a. Abuse of Rights

A. Abuse of Rights (Civil Code, arts. 19-22)

• Acts contrary to morals and good customs
• Breach of promise of marriage

Article 19. In exercising rights and performing duties, a person must act justly, give others what is due them, and observe honesty and good faith. Article 20. A person who wilfully or negligently causes damage to another in violation of law must indemnify that person. Article 21. A person who wilfully causes loss or injury in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy must compensate the injured person. Article 22. A person who obtains something at another’s expense, whether through that person’s act or by other means, without a just or legal ground must return it.

A right recognized by law can become a source of liability. If its exercise violates the standards in Article 19 and damages another person, the person who exercised it commits a legal wrong and must answer for it. This reflects the maxim suum jus summa injuria: abuse of a right can produce a grave wrong. (Arlegui v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126437, December 8, 2003)

Rationale: A person cannot claim to be exercising a right when its abuse unnecessarily harms another or offends morals or good customs. In that sense, the right ends where its abuse begins. (Pineda, 2009)

Elements of abuse of right:

• A legal right or duty exists.
• The right or duty is exercised in bad faith.
• The sole intent is to prejudice or injure another.
• Absence of good faith is essential. (Rabuya, 2009)

When Not Applicable

The principle of damnum absque injuria does not apply when there is an abuse of a person’s right. (Cebu Country Club, Inc., v. Elizagaque, G.R. No. 160273, 2008)

Mistakes by public officers are not actionable in the absence of malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith. (Farolan v. Solmac Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 83589)

Article 19, 20 and 21 in the enforcement and sanctions of abuse of right

While Art. 19 lays down the rule of conduct for the government of human relations, it does not provide a remedy. (Rabuya, 2006)

Generally, an action for damages under either Art. 20 or Art. 21 of the NCC would be proper. Art. 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores or contrary to good morals and presupposes loss or injury, material or otherwise, which one may suffer as a result of such violation. Under Arts. 19 and 21, the act must be intentional. (Rabuya, 2006)

Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction. Article 21 on the other hand, speaks of act which is legal but is contrary to morals, good custom, public order or public policy and is done with intent to injure.

Sanction for abuse of right under Article 20 of the NCC

Generally, laws provide for their own sanctions and methods of enforcement thereof. Article 20 applies only in cases where the law does not provide for its own sanctions.

In view of the general sanction provided for under Art. 20, a person however does not have an absolute right to be indemnified, it is essential that some right of his be impaired. Without such, he is not entitled to indemnification. (Pineda, 2009)

Acts Contra Bonus Mores

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. (NCC, Art. 21) It fills countless gaps in the statutes, which leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even though they suffered material and moral damages. (Tolentino, 1987)

Elements of an action under Art. 21:

• There is an act which is legal;
• Such act is contrary to morals, good customs, public order or policy; and
• It is done with intent to injure.

When is the Right of Ownership not Absolute?

The welfare of the people is the supreme law of the land (Salus populi suprema est lex).

NOTE: The owner bears the loss of the property owned by him (Res perit domino).