Article 19, Chapter 2:Human Relations

Main Topic: Chapter 2:Human Relations

Sub-topic: Acting with Justice and Observance of Honesty and Good Faith

CHAPTER 2 HUMAN RELATIONS 

Art. 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.

Why the Code Commission formulated a chapter on Human Relations?

A chapter on human relations was formulated to present some basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and the stability of the social order. The lawmaker makes it imperative that everyone duly respect the rights of others. Indeed this chapter is calculated to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience. These guides for human should run as golden threads through society, to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal, which is the sway and dominance of justice.

Stress of the article

This article stresses:

a. Acting with justice

b. The giving to everyone his due

c. The observance of honesty and good faith

Thus rights must never be abused; the moment they abused, they ceased to be rights.

In the celebrated case of Dominador R. Aytona v Andres Castillo, et al., the Supreme Court held that although Pres. Carlos P. Garcia was still President up to noon Dec. 30, 1961 (his successor, Pres. Diosdado Macapagal was scheduled to assume the Presidency on said date ) he should not have issued mass “midnight appointments” on Dec. 26, 1961. Such ac act may be regarded by the successor as an abuse of presidential prerogatives, the appointments detracted “from that degree of good faith, morality and propriety which form the basic foundation of claims to equitable relief...Needles to say there are instances wherein not only strict legality, but also fairness, justice, and righteousness should be taken into account.”

However in Gilera v. Fernandez, it was held appointments made by an outgoing President to fill up vacancies in important positions, if few and so spaced as to afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and the appointee’s qualification are valid.

On the other hand, an attorney who deliberately neglects the trial of his cases fails his duty to prepare for trial with diligence and deliberate speed. And should he present a frivolous and dilatory appeal to the appellate courts TREBLE COSTS may be assessed against his client, said cost to be PAID by the ATTORNEY. A charge against an attorney, particularly made by a brother lawyer, must be well-found, for as Justice Cardozo has correctly observed, reputation in the legal profession is a plant for tender growth and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored.

Acting with Justice and Giving another His Due

This further elaborated in the following articles, among others:

a. Art. 20-indemnification of another due to illegal acts

b. Art. 21- indemnification due to immoral acts

c. Art. 24- unfair competition

d. Art. 22- unjust enrichment

Observance of Honesty and Good Faith

This is elaborated in the following articles, among others:

a. Art. 26- respect for the personality and dognity of others

b. Art. 25- restraint of undue extravagance

c. Art. 31- independent cicil actions

Note:

Honesty- careful regard for other rights and property.

Good faith- honest intention to avoid taking undue advantage of another.

Thus, if the government itself creates a semblance of "agrarian unrest" in a privately owned Hacienda in an attempt to expropriate the same for resale to the tenants thereof, the Supreme Court can order the government to stop "formenting and inciting unrest" in said Hacienda. Honesty and good faith so demand. Similarly the following acts may also be considered highly immoral: the suspension of an appointive official for an unreasonableperiod of time, during the pendency of a scase against him; the therat to cancel a franchise of a public utility corporation, for alleged vilolations of said franchise unless certail politicians allegedly controlling the same are removed(with clear implication that said violations would be condoned provided the politicians concerned are thrown overboard); the move to reorganize the Uooer House of Congress by taking advantage of the illness and absence of a member thereof. On the other habd, mere bad judgment or negligence does not necessarily mean bad faith. There must be a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious of doing wrong.

A taxpayer has the legal right to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes or altogether avoid them by means which the law permits. All legal means used by the taxpayer to reduce taxes are all right. A man may therefore perform an act that he honestly believes to be sufficient to exempt him from taxes. He does not incur fraud thereby even if the act if is therefore found to be sufficient. (Note: While the tax avoidance is allowable, tax evasion is dishonest and illegal.)

If an appointive government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression of his right to continue in office is affected, even if in the acts are ot connected with his office. The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. The rule is different in the case of an elective official, since his term is shorter, and he is generally responsible only to the people.

Because of possible conflict of duties and possible abuse, the appointment of a Clerk of Court or any other court official or employee as administrator of a n estate is disfavoured by the Supreme Court.

The unauthorized use of vehicles and other personal properties in the official custody of the sheriff cannot be sanctioned or tolerated and borders on misappropriation.

J. Escolin:

            Courts should not review the discretion of university authorities in excluding student from the roll of graduating ones for serious breach of discipline and failure to maintain the requisite academic standards.

