CHAPTER 2.

HUMAN RELATIONS
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 that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
CASES:
UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST vs. ROMEO A. JADER G.R. No. 132344, February 17, 2000
(Principle of Abuse of Right)
FACTS: Respondent Romeo Jader sued petitioner UE for damages for the moral shock, mental anguish,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and sleepless nights he suffered when he was
not able to take the 1988 bar examinations arising from the latter’s negligence.
Jader alleged that he got an incomplete grade in Practice Court 1. He took the removals exam for said
subject but he was belatedly inform that it was a 5. The graduation ceremony invitation included his name
as one of the candidates but the invitation had a footnote that the list is tentative and still subject to the
completion of requirements. Jader attended the ceremony, he marched with his parents, was given a
symbolic diploma, took pictures, tendered a blow-out attended by neighbors, friends, and relatives, took a
leave of absence without pay from work, and enrolled at a pre-bar review class.
ISSUE: May an educational institution be held liable for damages for misleading a student into believing
that the latter had satisfied all the requirements for graduation when such is not the case?
RULINGS:
Yes, it may be held liable.
Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code states 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 and
every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the same.
Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of their academic status and not wait for
the latter to inquire from the former. Petitioner ought to have known that time was of the essence in the
performance of its obligation to inform respondent of his grade. It cannot feign ignorance that respondent
will not prepare himself for the bar exams since that is precisely the immediate concern after graduation
of an LL.B. graduate.
Hence petitioner is liable for its failure to promptly inform respondent of the result of an examination and
in misleading the latter into believing that he had satisfied all requirements for the course.

GF EQUITY, INC. vs. VALENZONA, G.R. No. 156841, June 30, 2005
(Article 20 NCC)
FACTS:
GF Equity, represented by its Chief Financial Officer, W. Steven Uytengsu, hired Valenzona as head
coach of the Alaska basketball team in the PBA under a contract of employment. He was tasked to coach
at all practices and games scheduled for the Alaska team, coach exhibition games, coach if invited to
participate in any all-star game, attending every event conducted, play-off games, etc.
He was also tasked to comply with all requirements respecting to the conduct of its team and players, to
implement. He also agreed to report from time to time as fixed by the corporation in good physical
condition, give his best services, loyalty, to be neatly and fully attired in public and to conduct himself on
and off the court according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship, and
not to do anything detrimental to the best interest of the corporation.
He also agreed to endorse the corporation’s products in commercial advertising, promotions, will allow
himself to be taken pictures with others for still photographs, motion pictures or TV. For his services, he
will be paid P35, 000.00 monthly, net of taxes, provide him with a service vehicle and gasoline
allowance. The contract was for two (2) years starting January 1, 1988 to December 31, 1989, with the
condition that if at any time during the contract, the coach fails to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive
ability to coach the team, the contract can be terminated by the corporation. (Paragraph 3)
Before signing the contract, Valenzona consulted his lawyer who pointed out that the contract was one-
sided, but still, Valenzona acceded to the terms of the contract as he had trust and confidence in Uytengsu
who recommended him to GF Equity.
Alaska placed third both in the open and all-Filipino PBA Conference in 1988, he was advised of the
termination of his services by way of a letter dated September 26, 1988, invoking their right as specified
in paragraph 3 of the contract and to return the service vehicle no later than September 30, 1984. He will
still be paid the balance of P75, 868.38 for his services. Six (6) years after or on July 30, 1994,
Valenzona’s counsel demanded from GF Equity payment of compensation arising from the arbitrary and
unilateral termination of his employment. But GF Equity refused the claim. Valenzona filed before the
RTC of Manila a complaint for breach of contract with damages, ascribing bad faith, malice and disregard
to fairness and to the rights of the plaintiff by unilaterally and arbitrarily pre-terminating the contract
without just cause and legal and factual basis. He prayed award for damages, moral damages, exemplary
damages, attorney’s fees and cost of the suit. He challenged the condition in paragraph 3 as lacking the
elements of mutuality of a contract, a clear transgression of Art. 1308 of the NCC and reliance thereon
did not warrant his unjustified and arbitrary dismissal.
ISSUES:
Will one be liable for damages in following the provision of a contract, but which was later on declared
void?
What would be the basis of claim for damages under such circumstances?
RULINGS:
This article, known to contain what is 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 law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all
rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A
right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the
source of some illegality. 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. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21
would be proper.
Corollarilly, Article 20 provides that "every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same." It speaks of the general sanctions of all other
provisions of law which do not especially provide for its own sanction. When a right is exercised in a
manner which does not conform to the standards set forth in the said provision and results in damage to
another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible.20 Thus, if the
provision does not provide a remedy for its violation, an action for damages under either Article 20 or
Article 21 of the Civil Code would be proper.
The question of whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages
under Article 20 or other applicable provision of law, depends on the circumstances of each case. In the
present case, it was found that Coyiuto, Jr. indeed abused his rights as Chairman of The Manila
Chronicle, which led to the publication of the libelous articles in the said newspaper, thus, entitling
petitioner to damages under Article 19, in relation to Article 20.
Consequently, the trial court and the CA correctly awarded moral damages to petitioner. Such damages
may be awarded when the transgression is the cause of petitioner’s anguish.21 Further, converse to
Coyiuto, Jr.’s argument, although petitioner is claiming damages for violation of Articles 19 and 20 of the
Civil Code, still such violations directly resulted in the publication of the libelous articles in the
newspaper, which, by analogy, is one of the ground for the recovery of moral damages under (7) of
Article 2219.

