Globemackay
exercise of one's rights but also in the
Private respondent Tobias filed a civil
case for damages anchored on alleged
unlawful, malicious, oppressive, and
abusive acts of petitioners.
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. Petitioners appealed the RTC
decision to the Court of Appeals. On the
other hand, Tobias appealed as to the
amount of damages. However, the Court
of Appeals, an a decision dated August
31, 1987 affirmed the RTC decision in
toto. Petitioners' motion for
reconsideration having been denied, the
instant petition for review
on certiorari was filed
Petitioners contend that they could not be
made liable for damages in the lawful
exercise of their right to dismiss private
respondent.
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.
This article, known to contain what is
commonly referred to as the principle of
abuse of rights, sets certain standards
which must be observed not only in the
the damage.
performance of one's duties. These
standards are the following: to act with
justice; to give everyone his due; and to
observe honesty and good faith
he law, therefore, recognizes a primordial
limitation on all rights; that in their
exercise, the norms of human conduct set
forth in Article 19 must be observed
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.
Article 20, which pertains to damage
arising from a violation of law, provides
that:
Art. 20. Every person who
contrary to law, wilfully or
negligently causes
damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the
same.
Art. 21. Any person who
wilfully causes loss or
injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or
public policy shall
compensate the latter for
This article, adopted to remedy the
"countless gaps in the statutes, which
leave so many victims of moral wrongs
helpless, even though they have actually
suffered material and moral injury" [Id.]
should "vouchsafe adequate legal
remedy for that untold number of moral
wrongs which it is impossible for human
foresight to provide for specifically in the
statutes"
If the dismissal is done
abusively, then the
employer is liable for
damages to the employee
[Quisaba v. Sta. Ines-
Melale Veneer and
Plywood Inc., G.R. No. L-
38088, August 30, 1974,
58 SCRA 771; See
also Philippine Refining
Co., Inc. v. Garcia, G.R.
No. L-21871, September
27,1966, 18 SCRA 107]
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.
 EULOGIO OCCENA,
We tackle the second issue by
determining the basis of civil liability
arising from crime. Civil obligations
arising from criminal offenses are
governed by Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code which provides
that" (E)very person criminally liable
for a felony is also civilly liable," in
relation to Article 2177 of the Civil
Code on quasi-delict, the provisions
for independent civil actions in the
Chapter on Human Relations and the
provisions regulating damages, also
found in the Civil Code.
As a general rule, a person who is
found to be criminally liable offends
two (2) entities: the state or society
in which he lives and the individual
member of the society or private
person who was injured or damaged
by the punishable act or omission
Article 2219, par. (7) of the Civil
Code allows the recovery of moral
damages in case of libel, slander or
any other form of defamation
It must be remembered that every
defamatory imputation is presumed
to be malicious, even if it be true, if
no good intention and justifiable
motive for making it is shown. And the fact that he is a married
malice may be inferred from the
man. Verily, he has
style and tone of publication 5
subject to certain exceptions which committed an injury to
are not present in the case at bar. Lolita's family in a manner
contrary to morals, good
Calling petitioner who was a
barangay captain an ignoramus, customs and public policy as
traitor, tyrant and Judas is clearly an contemplated in Article 21 of
imputation of defects in petitioner’s the new Civil Code.
character sufficient to cause him
embarrassment and social
humiliation.
WHEREFORE, the decision
appealed from is reversed.
Defendant is hereby
CECILIO PE, ET AL.\ sentenced to pay the
plaintiffs the sum of
There is no doubt that the
P5,000.00 as damages and
claim of plaintiffs for P2,000.00 as attorney's fees
damages is based on the and expenses of litigations.
fact that defendant, being a Costs against appellee.
married man, carried on a
love affair with Lolita Pe
thereby causing plaintiffs
injury in a manner contrary
to morals, good customs
and public policy
he wrong he has caused her
and her family is indeed
immeasurable considering
HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU AND amount can be measured with ST. LOUIS REALTY CORPORATION,
TALINANAP MATUALAGA reasonable accuracy. "An Judge Jose M. Leuterio observed that St.
irreparable injury which a court of Louis Realty should have immediately
equity will enjoin includes that published a rectification and apology. He
Finally, granting that there is strong degree of wrong of a repeated and found that as a result of St. Louis Realty's
evidence to prove private continuing kind which produce mistake, magnified by its utter lack of
respondents’ ownership and hurt, inconvenience, or damage sincerity, Doctor Aramil suffered mental
possession of the disputed lot, still, that can be estimated only by anguish and his income was reduced by
they are not entitled to the grant of conjecture, and not by any about P1,000 to P1,500 a month.
