Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abuse of Rights
Article 19, Civil Code
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.
Velayo v Shell Co, 100 Phil 168
Commercial Air Lines (CALI) was supplied by Shell Co.
of the Philippines Islands (defendant) ever since it started
its operations
As per the books of the defendant, it had reasons to
believe that the financial condition of CALI was far from
being satisfactory.
The management of CALI informally convened its
principal creditors on August 6, 1948, and informed them
that CALI was in a state of insolvency and had to stop
operations.
The creditors present agreed to the formation of a
working committee to continue the discussion of the
payment of claims and preferences alleged by certain
creditors, and it was further agreed that said working
committee would supervise the preservation of the
properties of the corporation while the creditors attempted
to come to an under standing as a fair distribution of the
assets among them.
To this committee, Mr. Fitzgerald the credit manager of
the defendant, Mr. Agcaoili of the National airports
corporation and Atty Alexander Sycip were appointed.
It was agreed upon that the creditors would not file suit
to achieve a fair pro-rata distribution, although CALI
announced that in the event of non-agreement, it was
to file for insolvency proceedings.
However, on the very day of the meeting of the working
committee, which Mr. Fitzgerald attended, the defendant
effected a telegraphic transfer of its credit against CALI to
the American corporation Shell Oil Company, Inc.,
assigning its credit, which was subsequently followed by a
deed of assignment of credit dated August 10, 1948.
1981, minus that amount (TSN, Nov. 24/87, pp. 3132; Exhs. L, L-1, L-2 and L-3).
The cash advances of P92,000.00 were the primary
obligation of Mrs. Javier, since they were secured
through her and in her name from the UCPB. That
was why they were charged to and deducted from,
her gratuity benefits. Consequently, as early as that
date and in so far as the PCA and the UCPB were
concerned, the accountability was already fully
paid. The assumption of residual liability by Mr.
Curio for the cash advances on November 26,
1981, was a matter between him and Mrs. Javier.
The general rule is that this Court is bound by the
findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan.
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.
Preliminarily, the Court notes that both the RTC and the
CA failed to indicate the particular provision of law under
which it held petitioners liable for damages. Nevertheless,
based on the allegations in respondent's complaint, it may
be gathered that the basis for his claim for damages is
Article 19 of the Civil Code, which provides:
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.
It should be stressed that malice or bad faith is at the
core of Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith is
presumed, and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to
prove the same. Bad faith, on the other hand, does not
simply connote bad judgment to simple negligence,
CA affirmed.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTS
W/N damages may be recovered for a breach
of promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of
the Civil Code
o Petitioner: As an Iranian Moslem, he is not familiar
with Catholic and Christian ways. Even if he had a
promise to marry, the subsequent failure to fulfill the same
is excusable or tolerable because of his Moslem upbringing
(apat nga pde nya pakasalan). Besides, his acts would not
be actionable because according to jurisprudence, mere
breach of promise is not actionable.
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI
YES.
IN
THIS
CASE,
PETITIONERS
STATEMENTS REVEAL HIS TRUE CHARACTER
AND
MOTIVE.
HE
HARBORS
A
CONDASCENDING,
IF
NOT
SARCASTIC
REGARD FOR MARILOU ON ACCT OF HER
BIRTH, INFERIOR EDUCL BACKGROUND,
POVERTY
AND
DISHONORABLE
EMPLOYMENT. OBVIOUSLY THEN, HE WAS
NOT AT ALL MOVED BY GOOD FAITH AND AN
HONEST MOTIVE. HIS PROFESSION OF LOVE
AND PROMISE TO MARRY WERE EMPTY
WORDS INTENDED TO DECEIVE MARILOU.
5. Right to Privacy
FACTS
This case is about the recovery of damages for a
wrongful advertisement in the Sunday Times where
Saint Louis Realty Corporation misrepresented that the
house of Doctor Conrado J. Aramil belonged to Arcadio
S. Arcadio.
FACTS
MHP Garments, Inc., was awarded by the Boy Scouts of
the Philippines, the exclusive franchise to sell and
distribute official Boy Scouts uniforms, supplies, badges,
and insignias. In their Memorandum Agreement, petitioner
corporation was given the authority to "undertake or cause
to be undertaken the prosecution in court of all illegal
sources of scout uniforms and other scouting supplies."
