Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
The Chapter on 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.
May we first define important terminologies in this Article:
Right is a power, privilege, or immunity granted under a constitution, statute, or decisional law; every well-grounded claim on others.
Duty is a human action which is exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them; a moral obligation or responsibility.
Justice is the constant and perpetual disposition to every man his due, the conformity of our actions and our will to the law.
Good faith is an honest intention to avoid taking undue advantage of another.
A right, although by itself legal because it is recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of illegality when it is exercised in a manner that does not conform to the norms enshrined in Article 19 NCC and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.
I. Coverage:
Elizabeth Diaz v. Encanto, et al, G.R. No. 171303, Jan. 20, 2016, Leonardo - De Castro
Facts: This is a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which seeks to reverse and set aside the April 28, 2005 Decision and January 20, 2006 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 55165, which reversed the April 17, 1996 Decision and September 17, 1996 Order of the RTC, Branch 71, Pasig City, in CC No. 58397.
The Plaintiff-Appellant Elizabeth Diaz A Professor of the University of the Philippines applied for a sabbatical leave with pay, but it was denied.
Held:
There were no traces of bad faith or malice in denying the application for sabbatical leave. They processed the application in accordance with their usual procedure. While the RTC declared that the petitioner Diaz should have been granted a sabbatical leave, it is important to note that the RTC awarded damages to the petitioner merely for the unreasonable and unconscionable delay in the resolution of her application for sabbatical leave.
It is an elementary rule in this jurisdiction that good faith is presumed and that the burden of proving bad faith rests upon the party alleging the same.
Her complaint for the recovery of damages before the RTC was based on the alleged bad faith of the respondents in denying her application for sabbatical leave vis-a-vis Articles 19 and 20.
Article 19 of the Civil Code prescribes a 'primordial limitation on all rights' by setting standards that must be observed in the exercise thereof. Abuse of right under Article 19 exists when the following elements are present:
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.
The Court expounding on the concept of bad faith under Article 19, held that:
Malice or bad faith is at the core of Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. It is presumed. Thus, he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or will that partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive.
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.
May we first define important terminologies in this Article:
Right is a power, privilege, or immunity granted under a constitution, statute, or decisional law; every well-grounded claim on others.
Duty is a human action which is exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them; a moral obligation or responsibility.
Justice is the constant and perpetual disposition to every man his due, the conformity of our actions and our will to the law.
Good faith is an honest intention to avoid taking undue advantage of another.
A right, although by itself legal because it is recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of illegality when it is exercised in a manner that does not conform to the norms enshrined in Article 19 NCC and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.
I. Coverage:
This pervades the entire legal system. This renders it impossible that a person who suffers damage because another has violated some legal provision should find himself relief.
Where one wrongfully or negligently does an act which in its consequences is injurious to another, he is liable for the damage caused by such wrongful act. It also applies to artificial and natural persons.
To warrant the recovery of damage, in any case, there must be a right of action for a wrong inflicted by the defendant and damage resulting to the plaintiff thereof.
As a general rule: "Wrong without damage and damage without wrong does not constitute a rule of action."
II. The necessity for the law:
This article contains the principle of abuse of rights. It indicates the range of allowable conduct among citizens or certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience and makes it imperative that everyone duly respects the rights of others.
III. The core of Article 19, NCC is bad faith
• Good faith is always presumed.
• Malice or bad faith is in the core of Articles 19, 20, and 21. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence, it involves dishonest purpose or some legal obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or will that partakes of the moral of the nature of fraud.
• Malice or bad faith/motive never presumed. Anyone who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. (Elizabeth Diaz v. Encanto, et al G.R. no. 171303 Jan. 20, 2016)
To warrant the recovery of damage, in any case, there must be a right of action for a wrong inflicted by the defendant and damage resulting to the plaintiff thereof.
As a general rule: "Wrong without damage and damage without wrong does not constitute a rule of action."
II. The necessity for the law:
This article contains the principle of abuse of rights. It indicates the range of allowable conduct among citizens or certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience and makes it imperative that everyone duly respects the rights of others.
III. The core of Article 19, NCC is bad faith
• Good faith is always presumed.
• Malice or bad faith is in the core of Articles 19, 20, and 21. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence, it involves dishonest purpose or some legal obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or will that partakes of the moral of the nature of fraud.
• Malice or bad faith/motive never presumed. Anyone who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. (Elizabeth Diaz v. Encanto, et al G.R. no. 171303 Jan. 20, 2016)
Elizabeth Diaz v. Encanto, et al, G.R. No. 171303, Jan. 20, 2016, Leonardo - De Castro
Facts: This is a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which seeks to reverse and set aside the April 28, 2005 Decision and January 20, 2006 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 55165, which reversed the April 17, 1996 Decision and September 17, 1996 Order of the RTC, Branch 71, Pasig City, in CC No. 58397.
The Plaintiff-Appellant Elizabeth Diaz A Professor of the University of the Philippines applied for a sabbatical leave with pay, but it was denied.
