JULIUS BREYNN O.

DELEÑA

JD1-B

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

ASSIGNMENT:

1. Discuss the Principle of Abuse of Rights.

Article 19 of the Civil Code states that “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” in which this article is also known the
“Principle of Abuse of Rights” that every person has his right to exercise his
rights, but in the performance of the stated rights one must be always aware or
sensible of the rights of other people. Another thing why it is called the Principle
of Abuse of Rights because it connotes to us the strict limits of our rights as it
defines the maximum limitations of our rights and how our rights should be
exercised.

Hence, if one exercises his own rights and causes damage to another then he
can be liable, in the same article the law tells us that the person must observe
the elements of abuse of rights that if a person fails to do it then to a certain
extent the person is abusing its right and there is an abuse of rights when the
following elements or requisites are present; 1. The existence of legal right or
duty 2. Which is exercised in bad faith 3. For sole intent is to prejudicing or
injuring another.

One case that is related to this is the Case of Uypitching V. Quiamco were facts,
issues and ruling were as follows;

FACTS:

Respondent Ernesto C. Quiamco was approached by Davalan, Gabutero and

Generoso to amicably settle the civil aspect of a criminal case for robbery filed
by Quiamco against them. The motorcycle had been sold on installment basis to
Gabutero by petitioner Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc., a family-owned corporation
managed by petitioner. To secure its payment, the motorcycle was mortgaged to
petitioner corporation.When Gabutero could no longer pay the installments,
Davalan assumed the obligation and continued the payments. However, Davalan
stopped paying the remaining installments and told petitioner corporation’s
collector that the motorcycle had allegedly been “taken by respondent’s men.”

Thereafter, petitioner accompanied by policemen to recover the motorcycle. The

leader of the police team talked to the clerk in charge and asked for respondent.
While the police team leader and the clerk were talking, petitioner paced back
and forth inside the establishment uttering “Quiamco is a thief of a motorcycle.”

Petitioner filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the
Anti-Fencing Law against respondent. Respondent moved for dismissal because
the complaint did not charge an offense as he had neither stolen nor bought the
motorcycle. The Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint.
Respondent filed an action for damages against petitioners. He sought to hold
the petitioners liable for acts humiliated and embarrassed the respondent and
injured his reputation and integrity.

The RTC ruled that petitioner was motivated with malice and ill will when he
called respondent a thief, took the motorcycle in an abusive manner and filed a
baseless complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law.
Petitioners appealed the RTC decision but the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners’ acts violated the law as well as public morals, and
transgressed the proper norms of human relations

HELD:

Yes. Petitioners’ acts violated the law as well as public morals, and transgressed
the proper norms of human relations. No doubt, petitioner corporation, acting
through its co-petitioner Uypitching, blatantly disregarded the lawful procedure
for the enforcement of its right, to the prejudice of respondent. The basic
principle of human relations, embodied in Article 19 of the 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 every one his due, and observe honesty and
good faith.

Article 19, also known as the “principle of abuse of right,” prescribes that a
person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith,
otherwise he opens himself to liability. It seeks to preclude the use of, or the
tendency to use, a legal right (or duty) as a means to unjust ends. There is an
abuse of right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure another. 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.

Petitioners themselves in fact described their action as a “precipitate act.”

Petitioners were bent on portraying respondent as a thief. In this connection, we
quote with approval the following findings of the RTC, as adopted by the CA:
There was malice or ill-will in filing the complain because petitioner Atty.
Uypitching knew or ought to have known as he is a lawyer, that there was no
probable cause at all for filing a criminal complaint for qualified theft and fencing
activity against respondent. Petitioner had no personal knowledge that
respondent stole the motorcycle in question. He was merely told by his bill
collector that Dabalan will no longer pay the remaining installment(s) for the
motorcycle because the motorcycle was taken by the men of respondent. The
absence of probable cause necessarily signifies the presence of malice

In this case, the manner by which the motorcycle was taken at petitioners’
instance was not only attended by bad faith but also contrary to the procedure
laid down by law. Considered in conjunction with the defamatory statement,
petitioners’ exercise of the right to recover the mortgaged vehicle was utterly
prejudicial and injurious to respondent. On the other hand, the precipitate act
of filing an unfounded complaint could not in any way be considered to be in
accordance with the purpose for which the right to prosecute a crime was
established. Thus, the totality of petitioners’ actions showed a calculated design
to embarrass, humiliate and publicly ridicule respondent. Petitioners acted in an
excessively harsh fashion to the prejudice of respondent. Contrary to law,
petitioners willfully caused damage to respondent. Hence, they should indemnify
him.

