CHAPTER 2

HUMAN RELATIONS (n)

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.

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same.

Art. 21. Any person who 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 the damage.

Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires
or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground,
shall return the same to him.

Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault
or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event
he was benefited.

Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage
on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other
handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.

Art. 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute
public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any
government or private charitable institution.

Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life,
place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses
or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and
other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may
be taken.

Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through
the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded
method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.
Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission
may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence.  Upon motion of the
defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the
complaint should be found to be malicious.

If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so
declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.

Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal
offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a
preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.

Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission
complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings
and regardless of the result of the latter.

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and
liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

(1)  Freedom of religion;

(2)  Freedom of speech;

(3)  Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;

(4)  Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;

(5)  Freedom of suffrage;

(6)  The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;

(7)  The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;

(8)  The right to the equal protection of the laws;

(9)  The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures;

(10)  The liberty of abode and of changing the same;

(11)  The privacy of communication and correspondence;

(12)  The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary
to law;

(13)  The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress
of grievances;
 (14)  The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;

(15)  The right of the accused against excessive bail;

(16)  The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witness in his behalf;

(17)  Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced
to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such
confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;

(18)  Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional; and

(19)  Freedom of access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate
and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a
preponderance of evidence.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission
constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely
separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.

Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or
protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily
liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil
action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance
of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

Art. 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the
same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the
justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or
the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring
a civil action for damages against the alleged offender.  Such civil action may be supported by a
preponderance of evidence.  Upon the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to
file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.

If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting
attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.
 Art. 36. Pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be
instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which the Supreme Court shall
promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code. 

HUMAN RELATIONS (Article 19 – 36, NCC)

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.

• A right, though by itself is legal because it is recognized and granted by law as such, may however
become a source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in the manner exercised contrary with the
norms in Art 19 and results in damage to another.

Principle of Abuse of Rights:

• Refers to acts that when performed are not illegal but nevertheless make the actor liable for damages,
if in so exercising his right, his purpose is to prejudice or injure another.

The absence of good faith is essential in abuse of rights. Its elements are:

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 Article 21
Nature of the act Act or omission Act or omission
covers both covers only
negligent and intentional acts.
intentional acts.
What makes the act Act or omission Contrary to morals,
actionable is contrary to public policy or
law. good customs.

Albenson Enterprises vs. CA

• Albenson delivered steel plates to Guaranteed, where it was issued a check as payment for the same.

• The check bounced and Albenson inquired with the SEC and the drawee bank to determine the owner
of Guaranteed/issuer of the check, who was later found to be Eugenio Baltao.

• Albenson demanded for payment from Baltao but the latter denied that he was the one who issued
the check. The former then filed a criminal case for violation of BP22 against the latter.

• It was later discovered that private respondent had son: Eugene Baltao III, who manages the business
establishment, EL Woodworks. No effort from the father to inform Albenson of such information. Rather
the father filed complaint for damages against Albenson for the unjust filing of the criminal case against
him.

• The RTC and CA ruled in Baltao’s favor and Albenson sought recourse from the SC.

Supreme Court Ruling

• The court ruled that ALbenson didn’t have the intent to cause damage to the respondent or enrich
themselves, but rather just to collect what was due to them.

• There was no abuse of right on the part of Albenson on accusing Baltao of BP 22 as the latter failed to
inform Albenson that there were three persons with the same name. Instead, he waited for the
opportunity to pounce and file for damages.

• The SC reversed and set aside the ruling of the CA.

Pantaleon vs. American Express, Inc.

• Respondents were in Amsterdam, purchasing jewelry at a store worth $13,826.00. However, approval
from the AMEX Manila office took too long, lasting more than an hour, leaving the respondents
ashamed for making their foreign tour companions wait for them.

• The same unusual delay in the approval of the credit card transaction happened twice in the US.

• Petitioners demanded for an apology from AMEX but the latter declined, causing him to file a suit for
damages before the RTC for the humiliation said delay caused him and his family.

• RTC ruled in his favor but the CA reversed it. Pantaleon sought recourse from the SC.

Supreme Court Ruling

• More importantly, even if Pantaleon did prove that AMEX, as a matter of practice or custom, acted on
its customers purchase requests in a matter of seconds, this would still not be enough to establish a
legally demandable right; as a general rule, a practice or custom is not a source of a legally demandable
or enforceable right.