This issue was brought to the court where the finding that the grant or denial of such leave is not a matter of right as it is subject to the exigencies of service like the acute shortage of teaching staff.
Even the Office of the Ombudsman has similar findings with the CA that the grand of leave is not a matter of right and there was no bad faith. Yet, before the SC, the applicant insisted that the concerned officials acted in bad faith. Sustaining the findings of the CA, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the SC.
Even the Office of the Ombudsman has similar findings with the CA that the grand of leave is not a matter of right and there was no bad faith. Yet, before the SC, the applicant insisted that the concerned officials acted in bad faith. Sustaining the findings of the CA, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the SC.
Held:
There were no traces of bad faith or malice in denying the application for sabbatical leave. They processed the application in accordance with their usual procedure. While the RTC declared that the petitioner Diaz should have been granted a sabbatical leave, it is important to note that the RTC awarded damages to the petitioner merely for the unreasonable and unconscionable delay in the resolution of her application for sabbatical leave.
It is an elementary rule in this jurisdiction that good faith is presumed and that the burden of proving bad faith rests upon the party alleging the same.
Her complaint for the recovery of damages before the RTC was based on the alleged bad faith of the respondents in denying her application for sabbatical leave vis-a-vis Articles 19 and 20.
Article 19 of the Civil Code prescribes a 'primordial limitation on all rights' by setting standards that must be observed in the exercise thereof. Abuse of right under Article 19 exists when the following elements are present:
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.
The Court expounding on the concept of bad faith under Article 19, held that:
Malice or bad faith is at the core of Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. It is presumed. Thus, he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or will that partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive.
IV. Elements of abuse of right under Article 19:
1. There is a legal right or duty;
2. Which is exercised in bad faith;
3.For the sole intent of prejudicing and injuring another.
V. The principle for abuse of right under Art 19:
A person has the right to exercise his rights, but in so doing, he must be mindful of the rights of other people. Otherwise, he can be made liable for any damage(Meralco v. CA L-39019, Jan. 22, 1988)
VI. Standards set forth in Article 19
1. To act with justice;
2. To give everyone his due;
3. To observe honesty and good faith.
This article is also related to Articles 20 and 21:
Article 20 – provides general sanction for all other provisions of law. Anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby.
Article 21 – deals with contra bonos mores (or against good morals). It's elements are:
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
Thus, under any of these three (3) provisions of law, an act that causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages.
Thus, under any of these three (3) provisions of law, an act that causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages.
Though the question whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated, resulting in damages under articles 19, 20 and 21 and other applicable provision of law, depends on the circumstances of each case.(Globe Mackay Cable v. CA 176 SCRA 778 [1989].
VII. The exercise of a right must be in good faith
One should in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, must strive to bring a measure of humanity into the law.
A man in the use of his right over the thing he owns or possesses should so act not to do injustice to others and should exercise his right with due respect to others rights observing at the same time honesty and good faith with his fellowmen.
VIII. Requirements for liability
To be liable under the law, the following requisites must be met:
1. The party claiming damages must have sustained the laws;
2. The party against whom they are claimed must be chargeable or guilty of the wrong complained of;
3. The loss must be the natural and proximate consequence of the wrong;
4. The wrong complained of must be contrary to law and the act or omission causing the damage should either be willful or a director a proximate result of negligence.
1. The party claiming damages must have sustained the laws;
2. The party against whom they are claimed must be chargeable or guilty of the wrong complained of;
3. The loss must be the natural and proximate consequence of the wrong;
4. The wrong complained of must be contrary to law and the act or omission causing the damage should either be willful or a director a proximate result of negligence.
IX. Public Officer may be liable for his wrong doing under Art. 19.
The occupancy of a high public office cannot be used as a cloak against wrongdoing.
In fact, the SC ruled that a public officer can be sued in his individual capacity for his wrongdoing. (Chavez v. Sandiganbayan G.R. 91391, [January 24, 1991])
The occupancy of a high public office cannot be used as a cloak against wrongdoing.
In fact, the SC ruled that a public officer can be sued in his individual capacity for his wrongdoing. (Chavez v. Sandiganbayan G.R. 91391, [January 24, 1991])
X. Civil liability despite acquittal; the bad faith of the defendant
David Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. No. 85464
–The performance of duty must be done with justice and good faith.
XI. Petitioner cannot invoke the principle of damnum absque injuria.
damnum absque injuria, a principle premised on the valid exercise of a right (Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. CA, 176 SCRA 778)
Anything less or beyond such exercise will not give rise to the legal protection that the principle accords. And when damage or prejudice to another is occasioned thereby, liability cannot be obscured, much less abated.
References:
Family Code of the Phils. by Judge Ed Vincent S. Albano et al
Civil Code 17th edition by Paras
References:
Family Code of the Phils. by Judge Ed Vincent S. Albano et al
Civil Code 17th edition by Paras
Comments
Post a Comment