2. Discuss Damnum Absque Injuria.

Damnum Absque Injuria- this is a latin principle which means “damage without
injury” it is a principle premised on the valid exercise of rights or a principle of
tort law in which some person causes damage or loss to another but does not
injure them or there can be no cause of action. This provision is under Article
20 of the Civil Code which states that “Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully
or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same”,
this means that for an action to prosper under this article the casue of action
must be defined by the law (Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code Every person
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable)

A case that is related to this provision is the case of Custodio V. Court of Appeals
were digested facts, issue and ruling are as follows;

FACTS:

Private Respondent Mabasa wanted to establish an easement of right of way

going into their property against petitioners who built an adobe wall in their
properties which thereby restricted access to the Mabasa property. Petitioners
claim that they built the wall in order to protect their persons and their property
from their intrusive neighbors. The Trial Court nonetheless ordered that an
easement be created.

Not satisfied, Mabasa went to the Court of Appeals which modified the decision
of the trial court by awarding actual damages (p65,000.00), moral damages
(p30,000.00) and exemplary damages (p10,000.00). Hence this petition.
Damages were based on the fact of loss in the form of unrealized rentals on the
property due to the adobe wall restricting access.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in awarding damages.

HELD:

Yes. The Court of Appeals erred, the award for damages has no legal basis. The
mere fact of loss does not give rise to a right to recover damages. There must be
both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by defendant and a damage to
the plaintiff resulting therefrom. Damages are merely a part of the remedy
allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.

3. Discuss Volenti non Fit Injuria.

This is a Latin word which means “to a willing person, it is not wrong” this is a
common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves
in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm may
result, they are not able to claim against the other party in tort or delict.

A simple application this provision is that if a person who is not a worker goes
into a construction site knowing the danger of the place and got himself hurt on
the process and died he cannot claim anything from the owner of the
construction site or the other party.

4. Discuss Acts Contra Bonos Mores.

This means “against good morals” which is an act that deals with Article 21 Any
person who is 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
damages that the elements of this to prosper should be 1. There is a legal act. 2.
The act is contrary to morals, good customs and public policy. 3. The act is done
with intent to injure.

One case relative to this is the case of Nikko Hotel Manila Garden V. Roberto
Reyes in which the following facts, issue and ruling were as follows;

FACTS:

Roberto Reyes (AKA Amay Bisaya), filed an action for damages under Arts. 19
and 21 against petitioners. He alleged that at around 6:00 in the evening of 13
October 1994, while he was having coffee at the lobby of Hotel Nikko, he was
spotted by his friend, Dr. Violeta Filart. Mrs. Filart invited him to join her in a
birthday party of the hotel’s manager, Mr. Masakazu Tsuruoka, and that she will
vouch for him. He then carried Filart’s present (basket of fruits) to the party.
However, while lining up at the buffet table, Reyes was stopped by Ruby Lim
(Executive Secretary for Hotel Nikko) and in a loud voice, was told to leave the
party. Filart was within hearing distance but completely ignored him when he
said that he was invited by Filart. Thereafter, he was escorted out by a Makati
policeman.

Ms. Lim said that she approached the captain waiter, Dr. Filart’s sister (Ms.
Fruto), and Capt. Batung regarding his presence, and requested Fruto & Batung
to tell Reyes to leave. Because he still lingered, she then approached Reyes when
he went to a corner to eat and requested him to leave, but when she turned
around, Reyes began making a big scene. Filart, on the other hand, stated that
she never invited Mr. Reyes to the party and that it was Reyes who volunteered
to carry the basket as he was also going to take the elevator, but he was going to
a different floor.

The RTC dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals reversed the same.
Hence, this petition for review. Petitioners contend that pursuant to the doctrine
of volenti non fit injuria, they cannot be made liable for damages as respondent
Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave for being a gate-crasher.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ruby Lim acted abusively in asking Roberto Reyes to leave the
party.

