Article 21 - Contrary to Morals

05 August 2019
22:21

Article 21 - Any person who wilfully 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.

- Applicable if it is wilfully done or negligently done

Contra Bonus Mores - contrary to good customs

Elements for Contra Bonus Mores

1. There is an act which is legal;

2. But which is contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy;
3. And it is done with intent to injure

AN ACT WHICH CAUSES INJURY TO ANOTHER MAY BE MADE BASIS FOR AN AWARD OF DAMAGES.

Malicious Prosecution:

Elements:
1. The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that
the action was finally terminated with an acquittal;
2. That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause;
3. The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice.

Case No. 1

Albenson Enterprises Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

217 SCRA 16 (1993)

Facts:
1. Albenson Enterprises Corp (AEC) delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed Industries Inc. (GII).
2. One Eugenio S. Baltao issued a bounced check.
3. AEC filed a criminal case against Eugenio S. Baltao.
4. There was a mistaken identity for there were 2 Eugenio Baltao in the Baltao Bldg. It was his son
Eugenio Baltao III who ordered the mild steel plates.
5. Eugenio Baltao filed a complaint for damages, he felt it was unjust for the AEC to file a case
him.
Issue: Whether or not the principle of abuse of rights was

Ruling: No, the principle of abuse of rights was not violated since the intention of the AEC was to
collect the sum of money due to them. There was an absence of malice or bad faith,
therefore, award for damages cannot be granted.

Damnum Absque - Legitimate exercise of a person's rights is a loss without injury.

Injuria
- The legitimate exercise of a person's rights, even if it causes loss to another,
not automatically result in an actionable injury.
BUT - In the availment of one's rights, one must act with justice give others their due,
and observe honesty and good faith.

Breach of Promise - It is not an actionable wrong.

to Marry
No other action lends itself more readily to abuse by designing
women and unscrupulous men.

Case: Shookat Baksh v. Court of Appeals

Facts 1. Gashem, and Iranian citizen and exchange student in Dagupan City, courted Marilou
Gonzales and proposed to marry her.
2. Marilou accepted his love on the condition that they would get married at the end of the
school semester.

Persons and Family Relations Page 1

 school semester.
3. Gashem forced Marilou to live with him in the Lozano Apartments.
4. She was a virgin before they started living together.
5. Gashem started to maltreat her.
6. Gashem repudiated their marriage agreement because he was already married to
living in Bacolod.
Issue Whether o not Gashem is liable for damages?
Ruling Yes, Gashem is liable for damages.
The Supreme Court ruled that where a man’s promise to marry is in fact the proximate
of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfil that promise
thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual
congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise
only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to
her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21
because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the
injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter.

If expenses are Where the plaintiff has actually incurred expenses for the wedding and the
actually incurred: necessary incidents thereof, the plaintiff has the right to recover money or
property advanced by him upon faith of such promise.

Case No. 2 Wassmer v. Velez

Facts 1. Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wasmer decided to get married on Sept. 4, 1954.
2. On September 2, Velez left a note saying that they need to postpone the wedding
since his mother wont allo wth marriage to happen.
3. Velez did not appear nor was he heard from again.
4. Wassmer sued Velez for damages.
5. Invitation were printed and distributed. There were party dresses, other apparels
purchased.
Issue: WON Velez be liable for damages?
Ruling: Yes. Velez is liable for damages. This is not a case of mere breach of promise to
Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a
wedding and go through all the above described preparation and publication, only to
walk out of it when matrimony is about to be solemnized is quite different.
This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant
held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.

Case Tan v. Valeriano

No.3
Facts: 1. on 4 January 2001, the Holy Name Society of Bulan, Sorsogon (Holy Name Society), held
multi-sectoral consultative conference at the Bulan Parish Compound. Valeriano, the
president of the religious organization, delivered a welcome address during the
conference. In his address, Valeriano allegedly lambasted certain local officials of
Sorsogon, specifically Municipal Councilors petitioners, Gilana and ViceMayor
2. On the following day, petitioners file a complaint against Valeriano.
3. The R TC ruled that the act of filing of numerous cases against Valeriano by petitioners,
Gilana, and Gonzales was attended by malice, vindictiveness, and bad faith.
4. In the assailed decision, the CA reversed the trial court's ruling insofar as Gonzales and
Gilana were concerned,17 but affirmed that petitioners should be held liable for
Issue: Whether or not petitioners acted in bad faith or malice in filing a case against Valeriano.
Ruling 1. No. petitioner didn’t act in bad faith.
2. what prompted petitioners to initiate the complaint against Valeriano was his vital
participation in the multi-sectoral conference that was held wherein certain local
were the subject of criticisms.
3. There is no showing that defendants-appellants Gonzales and Gilana acted with malice
sinister design to vex or humiliate plaintiff-appellee Valeriano by the mere act of
an administrative case for electioneering against the latter with the CSC and with the
of the Ombudsman after the dismissal without prejudice of the complaint by the CSC.

Persons and Family Relations Page 2

Persons and Family Relations Page 3