It has been held that Article 19 which provides that "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," known o contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, is not a panacea for all human hurts and social grievances. The object of this article is to set certain standards, which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties.
Article 21 refers to acts contra bonos mores and has the following elements:
- an act which is legal,
- but which is contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy; and
- is done with intent to injure.
The common element under Articles 19 and 21 is that the act complained of must be intentional and attended with malice or bad faith.The question of whether or not this principle has been violated, resulting in damages under Articles 20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law, depends on the circumstances of each case.
In the case before us, as correctly pointed out by the CA, the circumstances do not warrant an award of damages. We agree with the appellate court that in the action of the respondents, there was no malicious intent to injure petitioner's good name and reputation. The respondents merely wanted to call the attention of responsible government agencies in order to secure appropriate action upon an erring private security agency and obtain redress for their grievances. So we reiterate the basic postulate that in the absence of proof that there was malice or bad faith on the part of the respondents, no damages can be awarded.
No comments:
Post a Comment