduction — the kind illustrated by the
Code Commission in its example earlier adverted to. The petitioner could not be held
liable for criminal seduction punished under either Article 337 or Article 338 of the
Revised Penal Code because the private respondent was above eighteen (18) years of
age at the time of the seduction. Prior decisions of this Court clearly suggest that Article
21 may be applied-in a breach of promise to marry where the woman is a victim of
moral seduction.||| (Gashem Shookat Baksh v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97336,
[February 19, 1993])
4. Apolonio Tanjanco vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Araceli Santos, G.R. No. L-18630,
December 17, 1966
1. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; REQUISITES FOR RECOVERY OF MORAL DAMAGES
UNDER ARTICLE 21, CIVIL CODE. — The essential feature under Article 21 of the
Civil Code is seduction, that in law is more than mere sexual intercourse, or a breach of
promise of marriage; it connotes essentially the idea of deceit, enticement,
superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the
woman has yielded (U.S. vs. Buenaventura, 27 Phil. 121; U.S. vs. Arlante, 9 Phil. 595).
2. ID.; ID.; NO RECOVERY OF MORAL DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLE 21, IF
SEDUCTION IS ABSENT; CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar the facts show that for
one whole year, from 1958 to 1959, plaintiff-appellee, a woman of adult age, and
maintained intimate sexual relations with appellant, with repeated acts of intercourse.
Such conduct is incompatible with the idea of seduction. Plainly, there is here
voluntariness and mutual passion, for had the appellant been deceived, had she
surrendered exclusively because of the deceit, artful persuasions and wiles of the
defendant, she would not have again yielded to his embraces, much less for one year,
without exacting early fulfillment of the alleged promises of marriage, and would have
cut short all sexual relation upon finding that defendant did not intend to fulfill his
promises. Hence, no case is made under Article 21 of the Civil Code and, no other
cause of action being alleged, no error was committed by the Court of First Instance in
dismissing the complaint. Of course, the dismissal must be understood as without
prejudice to whatever actions may correspond to the child of the plaintiff against
defendant-appellant, if any.

||| (Tanjanco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-18630, [December 17, 1966], 125 PHIL
158-163)
Extras:
In Article 23 of the Civil Code, 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 though the act he was benefited.
Duty to Indemnify Because of Benefit Received
Unless there is a duty to indemnify, unjust enrichment will occur.
In Article 24, all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is
at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence,
mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for
his protection.
Reason for the Courts’ Protection of the Underdog
The law takes great interest in the welfare of the weak and the handicapped.
Thus, we have “parens patriae”.
Meaning of “Vigilant of his Protection
The phrase in general means that in case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved in
favor of the underdog.
According to Article 28, unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial
enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination
or any unjust, oppressive or high-handed method shall give rise to a right of
action by the person who thereby suffers damages.
Reason for Preventing Unfair Competition
The above provision is necessary in a system of free enterprise. Democracy becomes a
veritable mockery if any person or group of persons by any unjust or high-handed
method may deprive others of a fair chance to engage in business or to earn a living.’’
In Article 33 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, in cases of defamation, fraud, and
physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence.
In Article 34 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, when a member of a city or
municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in
case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for
damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor.
The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal
proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.
In Article 35 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, when a person, claiming to be injured
by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent civil
action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace fi nds no
reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting
attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complainant may bring a
civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant’s motion, the court may
require the plaintiff to fi le a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint
should be found to be malicious.
If during the pendency of the civil action an information should be presented by the
prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the
criminal proceedings.
Rule if No Independent Civil Action Is Granted
This Article applies to cases when there is no independent civil action (such as
when the liability sought to be recovered arises from a crime); and not to a tortious
action such as that provided for under Art. 33.
Example:
A woman accused her classmate of committing against her the crime of unintentional
abortion. But the fiscal refused to institute criminal proceedings. She may bring a civil
action for damages against the alleged offender, but if in the course of the trial, an
information should be presented by the fiscal, charging the classmate with the crime,
the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.