FACTS
Petitioner, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued
RMC 37-93 which subjected cigarette brands "Champion,"
"Hope," and "More," to 55% ad valorem tax.
Respondent company filed a petition for review with the
Court of Tax Appeals, which ultimately ruled that RMC
37-93 as defective, invalid and unenforceable. Such
pronouncement was affirmed by the CA and the SC, for
being an invalid administrative issuance.
Thereafter, respondent filed with the RTC a complaint
for damages against petitioner in her private capacity,
under Article 32, considering that the issuance of the RMC
violated the constitutional right of the respondent against
deprivation of property without due process of law and the
right to equal protection of the laws.
Petitioner's motion to dismiss was denied by the RTC,
and eventually the case got to the SC, wherein it is
contended that it is Section 38, Book I of the
Administrative Code which should be applied. Under this
provision, liability will attach only when there is a clear
showing of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence.
ISSUES
Is petitioner liable in his/her private capacity for
acts done in connection with the discharge of
the functions of his/her office?
Does Article 32 of the NCC, or Sec 38, Book I of
the Admin Code should govern in determining
whether the instant complaint states a cause of
action?
FACTS
On June 10, 1993, the legislature enacted
Republic Act No. 7654 (RA 7654), which took
effect on July 3, 1993. Prior to its effectivity, cigarette
brands 'Champion," "Hope," and "More" were considered
local brands subjected to an ad valorem tax at the rate of
20-45%. However, on July 1, 1993, or two days
before RA 7654 took effect, petitioner issued
RMC 37-93 reclassifying "Champion," "Hope," and
"More" as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign
brand subject to the 55% ad valorem tax. RMC 37-93 in
effect subjected "Hope," "More," and "Champion"
cigarettes to the provisions of RA 7654, specifically, to Sec.
142, (c)(1) on locally manufactured cigarettes which are
currently classified and taxed at 55%, and which imposes
an ad valorem tax of "55% provided that the minimum tax
shall not be less than Five Pesos (P5.00) per pack."
if the defendant did not act with malice or bad faith. [It
seems that in effect both RTC and CA ruled in favor
of Fortune Tobacco and held Vinzons-Chato liable
for damages under Art. 32 of NCC)
and who are ordinarily paid out of the public treasury. The
officers whose duties fall wholly or partially within this
class are numerous and the distinction will be readily
recognized. Thus, the governor owes a duty to the public
to see that the laws are properly executed, that fit and
competent officials are appointed by him, that unworthy
and ill-considered acts of the legislature do not receive his
approval, but these, and many others of a like nature, are
duties which he owes to the public at large and no one
individual could single himself out and assert that they
were duties owing to him alone. So, members of the
legislature owe a duty to the public to pass only wise and
proper laws, but no one person could pretend that the
duty was owing to himself rather than to another. Highway
commissioners owe a duty that they will be governed only
by considerations of the public good in deciding upon the
opening or closing of highways, but it is not a duty to any
particular individual of the community.
2. Of Duties to Individuals. - The second class above
referred to includes those who, while they owe to the
public the general duty of a proper administration of their
respective offices, yet become, by reason of their
employment by a particular individual to do some act for
him in an official capacity, under a special and particular
obligation to him as an individual. They serve individuals
chiefly and usually receive their compensation from fees
paid by each individual who employs them. A sheriff or
constable in serving civil process for a private suitor, a
recorder of deeds in recording the deed or mortgage of an
individual, a clerk of court in entering up a private
judgment, a notary public in protesting negotiable paper,
an inspector of elections in passing upon the qualifications
of an elector, each owes a general duty of official good
conduct to the public, but he is also under a special duty to
the particular individual concerned which gives the latter a
peculiar interest in his due performance.