HELD:

NO. We find more credible the lower courts findings of fact. We are dealing with
a formal party in a posh, five-star hotel, for-invitation-only, thrown for the hotel’s
former Manager. To unnecessarily call attention to the presence of Mr. Reyes
would certainly reflect badly on Ms. Lim’s ability to follow the instructions of the
celebrant to invite only his close friends and some of the hotel’s personnel. In the
absence of any proof of motive on the part of Ms. Lim to humiliate Mr. Reyes and
expose him to ridicule and shame, it is highly unlikely that she would shout at
him from a very close distance.

Considering the closeness of defendant Lim to plaintiff when the request for the
latter to leave the party was made such that they nearly kissed each other, the
request was meant to be heard by him only and there could have been no
intention on her part to cause embarrassment to him. Moreover, another
problem with Mr. Reyes’s version of the story is that it is unsupported.
A common theme runs through Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act
complained of must be intentional. As applied to herein case and as earlier
discussed, Mr. Reyes has not shown that Ms. Lim was driven by animosity
against him. These two people did not know each other personally before the
evening of 13 October 1994, thus, Mr. Reyes had nothing to offer for an
explanation for Ms. Lim’s alleged abusive conduct except the statement that Ms.
Lim, being single at 44 years old, had a very strong bias and prejudice against
(Mr. Reyes) possibly influenced by her associates in her work at the hotel with
foreign businessmen. The lameness of this argument need not be belabored.

Parenthetically, the manner by which Ms. Lim asked Mr. Reyes to leave was
likewise acceptable and humane under the circumstances. Not being liable for
both actual and moral damages, neither can petitioners Lim and Hotel Nikko be
made answerable for exemplary damages.

5. Discuss the difference between the civil action crimes and from quasi
delicts. Will the extinguishment of criminal liability extinguish civil
liability?

The general rule is that when a criminal action is instituted the civil action for
the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged under article
100 of the Revised Penal Code shall deemed instituted with the criminal action.
The last sentence of section 3 of rule III of the Rules of Court states that In no
case however may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or
omission charge in the criminal action. In section 1 of the rule III of the Rule of
Court states that When a criminal action is instituted the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed
instituted with the criminal action.

While a quasi-delict is a negligent act or omission which results in harm or

damage to individual or property of another.

There are 4 stages or period where in prosecution of criminal case might be

extinguished or not and when the accused might die and this are the following.

1. Anytime before the arraignment.

When a person dies all of his criminal liabilities will be extinguished but the civil
aspect will not be extinguished as the court will go after his properties for the
payment of damages.

2. After the arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action.

The criminal and civil liability of the accused will be extinguished upon death.

When a person commits crime, he or she is in effect burdened with the need to
make payment in the form of damages. Under section 4 of rule II of the Rules of
Court, the civil liability of the accused is extinguished, when the accused dies
after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action, meaning the
obligation to pay for damages because of the crime is also extinguished. But
there are exemptions to this provision such as the following;

a. Independent civil actions under Article 32, 33, 34, 35 and 2176 maybe
continued against the estate or the legal representative of the accused
after substitution.
b. If the civil aspect of the case gas been reserved and later on filed by the
private offended party, then the civil action will also proceed after
substitution of the parties.
3. During appeal.

When the accused dies during the appeal then the general rule will be followed.
The criminal liability is extinguished based on article 89 of the Revised Penal
Code, the civil liability on the other hand is also extinguished, however only the
civil liability of the accused arising from the crimes or delicts is extinguished. If
the private offended party can anchor his or her claims for damages upon
another source of obligation such as a contract or quasi-delicts or some other
provisions of the law then the civil action based on another source of obligation
will proper.

4. After judgement.

If a person dies after judgement the following scenarios will be considered in the
extinguishment of his or her criminal and civil liability.

a. Accused is convicted and he has to pay.

b. Accused is convicted and has no obligation to pay.
c. Accused is acquitted but he has to pay.
d. Accused is acquitted but he has no obligation to pay.

All of these scenarios, the civil liabilities of the accused is not extinguished and
can be paid from the estate and other properties.

The are a lot of Supreme Court cases that was ruled with regards to this matter
and some of them are the following cases.

Barredo V. Garcia, Pimentel V. Pimentel, Nuguid V. Nicdao, Romero V. People,

People V. Bayotas and Ruiz V. Ucol.