CHAPTER 8 - HUMAN RELATIONS:

INTENTIONAL TORTS

ENDOZO, ROSE ANN C.

 Intentional Acts
 The actor desires to cause the
consequences of his acts or believes the
consequences are substantially certain to
result from it

 Example:
adopting an action that violates the
constitutional right of another is wrongful even
if the same was done not for one’s own
benefit
 Elements of Intent
a state of mind
 about consequences of act or omission
and not about the act itself
 it extends not only to having in the mind
a purpose or desire to bring about given
consequences but also having in mind a
belief of knowledge that given
consequences are substantially certain
to result from the act
Distinguished from negligence
 NEGLIGENCE
- involves forseeability of the risk not
certainty of the harm
- involves knowledge which is short
of substantial certainty
 Manifestation of Intent
 appears with Malice, Bad faith or Fraud

 Dart Phils vs Spouses Calogcog

- Malice or bad faith refers to the state of
mind which is manifested by the acts of the
individual concerned.
- Bad faith does not simply connote bad
judgment or simple negligence. It involves a
dishonest purpose and conscious doing of a
wrong
- Malice is bad faith or bad motive
 Elements of Bad Faith
 the actor knew or should have known
that a particular course of action is
wrong or illegal

 that despite such actual or imputable

knowledge, the actor, voluntarily,
consciously and out of his own free will,
proceeds with such course of action
 National Power Corporation vs Ibrahim
- SC defined bad faith as follows:

1. a breach of a known duty through some motive of

interest or ill will

2. a state of mind affirmatively operating with some

motive of self-interest or will

3. it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral

obliquity and conscious doing of wrong

4. implies a conscious and intentional design to do a

wrongful act for a dishonest purpose
 Fraud
 isalso a manifestation of intent
 refers to all kinds of deception –
whether through insidious machination,
manipulation, concealment or
misrepresentation – that would lead an
ordinarily prudent person into error after
taking the circumstances into account.
 involves the deliberate intention to
cause damage or prejudice
 Specific content of Intent
 Intent that is in the form of malice involves
a desire to cause unjustifiable harm

 Example: torts in malicious prosecution

- the requirement is that there must be
a malice on the part of the private
prosecutor or the filing of the criminal case
is actuated by an “inexcusable intent to
injure, oppress, vex, annoy or humiliate”.
 Abuse of Right
 Elements
Albenson Enterprises vs. CA
1. There is a legal right or duty
2. The legal right or duty is
exercised in bad faith; and
3. The exercise is for the sole intent
of prejudicing or injuring another
 Concept of Abuse of Right
 Art. 19 of the New Civil Code
- serves as the basis of the action for the
abuse of right
- sets standards which may be observed
not only in the exercise of one’s right but also
in the performance of one’s duties such as:
a. act with justice
b. give everyone his due
c. observe honesty & good faith
Cases when there is abuse of Right

 the abuse of right can result to Damages

under Art. 20 and Art. 21 of the NCC or other
applicable provisions of law, depending on the
circumstances of each case such as:

1. Abuse of Rights of Creditors

- when a creditor taking advantage of
his knowledge as regards insolvency
proceedings schemed & transferred its
(cont.)

to a sister company in the US. As a

consequence, the other creditors were
deprived of their lawful share and the
appointee that was later appointed was
deprived of his right to recover.
2. Abuse of Right of Agents
Jose Arlegui vs. CA
- the tenants of the apartment building formed
an association to represent them in the negotiation
with the owner of their respective units. Jose Arlegui
and Mateo Tan were the VP and auditor. Later, the
members were surprised to learn that Mr. Tan
surreptitiously purchased the building and later sold 1
unit to Mr. Arlegui.
- there was abuse of right on the part ofMr.
Arlegui and Mr. Tan because they violated the trust
repost on them as officers and negotiators in behalf of
the tenants.
3. Abuse of Right of Public Officers

Llorente vs CA
- the officer who withheld actions on
clearance of his employee is liable for
damages for abuse of right. There is
abuse of right is the officer did not issue a
clearance to an employee but issued the
same to other employees who have similar
situation
4. Abuse of Right of Court Processes

Sergio vs. Spouses Jose Gutierrez

- there was abuse of right in this
case when the petitioners still pursue the
demolition of the house of private
respondents despite the temporary
restraining order issued by the CA
5. Abuse of Right by Contracting Party

Petrophil Corporation vs CA
- there was abuse of right in this case
when the petitioner terminated its hauling
contract with the private respondent
because the latter symphatized with the
picketing workers of the petitioner.
6. Abuse of Right of Schools
- an educational institution is liable for
damages for misleading a student into
believing that the latter had satisfied all the
requirements for graduation when such is
not the case

