CHAPTER 2 HUMAN RELATIONS existing contractual

Art. 19-21 Human Relations obligatios”

 Art. 19- Principle of Abuse of rights o Art. 2176- concept of Quasi-delict
o Set standards which must be  Elements:
observed in the exercise of one’s 1. An act/omission
rights and performance of one’s 2. Presence of
duties: fault/negligence in the
1. To act with justice performance or non-
2. To give everyone his due performance of the act.
3. To observe honesty and good 3. Injury
faith. 4. Causal connection
 Damnum Absque Injuria- damage resulting between the negligent act
from the legitimate exercise of a person’s and the injury
rights is a loss without injury. 5. No preexisting
o Does not prescribe a remedy for the contractual relations.
loss.  Breach of promise to marry, is it
 Having the right is not equal to the manner actionable?
in which such right is to be exercised. o General rule: It is not an actionable
 Elements of abuse of rights: right
1. The existence of a legal right or a duty.  Exceptions
2. Which is exercised in bad faith 1. If there is moral seduction
3. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring  No moral seduction
another. exist when a woman
 Good faith is presumed. Hence, he who voluntarily gave
alleges bad faith has the burden of proving it. herself to the man
 Bad faith- involves dishonest purpose or because of love and
some moral obloquy and conscious doing of mutual passion.
a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some 2. If it is contrary to good
motives/interest or ill will that partakes the customs
nature of fraud. 3. If expenses are actually
 Comparing Arts. 19, 20 & 21 incurred.
Art. 19 Art. 20 Art. 21 4. When a woman was
Lays down The general Deals with forcibly abducted and
the rule of sanction for acts contra raped.
conduct for all other bonus mores;  Malicious Prosecution
the gov’t of provisions of Act must be o Requisites
human the law which intentional 1. The fact of prosecution and the
relations and do not further fact that the defendant
for the provide for himself was the prosecutor and
maintenance their own that the action was finally
of social order sanctions. terminated with acquittal.
Act must be Does not Elements: 2. The prosecutor acted without
intentional distinguish 1. An act probable cause.
between acts which is 3. Prosecutor was actuated or
done “wilfully legal. impelled by legal malice that is
or 2. But which improper or sinister motive.
“negligently” is Art. 22-23- Accion in rem verso
contrary  Nemo ex alterius icommade debet lecupletari
to morals, (No man ought to be made rich out of
good another’s injury)
customs,  Accion in rem verso- recovery of what has
public been paid or delivered w/o just cause or legal
order or ground pursuant to Art. 22 od the New Civil
public Code; considered an auxiliary action (can
policy. only be availed as a last resort = no other
3. Done with remedy on contract, quasi-contratc, crime
intent to or quasi-delict).
injure. o Requisites:
 Comparing Art. 20 and 2176 1. Defendant has been enriched.
Art. 20 Art. 2176 2. Plaintiff has suffered a loss.
Violation of existing Applies when the 3. The enrichment of the
law as basis for an injury negligent act causing defendant is w/o just or legal
damage to another does ground.
not constitute “breach 4. Plaintiff has no other action
if an existing law/pre- based on contract, quasi-contract
or quasi-delict.
  Accion in rem verson vs. Solutio Indebiti
o Similiarities:
1. Both are based on the principle
of unjust enrichment.
2. The plaintiff suffered a loss
3. Defendant has been enriched.
4. Enrichment of the defendant is
unjust, because delivery/payment
to him is w/o legal/just cause.
Accion in rem Solutio Indebiti
verso (Art. 2154)
( Art. 22)
The obligation of The obligation of the
the debtor to return debtor to return the undue
the undue payment payment is based on
is based on law. quasi-contract.
Undue payment is Undue payment must
by reason of a have been made by
mistake of law reason of either mistake
that is not of fact or mistake in the
doubtful nor construction/application
difficult. of a doubtful/difficult
question of law.
Undue Payment is Undue Payment is a
not necessarily a mistake.
mistake.
 Liability w/o Fault or Negligence
o Art. 23
o Likewise seeks to prevent unjust
enrichment.
o An involuntary act because of its
character, generally, cannot create an
obligation. But when by such act, its
author has been enriched, it is a
source of indemnification.
Art. 24- Protection of the Disadvantaged
 Calls on the court to be vigilant in the
protection of the rights of those who are
disadvantaged in life.
 Supplemented by Art. 1332 of the Civil Code.
 When one of the parties is any of the ff. the
person enforcing the contract must show
that the terms of the contract have been
explained to the former:
o Unable to read
o Contract is in a language not
understood by him.
o Mistake or fraud is alleged.
 Legislative Intent: protect both those who are
found weak and uneducated may have been
taken advantage of by others.
Art. 25- Thoughtless Extravagance
 Before thoughtless extravagance may be
prevented, the following requisites must be
present:
1. There must be an acute public want or
emergency.
2. The person seeking to stop it must be a
government or private charitable
institutions.
Art. 26- Protection of Human Dignity
 Enumerated by Art. 26 as violations that may
produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief: (PPAV)
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 religious beliefs, lowly status in life,
place of birth physical defect or other
personal condition.
 This enumeration is not conclusive.