Justice E.L. Paras:

            The showing of wanton negligence in effecting the plans, designs, specifications and construction of a building is equivalent to bad faith in the performance of the assigned tasks. Thus, one who negligently creates a dangerous condition cannot escape liability for the natural and probable consequences thereof, although the act of a third person or an act of God for which he is not responsible, intervenes to precipitate the loss.

An abolition of office neither means removal nor separation from office and is not thus covered by constitutional clause on security of tenure. The principle carries a caveat,however, that the abolition is done in good faith.

Anonymous complaints

Justice Antonio Barredo:

            Although the Supreme Court does not as a rule act anonymous complaints, cases are expected in which the charge (concealment of the pendency of a criminal case by a person at the time he applied for appointment to the judiciary) can be fully borne by public records of indubitable integrity, thus needing no corroboration by evidence to be offered by complainant, whose identity and integrity can hardly be material where the matter involved is of public interest.

Inexperienced Counsel de Officio

A counsel de officio defended his client without the ability of a more experienced and competent lawyer. Should the counsel de officio be disbarred?

No, because said incompetence does not necessarily make him unfit to be a member of the bar.

Effect of a Plea for Social Justice

a. The law on obligation and contracts cannot be nullified just because of a plea for social justice. To so nullify is beyond the power of court to nullify.

b. Social justice provisions in the Constitution cannot defeat the law on obligations and contracts, and cannot take away rights from a person and give them another who is not entitled thereto. Surely, this is beyond the power of the courts to grant.

Effect of a Veiled Threat on Dispensers of Justice

To subject Justices to the threat of an investigation or prosecution for official acts to subvert their independence.

Law and Equity

Justice is done according to law. As a rule, equity follows the law. There may be a moral obligation, often regarded as an equitable consideration but if there is no enforceable legal duty, the action must fall although the disadvantaged party deserves commiseration or sympathy,  

While it is true that a person who is aggrieved may have recourse against the person or entity responsible, still if a person has not been damaged in any way by another’s act, the former has no cause of action against the latter. Thus, a warehouse operator who has not been damaged by the act of an entity in taking delivery of certain goods from the warehouse thru an alleged forged permit has no right to go after said entity. Only those who have suffered loss because of such “misdelivery”have the right to complain.

Article 20, Chapter 2: Human Relations

Main Topic: Chapter 2: Human Relations
Sub-topic: Indemnification of Willfull or Negligent Acts

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Discussion/Explanation:

1. Wilfully Negligence

This article punishes illegal acts whether done wilfully or negligently. Thus, in the law of torts or quasi-delicts - “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done”.

The mere possession of a slot machine or even its operation for amusement and not profit does not constitute a crime, in the absence of a law that regards its operation as a crime. In fact, a slot machine is not a gambling device per se, because by itself, it can be operated legally as well as illegally. Slot machines, which are actually made for gambling purpose, are of course illegal and maybe destroyed by the proper authorities.

Acts resulting from negligence may vary in nature, extent, and resulting consequences. This is why, particularly in criminal cases, courts are given greater leeway or discretion in imposing the proper penalty, and are not bound to mathematical formulas to the lowering of degrees of penalty.

2. Torts

Art. 20 introduces a broader concept of torts in our country, for it embraces:

a. The Spanish tort- based on negligence

b. American tort- based on malice

3. When no Action for Damages Would Prosper

If someone be damaged, he does not necessarily have right to be indemnified. It is essential that some right of him be impaired. Thus, it has been held that no rights to the prizes may be asserted by the contestants in an oratorical contest because theirs was merely the privilege to compete for the prizes, and hat privilege did not ripen into a demandable right unless and until they were proclaimed to winners of the competition by the judges. The judiciary has no power to reverse an award of the board of judges of an oratorical contest, even if the decision be erroneous. “Error” and “Wrong” do not mean the same thing. “Wrong” as used in the legal principle that when there is a wrong there is a remedy, is deprivation or the violation of a right. Indeed a contestant has no right to prize until he is declared the winner. If after declaration, he is still deprived of the prize, an action would not be proper.

What has been said herein above applies with full force to literary and beauty contests and similar competitions. However, if according to the promulgated rules, only unmarried girls may qualify in a beauty contest, but the judges pick as winner a wife: or if an easy should in no case exceed 5,000 words, but the prize is awarded to one containing an excess over the maximum number of words, an actionable wrong shall have been committed, for certainly judges cannot violate the rules they themselves have promulgated.