Example: UE vs. Jader

University of the East vs. Jader
- the students name appeared in the
tentative list of candidates for graduation
for the degree of Bachelor of Laws (LLB).
He was allowed to attend graduation
ceremonies with his family. He even
tendered a “blow out” which was attended
by neighbors, fiends and relatives. The
respondent thereafter prepared for Bar
examination and took leave of absence
without pay from his job.
 Upon learning that there is deficiency
as the school belatedly inform him of his
failure to pass the removal examination,
he dropped his review classes and as a
result failed to take the bar exam.
The SC sustained the action for
damages filed by the respondent for failure
of the school authorities to exercise good
faith.
Cases when there is no Abuse of Right
 Exercise of a right in good faith does not
generally justify the filing of an action for
damages. Even if inconvenience results, no
action for damages will prosper

1. Absolute Rights
- it can never be the basis of liability.
Example: refusal to enter into a contract is
an absolute right and cannot be a ground for
the filing of an action for damages
2. Rights of the Corporation and its Officers
& Directors

de Tavera vs. Phil TB Society et al.

- the was no actionable wrong
when the officers acted strictly in
accordance with the Constitution and By-
laws of an association or with a contract.
 Manzanal vs Illusorio
- the court ruled that the sending
of the demand letters by the non-stock
corporation to its members cannot be
considered abuse of right if the tenor of
the letters do not deviate from the
standard practice of pursuing the
satisfaction of the obligation of the
member.
3. Exercise of Rights Included in Ownership
- there is no abuse of right when an
owner of a lot that adjoins the highway
fenced his property. In the absence of ran
easement of right of way, the owner is free
to enclosed his property even if damage to
another will result. It is a case of damage
without injury.
4. Rights of Schools, Teachers and
Administrator
- the Dept. head, Asst. Div. Supt and
the Principal of a high school is not guilty
of abuse of right when a teacher was
placed in the list of excess teacher when
the action was not motivated by undue
motives.
(cont.)
- Abuse of right is also absent if a
school does not confer upon a student a
degree with honors. Conferment of honors
is an exercise of discretion in accordance
with the rules.
(cont.)
Garciano et. al vs. CA
- there is no abuse of right if the
defendants are legitimately exercising their
constitutional rights. CA was correct when
it ruled that resignation of school officials
(principal, VP & President) are their own
choice upon reinstatement of a teacher
who was previously terminated and cannot
be held liable for damages.
Acts Contra Bonus Mores
 Elements:
1. There is an act which is legal
2. The act is contrary to morals,
good custom, public order or public
policy
3. The act is done with intent to
injure
 There is no formula that can be used to
determine what is contrary to morals. Neither
there any formula to establish what is good
custom or what is consistent with public order
or public policy.

Breach is self-evident if there is fraud,

oppression, deceit, abuse of power or
confidence and other human follies.

Hence, all cases are to be determined on

a case-to-case basis
1. Breach of Promise to Marry
- as a general rule, breach of promise
to marry is not actionable by itself but
becomes actionable if certain circumstance
are present that make it fall within the purview
of Art. 19, 20, 21 or 2176 of the NCC.
 Act independent of the breach of
promise to marry which gives rise to
liability:
1. There was financial damage
2. Social humiliation was caused
to one of the parties
3. There was moral seduction
 Bunag, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
- the acts of the petitioner in
forcibly abducting the private respondent
and having carnal knowledge against her
will, and thereafter promising to marry in
order to escape liability only to renege on
such promise after cohabiting for 21 days
constitutes acts contrary to morals and
good customs.
 Constantino vs Mendez
- SC rejected the claim for
damages because there was no moral
seduction. Mere sexual intercourse is not
by itself a basis for recovery. Damages
could only be awarded if sexual
intercourse is not a product of
voluntariness and mutual desire.
2. Seduction and Sexual Assault
- Seduction, by itself, without breach of
promise to marry 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.
(cont.)
- The defendant can be held liable for
all forms of sexual assault. These include
the crimes defined under the RPC as rape,
acts of lasciviousness and seduction.
Thus, liability may be imposed under Sec.
21 of the Civil Code if a married man
forced a woman not his wife to yield to his
lust.
3. Desertion/abandonment by the Spouse
- a spouse has a legal obligation to live
with his or her spouse. If a spouse does
not perform his duty to the other, he may
be held liable for damages for such
omission the same is contrary to law,
morals and good custom.
 Pastor Tanchaves vs. Vicenta Escaño
- moral damages was awarded
against the wife for her refusal to perform
her wifely duties, denial of consortium and
desertion of her husband.
- The acts of the wife constitutes a
willful infliction to injure plaintiff’s feelings
in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy for which Art.
2219(10) authorizes an award of moral
damages
4. Trespass and Deprivation of Property
- Trespass to real property is a tort that is
committed when a person unlawfully invades
the real property of another.
- The RPC punishes different forms of
trespass while the Civil Code provides that
damages may be awarded to the real owner
because he was deprived possession of his
property by a possessor in bad faith or by any
person who does not have any right over the
property
5. Trespass to Personal Property
- with respect to personal property, the
commission of the crimes of theft and
robbery is obviously trespass.

