Acts Contra Bonus Mores

General Concept
- Article 21 of the Civil Code is the controlling provision on acts contra
bonus mores; it is part of the set of provisions on human relations in
the Civil Code.
- It provides that any person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the
same.
- The purpose of Article 21 was to provide a remedy for moral
wrongs, which may not be covered by existing statutes
o It has been held in one case that Article 21 expands the concept
of torts and quasi-delicts in this jurisdiction, as it provides a legal
remedy for a great number of moral wrongs, which are incapable
of being specified and enumerated in statutes.
o In the same case, the Court stated that Article 21 performs this
function of expanding the concept of torts by acting as the catchall provision that covers all moral wrongs that falls neither under
Art. 2176 (negligent acts or omissions) nor the RPC (intentional
and malicious acts).
- In the case of Velayo v. Shell, Article 21 is the result of adopting moral
norms into actual legal rules, which the Court found as acceptable, as
it notes that the conscience of man has remained fixed to ancient
moorings and that this will impart an enduring quality to our laws,
which is a desirable thing from the Courts perspective.
- A reading of the provision may provide an inference of two requisites
for a cause of action under Article 21: (a) that one willfully causes
injury or loss to another and (b) that it was done in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. However, the Court
in Albenson v. CA added a third requisite: (c) That the act done to
cause injury or loss must be legal.
Applied in Moral Seduction Cases
- Tanjanco v. CA
o The Court, apart from the requisites of Article 21, also required the
plaintiff to prove deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of
confidence AND that the plaintiff did not succumb to
voluntariness and mutual passion.
- Baksh v. CA
o A test was employed in this case: if the promise of marriage is the
proximate cause of promisees consent to sexual intercourse with
the promissor, then the promissor shall be liable if it can be
proven that he had no intention to comply with the promise at the
time it was made. This can be divided into two elements: (1) the
promise to marry was the proximate cause, and (2) there was a
lack of intent on the part of the prom

o The test, however, is problematic, in that it employs the concept

of proximate cause even if Article 21 cases do not require the
application of proximate cause.
Applied in Public Humiliation Cases
- It is against morals, good customs and public policy to humiliate,
embarrass and degrade a persons dignity.
- A person may be held liable under Article 21 if he/she makes an
accusation against another and acts to prejudice such person, without
proof substantiating her accusation.