1st Week – Human Relations, Torts and Damages
a. Discuss In re: Joaquin Borromeo, 241 SCRA 405, A.M. No. 93-7-696-0, 21
February 1995.
b. Discuss Department of Education Culture and Sports v. San Diego, G.R. No.
89572, 21 December 1989.
c. What is law as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas?
“An ordinance of reason promulgated by competent authority for the sake of the
common good.”
Ordinance of reason - rules and norms of conduct (reasonable, product of
careful deliberation).
Properly promulgated- clearly communicated to all people concerned o
(generally, laws take effect after 15 days following its publication in the
official gazette).
Competent authority - those who are vested by the people.
Common good – promotion of respect for the dignity and freedom of each
for the general welfare.
d. Discuss the hierarchy of laws. (Article 7, Republic Act No. 386 or the Civil Code
of the Philippines)
a) Constitution – created by the sovereign people through the ratification process.
b) Statutes – created by the congress.
c) Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRRs) – written by agencies in the executive
branch to put statutes into force (execute laws).
d) Jurisprudence – citing a provision of a higher level of law will win over a provision
of an inferior law.
Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-
observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former
shall be void and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when
they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. (5a)
e. Discuss the hierarchy of courts.
f. What is an obligation according to the Civil Code?
Article 1156. An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do.
Obligation to give – consist in the delivery of a movable or immovable
thing to the creditor. Example: Obligation to deliver the thing in sale,
deposit, pledge, donation, anti-chresis.
Obligation to do – covers all kinds of works or services whether physical or
mental. Example: Contract for professional services like painting,
modelling, singing.
Obligation not to do – consist in refraining from doing some acts like
producing aggravating noise, offensive odor, smoke, heat.
g. Is the Civil Code’s definition of an obligation complete?
h. Give the definition of an obligation according to Arias Ramos?
According to Arias Ramos, obligation is nothing more than the duty of a person
(debtor or obligor) to satisfy a specific and demandable claim of another person
(creditor or obligee) which if breached is enforced in court.
i. What are the sources of an obligation? Explain each.
Art. 1157. Obligations arise from:
1. Law;
2. Contracts;
3. Quasi-contracts;
4. Acts or omissions punished by law; and
5. Quasi-delicts.26
Art. 1158. Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly
determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable, and shall be regulated
by the precepts of the law which establishes them; and as to what has not been
foreseen, by the provisions of this Book.
Obligations Arising from Law. — Unlike other obligations, those derived from law
can never be presumed. Consequently, only those expressly determined in the Civil
Code or in special laws are demandable. These obligations shall be regulated by the
precepts of the law which establishes them, and as to what has not been foreseen,
by the provisions of Book IV of the Civil Code.
How can we determine whether an obligation arises from law or from some other
source, such as a contract, quasi-contract, criminal offense or quasi-delict? It must
be noted that in the birth or generation of an obligation, there is always a
concurrence between the law which establishes or recognizes it and an act or
condition upon which the obligation is based or predicated. According to Manresa,
when the law establishes the obligation and the act or condition upon which it is
based is nothing more than a factor for determining the moment when it becomes
demandable, then the law itself is the source of the obligation; however, when the
law merely recognizes or acknowledges the existence of an obligation generated by
an act which may constitute a contract, quasi-contract, criminal offense or quasi-
delict and its only purpose is to regulate such obligation, then the act itself is the
source of the obligation and not the law. Thus, if A loses a certain amount to B in a
game of chance, according to Art. 2014 of the Civil Code, the former may recover
his loss from the latter, with legal interest from the time he paid the amount lost. It
is evident that in this particular case the source of the obligation of B to refund to A
the amount which he had won from the latter is not a contract, quasi-contract,
criminal offense or quasidelict, but the law itself. The same can also be said with
regard to the obligation of the spouses to support each other, the obligations of
employers under the Labor Code, the obligations of the owners of the dominant
and servient estates in legal easements, and others scattered in the Civil Code and
in special laws.
Art. 1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the
contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.
