G.R. No.

97336 (219 SCRA 115) – February 19, 1993

Gashem Shookat Baksh, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Marilou T. Gonzales

Civil Law – The New Civil Code – Human Relations

Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
Facts:
Marilou T. Gonzales, a 22 year old Filipino, single and of good moral
character and reputation, duly respected in her community filed a complaint
on October 27, 1987, against Gashem Shookat Baksh, an Iranian citizen,
and an exchange student taking up a medical course at the Lyceum
Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan City. The complaint for damages is due to
Baksh’s violation of their agreement to get married.

Prior to the filing of complaint, Gashem courted Marilou and proposed to

marry her. She accepted his love on the condition that they will get married.
They agreed to get married at the end of the semester, which was October
of that year. They also visited Marilou’s parents in Pangasinan to secure their
approval to the marriage.

Shortly thereafter, Gashem forced the petitioner to live with him in Guilig,
Dagupan City. It should be noted that she was a virgin before she lived with
him and not a woman of loose morals. A few weeks after she begun living
with him, Gashem started to maltreat her, which result to injuries. A
confrontation with the barangay captain of Guilig ensued and Gashem
repudiated their marriage agreement and said that he is already married to
a girl in Bacolod City.

On October 16, 1989, the lower court applied Article 21 of the New Civil
Code in its decision favoring Marilou Gonzales and ordered Gashem Baksh to
pay PhP 20,000 moral damges, PhP 3,000.00 in attorney’s fees and PhP
2,000.00 for the litigation expenses.

Hence, Baksh filed an appeal with the Supreme Court seeking for the review
of the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Pangasinan and to set aside the
said decision which was also affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

Whether or not damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry

on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Held:

The Court held that the breach of promise to marry per se is not an
actionable wrong. However, the Court rules that no foreigner should make a
mockery of our laws. It was evident from the facts presented to the Court
that Gashem Baksh had not intention to marry Marilou Gonzales on the
account of her “ignoble birth, inferior educational background, poverty and,
as perceived by him, dishonorable employment.”

In the case presented, Gashem Baksh was not motivated by good faith and
honest motive when he proposed his love and promised to marry Marilou
Gonzales. He was merely motivated by lust and “clearly violated the
Filipino’s concept of morality and brazenly defied the traditional respect
Filipinos have for their women.”

The Court affirmed the Decisions of the lower court and the Court of Appeals
pursuant to Aticle 21 of the New Civil Code, not because of the breach of
promise to marry, but due the fraud and deceit employed by herein
petitioner that wilfully caused injury to the honor and reputation of the
herein private respondent, which committed contrary to the morals, good
customs or public policy.

