Article 19 of the Civil Code prescribes a primordial limitation on all rights by

setting certain standards that must be observed in the exercise thereof.

Accordingly, when it becomes manifest that one's right is exercised in bad
faith for the sole intent of prejudicing another, an abuse of a right
exists. 97 However, abuse of a right must, of course, be proven since bad faith
cannot be presumed, and nothing was presented here to establish the same. |||

(Ka Kuen Chua v. Colorite Marketing Corp., G.R. Nos. 193969-70 &
194027-28 , [July 5, 2017], 813 PHIL 73-127)

Under the principle of damnum absque injuria, the legitimate exercise of a

person's rights, even if it causes loss to another, does not automatically result in
an actionable injury. The law does not prescribe a remedy for the loss. This
principle, however, does not apply when there is an abuse of a person's right as
in this case. 72 While we recognize petitioner's right to remove the improvements
on the subject plantation, it, however, exercised such right arbitrarily, unjustly and
excessively resulting in damage to respondents' plantation. The exercise of a
right, though legal by itself, must nonetheless be in accordance with the
proper norm. When the right is exercised arbitrarily, unjustly or excessively
and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which the
wrongdoer must be held responsible. 73
As aptly explained by the Court in GF Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona — 74
Xxx
In the sphere of our law on human relations, the victim of a wrongful act or
omission, whether done willfully or negligently, is not left without any remedy or
recourse to obtain relief for the damage or injury he sustained. Incorporated
into our civil law are not only principles of equity but also universal moral
precepts which are designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the
fountain of good conscience and which are meant to serve as guides for
human conduct. 76
Abuse of right under Article 19 of the New Civil Code provides:
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.
The above provision sets the standards which may be observed not only in
the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. 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. 77 One is not allowed to exercise his right in a manner which
would cause unnecessary prejudice to another or if he would thereby
offend morals or good customs. Thus, a person should be protected only
when he acts in the legitimate exercise of his right, that is when he acts
with prudence and good faith; but not when he acts with negligence or
abuse. 78 The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose
for which it was established, and must not be excessive or unduly harsh;
there must be no intention to injure another. 79

xxx

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. 82 Complementing the principle of abuse of rights are the
provisions of Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code which read:
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.
Article 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.
The foregoing rules provide the legal bedrock for the award of damages to
a party who suffers damage whenever one commits an act in violation of some
legal provision, or an act which though not constituting a transgression of positive
law, nevertheless violates certain rudimentary rights of the party
aggrieved. 83 Article 20 pertains to damages arising from a violation of law which
does not obtain here 84 as petitioner was perfectly within its right to remove the
improvements introduced in the subject plantation. Article 21, on the other hand,
refers to acts contra bonus mores. 85 The act is within the article only when it is
done willfully. The act is willful if it is done with knowledge of its injurious effect; it
is not required that the act be done purposely to produce the
injury. 86 Undoubtedly, petitioner removed the pipes with knowledge of its
injurious effect which is the destruction of the banana plants and fruits; and failed
to cover the diggings which caused ground destruction. Petitioner should,
therefore, be liable for damages.
((STANFILCO) DOLE Phils., Inc. v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 174646, [August
|||

22, 2012], 693 PHIL 59-81)

 Article 19 pervades the entire legal system and ensures that a person
suffering damage in the course of another's exercise of right or performance of
duty, should find himself without relief. 36 It sets the standard for the conduct of
all persons, whether artificial or natural, and requires that everyone, in the
exercise of rights and the performance of obligations, must: (a) act with justice,
(b) give everyone his due, and (c) observe honesty and good faith. It is not
because a person invokes his rights that he can do anything, even to the
prejudice and disadvantage of another. 37 |||

(Pantaleon v. American Express International, Inc., G.R. No. 174269

(Resolution), [August 25, 2010], 643 PHIL 488-519)

