CATCH ALL PROVISIONS (Articles 19, 20, 21 of the NCC) Article 20- Speaks f the general sanction for

all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction the Article does not distinguish; the act may be done willfully or negligently Article 19- contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights contain the primordial limitation on all rights that in heir exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19

Elements of abuse of right:

legal right or duty exercised in bad faith for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another

PETROPHIL CORPORATION VS. COURT OF APPEALS

In respondent court's view, the termination appeared as a retaliation or punishment for her sympathizing with the striking employees. Nowhere in the record do we find that petitioner asked her to explain her actions. Petrophil simply terminated her contract. Xxx In terminating the hauling contract of Dr. Cruz without hearing her side on the factual context above described, a petitioner opened itself to a charge of bad faith. While Petrophil had the right to terminate the contract, petitioner could not act purposely to injure private respondents.

CUSTODIO VS. COURT OF APPEALS

prior to said decision, petitioners had an absolute right over their property and their act of fencing and enclosing the same was an act which they may lawfully perform in the employment and exercise of said right. To repeat, whatever injury or damage may have been sustained by private respondents by reason of the rightful use of the said land by petitioners is damnum absque injuria

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS VS. COURT OF APPEALS

even if she succeeded in removing her failing grades, it was still within the sound discretion of the petitioners to determine whether private respondent was entitled to graduate with honors. The Court finds that petitioners did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in denying the honors sought by private respondent under the circumstances. Indeed, the aforesaid change of grades did not automatically entitle her to the award of honors

LEDESMA VS. COURT OF APPEALS

The Solicitor-General tries to cover-up the petitioner's deliberate omission to inform Miss Delmo by stating that it was not the duty of the petitioner to furnish her a copy of the Director's decision. Granting this to be true, it was nevertheless the petitioner's duty to enforce the said decision. He could have done so considering that he received the decision on April 27, 1966 and even though he sent it back with the records of the case, he undoubtedly read the whole of it which consisted of only three pages. Moreover, the petitioner should have had the decency to meet with Mr. Delmo, the girl's father, and inform the latter, at the very least of the decision. This, the petitioner likewise failed to do, and not without the attendant bad faith which the appellate court correctly pointed out in its decision.

VALENZUELA VS. COURT OF APPEALS

For the pivotal factor rendering Philamgen and the other private respondents liable in damages is that the termination by them of the General Agency Agreement was tainted with bad faith. Hence, if a principal acts in bad faith and with abuse of right in terminating the agency, then he is liable in damages. This is in accordance with the precepts in Human Relations enshrined in our Civil Code that "every person must in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties act with justice, give every one his due, and observe honesty and good faith: (Art. 19, Civil Code), and every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damages to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same (Art. 20, id). "Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy shall compensate the latter for the damages" (Art. 21, id.)

Article 21 Acts Contra Bonus Mores ( Note: Damages are recoverable even if no positive law was violated

Elements: There is an act which is legal but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy and it is done with intent to injure

Breach of Promise to Marry

GENERAL RULE: Breach of promise to marry by itself is not actionable EXCEPTIONS: in cases where there is another act independent of the breach of promise to marry which gives rise to liability: Cases where there was financial damage Social humiliation caused to one of the parties (Wassmer vs. Velez) Where there was moral seduction (Baksh vs, CA) If the breach was done in such a manner that is clearly contrary to good morals (Bunag, Jr. vs. CA)

WASSMER VS. VELEZ

Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.

BAKSH VS. COURT OF APPEALS

where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter

BUNAG, JR. VS. COURT OF APPEALS

Under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, the acts or petitioner in forcibly abducting private respondent and having carnal knowledge with her against her will, and thereafter promising to marry her in order to escape criminal liability, only to thereafter renege on such promise after cohabiting with her for twenty-one days, irremissibly constitutes acts contrary to morals and good customs. These are grossly insensate and reprehensible transgressions which indisputably warrant and abundantly justify the award of moral and exemplary damages, pursuant to Article 21, in relation to paragraphs 3 and 10, Article 2219, and Articles 2229 and 2234 of the Civil Code.

