ART 19 (PRINCIPLE OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS) Tobias applied for a job in RETELCO (republic telephone company) but
Globe Mackay furnished a letter saying he was dismissed due to
I. GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP. AND HERBERT
HENDRY, petitioners VS CA and RESTITO M. TOBIAS,
respondents
[G.R. No. 81262 August 25, 1989]
Facts: Tobias was employed by Globe Mackay in a dual capacity as a
purchasing agent and administrative assistant to the engineering
operations manager. On 1972, Globe Mackay discovered fictitious
purchases and fraudulent transactions. Tobias was the one who
discovered the anomalies and reported the same on November 1972 to
his immediate superior Eduardo Ferraren and Herbert Henry (Executive
VP and General Manager). One day after, Henry confronted Tobias and
ordered him to have 1 week forced leave.
On Nov. 20, Tobias returned to work and Henry confronted him calling
him a crook and swindler. He ordered him to undergo a lie detection test
and submit special specimen of his handwriting, signature and initials to
police investigators. On Dec 6, the lab crime report cleared Tobias of his
participation. Henry still persisted on hiring a private investigator, Jose
Fernandez, his findings on Dec. 10, found Tobias guilty although the
investigation was not yet complete. On Dec. 12, Henry issued a
memorandum suspending Tobias in preparation for filing the Criminal
complaints against him.
On Dec, 19, Lt. Tagle of the Metro Manila Police Chief Document
Examiner found Tobias not guilty and said the lie detector test yielded
negative results. Still, Henry Filed 6 criminal complaints against Tobias
to the City Fiscal of Manila, a complaint for estafa (of commercial
documents) and violation of Art. 290 of the RPC (discovering secrets
through seizure of correspondence) – 2 cases for refilled with the Judge
Advocate General’s office but were remanded to the fiscal.
All complaints were dismissed and while on appeal on January 17, 1973,
Tobias’ employment was terminated. Tobias filed a case for illegal
dismissal to the Labor arbiter, the same dismissed it and NLRC reversed
the decision on appeal. The Sec. of Labor, affirmed L.A and appeal was
then with the office of the president. There was a compromise
agreement pending appeal.
dishonesty. Tobias filed a civil case for damages for the unlawful,
malicious, oppressive and abusive acts of Globe. Globe’s defense was
that it was a lawful exercise of their right to dismiss. Tobias argument
was that it was an abusive manner of dismissal an inhumane treatment.
ISSUE: W/N Globe Mackay is liable for damages
Held: Yes. The NCC set some basic principles that are to be observed for
the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of
social order.
ART 19: EVERY PERSON MUST, IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHT AND
PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES ACT WITH JUSTICE, GIVE EVERYONE
HIS DUE, AND OVSERVE HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH.
The principle of abuse of rights sets certain standards which must be
observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also the
performance of a duty. Each right has a primordial limitation. Inclusion
of Art. 20 & 21 for damages in violation of a law and for manner contrary
to morals, good customs or public policy.
There is NO rigid test in application. Imputation of guilt without basis
and pattern of harassment during the investigation transgress the
standards of human conduct. The right of dismissal is different from the
manner in which it is exercised. The tortious acts of globe was the threat
to file “a hundred” more cases against Tobias, remarks that Filipinos
should not be trusted and the letter sent to RETELCO (ART 2176). Globe
defended that it was their legal duty to warn RETELCO AND that the 6
criminal complaints had no filing against them for malicious persecution
(to vex or humiliate a person knowing the charges are false), as the right
to institute criminal prosecutions cannot be exercised in bad faith.
Petitioners acted in BAD FAITH. The criminal cases were filed in the
pendency of the illegal dismissal claims. Damnum absque injuria
(damage which does not constitute a violation of a legal right is not
actionable) CANNOT be applied. ART. 2231 states quasi delicts may be
awarded with exemplary damages if the defendant acted with gross
negligence. P330, 000.00 was awarded.
 II. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST, petitioner VS ROMEO JADER,
respondent
[G.R. No. 132344           February 17, 2000]
Facts: Jader was enrolled in UE college of law (1984-1988). On the first
sem of his last year, he failed to take a final exam for practice court I and
was given an incomplete grade. He enrolled in his second semester and
filed an application for removal of incomplete grade given by Professor
Ortega, this was approved by Dean Tiongson after payment of the
required fee. On March 1988, he took the exam and Professor Ortega
submitted his grade of 5.
The dean and faculty deliberated on the list probable graduates where
Jader’s name has an annotation with a “Def. Conflict of Laws — x-1-87-
88, Practice Court I Inc., 1-87-88 C-1 to submit transcript with S.O”
The 35th investitutes and commencement for LLB was held on April 16,
1988 and the invitation had Jader’s name however the bottom of the list
had an annotation with “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”. Jader went to the F. Dela Cruz
quadrangle in UE, Recto Campus with his mother and eldest brother. He
was also given the white paper symbolizing the diploma by Dean
Tiongson. He had a celebration after. He filed a leave of absence without
pay from april to September for bar review in FEU. He then learned of
the deficiency and dropped from review unable to take the bar.
