DOCTRINE OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS

CASE 1
CALIFORNIA CLOTHING INC. v. QUINONES G.R. No. 175822 October 23, 2013
FACTS: Respondent went inside the Guess USA Boutique in Robinson’s Department Store in Cebu City and decided to
purchase the black jeans worth P2098. While she was walking, she was confronted by a Guess employee and told her that
she failed to pay for the item she got to which respondent replied that she did and showed the receipt. Respondent then
suggested they talk about it in the Cebu Pacific office in the mall. While there, she was allegedly embarrassed and
humiliated by the Guess employees in front of their clients. The next day, Guess employees event sent a demand letter to
respondents employers. While the RTC ruled for them, CA reversed the decision saying that the acts done by the
employees were not in good faith. Petitioners pray for the reversal of the decision of CA.
ISSUE: Did the Guess employees violate Articles 20 and 21 of Civil Code of the Philippines?
RESOLUTION: The Court affirmed CA’s decision and held that the employees abused their rights and did not have
good faith in their actions against respondent where there was no clear evidence that she was evading to pay for the
merchandise. The petition is thus denied for lack of merit

CASE 2
GLOBE MACKAY CABLE v. CA, GR No. 81262, August 25, 1989
FACTS: Restituto Tobias, a purchasing agent and administrative assistant to the engineering operations manager,
discovered fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions, which caused Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp loss
of several thousands of pesos. He reported it to his immediate superior Eduardo T. Ferraren and to the Executive Vice
President and General Manager Herbert Hendry. A day after the report, Hendry told Tobias that he was number one
suspect and ordered him one week forced leave. When Tobias returned to work after said leave, Hendry called him a
“crook” and a “swindler”, ordered him to take a lie detector test, and to submit specimen of his handwriting, signature and
initials for police investigation. Moreover, petitioners hired a private investigator. Private investigation was still
incomplete; the lie detector tests yielded negative results; reports from Manila police investigators and from the Metro
Manila Police Chief Document Examiner are in favor of Tobias. Petitioners filed with the Fiscal’s Office of Manila a total
of six (6) criminal cases against private respondent Tobias, but were dismissed.
Tobias received a notice of termination of his employment from petitioners in January 1973, effective December 1972. He
sought employment with the Republic Telephone Company (RETELCO); but Hendry wrote a letter to RETELCO stating
that Tobias was dismissed by Globe Mackay due to dishonesty. Tobias, then, filed a civil case for damages anchored on
alleged unlawful, malicious, oppressive, and abusive acts of petitioners. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch IX,
through Judge Manuel T. Reyes rendered judgment in favor of private respondent, ordering petitioners to pay him eighty
thousand pesos (P80,000.00) as actual damages, two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) as moral damages, twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) as exemplary damages, thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as attorney’s fees, and costs;
hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent.

RESOLUTION: Yes. The Court, after examining the record and considering certain significant circumstances, finds that
all petitioners have indeed abused the right that they invoke, causing damage to private respondent and for which the latter
must now be indemnified: when Hendry told Tobias to just confess or else the company would file a hundred more cases
against him until he landed in jail; his (Hendry) scornful remarks about Filipinos (“You Filipinos cannot be trusted.”) as
well as against Tobias (“crook”, and “swindler”); the writing of a letter to RETELCO stating that Tobias was dismissed
by Globe Mackay due to dishonesty; and the filing of six criminal cases by petitioners against private respondent. All
these reveal that petitioners are motivated by malicious and unlawful intent to harass, oppress, and cause damage to
private respondent. The imputation of guilt without basis and the pattern of harassment during the investigations of Tobias
transgress the standards of human conduct set forth in Article 19 of the Civil Code.
The Court has already ruled that the right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not be confused with the manner
in which the right is exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal is done abusively, then the employer is
liable for damages to the employee. Under the circumstances of the instant case, the petitioners clearly failed to exercise
in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias, giving the latter the right to recover damages under Article 19 in
relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code.
CASE 3
CARPIO v. VALMONTE, GR No. 151866, September 9, 2004
FACTS: Respondent Leonora Valmonte is a wedding coordinator. Michelle del Rosario and Jon Sierra engaged her
services for their church weddinng on October 10, 1996. At about 4:30 pm on that day, Valmonte went to the Manila
Hotel and when she arrived at Suite 326-A, several persons were already there including Soledad Carpio, the aunt of the
bride.
After reporting to the bride, Valmonte went out of the suite to go to the reception hall to give the meal allowance to the
band and to pay the suppliers. Upon entering the suite, Valmonte noticed the people staring at her and it was at this
juncture that Soledad Carpio allegedly uttered the following words to Valmonte: “Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto,
nasaan ang dala mong bag? Saan ka pumunta? Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto, ikaw ang kumuha” It turned out that
after Valmonte left the room to attend to her duties, petitioner discovered that the pieces of jewelry which she placed ins i
de the comfort room in a paper bag were lost and these include diamond rings, earrings, bracelet and diamong necklace
with a total value of about 1M pesos. Valmonte was allegedly bodily searched, interrogated and trailed by the police
officers, but the pe titioner kept on saying the words “Siya lang ang lumabas ng kwarto.” Valmonte’s car was also
searched but the search yielded nothing.
Few days after the incident, petitioner received a letter from Valmonte demanding a formal letter of apology which she
wanted to be circulated to the newlyweds’ relatives and guests to redeem her smeared reputation but the petitioner did not
respond. Valmonte filed a suit for damages.
The trial court dismissed the complaint and ruled that when sought investigation for the loss of her jewelry, she was
merely exercising her right and if damage results from a person exercising his legal right, it is damnum absque injuria. It
added that no proof was presented by Valmonte to show that petitioner acted maliciously and in bad faith in pointing to
her as the culprit.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent is entitled to the award of actual and moral damages
RESOLUTION: The Court ruled that the respondent in entitled to moral damages but not to actual damages.
In the sphere of our law on human relations, one of the fundamental precepts is the principle known as “abuse of rights”
under Article 19 of the Civil Code. To find existence of an abuse of right, the following elements must be present: 1) there
is legal right or duty; 2) which is exercised in bad faith; 3) for the sole intent or prejudicing or injuring another. 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.
The Court said that petitioner’s verbal reproach against respondent was certainly uncalled for considering that by her own
account nobody knew that she brought such kind and amount of jewelry inside the paper bag. This being the case, she had
no right to attack respondent with her innuendos which were not merely inquisitve but outrightly accusatory. By openly
accusing respondent as the only person who went out of the room before the loss of the jewelry in the presence of all the
guests therein, and ordering that she be immediately bodily searched, petitioner virtually branded respondent as the thief.
Petitioner had willfully caused injury to respondent in a manner which is contrary to morals and good customs. Certainly,
petitioner transgressed the provisions of Article 19 in relation to Article 20 for which she should be held accountable.