4. When Judiciary can interfere in decisions of Religious Tribunals

On a least one occasion, the Supreme Court has stated the instances when it can or cannot inquire into validity of decisions ecclesiastical courts. In Fonacier v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court thru Justice Felix Bautista held that the expulsion of a member of the Filipino Independent Church who had not been given any notice or opportunity to be heard is not conclusive upon civil courts when a property right is involved.

Civil Courts, according to the High Tribunal, have jurisdiction to inquire into the jurisdiction of religious tribunals and regularity of their procedure; and may even subject their decisions to the test of fairness or to the test furnished by the Constitution and laws of Church.

However, civil courts cannot pass upon the abandonment of faith by a member of the church   nor upon restatement of articles of religion since there are unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which are outside the province of civil courts.  

Insurance is purchased to protect against losses, and a major source of loss, especially in this litigious society, is legal liability. Legal liability is the liability of a party imposed by a court for its actions or, in some cases, inactions, and for which the courts will award pecuniary damages as a form of redress. A legal wrong is either a violation of a person's rights or the failure to perform a legal duty for a party.

Legal liability arises from 3 general classes of legal wrongs: crime, tort, and breach of contract. Crime is a wrong in which a person intentionally inflicts injury, or takes something from another, such as murder, robbery, rape, theft, and so on. Torts are legal or civil wrongs committed against people or organizations, causing them a loss. Intentional torts are willful acts or the willful failure to act when required to do so that causes injury to someone else. Thus, crime is a specific type of intentional tort. Other types of intentional torts include slander and libel, patent infringement, and false imprisonment. Torts result either because the tortfeasor, who is the one who commits the tort, is either negligent in his duties that are imposed by law and not contract, causing someone else a loss, or causes a loss through his actions. For example, causing an auto accident, or failure to make a safe product are torts. Breach of contract is the lack of performance by a party to another to satisfy a contract that the parties agreed to.

Negligence

Negligence is the failure to exercise the required amount of care to prevent injury to others. For example, if you cause an accident that injures someone or damages their vehicle because you were driving at an unsafe speed, then you could be sued for negligence.

In some cases, the law imposes absolute liability (aka strict liability) on specific parties without regard to fault, and, therefore, obviates the need to prove fault in court. For instance, manufacturers are held strictly liable for defective products that they manufacture.

Sometimes, the law designates other parties as being responsible, whether they are or not. Imputed negligence results in vicarious liability, where the principal is responsible for the acts of his agents. For example, employers have vicarious liability for the actions of their employees. If an employee injures someone in the course of employment, then it doesn't matter whether the employer could have done anything to prevent it—the employer will be held liable regardless. Other instances of imputed negligence is through the effect of the family purpose doctrine that holds parents responsible for the negligent acts of their children, or the dram shop law, which holds the seller of alcoholic beverages liable for drunken patrons. If a patron drives after drinking at a tavern, and subsequently kills or injures someone with his vehicle, then the tavern owner can be held liable.

Sometimes, the act itself determines negligence. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, (Latin term for "the thing speaks for itself"), there are some actions so obviously negligent that the law presumes negligence, such as when a surgeon operates on the wrong side of the body. The defendant, in such cases, must prove that he wasn't negligent.

Insurance can be purchased to protect against lawsuits that arise from strict liability and from negligence. However, all insurance contracts exclude intentional torts by the insured, because they are not insurable risks, since insuring such risks would be against public policy.

Requirements for Negligence

Most cases of negligence cannot be determined absolutely, for it depends on many factors. The main measure used to determine whether an act was negligent is to consider what a reasonably prudent person would do, given the age and knowledge of the tortfeasor, and other relevant factors.

Before a court will award damages, the presumed negligence must satisfy 4 requirements:

1.      there must be a legal duty to perform or to use reasonable care;

2.      there must have been a failure to perform that duty;

3.      the plaintiff must have suffered an injury or a loss;

4.      and the negligent act must have been the proximate cause of the injury. The proximate cause is a cause that directly caused the loss or suffering; if the proximate cause didn't happen, then the harm would not have happened.

All 4 elements of negligence must be present before a court will award damages.

Defenses Against Negligence

There are various factors that can either prevent a plaintiff from collecting damages or that will reduce the amount awarded.

Contributory negligence is negligence that is caused by both plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff contributed to his injury, then, in some states, the plaintiff will be prevented from collecting any damages.