GO vs. CORDERO, G.R. No. 164703, May 4, 2010

(Art. 21 NCC)
ISSUE: May a person be liable for damages in inducing another to violate a contract of exclusive
distributorship?
RULINGS:
The failure of Robinson, Go, Tecson and Landico to act with fairness, honesty and good faith in securing
better terms for the purchase of high-speed catamarans from AFFA, to the prejudice of Cordero as the
duly appointed exclusive distributor, is further proscribed by Article 19 of the Civil Code:
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.
As we have expounded in another case:
Elsewhere, we explained 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 responsible." The object of this article, therefore, is to set 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: act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and
good faith. Its antithesis, necessarily, is any act evincing bad faith or intent to injure. Its elements are the
following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of
prejudicing or injuring another. When Article 19 is violated, an action for damages is proper under
Articles 20 or 21 of the Civil Code. Article 20 pertains to damages arising from a violation of law x x x.
Article 21, on the other hand, states:
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
Article 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements: (1) There is an act which is
legal; (2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and (3) it is done
with intent to injure.
A common theme runs through Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act complained of must be intentional.
Petitioner Go’s argument that he, Landicho and Tecson cannot be held liable solidarily with Robinson for
actual, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees awarded to Cordero since no law or
contract provided for solidary obligation in these cases, is equally bereft of merit. Conformably with
Article 2194 of the Civil Code, the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for the quasi-
delict is solidary.65 In Lafarge Cement Philippines, Inc. v. Continental Cement Corporation,66 we held:
[O]bligations arising from tort are, by their nature, always solidary. We have assiduously maintained this
legal principle as early as 1912 in Worcester v. Ocampo, in which we held:
x x x The difficulty in the contention of the appellants is that they fail to recognize that the basis of the
present action is tort. They fail to recognize the universal doctrine that each joint tort feasor is not only
individually liable for the tort in which he participates, but is also jointly liable with his tort feasors. x x x
It may be stated as a general rule that joint tort feasors are all the persons who command, instigate,
promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who
approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. They are each liable as principals, to the same
extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. x x x
Joint tort feasors are jointly and severally liable for the tort which they commit.1avvphi1 The persons
injured may sue all of them or any number less than all. Each is liable for the whole damages caused by
all, and all together are jointly liable for the whole damage. It is no defense for one sued alone, that the
others who participated in the wrongful act are not joined with him as defendants; nor is it any excuse for
him that his participation in the tort was insignificant as compared to that of the others. x x x
Joint tort feasors are not liable pro rata. The damages can not be apportioned among them, except among
themselves. They cannot insist upon an apportionment, for the purpose of each paying an aliquot part.
They are jointly and severally liable for the whole amount. x x x
A payment in full for the damage done, by one of the joint tort feasors, of course satisfies any claim
which might exist against the others. There can be but satisfaction. The release of one of the joint tort
feasors by agreement generally operates to discharge all. x x x
Of course, the court during trial may find that some of the alleged tort feasors are liable and that others
are not liable. The courts may release some for lack of evidence while condemning others of the alleged
tort feasors. And this is true even though they are charged jointly and severally.
TITUS B. VILLANUEVA vs. EMMA M. ROSQUETA G.R. No. 180764 January 19, 2010
(Abuse of rights)
ISSUE: Can a person be held liable for damages for ignoring a preliminary injunction order of the RTC
RULINGS: