CHAPTER 12: LAW ON HUMAN RELATIONS
PRINCIPLES AND CASES IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:
A PROCEDURAL APPROACH
-oOo-
MARK ANGELO S. DELA PEÑA
To cite this online book, please use the following:
Dela Peña. 2023. "Principles and Cases in Private International Law: A Procedural Approach." Published by Project Jurisprudence - Philippines. Published: September 17, 2023. Link: [Insert link] Last accessed: [Insert date of access].
x---------------------------------------------x
CHAPTER 12:
LAW ON HUMAN RELATIONS
The law on human relations in the Philippines is governed by a set of codified standards for good conduct, tested by decades, if not centuries, of human experience. Such standards may be different from those adopted in different jurisdictions. For example, a foreign country may legislate that only intentional acts may give rise to actionable wrongs. In the Philippines, both intentional and negligent acts are actionable, including what is known as “abuse of rights.”
ABUSE OF RIGHTS DOCTRINE
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.[1]
Article 19 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, 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 exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: (a) to act with justice; (b) to give everyone his/her due; and, (c) to observe honesty and good faith. The 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. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. 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. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper.[2]
Under the abuse of rights principle found in Article 19 of the New Civil Code, a person must, in the exercise of legal right or duty, act in good faith. He would be liable if he instead acted in bad faith, with intent to prejudice another.[3] Good faith refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another.[4] Malice or bad faith, on the other hand, implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.[5]
In the case of California Clothing v. Quiñones,[6] petitioners claimed that there was a miscommunication between the cashier and the invoicer leading to the erroneous issuance of the receipt to respondent. When they realized the mistake, they made a cash count and discovered that the amount which is equivalent to the price of the black jeans was missing. They, thus, concluded that it was respondent who failed to make such payment. It was, therefore, within their right to verify from respondent whether she indeed paid or not and collect from her if she did not. However, the question now is whether such right was exercised in good faith or they went overboard giving respondent a cause of action against them. Initially, there was nothing wrong with petitioners asking respondent whether she paid or not. The Guess employees were able to talk to respondent at the Cebu Pacific Office. The confrontation started well, but it eventually turned sour when voices were raised by both parties, which is a natural consequence of two parties with conflicting views insisting on their respective beliefs. Considering, however, that respondent was in possession of the item purchased from the shop, together with the official receipt of payment issued by petitioners, the latter cannot insist that no such payment was made on the basis of a mere speculation. Their claim should have been proven by substantial evidence in the proper forum.
In the California Clothing case,[7] the Supreme Court said that the exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh.[8] In said case, petitioners were found to have abused their rights by sending the demand letter to respondent’s employer, petitioners intended not only to ask for assistance in collecting the disputed amount but to tarnish respondent’s reputation in the eyes of her employer. To malign respondent without substantial evidence and despite the latter’s possession of enough evidence in her favor, is clearly impermissible. A person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise, he opens himself to liability.[9]
A citizen of Japan who has obtained a Philppine court’s recognition of a foreign court decision over a contract of loan between him/her and a citizen of the Philippines is entitled to its enforcement in the Philippines as a matter of right. In the course of such enforcement, however, an abuse of such right may give rise to a cause of action in favor of the Filipino. The same rule will apply against a Filipino.
ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESSES
All persons who have business in courts have the right to litigate therein. However, while access to courts is a matter of rights, an abuse of the legal processes is frown upon. Hence, a Canadian citizen who wishes to enforce both a collection suit and a foreclosure suit arising from the same mortgage contract against a Filipino in a Philippine forum cannot file both of said suits on the ground of not only litis pendentia but also splitting of cause of action, both of which are against Philippine public policy. Even if Canadian law allows the simultaneous filing of both a collection suit and a foreclosure suit arising from the same mortgage contract, such a procedure is now allowed by this jurisdiction’s forum and deliberate forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.[10]
GENERAL TORTS LAWS
Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.[11]
Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.[12]
The aforecited provisions on human relations have been intended to expand the concept of torts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which are impossible for humans foresight and provide in the statutes with specificity. Although Article 19 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines merely declares a principle of law, Article 21 – and even Article 20 – gives flesh to its provisions.[13]
The Code Commission, tasked with the drafting of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, had the intention to adopt the expanded common law concept of intentional and unintentional tort. The above catch-all provisions on abuse of rights and damages (daños), according to Aquino (2005), are proof of such intent. Even Eduardo P. Caguioa (Comments and Cases on Civil Law, Vol. I, p. 29) agrees that Articles 19, 20 and 21 enlarge the concept of tortious acts and embody in Philippine law the Anglo-American concept of tort.