Comparative negligence allows the plaintiff to collect some damages, but it will be reduced by the amount by which the plaintiff contributed to his own injury. There are 3 major rules, which differ according to state law and according to the amount of contributory negligence, that determine the amount that the plaintiff can collect.

The pure rule reduces the plaintiff's damages by the amount that he contributed to his injury. Thus, if a plaintiff has been judged to be 30% at fault, then his reward will be reduced by 30%.

The 49 percent rule requires that the defendant be less than 50% responsible in order to collect any damages, and any damages awarded will be reduced by the plaintiff's contribution. Under this rule, only 1 party can collect where both parties are suing each other.

The 50 percent rule permits the plaintiff to collect damages only if his share of the negligence is not greater than 50%. In contrast to the 49 percent rule, both parties can collect 50% of their damages from each other if both are judged to be 50% at fault. However, if the degree of fault is anything but 50%, then only 1 party will be able to collect damages, just as under the 49 percent rule.

The last clear chance rule modifies comparative negligence by allowing the plaintiff to collect damages from the defendant, even if the plaintiff contributed to his injury, if the defendant had a last clear chance to prevent the injury. In other words, could the defendant have prevented the injury regardless of the plaintiff's negligence? If the answer is yes, then the plaintiff will still be able to collect regardless of comparative negligence.

Finally, there is the assumption of risk—one assumes risk by engaging in an activity that is inherently risky, and, therefore, should not be allowed to collect damages if an injury results by engaging in the activity. Thus, if one plays racquetball without wearing goggles, and her opponent hits the ball and injures her eye, she will be prevented from collecting damages from her opponent, because by playing racquetball without wearing goggles, she assumed the risk that she will suffer an eye injury or even lose an eye while playing.

Damages

There are 3 general types of damages awarded for negligence. Special damages are awarded for losses where the financial impact is quantifiable and can be itemized, such as medical expenses or loss of income. General damages are losses that cannot be known with certainty or cannot really be compensated with money, such as loss of consortium or pain and suffering. Punitive damages are assessed to deter the tortfeasor from committing the act again, which only makes sense for intentional torts.

In general terms, negligence is "the failure to use ordinary care" through either an act or omission. That is, negligence occurs when:

somebody does not exercise the amount of care that a reasonably careful person would use under the circumstances; or

somebody does something that a reasonably careful person would not do under the circumstances.

Negligence is often claimed in personal injury lawsuits. For example, a personal injury lawsuit arising out of an automobile accident case or premises liability action is frequently based on the theory that the defendant was negligent. Please note that negligence law varies between jurisdictions, sometimes significantly, and you should check with a local legal professional if you wish to know the specific negligence laws of your jurisdiction.

Proximate Cause

Proximate cause exists where the plaintiff is injured as the result of negligent conduct, and plaintiff's injury must have been a natural and probable result of the negligent conduct. In order for a defendant to be liable, the plaintiff must establish both negligence and proximate cause.

Please note that the law speaks of the defendant's conduct as being "a proximate cause" of an accident, as opposed to "the proximate cause". Many accidents have more than one proximate cause. It is typically not necessary for liability that the defendant's negligence be either the only proximate cause of an injury, or the last proximate cause. A defendant may be liable even where an injury has multiple proximate causes, and whether those causes occur at the same time or in combination. A plaintiff may be able to bring a cause of action against two or more defendants by proving that the acts of each were proximate causes of the plaintiff's injury, even where the defendants' negligent acts were distinct.

Imagine a situation where a plaintiff is driving down the road, and is suddenly cut off by a person who runs through a stop sign on a side street. The plaintiff slams on her brakes, and is able to avoid striking that car. However, the plaintiff is rear-ended by another driver who was not paying attention to the events in front of his car. The plaintiff may be able to bring an action against both drivers - the one who cut her off and the one who rear-ended her - on the basis that their negligent acts, although independent, were both proximate causes of her injuries.

The Elements of a Negligence Action

A typical formula for evaluating negligence requires that a plaintiff prove the following four factors by a "preponderance of the evidence":

The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff (or a duty to the general public, including the plaintiff);

The defendant violated that duty;

As a result of the defendant's violation of that duty, the plaintiff suffered injury; and

The injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's action or inaction.