G.R. No. 97336 February 19, 1993

Laws Applicable:  Art. 21, Art. 23 and Art. 2176 of the Civil Code
Lessons Applicable: Quasi-delict (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:
 Gashem Shookat Baksh (Gashem), a medical student in Lyceum
Northwestern Dagupan City, courted and proposed to marry 22 years old,
single, Filipino and a pretty lass of good moral character and reputation
duly respected in her community
 she accepted his love on the condition that they would get
married after the end of the school semester (October that year)
 Gashem visited her parents in Pangasinan for approval for
marriage
 August 20 1987: Gashem forced her to live with him when she was
still a virgin then he started to maltreat and threatened to kill her
resulting into injuries
 would tie plaintiff's hands and feet while he went to school, and
he even gave her medicine at 4 o'clock in the morning that made her
sleep the whole day and night until the following day
 she became pregnant, but Gashem gave her some medicine to
abort the fetus
 Gashem continued to live with defendant and kept
reminding him of his promise to marry her  until he asked her not to live
with him anymore as he is already married to someone living in Bacolod
City
 he lived with another woman in Bacolod City but did
not marry that woman, just like what he did to plaintiff
 resigned from her job at the restaurant after she had accepted
defendant's proposal 
 Plaintiff's father, a tricycle driver, already looked for sponsors for the
wedding, started preparing for the reception by looking for pigs and
chickens, and even already invited many relatives and friends to the
forthcoming wedding.
 prayed for judgment ordering Gashem to pay her damages 
 Gashem: never proposed marriage to or agreed to be
married; he did not maltreat her, but only told her to stop coming to his
place because he discovered that she had deceived him by stealing his
money and passport
 RTC: favored private respondent and against Gashem
 gave full credit to the private respondent's testimony
because, inter alia, she would not have had the temerity and courage to
come to court and expose her honor and reputation to public scrutiny and
ridicule if her claim was false
 CA: affirmed RTC
 Gashem's acts are palpably and undoubtedly against morals,
good customs, and public policy, and are even gravely and deeply
derogatory and insulting to our women, coming as they do from a
foreigner who has been enjoying the hospitality of our people and taking
advantage of the opportunity to study in one of our institutions of
learning
 Gashem criticizes the trial court for liberally invoking Filipino
customs, traditions and culture, and ignoring the fact that since he is a
foreigner, he is not conversant with such Filipino customs, traditions and
culture. As an Iranian Moslem, he is not familiar with Catholic and
Christian ways. He stresses that even if he had made a promise to marry,
the subsequent failure to fulfill the same is excusable or tolerable because
of his Moslem upbringing; he then alludes to the Muslim Code which
purportedly allows a Muslim to take four (4) wives and concludes that on
the basis thereof, the trial court erred in ruling that he does not posses
good moral character. Moreover, his controversial "common law life" is
now his legal wife as their marriage had been solemnized in civil
ceremonies in the Iranian Embassy. As to his unlawful cohabitation with
the private respondent, petitioner claims that even if responsibility could
be pinned on him for the live-in relationship, the private respondent
should also be faulted for consenting to an illicit arrangement
 promised to marry her would not be actionable since mere breach of
promise is not actionable
ISSUE: W/N damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on
the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

HELD: YES.  Petition is denied.

 existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an
actionable wrong
 Under the present laws, there is no crime, as the girl is above nineteen
years of age
 Art. 23. 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.
 Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which defines a quasi-delict thus:

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or

negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence,
if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called
a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

 Quasi-delict, known in Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, is a