- 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
 Magbanua vs IAC
- the SC sustained the finding of
liability against the defendant because the
latter, who was the landlord, deprived the
plaintiffs, his tenants, of water in order to
force the said tenants to vacate the lot that
they were cultivating.
 Disconnection of Electricity or Gas Service
- An electric company has the right to
disconnect the electricity service of a
customer if the latter unreasonably fails to pay
his bills. However, the right to disconnect and
deprive the customer of electricity should be
exercised in accordance with laws and rules.
- prior notice is required
6. Abortion and Wrongful Death
- in Geluz vs CA, the SC recognized
the right to recover damages against a
physician who caused an abortion through
negligence. However, the court found no
basis to award such damage because of
failure to show factual basis such as
distress or anguish on the part of the
parents.
(cont.)
The doctor who performs an illegal
abortion is criminally liable under Art. 259
of RPC. It imposes imprisonment upon
any physician or midwife who, taking
advantage of their scientific knowledge or
skill, shall cause an abortion. Even parents
may be criminally liable for such offense.
Criminal and civil liability will also result
even if abortion is unintentional
7. Illegal Dismissal
- the basic rule is that the employer has
the right to dismiss an employee in the
manner or grounds provided for in the civil
code. However, if there is non-compliance
in Art. 19 and 21 in exercising the right to
terminate, the employer may be held liable
for damages.
7. Malicious Prosecution
- a tort action for malicious prosecution
has been defined as “an action for
damages brought by one against another
whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or
other legal proceedings has been
instituted maliciously and without probable
cause, after the termination of such
prosecution, suit or proceeding in favor of
the defendant therein.
(cont.)

The gist of the action is the putting of

legal process n force, regularly, for the
mere purpose of vexation or injury”.
 Elements of Malicious Prosecution

1. the fact of the prosecution and the

further fact that the defendant was himself the
prosecutor, and that the action was finally
terminated with an acquittal
2. that in bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without probable cause
3. the prosecutor was actuated or
impelled by legal malice
 Malice
- the prosecutor actuated by malice if he
acted with inexcusable intent to injure,
oppress, vex, annoy or humiliate

 Probable Cause
- is the existence of facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief of
the prosecutor that the person charged is
guilty of the crime for which he is
prosecuted
 Manila Gas Corporation vs CA
- petitioner in failing to recover its
lost revenue caused by gas meter’s
incorrect recording, sought to vindicate its
financial loss by filing the complaint for
qualified theft against respondent to
blacken his reputation not only as a
businessman but as a person. Despite the
dismissal of the case, damage had been
done.
Limanch-O Hotel and Leasing Corporation
et. al vs City of Olongapo et. al

- the SC affirmed the dismissal of the

malicious prosecution case explaining that
the burden in suits for malicious
prosecution is being able to prove the
complainant’s deliberate initiation of
criminal action knowing the charge to be
false and groundless.
Other Bases of Liability for Abuse of
Process
- as an alternative to malicious
prosecution, a plaintiff may file an action
for damages for abuse of processes
under Art. 2176 and 26 of the NCC.
Gregorio vs Court of Appeals
- respondent charged petitioner for
bouncing check law which was later on
dismissed because the public prosecutor
established that the petitioner was not one
of the signatories of the bounced check.
- a complaint for damages was
thereafter filed by petitioner which was
sustained by the SC.
8. Public Humiliation
- the SC sustained the award for
damages in cases when the plaintiff
suffered humiliation through the positive
acts of the defendant directed against the
plaintiff

 Example:
Patricio vs. Hon. Oscar Leviste
- the act of respondent in hitting
petitioner on the face is contrary to morals
and good customs and caused the
petitioner mental anguish, moral shock,
wounded feelings and social humiliation.
California Clothing Inc. vs Quiñones
- the court concluded that the
respondent is entitled to damages when
the petitioner went overboard and tried to
force respondent to pay the amount they
were demanding. In asking for assistance,
petitioner even sent a demand letter to
respondent’s employer not only informing
it of the incident but obviously imputing
bad acts on the part of the respondent
The exercise of right must be in accordance
with the purpose for which it was established
and must not be excessive or unduly harsh.
On previous cases, petitioners obviously
abused their rights
Hotel Nikko Manila Garden vs. Reyes
- the respondent actor whose screen
name is “Amay Visaya” claimed to have
been asked by his friend to join an
exclusive birthday party of the former Gen.
Manager of the hotel. The same friend
denied that she invited the respondent and
alleged that it was the latter who
volunteered himself in carrying the basket
intended for the celebrant.
 - the court observed that the manner
the hotel secretary asked the respondent
to leave the exclusive party was in an
acceptable and humane manner after
verifying from the so called “friend” if
indeed she invited the respondent.
Otherwise, the hotel secretary will be held
liable for bad judgment amounting to bad
faith
Thank You!!!