For example, a person driving a car has a general duty to conduct the car in a safe and responsible manner. If a driver runs through a red light, the driver violates that duty. As it is foreseeable that running a red light can result in a car crash, and that people are likely to be injured in such a collision, the driver will be liable in negligence for any injuries that in fact result to others in a collision resulting from the running of the red light.

Gross Negligence

Gross negligence means conduct or a failure to act that is so reckless that it demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury will result. It is sometimes necessary to establish "gross negligence" as opposed to "ordinary negligence" in order to overcome a legal impediment to a lawsuit. For example, a government employee who is on the job may be immune from liability for ordinary negligence, but may remain liable for gross negligence.

Similarly, where a plaintiff signs a release (as may be required, for example, before entering a sports competition), for public policy reasons many jurisdictions will apply the release only to conduct which constitutes "ordinary negligence" and not to acts of "gross negligence". The reason for this is quite simple: It is not good public policy to allow a defendant to escape liability for reckless indifference to the safety of others, particularly in contexts where the defendant is responsible for creating unsafe conditions, or is profiting from their existence. Consider, for example, a commercial venture engaged in a high risk recreational activity, such as a company that offers rock climbing tours. If a tour member is injured when safety equipment provided by the company unexpectedly fails, a valid release may protect the company from a lawsuit. However, if the company knows up front that the equipment is defective and uses it anyway, it would not be protected by the release.

Children and Negligence

Minors are typically held to a different standard of care than adults. For example, a minor's negligence may be evaluated against what reasonably careful person of the same age, mental capacity and experience would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. Very young minors (e.g., minors under the age of seven) are typically presumed to be incapable of negligence.

Most jurisdictions also consider the fact that minors act upon childish instincts and impulses when considering injuries to minors. As a consequence, a defendant knew or should have known that a child (or children) were present, or were likely to be present, in the vicinity, the defendant may required to exercise greater vigilance. By way of example, a person driving by an unfenced playground where children often play baseball should be on alert that a child may impulsively chase a ball into the street.

Comparative Negligence

When comparative negligence applies, the damages a plaintiff is awarded will be reduced in proportion with the plaintiff's fault for his own injuries. (e.g., a jury determines a plaintiff's damages to be $100,000.00, and finds that the plaintiff is 40% at fault. The plaintiff would thus be awarded $60,000 against the defendant.)

Contributory Negligence

Where "contributory negligence" principles are applied, if the plaintiff in any way contributed to his or her own injury, the plaintiff is barred from recovering damages. The extreme consequence of this approach has led to its being limited or abandoned in many jurisdictions.

One historic limitation has been to examine the context of an accident to determine who had the "last clear chance" to avoid its occurrence, and to excuse a plaintiff's contributory negligence where the defendant is found to have had and to have failed to exercise that "last clear chance".

Mixed Comparative and Contributory Negligence

Some states follow a mixture of comparative and contributory negligence, whereby a plaintiff who is less than fifty percent at fault may recover damages reduced by the plaintiff's proportion of fault, but a plaintiff who is more than fifty percent at fault may not recover damages, or may recover only a percentage of economic damages, against the defendants. (For more explanation of damages, please see this associated article.)

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability occurs when one person is held responsible for the negligence of another. Typically, this applies in an employment context, where the employer (master) is responsible for the negligent acts of the employee (servant) which occur within the context of the employment relationship. For example, an employer may be liable for an accident caused by an employee as the result of the negligent operation of a delivery vehicle. (For more information on liability in agency relationships, please see this associated article.)

Often, parents may be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their children. However, many jurisdictions have limited the vicarious liability of parents, and some have eliminated it.

Article 21, Chapter 2: Human Relations

Main Topic: Chapter 2: Human Relations
Sub-topic: Compensation of Damages of Willfull Acts Contrary to Morals, Good Customs or Public Policy

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for damage.

Discussion/Explanation:

1. Willful acts Contrary to Morals

Would not Art.21 obliterate the boundary line between morality and law? The answer is that, in the last analysis, every good law draws its breath of life from morals, from those principles, which are written with words of fire in the conscience of man… Furthermore, there is no belief of more baneful consequences upon the social order than that person may with impunity cause damage to his fellowmen so long as he does not break any law of the State, though he may be defying the most sacred postulates of morality. What is more, the victim loses faith in the ability of the government to afford him protection or relief.

Art. 21 was intended to expand the concept of torts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrong which is impossible for human foresight to specifically provide in the statutes

Nota Bene:

The allegation of malice or ill does not bring the case under Art.21 which can only apply in the absence of contractual stipulations.

