Art. 21.

Any person who willfully causes causes loss or injury to another in a

manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for damage.

Discussion/Explanation:

1. Willful acts Contrary to Morals

Would not Art.21 obliterate the boundary line between morality and law? The answer is
that, in the last analysis, every good law draws its breath of life from morals, from those
principles, which are written with words of fire in the conscience of man Furthermore,
there is no belief of more baneful consequences upon the social order than that person
may with impunity cause damage to his fellowmen so long as he does not break any law
of the State, though he may be defying the most sacred postulates of morality. What is
more, the victim loses faith in the ability of the government to afford him protection or
relief.

Art. 21 was intended to expand the concept of torts in this jurisdiction by granting
adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrong which is impossible for
human foresight to specifically provide in the statutes

Nota Bene:
The allegation of malice or ill does not bring the case under Art.21 which can only apply
in the absence of contractual stipulations.
Note: In a corporation, the by-laws govern the relations of the members, not Art. 21
2. Art. 21 Distinguished from Art. 20
a. Art. 21- The act is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. In Art. 20- The
act is contrary to law.
b. In Art. 21- The act is done willfully.
Note: Willful may mean not merely voluntary but with a bad purpose.
In Art. 20-The act is done either wilfully or negligently.
3. Examples
a. A student wilfully humiliates a professor, causing to have a nervous breakdown. This
would be contrary to good customs and morals, and the professor can sue for damages.

b. Example given by the Code Commission

A seduces the 19 year-old daughter of X. A promise of marriage either has not less been
made or cannot be proved. The girl becomes pregnant. Under the present criminal laws,
there is no crime as the girl is above 18 years of age. Neither can any civil action for
breach of promise be filed. Under Art. 21, she and her parents would have the right to
bring an action for damages against A.

Note: The example given by the Code Commission is correct, provided that the man had
in some way defrauded or deceived the girl (not necessarily seducing her, as the term
is used under the Revised Penal Code). But if the two of them had engaged in illicit
relations out of mutual carnal lust, then it is believed that there can be no recovery of
damages, since both parties are at fault.

Next, one who wilfully dismissed an employee without just cause breaks a contract, and
is both morally and legally liable under Art. 21 of the Civil Code.

Justice Antonio Barredo:

Misconduct implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. Even if a
judge is not correct in his legal conclusions, his judicial actuations cannot be regarded as
grave misconduct ,unless the contrary sufficiently appears.

J. Sarmiento:

Unlike simple grants of power of attorney, an agency declared to be compatible with the
intent of the parties, cannot be revoked at will. The reason is that it is one coupled with
an interest, the agency having been created for mutual interest of the agent and the
principal. Thereupon, interest is not limited to the commissions earned as a result of
business transactions concluded, but one that extends to the very subject matter of
power of management delegated. Accordingly, a revocation proved to be entitles the
prejudiced party to a right of damages.

4. Can there an Action for Breach of Promise to Marry?

a. For the recovery of actual damages, yes. Thus, if a person gives another P500 because
the latter promised to marry the former, and the promise is not fulfilled, the money
given can be recovered. Thus, also if a teacher resigns her position because of a mans
promise to marry her, she can recover indemnity for damage if later on the promise is
not fulfilled. The same thing may be said for the recovery of wedding expenses, such as
the wedding breakfast, the ceremony, the trousseau, the issuances of invitations, if one
party fails to appear.

b. Recovery of Moral Damages

In Hermosisima v. Court of Appelas, the Supreme Court held that under Civil Code,
there can be no recovery of moral damages for a breach of promise to marry. AS SUCH.
The omission in the Civil Code of the proposed Chapter on Breach of Promise Suits is a
clear manifestation of legislative intent not to sanction as such, suits for breach of
promise to marry, otherwise many innocent men may become the victims of designing
and unscrupulous females. However, if there be seduction, moral damages may be
recovered under Art. 2219, par. 3 of the Civil Code. The Court, however implied that if
there be moral seduction as distinguished from criminal seduction, there may be a grant
for moral damages, possibly under Art. 21. In said Hermosisima case however, it was the
woman who virtually seduced the man, by surrendering herself to him because she, a
girl 10 years OLDER, was overwhelmed by her love for him.

