Article 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. G.R. No. 154259. February 28, 2005 NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM vs. ROBERTO REYES, a.k.a. AMAY BISAYA Facts: On 13 October 1994, Roberto Reyes alleged that he was invited by Dr. Violeta Filart to join her in the party of Mr. Masakazu Tsuruoka, the former general manager of Nikko Hotel. The said party was organized by Ruby Lim, the Executive Secretary of the hotel for the past twenty (20) years. The guest list was limited to approximately sixty (60) of Mr. Tsuruokas closest friends and some hotel employees. Knowing that Mr. Reyes was not one of those invited, Ms. Lim asked the former to leave the party. Mr. Reyes claimed that he was asked to leave the party in a scandalous manner. On the other hand, Ms. Lim claimed that she asked Mr. Reyes politely and discreetly. The lower court ruled that Ms. Lim did not abuse her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party as she talked to him politely and discreetly. The appellate court, on the other hand, held that Ms. Lim is liable for damages as she needlessly embarrassed Mr. Reyes by telling him not to finish his food and to leave the place within hearing distance of the other guests. Issue: Whether or not Ruby Lim is liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code. Ruling: No. Ms. Ruby Lim is not liable under Article 21. Article 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements: (1) There is an act which is legal; (2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and (3) it is done with intent to injure. In the determination of the manner in which Mr. Reyes was asked to leave, the court reviewed the findings of fact. Mr. Reyes himself admitted that when Ms. Lim asked him to leave she was so close to him to a point that they almost kissed. This suggested that Ms. Lim did not intend herself to be heard by other people to the embarrassment of Mr. Reyes. The fact that these two did not personally know each other prior to the party, fails to show that the act of Ms. Lim was driven by animosity against Mr. Reyes. The attribution of the alleged misconduct of Ms. Lim to her age and working environment is a lame argument that cannot be considered. The absence of any proof of motive on the part of Ms. Lim to humiliate Mr. Reyes and expose him to ridicule and shame, makes it highly unlikely that she would shout at him from a very close distance. Ms. Lim having been in the hotel business for twenty years wherein being polite and discreet are virtues to be emulated, the testimony of Mr. Reyes that she acted to the contrary does not inspire belief and is indeed incredible. Under Article 21 the nature of the act to be able to claim damages must be intentional. In this case, it was not proven that Ms. Ruby Lim has a motive to intentionally embarrass Mr. Reyes in asking him to leave the party wherein he was not invited. Thus, Ms. Lim is not liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code.