• It is an elementary rule in our jurisdiction that good faith is presumed and that the burden of proving
bad faith rests upon the party alleging it. [40] Although it took AMEX some time before it approved
Pantaleons three charge requests, we find no evidence to suggest that it acted with deliberate intent to
cause Pantaleon any loss or injury, or acted in a manner that was contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy.

• Because AMEX neither breached its contract with Pantaleon, nor acted with culpable delay or the
willful intent to cause harm, we find the award of moral damages to Pantaleon unwarranted. Similarly,
we find no basis to award exemplary damages. In contracts, exemplary damages can only be awarded if
a defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
Cebu Country Club vs. Elizagaque

• SMC, a special company proprietary member of CCCI, designated one of its officials to be a special
non-proprietary member.

• Later, Elizagaque filed an application for proprietary membership, as endorsed by two existing proprietary
members.

• The CCCI deferred action on Elizagaque’s membership, and later was finally denied. The latter wrote multiple
letters of reconsideration and inquiry on why he eas denied, but the former never responded.

• Elizagaque filed an action for damages with the RTC and was awarded the same. The CA modified (reduced) the
damages awarded by the RTC.

• CCCI sought recourse before the SC.

Supreme Court Ruling

• Even if the CCI had the right to reject membership, the same action violated Arts. 19 and 21 of the Civil Code on
Human Relations, the basic principles to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for
the stability of social order.

• The RTC and CA were right that CCCI committed fraud and evident bad faith in disapproving respondent’s
applications. This is contrary to morals, good custom or public policy. Hence, petitioners are liable for damages
pursuant to Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the same Code.

• The exercise of a right, though legal by itself, must nonetheless be in accordance with the proper norm. When
the right is exercised arbitrarily, unjustly or excessively and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is
committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.6 It bears reiterating that the trial court and the
Court of Appeals held that petitioners’ disapproval of respondent’s application is characterized by bad faith.

• CCCI’s petition was denied, and the CA’s decision was affirmed, with reduction in the amount of damages.

Baksh vs. CA

• Baksh, an Iranian medical student at Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan, courted a girl and promised to
marry her. As a result, they started living together and started looking for sponsors for the wedding.

• Baksh then retracted the offer of marriage and asked the girl not to live with her anymore. The latter claims that
she was maltreated by the former, a matter which she brought before the barangay captain.

• The girl then went home and proceeded to sue the Iranian for damages. She was awarded the same by the RTC.

• The Iranian then appealed and filed for a counterclaim, which was rejected. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision,
causing the Iranian to seek recourse before the SC.

Supreme Court Ruling

• A breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, but the SC ruled that the Iranian’s acts could justify
the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and
deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential,
however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy.

• Petitioner clearly violated the Filipino's concept of morality and brazenly defied the traditional respect Filipinos
have for their women. It can even be said that the petitioner committed such deplorable acts in blatant disregard
of Article 19 of the Civil Code which directs every person to act with justice, give everyone his due and observe
honesty and good faith in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his obligations.

• No foreigner must be allowed to make a mockery of our laws, customs and traditions.

Nikko Hotel vs. Roberto Reyes aka “Amay Bisaya”

• An exclusive party was being held at Nikko Hotel in celebration of the hotel manager’s birthday.

• Amay Bisaya was having coffee on the lobby when he was approached by an old friend, Dr. Filart to
join them in the party, despite not being on the guest list.

• When the buffet was about to be served, Amay Bisaya was stopped by the Hotel’s Executive Secretary,
Ms. Lim, exclaiming with a loud "huwag ka nang kumain, hindi ka imbitado, bumaba ka na lang." Such
was heart by the other guests which caused humiliation to Amay. Worse, his friend, Dr. Filart heard this
but completely ignored him and his situation.

• Feeling like a common criminal, he was escorted out by policemen.

• The above facts were disputed by the hotel’s executive secretary and Dr. Filart, claiming that Amay
was never invited and that he refused to leave after being politely told to do so.

• Amay Bisaya filed a case for damage before the RTC which was dismissed. This prompted the former
to appeal to the CA, which reversed the RTC’s decision saying that the act of not letting Amay finish his
food and asking him to leave violated Art. 21 of the Civil Code. The CA also ruled that Ms. Lim should
have directly talked to Amay instead of asking other people to do so.