Jader said he suffered shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, sleepless nights and should be awarded moral
and exemplary damages with unrealized income. UE’s defense was that
it never led Jader to believe that he completed the requirements.
RTC: P40, 470.00 damages awarded to Jader
CA: P50,000.00 damages awarded to Jader.
Appeal by UE: Rule 45 (R.o.C), and the proximate and immediate cause of
the alleged damages was his negligence in not verifying from the
professor his result of his exam and removal thereof.
ISSUE: W/N UE was liable for damages
Held: YES. When a student is enrolled in an educational institution, a
contract of education is entered into. The teachers are mere agents and
administrators to perform the school’s commitments. Students are not
bound to deal with the agents. The traditional practice was to timely
inform and give sufficient notice and information to each and every
student as to whether they complied with the requirement for
contentment of a degree, as the commencement exercise was no regular
occasion. Prior or after to the ceremony, the school should have been
obliged to inform the student of any problem with grades or
performance AND the proper procedure for remedy.
Belatedly informing Jader of the result of the removal of his examination
at the time he was preparing for the bar was done in BAD FAITH. Good
faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking undue
advantage of another. The absence of good faith must be sufficiently
established.
The school had access to the information needed and can compel
teachers to act and comply with the rules and regulations for the
computation and prompt submission of grades that student shave no
influence over as the school exercised the general supervision needed.
The dean was the senior officer responsible for the operations of
programs and enforcement of rules and regulations. Negligence of the
teacher was imputable to the school. Educational institutions are duty-
bound to inform the students of their status.
Art 19 and 20 of the Civil Code was used to expand the concept of torts
by granting adequate legal remedy for wrongs not provided for in laws.
As a civilized society, we should assure other will not do anyone wrong
or inflict injury. The theory of liability has a justifiable reliance under
conditions of civilized society.
The conscious indifference of a person to the rights or welfare of the
person who may be affected by his act or omission can support a claim
for damages. Want of care with a conscious knowledge of the cause
naturally calculated to produce the damage makes them liable. The dean
was informed of the grade but failed to explain the proper remedy
available to Jader. However Jader cannot be awarded moral damages
because as a senior law student, it was his duty to verify all his affairs.
The damages were the same as the RTC
 IV. Heirs of PURISIMA NALA, represented by their attorney-
in-fact EFEGENIA DUYAN, petitioners,  vs. ARTEMIO
CABANSAG, respondent.
[G.R. No. 161188             June 13, 2008]
Facts: Cabansag filed a civil case for damages on October 1991. He
bought a 50 sq. meter property from Eugenio and Felisa Gomez on July
1990, this was part of a 400 sq. meter lot owned by the spouses.
On October 1991, a demand letter was sent to Cabansag from attorney
Del Prado, in behalf of Pusrisima Nala for the payment of rentals from
1987 to 1991 until he leaves the premises, as said property is owned by
Nala, failing which criminal and civil actions will be filed against him.
Another demand letter was sent on May 14, 1991. Because of such
demands, respondent suffered damages and was constrained to file the
case against Nala and Atty. Del Prado.
Atty Del Prado said he acted in good faith on behalf of his client. Nala’s
late husband, Eulogio Duyan, owned the 800 sq. meter lot. The lot was
divided into two 400 sq. meter lots and there was a fictitious sale one
half to the Gomez spouse with the agreement that it will be held by them
as a trust for the Duyan children. The transfer certificate title of the sale
was covered under TCT 281115, Nala thought the respondent was
merely renting.
RTC: In favor of Cabansag with 200k damages
CA: Affirmed with 50k damages
RTC also dismissed and action for reconveyance of real property and
cancellation of TCT based on the CA’s decision.
ISSUE/s: W/N CA ERRED in consideration of Nala’s right and interest
over the property.
W/N CA ERRED in considering the CA’s decision in the action of
reconveyance.
W/N CA ERRED in awarding damages.
Held: YES on all accounts.
Petitioners had every right to protect and assert their interests over the
property. At the time the demand letters were sent, Nala had no
knowledge that the lot was sold by the spouses to respondent, she
thought that they were only managing the rent and were still implied in
the trust agreement. Their failure to remit rental payments caused the
demand letters.
Both lower courts failed to indicate the particular provision of law
under which the petitioners are made liable for damages.
Art. 19 of the Civil Code provides the requisites under the abuse of rights
principle:
1) existence of a legal right or duty
2) which is exercised in bad faith
3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
Bad faith is the core of article 19, not simply based on bad judgement to
simple negligence, it is based on the intention to do ulterior and
unjustifiable harm. In the present case, there was no bad faith as there
was a ground for Nala’s action since she truly believed that the property
was ownded by her late husband and given as a trust to the spouses, not
knowing the spouses violated it. It was only AFTER Cabansag showed
the TCT that she learned of such sale.
There is material distinction between injury and damages. Injury is the
legal invasion of a legal right while Damages is the hurt/loss/harm
resulting from the injury. There can also be NO DAMAGES resulting from
an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong/ damnun
absque injuria.
The CA also reversed the decision on the action for the ordered
reconveyance and reconveyed property to the heirs and cancelled the
TCT.