B. SEDUCTION AND SEXUAL ASSAULT

Defendant is liable for all forms of sexual assault (include crimes defined under the RPC as rape, acts of lasciviousness and seduction) Seduction, by itself, is also an act contrary to morals, good customs and public policy The defendant is liable if he employed deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of confidence in successfully having sexual intercourse with another even if he satisfied his lust without promising to marry the offended party

CIRILO PE, ET AL VS. ALFONSO PE

The circumstances under which defendant tried to win Lolita's affection cannot lead, to any other conclusion than that it was he who, thru an ingenious scheme or trickery, seduced the latter to the extent of making her fall in love with him. Indeed, no other conclusion can be drawn from this chain of events than that defendant not only deliberately, but through a clever strategy, succeeded in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the extent of having illicit relations with her. The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man. Verily, he has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code.

C. DESERTION BY A SPOUSE
y A spouse has a legal obligation to live with his/her spouse. If a spouse does not perform his/her duty to the other, he may be liable for damages for such omission because the same is contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy.

TENCHAVES VS. ESCAO

It follows, likewise, that her refusal to perform her wifely duties, and her denial of consortium and her desertion of her husband constitute in law a wrong caused through her fault, for which the husband is entitled to the corresponding indemnity (Civil Code, Art. 2176). Neither an unsubstantiated charge of deceit nor an anonymous letter charging immorality against the husband constitute, contrary to her claim, adequate excuse.

D. TRESPASS AND DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY

TRESPASS TO AND/OR DEPRIVATION OF REAL PROPERTY
 Liability for damages under the RPC and Article 451 of the Civil Code requires intent or bad faith.

Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity. Art. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent. Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower.

Article 448 of the Civil Code in relation to Article 456 does not permit action for damages where the builder, planter, or sower acted in good faith. The landowner is limited to the options given to him under Article 448.
Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. Art. 456. In the cases regulated in the preceding articles, good faith does not necessarily exclude negligence, which gives right to damages under article 2176.

A builder in good faith who acted negligently may be held liable under Article 2176

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasidelict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

TRESPASS TO OR DEPRIVATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY

In the field of tort, trespass extends to all cases where a person is deprived of his personal property even in the absence of criminal liability (ex. Theft, robbery)

MAGBANUA VS. IAC

It appears that the petitioners were denied irrigation water for their farm lots in order to make them vacate their landholdings. The defendants violated the plaintiffs' rights and caused prejudice to the latter by the unjustified diversion of the water.

DISCONNECTION OF ELECTRICITY OR GAS SERVICE

The right to disconnect and deprive the customer, who unreasonably fails to pay his bills, of electricity should be exercides in accordance with the law and rules

MANILA GAS CORPORATION VS. COURT OF APPEALS

Quite obviously, petitioner's act in disconnecting respondent Ongsip's gas service without prior notice constitutes breach of contract amounting to an independent tort.

ABORTION AND WRONGFUL DEATH

Damages may be recovered by both spouses if: the abortion was caused throught he physicians negligence, or was done intentionally with out consent a doctor who performs an illegal abortion is criminally liable under Article 259 of the RPC

Geluz vs. Ca: the husband of a woman who voluntarily procured her abortion may recover damages from the physician who caused the same on account of distress and mental anguish attendant to the loss of the unborn child and the disappointment of his parental expectations. However, such must be based on factual or legal basis.

ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
The right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal was done anti-socially and oppressively, the employer should be deemed to have violated Article 1701 of the Civil Code and Article 21 Art. 1701. Neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against the other, or impair the interest or convenience of the public. An employer may be held liable for damages if the manner of dismissing is contrary to morals, good customs and public policy

GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP, ET AL VS. CA

The Court has already ruled that the right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal is done abusively, then the employer is liable for damages to the employee Under the circumstances of the instant case, the petitioners clearly failed to exercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias, giving the latter the right to recover damages under Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code.

G. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
An action for damages brought by one against another whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit or proceeding in favor of the defendant therein. Stripped of legal jargon, it means persecution through the misuse or abuse of judicial processes; or the institution or pursuit of legal proceedings for the purpose of harassing, annoying, vexing or injuring an innocent person

Elements: the fact of he prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor; and that the action was finally terminated with an acquittal, that in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice

H. PUBLIC HUMILIATION
 Such act also constitutes an offense under Article 359 of RPC (slander by deed)  Patricio vs Leviste: the defendant was held liable for damages under Article 21 for slapping the plaintiff (a Priest) in public.