Supreme Court Ruling

• The SC gave credence to the RTC’s ruling. 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.

• It held that 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. Amay was a gatecrasher and Ms. Lim had been in the hotel business for more than 20 years.

• Ms. Lim, not having abused her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party to which he was not invited,
cannot be made liable to pay for damages under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Necessarily, neither
can her employer, Hotel Nikko, be held liable as its liability springs from that of its employee.

• The CA decision is set aside and the RTC decision affirmed.

Globe Mackay vs. CA

• Tobias, a purchasing agent and administrative assistant to the engineering operations manager,
allegedly 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, after
which, he was asked to go on forced leave.

• An investigation by Manila Police cleared Tobias but his superiors were not satisfied and hired a
private investigator which found him guilty. He was then terminated from work.

• Jobless, Tobias applied at RETELCO but Hendry, EVY of Globe Mackay wrote to them claiming that
Tobias was dismissed for dishonesty.

• Tobias filed a civil case for damages anchored on alleged unlawful, malicious, oppressive, and abusive
acts of petitioners and was granted a decision in his favor.

• Globe Mackay and the EVP appealed with the CA, which affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto. This led to
Globe Mackay to seek for recourse before the SC. Petitioners claimed that they could not be made liable
for damages in the lawful exercise of their right to dismiss private respondent.

Supreme Court Ruling

• The SC ruled that, although Art 20 was not violated because it was their legal right to dismiss Tobias,
such is not the case with Art 21.

• The SC held that petitioners were not content with just dismissing Tobias. Several other tortious acts
were committed by petitioners against Tobias after the latter's termination from work, with the filing of
criminal charges and writing a letter to RETELCO, preventing Tobias from finding work.

• The SC agreed that the filing of numerous cases against Tobias was malicious and done in bad faith.

• The SC affirmed the decision of the CA.

De Jesus vs. Syquia

• Syquia met Antonia at Syquia’s brother-in-law’s barber shop. They had intimate relations and the
latter bore a child.

• Syquia lived with Antonia and her mother in a family-style set-up. As time progressed, Syquia’s interest
in the relationship decreased, and when Antonia showed signs of being pregnant with a second child,
Syquia left them, and he married another woman.

• Antonia then sued Syquia for damages for breach of a marriage promise, to compel the defendant to
recognize Ismael (1st) and Pacita (2nd) as natural children begotten by him with Antonia, and to pay for
the maintenance of the three the amount of P500 per month, together with costs.

• The Court of First Instance entered a decree requiring Syquia to recognize the first baby as his natural
child and to pay maintenance for him at the rate of P50 per month, with costs, dismissing the action in
other respects
Supreme Court Ruling

• The SC affirmed the CFI’s ruling.

• The SC held that the CFI was right in refusing to give damages to the plaintiff, Antonia Loanco, for
supposed breach of promise to marry. Such promise is not satisfactorily proved, and we may add that
the action for breach of promise to marry has no standing in the civil law, apart from the right to recover
money or property advanced by the plaintiff upon the faith of such promise. This case exhibits none of
the features necessary to maintain such an action. Furthermore, there is no proof upon which a
judgment could be based requiring the defendant to recognize the second baby, Pacita Loanco.

Magbanua, et al. vs. IAC

• Petitioners allege that they are leasehold tenants of the defendants, and that the latter barred water
flow, making them unable to continue planting palay. They filed a case with the trial court that they be
declared as leasehold tenants and that the defendants be ordered to pay attorney's fees and different
kinds of damages

• The trial court granted judgment in their favor. The defendants appealed to the IAC and the former
affirmed the judgment of the trial court but removed the award of moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees.

• The petitioners then appealed to the SC for the reinstatement of the moral and exemplary damages
and the attorney's fees

Supreme Court Ruling:

• The SC ruled that the plaintiffs (now petitioners) are entitled to a measure of moral damages. Article
2219 of the Civil Code permits the award of moral damages for acts mentioned in Article 21 of the same
code and the latter stipulates that: "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 the damage."

• It appears that the petitioners were denied irrigation water for their farm lots in order to make them
vacate their landholdings. The defendants violated the plaintiffs' rights and caused prejudice to the
latter by the unjustified diversion of the water.