Note: In a corporation, the by-laws govern the relations of the members, not Art. 21

2. Art. 21 Distinguished from Art. 20

a. Art. 21- The act is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. In Art. 20- The act is contrary to law.

b. In Art. 21- The act is done willfully.

Note: “Willful” may mean not merely voluntary but with a bad purpose.

In Art. 20-The act is done either wilfully or negligently.

3. Examples

a. A student wilfully humiliates a professor, causing to have a nervous breakdown. This would be contrary to good customs and morals, and the professor can sue for damages.

b. Example given by the Code Commission

A seduces the 19 year-old daughter of X. A promise of marriage either has not less been made or cannot be proved. The girl becomes pregnant. Under the present criminal laws, there is no crime as the girl is above 18 years of age. Neither can any civil action for breach of promise be filed. Under Art. 21, she and her parents would have the right to bring an action for damages against A.

Note: The example given by the Code Commission is correct, provided that the man had in some way defrauded or deceived the girl (not necessarily “seducing” her, as the term is used under the Revised Penal Code). But if the two of them had engaged in illicit relations out of mutual carnal lust, then it is believed that there can be no recovery of damages, since both parties are at fault.

Next, one who wilfully dismissed an employee without just cause breaks a contract, and is both morally and legally liable under Art. 21 of the Civil Code.

Justice Antonio Barredo:

“Misconduct” implies “a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment”. Even if a judge is not correct in his legal conclusions, his judicial actuations cannot be regarded as grave misconduct ,unless the contrary sufficiently appears.

J. Sarmiento:

Unlike simple grants of power of attorney, an agency declared to be compatible with the intent of the parties, cannot be revoked at will. The reason is that it is one coupled with an interest, the agency having been created for mutual interest of the agent and the principal. Thereupon, interest is not limited to the commissions earned as a result of business transactions concluded, but one that extends to the very subject matter of power of management delegated. Accordingly, a revocation proved to be entitles the prejudiced party to a right of damages.

4. Can there an Action for Breach of Promise to Marry?

a. For the recovery of actual damages, yes. Thus, if a person gives another P500 because the latter promised to marry the former, and the promise is not fulfilled, the money given can be recovered. Thus, also if a teacher resigns her position because of a man’s promise to marry her, she can recover indemnity for damage if later on the promise is not fulfilled. The same thing may be said for the recovery of wedding expenses, such as the wedding breakfast, the ceremony, the trousseau, the issuances of invitations, if one party fails to appear.

b. Recovery of Moral Damages

In Hermosisima v. Court of Appelas, the Supreme Court held that under Civil Code, there can be no recovery of moral damages for a breach of promise to marry. AS SUCH. The omission in the Civil Code of the proposed Chapter on Breach of Promise Suits is a clear manifestation of legislative intent not to sanction as such, suits for breach of promise to marry, otherwise many “innocent men may become the victims of designing and unscrupulous females”. However, if there be seduction, moral damages may be recovered under Art. 2219, par. 3 of the Civil Code. The Court, however implied that if there be moral seduction as distinguished from criminal seduction, there may be a grant for moral damages, possibly under Art. 21. In said Hermosisima case however, it was the woman who virtually seduced the man, by ”surrendering herself” to him because she, a girl 10 years OLDER, was “overwhelmed by her love” for him.


Another example is a married man, who was adopted son of a relative of a girl’s father and who had the same family as the girl, became very close to the girl and her family. In fact, the members of the family considered him as one of them. In 1952, the man thus frequented the house of the girl on the pretext of desiring to teach her how to pray the rosary. The two eventually fell in love, and met each other in clandestine trysts, over the objections of the family. One day in 1957, the man wrote the girl a note asking her to have a date with him. The girl went to him. Her parents, brothers, sisters now sue the defendant (married man) under Art. 21.

The Supreme Court, applying the Art. 21 ruled that indeed he, a married man, has seduced the girl, through an ingenious and tricky scheme, to the extent of making her fall in love with him. Verily, he has committed an injury to the girl’s family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy. He was therefore ordered to pay P5000 as damages and P2000 as attorney’s fees, in addition to the expenses of the litigation.

Another question has been raised, A, married man, and B, an unmarried woman, entered into a written agreement to marry each other when A became a widower. After becoming a widower, A married another woman. Can B sue A for breach of promise?