Obligations Arising from Contracts. — A contract is a meeting of minds between
two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give
something or to render some service. As a rule, contracts are perfected by mere
consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of
what has been expressly stipulated but also to all of the consequences which
according to their nature may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law. These
contracts are commonly called consensual contracts. Once the contract is
perfected, the valid contract has the force of law binding the parties to comply
therewith in good faith, where neither one may renege therefrom without the
consent of the other. (Tiu Peck vs. CA 221 SCRA 618 [1993]) There are certain
contracts, however, called real contracts, such as deposit, pledge and
commodatum, which are not perfected until the delivery of the object of the
obligation. Whether the contract is consensual or real, the rule is that from the
moment it is perfected, obligations which may be either reciprocal or unilateral
arise. Reciprocal obligations are those where the parties are mutually or reciprocally
obliged to do or to give something; unilateral obligations, on the other hand, are
those where only one of the parties, the obligor, is obliged to do or to give
something.
Unlike other kinds of obligations, those arising from contracts are governed
primarily by the agreement of the contracting parties. This is clearly deducible not
only from the nature of contracts, but also from Art. 1169 of the Code which
declares that such obligations have the force of law between the contracting parties
and should be complied with in good faith. “Compliance in good faith’’ means
performance in accordance with the stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions of
the contract. Consequently, the Code recognizes the right of such contracting
parties to establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may
deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy. Good faith must, therefore, be observed to prevent
one party from taking unfair advantage over the other party. In the case of Royal
Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 143 SCRA 608 (1986), it was ruled that evasion by a
party of legitimate obligations after receiving the benefi ts under the contract would
constitute unjust enrichment on his part. However, in default of an agreement, the
rules found in the Civil Code regulating such obligations are applicable.
Art. 1160. Obligations derived from quasi-contracts shall be subject to the
provisions of Chapter 1, Title XVII, of this Book.
Obligations Arising from Quasi-Contracts. — Quasicontracts are those juridical
relations arising from lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts, by virtue of which the
parties become bound to each other, based on the principle that no one shall be
unjustly enriched or benefi ted at the expense of another. The most important of
these juridical relations which are recognized and regulated by the Civil Code are
negotiorum gestio and solutio indebiti. Negotiorum gestio is the juridical relation
which arises whenever a person voluntarily takes charge of the agency or
management of the business or property of another without any power or authority
from the latter. In this type of quasi-contract, once the gestor or offi cious manager
has assumed the agency or management of the business or property, he shall be
obliged to continue such agency or management until the termination of the affair
and its incidents, exercising such rights and complying with such obligations as
provided for in the Code. Solutio indebiti, on the other hand, is the juridical relation
which arises whenever a person unduly delivers a thing through mistake to another
who has no right to demand it. In this type of quasi-contract, once the delivery has
been made, the person to whom the delivery is unduly made shall have the
obligation to return the property delivered or the money paid.
The Civil Code provides other instances of quasi-contract. Examples are those found
in Articles 2159, 2164 to 2175.
In the case of Perez vs. Palomar, 2 Phil. 682, it was significantly noted that in a
quasi-contract where no express consent is given by the other party, the consent
needed in a contract is provided by law through presumption (presumptive
consent). Presumptive consent gives rise to multiple juridical relations resulting in
obligations for delivery of the thing and rendering of service.
Art. 1161. Civil obligations arising from offenses shall be governed by the penal
laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the pertinent provisions of
Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book,
regulating damages.
Obligations Arising from Criminal Offenses. — As a rule, every person liable for a
felony is also civilly liable. This principle is based on the fact that, generally, a crime
has a dual aspect — the criminal aspect and the civil aspect. Although these two
aspects are separate and distinct from each other in the sense that one affects the
social order and the other, private rights, so that the purpose of the first is to punish
or correct the offender, while the purpose of the second is to repair the damages
suffered by the aggrieved party, it is evident that the basis of the civil liability is the
criminal liability itself.
Please note, however, that there are offenses and special crimes without civil
liability. Examples are crimes of treason, rebellion, illegal possession of fi rearm and
gambling. But a person who is not criminally liable may still be civilly liable.
Art. 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the
provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of the Book, and by special laws.
Obligations Arising from Quasi-Delicts. — As it is used in this part of the Civil Code,
the term “quasi-delicts”76 refers to all of those obligations which do not arise from
law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or criminal offenses. Thus, using Art. 2176 of the
Civil Code and decided cases as bases or anchors, it may be defined as the fault or
negligence of a person, who, by his act or omission, connected or unconnected
with, but independent from, any contractual relation, causes damage to another
person. It is, therefore, the equivalent of the term “tort” in Anglo-American law.