While GF Equity's act of pre-terminating Valenzona's services cannot be

considered willful as it was based on a stipulation, albeit declared void, it, in
doing so, failed to consider the abuse of rights principle enshrined in Art. 19 of
the Civil Code which provides:
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.
This provision of law sets standards which must be observed in the exercise
of one's rights as well as in the performance of its duties, to wit: to act with
justice; give every one his due; and observe honesty and good faith.
Since the pre-termination of the contract was anchored on an illegal
ground, hence, contrary to law, and GF Equity negligently failed to provide legal
basis for such pre-termination, e.g. that Valenzona breached the contract by
failing to discharge his duties thereunder, GF Equity failed to exercise in a
legitimate manner its right to pre-terminate the contract, thereby abusing the right
of Valenzona to thus entitle him to damages under Art. 19 in relation to Article 20
of the Civil Code the latter of which provides:
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently
causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
In De Guzman v. NLRC, 13 this Court quoted the following explanation of
Tolentino why it is impermissible to abuse our rights to prejudice others.
The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it
disappears when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of others. The
mask of a right without the spirit of justice which gives it life is repugnant
to the modern concept of social law. It cannot be said that a person
exercises a right when he unnecessarily prejudices another or
offends morals or good customs. Over and above the specific
precepts of positive law are the supreme norms of justice which the
 law develops and which are expressed in three principles: honeste
vivere, 14 alterum non laedere 15 and jus suum quique
tribuere; 16 and he who violates them violates the law. For this
reason, it is not permissible to abuse our rights to prejudice others.
The disquisition in Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. Court of
Appeals 17 is just as relevant as it is illuminating on the present case. In that
case, this Court declared that even granting that the therein petitioners might
have had the right to dismiss the therein respondent from work, the abusive
manner in which that right was exercised amounted to a legal wrong for which
the petitioners must be held liable.
One of the more notable innovations of the New Civil Code is the
codification of "some basic principles that are to be observed for the
rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of the
social order." [REPORT ON THE CODE COMMISSION ON THE
PROPOSED CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, p. 39]. The framers
of the Code, seeking to remedy the defect of the old Code which
merely stated the effects of the law, but failed to draw out its spirit,
incorporated certain fundamental precepts which were "designed
to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good
conscience" and which were also meant to serve as "guides for
human conduct [that] should run as golden threads through
society, to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal, which
is the sway and dominance of justice" (Id.) Foremost among these
principles is that pronounced in Article 19 which provides:
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.
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. 18 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied).
(GF Equity Inc. v. Valenzona, G.R. No. 156841, [June 30, 2005], 501
|||

PHIL 153-169)

Abuse of right under Article 19 of the New Civil Code, on which the RTC
anchored its award for damages and attorney's fees, provides:
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.
The elements of abuse of rights are the following: (a) the existence of a
legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of
prejudicing or injuring another. Malice or bad faith is at the core of said
provision. 52 Good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to
prove the same. 53 Good faith refers to the state of the 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. Bad faith
does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence, dishonest purpose
or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty
due to some motives or interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of
fraud. 54 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. 55
(Development Bank of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137916,
|||

[December 8, 2004], 487 PHIL 9-31)

The principle of abuse of rights stated in the above article, departs from the
classical theory that "he who uses a right injures no one". The modern tendency
is to depart from the classical and traditional theory, and to grant indemnity for
damages in cases where there is an abuse of rights, even when the act is not
illicit. 5
Article 19 was intended to expand the concept of torts by granting
adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is
impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. 6 If mere
fault or negligence in one's acts can make him liable for damages for injury
caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or bad faith make him liable.
The absence of good faith is essential to abuse of right. Good faith is an honest
intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even
through the forms or technicalities of the law, together with an absence of all
information or belief of fact which would render the transaction unconscientious.
In business relations, it means good faith as understood by men of affairs. 7
While Article 19 may have been intended as a mere declaration of
principle, 8 the "cardinal law on human conduct" expressed in said article has
given rise to certain rules, e.g. that where a person exercises his rights but does
so arbitrarily or unjustly or performs his duties in a manner that is not in keeping
with honesty and good faith, he opens himself to liability. 9 The elements of an
abuse of rights under Article 19 are: (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. 10
xxx

Even if the dealership agreement was amended to make it on a non-

exclusive basis, 19 SEACOM may not exercise its right unjustly or in a manner
that is not in keeping with honesty or good faith; otherwise it opens itself to
liability under the abuse of right rule embodied in Article 19 of the Civil Code
above-quoted. This provision, together with the succeeding article on human
relation, was intended to embody certain basic principles "that are to be observed
for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of the
social order." 20 What is sought to be written into the law is the pervading
principle of equity and justice above strict legalism. 21
|||

(Sea Commercial Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122823,

|||

[November 25, 1999], 377 PHIL 221-233)