Answer: No, insofar as moral damages are concerned. Moreover, to engage in such a promise during the lifetime of another’s spouse would be contrary to good morals and good customs, and the agreement, even on that ground alone, must be considered void.

Note: Had there been carnal knowledge, the matter would even be worse. Thus it has been held that a promise of marriage founded on carnal intercourse has an unlawful consideration, and no suit on such promise can possibly prosper.

Further question was raised. In an action based on a breach of promise to marry, what rights has the aggrieved party in cases:

a. When there has been carnal knowledge?

b. When there has been NO carnal knowledge?

Answer:

a. When there has been carnal knowledge, the aggrieved party may:

1. ask the other to recognize the child, should there be one, and give support to said child.

2. sue for moral damages, if there be criminal or moral seduction, but not if the intercourse was due to mutual lust. In other words, if the cause be the promise to marry, and the effect be the carnal knowledge, there is a chance that there was a criminal or moral seduction, hence recovery of moral damages will prosper. If it be the other way around, there can be no recovery of moral damages, because here mutual lust has intervened. However, the girl may recover moral damages if the man, in his effort to make the girl withdraw a suit for support of the child, deliberately calls the attention of the girl’s employer to her condition as an unwed mother- a maneuver causing her mental anguish and even physical illness and suffering.

3. sue for actual damages, should there be any, such as the expenses for the wedding preparations.

b. When there has been no carnal knowledge, there may be an action for actual and moral damages under certain conditions, as when there has been a deliberate desire to inflict loss or injury, or when there has been an evident abuse of a right. Thus, a man who deliberately fails to appear at the altar during the scheduled wedding simply because it was his intention to embarrass or humiliate the girl no doubt inflicts irreparable injury to her honor and reputation, wounds her feelings, and leads the way for her possible social ostracism. The girl in such a case can recover not only actual but also moral and exemplary damages.

Mere breach of promise to marry is not actionable wrong, but to formally set a wedding and go through all the preparation therefore, only to walk out of it when the marriage is about to be solemnized is quite different. Obviously, it is contrary to good customs, and the defendant consequently must be held answerable for damages in accordance with Art. 21 of the Civil Code.

Another, if a lawyer has a carnal knowledge of a poorly educated girl, promises to marry her to continue his carnal satisfaction, and then breaks his promise on account of an expensive wedding which the parents of the girl insist upon, may he be disbarred?

Yes, for he has not maintained the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of and must be possessed by a member of the bar.

5. Breach of Promise of Employment

In order that an action for breach of promise of employment may succeed, nothing short of an actual, clear, and positive promise on the part of the prospective employer must be shown by competent evidence. His unjustified hopes, perhaps inspired by courteous dealings of the other party, do not constitute a promise of employment whose breach is actionable at law.

6. Claim for Damages When Victim is at Fault

If a man defaults in the payment of his light bills, he cannot successfully bring an action for moral damages if the electric company should temporarily disconnect his light facilities. Even assuming that the act of the electric company constitutes a breach of public policy, still no recovery can be had, for Art. 21 of the Civil Code which is relied upon by him must necessarily be construed as granting the right to recover damages only to injured persons who are not themselves at fault.

7. Nominal Damages

Nominal damages ate granted for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded. And this is so even if actual damages be not proved. Nominal damages in the amount of P10,000 may even be granted, and should there be bad faith on the part of the offender, the amount may be greater.

8. Effect of Price Increases

Although it is of judicial notice that prices and costs of materials and labor have substantially increased since 1970, it is not fair to give material men and laborers four times the value of what they had furnished or constructed. It is sufficient to give them 12% interest per annum from the time they filed their complaint.

9. May Moral Damages be Granted?

Facts: A school administrator, because of a personal grudge, relieved two vocational teachers of their assignments, and even when ordered by the Secretary of Education to reinstate them to refuse to do so. May said administrator be held liable for moral damages?

Thru Justice Ramon C. Aquino: No, because the case does not fall under any of the cases when moral damages can be granted.

Dissenting (J. Abad Santos)—

Yes, because, in connection with Art. 21, entitles them to damages because of harassment on the part of the administrator.

--------

The failure to give prior notice amounts to a tort, and the petitioner’s act in disconnecting respondent’s gas service without prior notice constituted breach of contract amounting to an independent tort. The pre-maturity of the action was held indicative of intent to cause additional mental and moral suffering to private respondents and a clear violation of Art. 21, providing that “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 damages”.