CASE 4
Albenson Enterprises v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88694, 11 January 1993

FACTS: Petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corporation delivered to Guaranteed Industries, Inc. at Baltao Building mild
steel plates which the latter ordered and as part of the payment, a bouncing check was issued by one “Eugenio Baltao”.
Petitioner, in a sincere attempt to collect the sum of money due them, filed a criminal complaint against private
respondent Eugenio S. Baltao after the latter refused to make good the amount of the bouncing check despite demand.
However, there was a mistake of identity as there were two “Eugenio Baltaos” conducting business in the same building –
Eugenio S. Baltao and his son, Eugenio Baltao III.
It was found that the signature of the check was not of Eugenio S. Baltao and because of the alleged unjust filing of a
criminal case against him, respondent Baltao filed a complaint for damages anchored on Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the
Civil Code against petitioners.
ISSUE: Whether or not the principle of abuse of rights (Article 19) has been violated, resulting in damages under Articles
20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law.
RESOLUTION: No, petitioners could not be said to have violated the principle of abuse of rights. What prompted
petitioners to file the case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against private respondent was their failure to collect
the amount of P2,575.00 due on a bounced check which they honestly believed was issued to them by private respondent.
Petitioners had conducted inquiries regarding the origin of the check. Private respondent, however, did nothing to clarify
the case of mistaken identity at first hand. Instead, private respondent waited in ambush and thereafter pounced on the
hapless petitioners at a time he thought was propitious by filing an action for damages.
The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are the following: (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. Article 20 speaks of the general sanction
for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction. Thus, anyone who, whether
willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for
injuries suffered thereby. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following elements: 1) There is an act
which is legal; 2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; 3) and it is done with intent
to injure.
There is no proof or showing that petitioners acted maliciously or in bad faith in the filing of the case against private
respondent. Consequently, in the absence of proof of fraud and bad faith committed by petitioners, they cannot be held
liable for damages.
CASE 5
BARONS MARKETING CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PHELPS DODGE PHILS., INC., G.R. No. 126486
February 9, 1998
FACTS: August 31, 1973. Phelps Dodge appointed Barons Marketing as one of its dealers of electrical wires and cables
effective Sept. 1, 1973. Defendant was given 60 days credit for its purchases of Phelps Dodge’s electrical products.
Barons Marketing purchased, on credit, from Phelps Dodge’s electrical wires and cable in the total amount of
P4,102,483.30. This was then sold to MERALCO, Baron Mktg being the accredited supplier of the electrical requirements
of MERALCO. Under the sales invoices issued by Phelps Dodge to Barons Mktg for the subject purchases, it is stipulated
that interest at 12% on the amount of atty’s fees and collection. Baron’s Mktg paid P300,000 out of its total purchases
leaving an unpaid account of P3,802,478.20. Phelps Dodge wrote Barons Mktg demanding payment of its outstanding
obligations due Phelps Dodge. Baron Mktg responded by requesting if it could pay its outstanding account in monthly
installments of P500,000 plus 1%interest per month until full payment, this request was rejected and Phelps Dodge
demanded full payment. Phelps Dodge then filed a complaint before the Pasig Trial Court for the recovery of
P3,802,478.20 and it also prayed to be awarded with attorney’s fee at the rate of 25% of the amount demanded,
exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000, the expenses of litigation and the costs of suit. The court ruled in favor of
Phelps Dodge with the exemplary damages of P10,000 and recovery of P3,108,000. Both parties appealed. Phelps Dodge
claimed that court should have awarded the sum of P3,802,478.20. It also said that the amount awarded was a result of a
typographical error. Barons Marketing claimed that Phelps Dodge’s claim for damages is a result of “creditor’s abuse”
and it also claimed that Phelps Dodge failed to prove its cause of action against it.
ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent is guilty of abuse of right
RESOLUTION: No. a creditor cannot be considered in delay if he refuses to accept partial performance because, unless
otherwise provided by law or stipulated by the parties, a creditor cannot be compelled to accept
partial performance; however, if good faith necessitates acceptance or if the creditor abuses his right in not accepting, the
creditor will incur in delay if he does not accept such partial performance.