• The petitioners are also entitled to exemplary damages because the defendants acted in an oppressive
manner. (See Art. 2232. Civil Code.)

• It follows from the foregoing that the petitioners are also entitled to attorney's fees but the size of the
fees as well as the damages is subject to the sound discretion of the court.

• The SC reinstated the award for damages and attorney’s fees but reduced it.
Bunag vs. CA

• Plaintiff-appellant (Zenaida) claimed that the defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr., together with an
unidentified male companion, abducted her in the vicinity of the San Juan de Dios Hospital in Pasay City
and brought her to a motel where she was raped. Zenaida and Bunag were once sweethearts prior to
the abduction incident.

• Zenaida pleaded Bunag to allow her to go home but he said he would only let her go after they
married, so they went to the house of Bunag’s grandmother where they lives together for some time.

• Bunag, Jr. and Zdenaida then filed their respective applications for a marriage license with the Office of
the Local Civil Registrar of Bacoor, Cavite. But later, after leaving Zenaida, Bunag, filed an affidavit
withdrawing his application for a marriage license, leaving Zenaida humiliated.

• Zenaida then filed a complaint for damages for alleged breach of promise to marry at the Regional
Trial Court.

• The RTC rendered a decision ordering petitioner Bunag, Jr. to pay private respondent P80,000.00 as
moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, P20,000.00 by way of temperate damages, and
P10,000.00 for and as attorney's fees, as well as the costs of suit.

• Zenaida and Bunag appealed at the CA. This was rejected by the CA, thereby affirming the RTC’s ruling.

• Bunao then went to the SC, alleging that since action involves a breach of promise to marry, the trial
court erred in awarding damages.

Supreme Court Ruling

• The SC agrees that, generally, a breach of promise to marry per se is not actionable, except where the
plaintiff has actually incurred expenses for the wedding and the necessary incidents thereof

• However, under Art. 21 of the Civil Code, any person who 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 moral
damages.

• The acts of petitioner in forcibly abducting private respondent and having carnal knowledge with her
against her will, and thereafter promising to marry her in order to escape criminal liability, only to
thereafter renege on such promise after cohabiting with her for twenty-one days, irremissibly constitute
acts contrary to morals and good customs. These are grossly insensate and reprehensible transgressions
which indisputably warrant and abundantly justify the award of moral and exemplary damages,
pursuant to Article 21 in relation to paragraphs 3 and 10, Article 2219, and Article 2229 and 2234 of Civil
Code.

• Generally, the basis of civil liability from crime is the fundamental postulate of our law that every
person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. In other words, criminal liability will give rise to
civil liability ex delicto only if the same felonious act or omission results in damage or injury to another
and is the direct and proximate cause thereof. Hence, extinction of the penal action does not carry with
it the extinction of civil liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that
the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist

• In the instant case, the dismissal of the complaint for forcible abduction with rape was by mere
resolution of the fiscal at the preliminary investigation stage. There is no declaration in a final judgment
that the fact from which the civil case might arise did not exist. Consequently, the dismissal did not in
any way affect the right of herein private respondent to institute a civil action arising from the offense
because such preliminary dismissal of the penal action did not carry with it the extinction of the civil
action.

Ledesma vs. CA

• Violets Delmo, Treasurer of the Student Leadership Club, extended loans from the funds of the club to
some of the students of the school.

• West Visayas College President Ledesma claims that the said act of extending loans was against school
rules and regulations. Thus, the petitioner sent a letter to Delmo informing her that she was being
dropped from the membership of the club and that she would not be a candidate for any award or
citation from the school.

• Delmo asked for a reconsideration of the decision but the petitioner denied it. Delmo, thus, appealed
to the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Public Schools, where upon investigation, it was found out
that the student acted in good faith and that her awards be reinstituted.

• The president, upon receiving said decision, delayed action and even wrote the director to reverse his
decision. The student therefore graduated as a plain student and without honors. Her award as Magna
Cum Laude was only entered on the scholastic records 2 months after the graduation.

• After that, Delmo, then a minor, was joined by her parents in filing action for damages against the
petitioner. During the pendency of the action, however, Delmo passed away, and thus, an Amended and
Supplemental Complaint was filed by her parents as her sole and only heirs.