Illustrative of the Sources of Obligation. –
1. Obligation arising from law – Like the duty of the spouses to provide
mutual support and respect to one another. Duty of tax payer to pay their
taxes to the government (BIR)
2. Obligation arising from contract – Like the duty of a contracting to fulfill
his undertaking in the contract.
3. Obligation arising from a quasi-contract – like the duty of the recipient to
return what was delivered to him by mistake.
4. Obligation arising from delict or crime – such as duty of the culprit to pay
actual damages for causing the death of a person.
5. Obligation arising from quasi-delict or tort – like the duty of the tortfeasor
to pay damages for injuries of damages to his fault, omission or negligence.
j. Discuss Article 19 of the Civil Code.
Article 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.
k. What is the principle of abuse of rights?
Article 19 of the Civil Code contains what is commonly referred to as the principle of
abuse of rights which requires that everyone must act with justice, give everyone
his due, and observe honesty and good faith. The law recognizes a primordial
limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct must be
observed. A right, though by itself legal because it is 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.
Test of Abuse of Right. — Modern jurisprudence does not permit acts which,
although not unlawful, are anti-social. There is undoubtedly an abuse of right when
it is exercised for the only purpose of prejudicing or injuring another. When the
objective of the actor is illegitimate, the illicit act cannot be concealed under the
guise of exercising a right. The principle does not permit acts which, without utility
or legitimate purpose cause damage to another, because they violate the concept
of social solidarity which considers law as rational and just. Hence, every abnormal
exercise of a right, contrary to its socio-economic purpose, is an abuse that will give
rise to liability. 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. Ultimately, however, and in practice, courts, in the
sound exercise of their discretion, will have to determine all the facts and
circumstances when the exercise of a right is unjust, or when there has been an 1. Discuss University of the East v. Jader, G.R. No. 132344, 17 February
abuse of right. 2000.

l. What is the rationale for the principle of abuse of rights?
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 harm another. Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured party will attach.
A right, although legal, may nevertheless become a source of illegality when such
right is not exercised in accordance with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and
injures another.
m. What are the elements to hold a defendant liable under the principle of abuse
of rights?
The decision in Albenson (cited in BPI Express Card Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 296
SCRA 260 [1998]) enumerates the elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 to
wit:
In order to be liable for damages under the abuse of rights principle, the following
requisites must concur:
(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.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Spain cites the following elements:
(1) the exercise of a right which is objective and apparently legal;
(2) damage or injury to an interest not specifically protected by a legal
precept; and
2. Discuss University of San Carlos v. CA, G.R. No. L-79237, 18 October
1988.
3. Discuss Tan v. Valeriano, G.R. No. 185559, 02 August 2017.
n. What is the principle of damnum absque injuria?
Under the principle of damnum absque injuria, the legitimate exercise of a person's
right, even if it causes loss to another, does not automatically result in an actionable
injury and the law does not prescribe a remedy for the loss. 
However, this principle admits of exception as when there is an abuse of a person's
right. The exercise of one's right should be clone in a manner that will not cause
injustice to another.
Example: Respondent failed to show that Nala and Atty. Del Prado's acts were done
with the sole intention of prejudicing and injuring him. It may be true that
respondent suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety and sleepless nights when he
received the demand letters; however, there is a material distinction between
damages and injury. Injury is the legal invasion of a legal right while damage is the
hurt, loss or harm which results from the injury.14 Thus, there can be damage
without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a
violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the
injured person alone; the law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act
which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. These situations are often
called damnum absque injuria.
n.1. Discuss Heirs of Nala v. Cabansag, G.R. No. 161188, 13 June 2008.

(3) immorality or anti-social character of the damage or injury caused

either with intent to injure or without serious or legitimate purpose. (5
Caguioa 28-29).

The rule is a departure from the traditional view that a person is not liable for
damages resulting from the exercise of one’s right – qui iure suo utitur neminem
laedit. (5 Caguioa 26; 5 Tolentino 60). It is practically a restatement of the Roman
Law principle of honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, jus suum cuique tribuere. (5
Caguioa 27, citing I-II Castan, 8th ed., pp. 52-53).