civil law concept while torts is an Anglo-American or common law
 concept. Torts is much broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes
not only negligence, but international criminal acts as well such as assault
and battery, false imprisonment and deceit. 
 intentional and malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be
governed by the Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are
to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code
 Article 21 fills that vacuum and has greatly broadened the scope
of the law on civil wrongs; it has become much more supple and
adaptable than the Anglo-American law on torts
 acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill 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 was only a subtle scheme or
deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her
consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to
Article 21
 It is essential, however, that such injury should have been
committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
 In fact, it is apparent that she had qualms of conscience about the
entire episode for as soon as she found out that the petitioner was not
going to marry her after all, she left him. She is not, therefore, in pari
delicto with the petitioner. Pari delicto means "in equal fault; in a similar
offense or crime; equal in guilt or in legal fault." 
 let it not be said that this Court condones the deplorable behavior of
her parents in letting her and the petitioner stay together in the same
room in their house after giving approval to their marriage. It is the
solemn duty of parents to protect the honor of their daughters and infuse
upon them the higher values of morality and dignity.
University of the East v. Jader
G.R. No. 132344
February 17, 2000
UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST, petitioner,
vs.
ROMEO A. JADER, respondent
Facts:
Romeo Jader was a law student at the University of the East from 1984 to
1988. In his first semester of his fourth year, he failed to take the regular
examination in Practice Court I for which he was given an incomplete grade.
He enrolled for the second semester and on February 1, 1988, he filed an
examination for the removal of his incomplete grade, which was approved by
the dean. He took the examination but was given a grade of 5 (failing).
The dean and the faculty members of the university deliberated as to who
among their graduating students would be allowed to graduate. Jader’s
name was in the tentative list of candidates for graduation. The invitation for
the commencement exercises also included his name, but at the foot of the
list, the following was written:
This is a tentative list Degrees will be conferred upon these candidates who
satisfactorily complete requirements as stated in the University Bulletin and
as approved of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
During the ceremony, Jader’s name was called, and he received a rolled
white sheet of paper symbolical of the law diploma. After graduation, he
took a leave of absence without pay from his job to prepare for the bar
examination and enrolled in a pre-bar review class. When he learned the
deficiency in his requirements for graduation, he dropped his review class
and was not able to take the bar exam.
Jader filed a case in the trial court, and the latter granted him the amount of
Php35,470 as well as Php5,000 for attorney’s fees. At the Court of Appeals,
the decision of the trial court was upheld, but the CA added the award for
moral damages amounting to Php50,000.
Issues:
1. Can the University of the East be held liable for actual damages?
2. Is the university liable to pay Jader moral damages?
Ruling:
1. Yes. Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of
their academic status and not wait for the latter to inquire from the former.
The conscious indifference of a person to the rights or welfare of the
person/persons who may be affected by his act or omission can support a
claim for damages. The university could not just give the grades at any time
because law students have a deadline to meet in the submission of
requirements for taking the bar. It was guilty of negligence and for violating
Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code, which provide
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.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
2. No. The Supreme Court did not agree with the findings of the Court of
Appeals that Jader suffered shock, trauma, and pain when he was informed
that he could not graduate. It was his duty to verify for himself whether he
has completed all necessary requirements to be eligible for the bar
examinations. If respondent was indeed humiliated by his failure to take the
bar, he brought this upon himself by not verifying if he has satisfied all the
requirements including his school records, before preparing himself for the
bar examination.
The Court affirmed the CA’s decision with modification. It granted Jader the
actual damages of Php35,470 with legal interest of 6 percent per annum
computed from the date of the complaint until fully paid, as well as Php5,000
for attorney’s fees. The award for moral damages, however, was deleted.
Romeo Jader graduated at UE College of law from 1984-88. During his last
year, 1st semester, he failed to take the regular final examination in
Practical Court 1where he was given an incomplete grade remarks. He filed
an application for removal of the incomplete grade given by Prof. Carlos
Ortega on February 1, 1988 which was approved by Dean Celedonio
Tiongson after the payment of required fees. He took the exam on March 28
and on May 30, the professor gave him a grade of 5.

The commencement exercise of UE College of law was held April 16, 1988,
3PM. In the invitation, his name appeared. In preparation for the bar exam,
he took a leave of absence from work from April 20- Sept 30, 1988. He had
his pre-bar class review in FEU. Upon learning of such deficiency, he dropped
his review classes and was not able to take the bar exam.

Jader sued UE for damages resulting to moral shock, mental anguish,

serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, sleepless nights
due to UE’s negligence.

ISSUE: Whether UE should be held liable for misleading a student into

believing JADER satisfied all the requirements for graduation when such is
not the case. Can he claim moral damages?

HELD:

SC held that petitioner was guilty of negligence and this liable to respondent
for the latter’s actual damages. Educational institutions are duty-bound to
inform the students of their academic status and not wait for the latter to
inquire from the former. However, respondent should not have been
awarded moral damages though JADER suffered shock, trauma, and pain
when he was informed that he could not graduate and will not be allowed to
take the bar examinations as what CA held because it’s also respondent’s
duty to verify for himself whether he has completed all necessary
requirements to be eligible for the bar examinations. As a senior law
student, he should have been responsible in ensuring that all his affairs
specifically those in relation with his academic achievement are in order.
Before taking the bar examinations, it doesn’t only entail a mental
preparation on the subjects but there are other prerequisites such as
documentation and submission of requirements which prospective examinee
must meet.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with

MODIFICATION. Petitioner is ORDERED to PAY respondent the sum of Thirty-
five Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Pesos (P35,470.00), with legal interest
of 6% per annum computed from the date of filing of the complaint until
fully paid; the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) as attorney's
fees; and the costs of the suit. The award of moral damages is DELETED.