• The RTC then rendered a decision in favor of Delmo.

Supreme Court Ruling

• The school president’s failure to graduate a student with honors and blatant disregard of the student’s
rights on the account of him being embarrassed shows neglect of duty without just cause, rendering him
liable for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code. Undoubtedly, the student and the student’s
parents went through a painful ordeal brought about by such neglect. Thus, moral and exemplary
damages under Article 27 are but proper.

UE vs. Jader

• Romeo Jader was a graduating law student at the University of the East. He failed to take the regular
examination in Practice Court 1 for which he was given an incomplete grade (INC). He enrolled for the
second semester as a fourth year student, and filed an application for the removal of the incomplete
grade which was approved by the Dean. He was then given a grade of 5.

• Jader’s name appeared on the list of candidates in the invitation for the commencement exercises.
The invite, however, contained the caveat “This is a tentative list Degrees will be conferred upon these
candidates who satisfactorily complete requirements as stated in the University Bulletin and as
approved of the DECS.”

• Jader then attended the ceremony, during the program of which he went up the stage when his name
was called, and he was thereafter handed by Dean Celedonio a rolled white sheet of paper symbolical of
the Law Diploma. His relatives took pictures of the occasion. He also tendered a blow-out that evening
which was attended by neighbors, friends and relatives who wished him good luck in the forthcoming
bar examination. There were pictures taken too during the blow-out.

• He thereafter prepared himself for the bar examination, took a leave of absence without pay from his
job, and enrolled at the pre-bar review class in Far Eastern University. Later, having learned of the
deficiency he dropped his review class and was not able to take the bar examination.

• Consequently, Jader sued UE for damages alleging that he suffered moral shock, mental anguish,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and sleepless nights when he was not able to
take the 1988 bar examinations arising from the latter's negligence. He prayed for an award of moral
damages, unrealized income, attorney’s fees and cost of suit.

Supreme Court Ruling

• The Supreme Court held that UE is liable for actual but not moral damages. It is the contractual
obligation of the school to timely inform and furnish sufficient notice and information to each and every
student as to where he or she had already complied with the entire requirement for the conferment of a
degree or whether they should be included among those who will graduate.

• UE, in belatedly informing respondent of the result of the removal examination, particularly at a time
when he had already commenced preparing for the bar exams, cannot be said to have acted in good
faith. Absence of good faith must be sufficiently established for a successful prosecution by the
aggrieved party in a suit for abuse of right under Article 19 of the Civil Code.

ARTICLE 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means,
acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal
ground shall return the same to him.

ARTICLE 23. Even an act or even causing damage to another’s property was not due to the fault or
negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was
benefited.

Articles 22 and 23 talk about the principle of Unjust Enrichment

UNJUST ENRICHMENT – No person can claim what is not validly and legally his/hers. Hence, s/he would
not unduly profit on something which does not meritoriously belong to him/her. (Accio in rem verso)

 Nemo Cum Allerius Detrimento Protest – No person shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of
another.

 Nemo ex alterius incommende debet lecupletari – no man ought to be made rich out of another’s
injury.

Accion in rem verso – When something is received when there is no right to demand at the expense of
another.

Ex. You went shopping in Rustan’s and in your rush to leave, the security guard asked for the receipt but
you could not show it at that moment. Since you don’t want to create a scene, you went back to the
cashier and paid for the same items twice. If the receipt of the items surfaced after a few days, Ayala has
to give you back the amount you paid for the second time.

Solutio Indebiti (Article 2154) – When something is received when there is no right to demand it, it being
delivered by mistake, duty to return arises.

Ex. When you suddenly have 1 million pesos in your ATM. (BPI Glitch)

Difference: In accio in rem verso, the delivery of the property was done voluntarily and intelligently
while in solution indebiti, the property was delivered by mistake.

Article 23

• Duty to indemnify because of benefit received.

• Only prove the correlation of benefit and damage.

• UNLESS there is duty to indemnify, unjust enrichment will occur.

• The fact that someone benefited from some damage makes rise of indemnity

Example of Art. 23: Without A’s knowledge, a flood drives his cattle to the cultivated highland of B. A’s
cattle are saved but B’s crops are destroyed. A was not at fault, but he was benefited. Hence, he should
indemnify B.