b. Acts Contrary to Law

Acts Contrary to Law (Civil Code, Art. 20)

Concept

Article 20 makes a person liable to indemnify another when an act contrary to law willfully or negligently causes damage. The inquiry is not limited to whether a rule was violated: the claimant must also connect the violation and the resulting damage to the person charged. (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹

Governing provisions

Article 20 states the rule on indemnity for damage willfully or negligently caused contrary to law. Article 19 supplies the standard of justice, honesty, and good faith in exercising rights and performing duties, while Article 21 separately addresses willful injury caused in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹ (Art. 19, Civil Code)² (Art. 21, Civil Code)³

Requisites / Rules

• Identify the law to which the defendant’s conduct was contrary. An allegation of unfair conduct alone does not identify the contrary-to-law element of Article 20. (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹
• Establish that the defendant acted willfully or negligently. Article 20 expressly covers either basis; the claim need not rest on a willful act alone. (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹
• Establish damage to another caused by that conduct. Proof matters: bare allegations unsubstantiated by evidence are not equivalent to proof of liability. (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹ (Spouses Cabasal v. Bpi Family Savings Bank, G.R. No. 233846, 18 November 2020)⁴
• Consider the effect of the law violated separately from indemnity. Under Article 5, an act executed against a mandatory or prohibitory law is void unless the law itself authorizes its validity. Article 20 addresses indemnity for damage caused contrary to law. (Art. 5, Civil Code)⁵ (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹

Distinctions

Article 20 turns on conduct contrary to law and permits liability for willful or negligent causation of damage. Article 21 instead concerns a willful act causing injury in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. For Article 21, the willfulness described in St. Martin Polyclinic includes intent to do the act and desire to achieve the outcome; that requirement should not be substituted for Article 20’s express allowance for negligence. (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹ (Art. 21, Civil Code)³ (St. Martin Polyclinic, Inc. v. LWV Construction Corporation, G.R. No. 217426, 4 December 2017)⁶

Article 19 sets a standard for the exercise of rights and performance of duties. Its concern with justice and good faith provides context, but the Article 20 question remains whether damage was willfully or negligently caused contrary to law. (Art. 19, Civil Code)² (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹

Key doctrines

A legal right does not make every manner of exercising it immune from scrutiny. In Stanfilco, the Court held that a party with a contractual right to dismantle improvements could nevertheless be liable for damages when its exercise abused the social function of rights. The case concerns the exercise of a right; for an Article 20 answer, still identify the law allegedly contravened and the damage caused. ((Stanfilco) Philippines, Inc. v. Africa, G.R. No. 174646, 22 August 2012)⁷ (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹

Where moral damages are sought, Spouses Estrada identifies the need to prove a clearly sustained injury, a culpable act or omission, and that the wrongful conduct proximately caused the injury; the award must also be predicated on cases under Article 2219. A finding of conduct contrary to law does not dispense with proof relevant to the damages claimed. (Spouses Estrada v. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and Eduardo R. Saylan, G.R. No. 203902, 19 July 2017)⁸ (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹

Exceptions

The statutory qualification in Article 5 is that an act against a mandatory or prohibitory law is not void when the law itself authorizes its validity. Also, a contrary custom or practice does not excuse violation or non-observance of a law. (Art. 5, Civil Code)⁵ (Art. 7, Civil Code)⁹

Bar tip

For Article 20, state the law violated, the willful or negligent conduct, the damage, and the causal link. Do not treat an allegation of wrongdoing as proof, or import Article 21’s willfulness requirement into Article 20. (Art. 20, Civil Code)¹ (Spouses Cabasal v. Bpi Family Savings Bank)⁴ (St. Martin Polyclinic, Inc. v. LWV Construction Corporation)⁶