Art. 27- Liability of Public Servants or Employees
 General rule: a public officer is not
personally liable to one injured in
consequences of an act performed within
the scope of his official authority and in line
with his official duty.
o Exception: Non-feasance- refusal or
neglect, without just cause, to perform
his official duty
 w/o prejudice to the
administrative case that
may be filed. (attributable to
malice or inexcusable
negligence)
 Requisites:
1. Defendant is a public
official charged with the
performance of official
duties.
2. There is a violation of an
official duty in favor of
an individual.
3. There be willfulness or
negligence in the
violation of such official
duty
4. There is injury to an
individual.
Art. 28- Unfair Competition
 Broader than the Intellectual property laws in
terms of the concept of Unfair competition.
 Unfair competition = use of force,
intimidation, deceit, machination and any
other unjust, oppressive or high-handed
method.
 Arises not from mere competition, but the
methods used to deprive others of a fair
chance to engage in business or to earn a
living.
 Requisites:
1. It must involve an injury to a competitor
or trade rival
2. It must involve acts which are
characterized as contrary to good
conscience or shocking to judicial
sensibilities.
Art. 29- Civil Liability Arising from Criminal
Offenses
 A person criminally liable is civilly liable.
o Criminal liability- guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
o Civil liability- preponderance of
evidence
  Basis: when a person commits a crime he
offends the state and the individual
member.
 Criminal liability will give rise to civil liability
only if the same felonious act or omission
results in damage or injury to another and is
the direct and proximate cause thereof.
 Acquittal of the accused and its different
effects on the civil liability:
o Accused is not the author of the act
or omission complained of = no civil
liability may arise
o Reasonable doubt = not exempt from
civil liability based on delict
 Civil liability may only be
extinguished when it includes
a declaration that the facts
from which the civil liability
arose did not exist.
 Art. 29 presupposes that:
1. The private offended party opted to
recover his damages on the basis of the
offender’s civil liability arising from the
crime he committed under Art. 100 of the
RPC
2. He also opted to institute his civil
action based thereon, expressly or
impliedly with the criminal action.
3. Accused was acquitted in the criminal
action based on reasonable doubt as to
his guilt.
4. The said ground of acquittal was
declared by the court in its judgment or
is clearly inferable from the text thereof.
 There is no need for separate action for civil
liability when the accused is acquitted for
reasonable doubt.
Art. 30-31- Institution of Civil Action Ex Delicto
 Rule of implied institution
o General rule: when a criminal action
is instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from
the offense charged shall be deemed
instituted, unless the offended party
 Waives the civil action.
 Reserves the right to institute
it separately.
 Institutes the civil action
prior to the criminal action.
o What is instituted is the action
based on DELICT.
o When Civil action is RESERVED.
 When must be reserved?
 Before the
prosecution starts
presenting evidence.
 Under circumstances
affording the offended
party a reasonable
opportunity to make
such reservation.
 When can it be instituted?
After the final judgment has
been entered in the criminal
action.
o When Civil action is instituted PRIOR
to criminal action.
 The civil action shall be
suspended in whatever stage
it may be found before
judgment on the merits.
 Suspension shall last until
the final judgment is
rendered in the criminal
action.
 Anytime before the
judgment of the criminal
action, the civil action may
be instituted with it.
 How? Motion by the
offended party.
 Acquittal of the accused (accused not the
author of the act or omission/reasonable
doubt), does not carry with it the extinction of
the civil liability based on QUASI DELICT
o Responsibility arising from fault or
negligence in a quasi-delict is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under
the Penal Code.
 Same negligence can give rise to either a
delict or quasi-delict, either may be enforced.
o Limitation: Art. 2177 of the CC- a
party cannot recover damages
under both types of liability.
Art. 32-34 Independent Civil Actions
 shall require preponderance of evidence.
 The offended party may not recover
damages twice for the same act or
omission charged in the criminal action.
 Civil Damages under Art. 32 (Violation of
Constitutional Liberties)
o When is a public official personally
liable?
 On account of an act or
omission that violates the
constitutional rights only if it
results in a particular
wrong or injury to the
victim.
o Good faith is not a defense in Art. 32
since it is not necessary that the
defendant should have acted with
malice or bad faith.
 Civil damages totally unrelated to Criminal
aspects of the case
o Civil action allowed to be instituted is
ex delicto.
Art. 34-35- Prejudicial Question
 Prejudicial question- one which arise in a
case, the resolution of which question is logical
antecedent of the issue involved in the said
case.
 Elements:
o The previously instituted civil action
involves an issue similarly or
intimately related to the issue
raised in the subsequent criminal
action.
 o The resolution of such issue
determines WON the criminal action
may proceed.
 Suspension of proceedings
o A petition for suspension of the
criminal action based on the pendency
of a prejudicial question in a Civil
action may be filed in the Office of the
prosecutor or court conducting the
preliminary investigation.
o When the criminal action has been
filed in court for trial, the petition to
suspend shall be filed in the same
criminal action at any time before
the prosecution rests.
o Suspension and not dismissal.
 Nature of pending action
o General rule: Prejudicial question
may only be present in a civil action +
criminal action (in the same order)
 Exception: prudence dictates
that the principle of the
underlying doctrine shall be
applied.