preliminary mandatory injunction. accurate standard of Moreover, there was violation of Aramil's
As the damages alleged by them can measurement." An irreparable right to privacy (Art. 26, Civil Code).
be quantified, it cannot be injury to authorize an injunction
considered as "grave and irreparable consists of a serious charge of, or is
injury" as understood in law: chanrobles v irt ua1aw 1ib ra ry

destructive to, the property it e Appellate Court reasoned out that St.
affects, either physically or in the Louis Realty committed an actionable
It is settled that a writ of preliminary character in which it has been held quasi-delict under articles 21 and 26 of
injunction should be issued only to and enjoined, or when the property the Civil Code because the questioned
prevent grave and irreparable has some peculiar quality or use, so advertisements pictured a beautiful house
injury, that is, injury that is actual, that its pecuniary value will not which did not belong to Arcadio but to
substantial, and demonstrable. fairly recompense the owner of Doctor Aramil who, naturally, was
Here, there is no "irreparable injury" the loss thereof. (Emphasis annoyed by that contretemps.
as understood in law. Rather, the supplied)
damages alleged by the petitioner, Persons, who know the residence of
Here, any damage petitioner may Doctor Aramil, were confused by the
namely, "immense loss in profit and
possible damage claims from suffer is easily subject to distorted, lingering impression that he
clients" and the cost of the billboard mathematical computation and, if was renting his residence from Arcadio or
which is "a considerable amount of proven, is fully compensable by that Arcadio had leased it from him. Either
money" is easily quantifiable, and damages. Thus, a preliminary way, his private life was mistakenly and
certainly does not fall within the injunction is not warranted. As unnecessarily exposed. He suffered
concept of irreparable damage or diminution of income and mental anguish.
injury as described in Social Security WHEREFORE, the judgment of the
Commission v. Bayona: chanrob les vi rtua 1aw 1ib rary
he writ of injunction – Appellate Court is affirmed. Costs against
Damages are irreparable within the the petitioner.
meaning of the rule relative to the should never issue when an action
issuance of injunction where there for damages would adequately
is no standard by which their compensate the injuries caused.
JOSE B. LEDESMA, The rationale behind
exemplary or corrective
his petition seeks to reverse the decision of damages is, as the name
the respondent Court of Appeals which implies, to provide an
afirmed the decision of the Court of First example or correction for
Instance of Iloilo, adjudging the petitioner, the public good
who was then the President of the West
Visayas College liable for damages under
Article 27 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines for failure to graduate a
FILOMENO
student with honors.
URBANO,
There is no argument that moral damages
include physical suffering, mental 5. ID.; CIVIL
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, LIABILITY; JUDGMENT
besmirched reputation, wounded OF ACQUITTAL DOES
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, NOT NECESSARILY
and similar injury. Though incapable of EXTINGUISH CIVIL
pecuniary computation, moral damages LIABILITY. — It does
may be recovered if they are the not necessarily follow
proximate result of defendant's wrongly that the petitioner is
act or omission. also free of civil
liability. The well-
Defendant, being a public officer should settled doctrine is that
have acted with circumspection and due a person, while not
regard to the rights of Miss Delmo. criminally liable, may
Inasmuch as he exceeded the scope of still be civilly liable.
his authority by defiantly disobeying the Thus, in the recent
lawful directive of his superior, Director case of People v.
Bernardino, defendant is liable for Rogelio Ligon y Tria,
damages in his personal capacity. . Et. Al. (G.R. No.
74041, July 29, 1987),
Based on the undisputed facts, exemplary we said: . . .." . . While
damages are also in order. In the same the guilt of the
case of Prudenciado v. Alliance Transport accused in a criminal
System, Inc., supra., at p. 450, we ruled: prosecution must be
established beyond
reasonable doubt, only
a preponderance of
evidence is required in
a civil action for
damages. (Article 29,
Civil Code). The
judgment of acquittal
extinguishes the civil
liability of the accused
only when it includes a
declaration that the
facts from which the
civil liability might
arise did not exist.
(Padilla v. Court of
Appeals, 129 SCRA
559)\
The claim of appellant
that there was an
efficient cause which
supervened from the
time the deceased
was wounded to the
time of his death,
which covers a period
of 23 days does not
deserve serious
consideration. True,
that the deceased did
not die right away
from his wound, but
the cause of his death
was due to said
wound which was
inflicted by the
appellant. Said wound
which was in the
process of healing got
infected with tetanus
which ultimately
caused his death.