 Relevance of Human relations: Last resort of lawyers,

 Article 19 (memorize), Principle of Abuse of Rights:

o You have your rights under the law but you use it to the prejudice of another.
o Elements:
1)you possess a legal right; 2)you exercise it in bad faith; 3)to the prejudice of others
o Wassmer vs Velez case: basis of the action was Article 21
o When you violate this article, your liability is mostly civil but could also result to criminal
or administrative charge.
 Art 20: Speaks of an act contrary to law. Act is illegal and law is violated. Intent not important.
 Similarity between Art 19, 20, 21
o Note: In Articles 19 and 21, the act must be intentional. In other words, there must be
malice or bad faith. While in Article 20, it does not distinguish; it is obvious from the
clear import of the provision, “willfully or negligently”
 Pardo de Tavera vs. Philippine Tubercolosis Society: Human relations chapter not applicable to
civil cases
 Chato vs ___ : Is article 32 to applicable? No. Dannum Absque Injuria. Applicable only IF THERE
IS ACTUAL PARTICULAR INJURY.
 Article 21: Legal act but done in contrary to morals, public policy, etc. Intent is material
 Can you perform acts that could injure another? Yes.
 GR: Breach of promise to marry not actionable.
 XPNS:
 Moral dependence: Judgments about what is morally right and morally wrong, as well as the
motivations to action that they support
