Gashem Shookat Baksh vs.

CA and Gonzales
GR no. 97336 (Feb 19, 1993)

Facts:
Gonzales and Baksh became sweethearts, after which the latter proposed to her. He went to meet with her
parents to ask for her hand. They later began to live together, during which time Gonzales surrendered her virginity
to him. Baksh, however, began maltreating Gonzales. Yet still she continued to remind him of his promise to marry
her. Eventually, Baksh said he couldn’t marry her because he was already married to another girl. Gonzales left him
and upon consultation with her lawyer, sought the help of the barangay, which sent tanods to try to convince Baksh
to keep his promise to marry Gonzales. He continued to refuse.

Issue: Whether or not Baksh is liable for damages under Article 21.

Held:
The court adheres to the factual findings of the lower court, for only questions of law can be raised on
appeal to it except when:
(1) Conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures
(2) inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible
(3) there is grave abuse of discretion
(4) judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts
(5) findings of fact are conflicting
(6) CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, which are contrary to the admissions of both
parties
(7) CA findings are contrary to that of the trial court’s
(8) findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence upon which they are based
(9) facts set forth in the petition as well as in petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by respondents
(10) Finding of fact of the CA is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the
evidence on record.
Article 21 has the purpose of expanding the concept of quasi-delicts, which are acts or omissions that cause
damage to another, there being fault or negligence nor pre-existing contractual relations between the parties, but
which give rise to an obligation to pay for the damage done. In Spanish, these are culpa aquiliana (civil law concept).
In Anglo-American common law concept, these are torts and cover assault and battery, false imprisonment, and
deceit.
Although breach of promise to marry is generally not actionable, the law admits of exception where there
is seduction and where preparations for the wedding have already been done. “To constitute seduction there must
in all cases be some sufficient promise or inducement and the woman must yield because of said promise or
inducement... In other words, if the CAUSE is the promise to marry, and the EFFECT is carnal knowledge, there is a
chance of the existence of criminal or moral seduction...if it is the other way around, mutual lust is [considered to
have] intervened.” Moral damages may be recovered in the former, but not in the latter.
Lastly, Bakksh’s contention that Gonzales cannot recover damages because she was in pari delicto for
allegedly receiving his love because of her desire for economic security is unaccepted. Pari delicto requires “equal
fault; in a similar offense or crime; equal in guilt or in legal fault.” At fault, she can only be considered to be in delicto.
The principle is: “Equity often interferes for the relief of the less guilty of the parties, where his transgression has
been brought about by the imposition of undue influence of the party on whom the burden of the original wrong
principally rests, or where his consent to the transaction was itself procured by fraud.”