Article 20 provides that every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same. It speaks of the general sanctions of all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for its own sanction. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform to the standards set forth in the said provision and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible. Thus, if the provision does not provide a remedy for its violation, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 of the Civil Code would be proper. In short, Article 20 is a catch-all remedial provision (adjective law) against the commission of a legal wrong if law is silent on such remedy.[14]
Article 21, on the other hand, concerns injuries that may be caused by acts which are not necessarily proscribed by law. This article requires that the act be willful, that is, that there was an intention to do the act and a desire to achieve the outcome. In cases under Article 21, the legal issues revolve around whether such outcome should be considered a legal injury on the part of the plaintiff or whether the commission of the act was done in violation of the standards of care required in Article 19.
Articles 19, 20, and 21 lay down the general duty owed to every person not to cause harm either willfully or negligently. They are laws on human relations that were intended to expand the concept of torts in the Philippines by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically provide in the statutes. In PNB v. CA,[15] for example, it was held that a corporation is civilly liable in the same manner as natural persons for torts, because, generally speaking, the rules governing the liability of a principal or master for a tort committed by an agent or servant are the same whether the principal or master be a natural person or a corporation, and whether the servant or agent be a natural or artificial person. In other words, what the Supreme Court merely pointed out in said case is that torts law need not define specifically which acts or which actors are tortious or liable for tort. At any rate, civil law is not governed by the criminal law principle of nullum crimen sine lege.
EQUITY JURISDICTION OF
PHILIPPINE COURTS
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.[16]
Philippine courts are not only courts of law but also courts of equity. Article 24 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines recognizes and, in fact, codifies – in addition to other provisions of law – what is known in jurisprudence as the equity jurisdiction of courts. Another provision of law that echoes this concept of equity jurisdiction are Article 9 and Article 10 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, which state that oo judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws; and, in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.
Equity jurisdiction aims to do complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case because of the inflexibility of its statutory or legal jurisdiction.[17] Equity is the principle by which substantial justice may be attained in cases where the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate.[18] The invocation of equity jurisdiction is not a case of equity overruling a positive provision of law or judicial rule for there is none that governs this particular case. This is a case of silence or insufficiency of the law and the Rules of Court. For instance, Article 9 of the Civil Code expressly mandates the courts to make a ruling despite the “silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.”[19] This calls for the application of equity,[20] which “fills the open spaces in the law.”[21]
Equity jurisdiction aims to provide complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case because of a resulting legal inflexibility when the law is applied to a given situation. The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction, among others, is to prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution.[22]
The courts of a foreign country may be purely courts of equity, for example. Traditionally, English courts followed a distinction between courts of law, which could grant exclusively monetary damages, and courts of equity, which could not. The Court of Chancery was an example of an early English court of equity.[23]
It matters not whether a foreign decision came from a court of law or a court of equity. In either case, Philippines courts, by reason of the principle of amity, comity and cooperation with all nations, are ready to hear and decide any petition for their recognition and enforcement. The issue that may arise in the course of the proceedings, however, if the matter of proof of foreign law, whether written or unwritten, especially if the foreign forum that rendered the decision sought to be enforced based solely its findings on unwritten law of the foreign state.
[1] Article 19 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
[2] Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 257 Phil. 783 (1989).
[3] Villanueva v. Rosqueta, G.R. No. 180764, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 334, 339.
[4] Dart Philippines, Inc. v. Calogcog, G.R. No. 149241, August 24, 2009.
[5] Gonzales v. Philippine Commercial and International Bank, G.R. No. 180257, February 23, 2011.
[6] G.R. No. 175822, October 23, 2013.
[7] G.R. No. 175822, October 23, 2013.
[8] Dart Philippines, Inc. v. Calogcog, G.R. No. 149241, August 24, 2009.
[9] Uypitching v. Quiamco, G.R. No. 146322, December 6, 2006.
[10] Section 5 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC.
[11] Article 20 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
[12] Article 21 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
[13] Lomarda v. Fudalan, G.R. No. 246012, June 17, 2020.
[14] Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 16 [1993].
[15] PNB v. CA, G.R. No. L-27155. May 18, 1978.
[16] Article 24 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
[17] Agcaoili v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. L-30056, 30 August 1988, 165 SCRA 1; Air Manila, Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-39742, 9 June 1978, 83 SCRA 579.
[18] American Life Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 300 U.S. 203, 81 L. Ed. 605 (1936); Davis v. Wallace, 257 U.S. 478, 66 L. Ed. 325 (1921).
[19] Article 9 of the Civil Code provides: “No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.”
[20] 1 Arturo M. Tolentino, Civil Code Of The Philippines 43 (1990) citing Camus, as cited in Reyes v. Lim, G.R. No. 134241, August 11, 2003.
[21] Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature Of The Judicial Process 113 (1921), as cited in Reyes v. Lim, G.R. No. 134241, August 11, 2003.
[22] Regulus Development v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 198172, January 25, 2016.
[23] Cornell Law School. [Date unspecified]. “court of equity.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/court_of_equity. Last accessed September 09, 2023.