Another example is a married man, who was adopted son of a relative of a girls father
and who had the same family as the girl, became very close to the girl and her family. In
fact, the members of the family considered him as one of them. In 1952, the man thus
frequented the house of the girl on the pretext of desiring to teach her how to pray the
rosary. The two eventually fell in love, and met each other in clandestine trysts, over the
objections of the family. One day in 1957, the man wrote the girl a note asking her to
have a date with him. The girl went to him. Her parents, brothers, sisters now sue the
defendant (married man) under Art. 21.

The Supreme Court, applying the Art. 21 ruled that indeed he, a married man, has
seduced the girl, through an ingenious and tricky scheme, to the extent of making her
fall in love with him. Verily, he has committed an injury to the girls family in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs and public policy. He was therefore ordered to pay
P5000 as damages and P2000 as attorneys fees, in addition to the expenses of the
litigation.

Another question has been raised, A, married man, and B, an unmarried woman,
entered into a written agreement to marry each other when A became a widower. After
becoming a widower, A married another woman. Can B sue A for breach of promise?

Answer: No, insofar as moral damages are concerned. Moreover, to engage in such a
promise during the lifetime of anothers spouse would be contrary to good morals and
good customs, and the agreement, even on that ground alone, must be considered void.

Note: Had there been carnal knowledge, the matter would even be worse. Thus it has
been held that a promise of marriage founded on carnal intercourse has an unlawful
consideration, and no suit on such promise can possibly prosper.

Further question was raised. In an action based on a breach of promise to marry, what
rights has the aggrieved party in cases:
a. When there has been carnal knowledge?
b. When there has been NO carnal knowledge?

Answer:
a. When there has been carnal knowledge, the aggrieved party may:
1. ask the other to recognize the child, should there be one, and give support to said
child.

2. sue for moral damages, if there be criminal or moral seduction, but not if the
intercourse was due to mutual lust. In other words, if the cause be the promise to marry,
and the effect be the carnal knowledge, there is a chance that there was a criminal or
moral seduction, hence recovery of moral damages will prosper. If it be the other way
around, there can be no recovery of moral damages, because here mutual lust has
intervened. However, the girl may recover moral damages if the man, in his effort to
make the girl withdraw a suit for support of the child, deliberately calls the attention of
the girls employer to her condition as an unwed mother- a maneuver causing her
mental anguish and even physical illness and suffering.

3. sue for actual damages, should there be any, such as the expenses for the wedding
preparations.

b. When there has been no carnal knowledge, there may be an action for actual and
moral damages under certain conditions, as when there has been a deliberate desire to
inflict loss or injury, or when there has been an evident abuse of a right. Thus, a man
who deliberately fails to appear at the altar during the scheduled wedding simply
because it was his intention to embarrass or humiliate the girl no doubt inflicts
irreparable injury to her honor and reputation, wounds her feelings, and leads the way
for her possible social ostracism. The girl in such a case can recover not only actual but
also moral and exemplary damages.

Mere breach of promise to marry is not actionable wrong, but to formally set a wedding
and go through all the preparation therefore, only to walk out of it when the marriage is
about to be solemnized is quite different. Obviously, it is contrary to good customs, and
the defendant consequently must be held answerable for damages in accordance with
Art. 21 of the Civil Code.

Another, if a lawyer has a carnal knowledge of a poorly educated girl, promises to marry
her to continue his carnal satisfaction, and then breaks his promise on account of an
expensive wedding which the parents of the girl insist upon, may he be disbarred?

Yes, for he has not maintained the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all
times is expected of and must be possessed by a member of the bar.

5. Breach of Promise of Employment

In order that an action for breach of promise of employment may succeed, nothing short
of an actual, clear, and positive promise on the part of the prospective employer must be
shown by competent evidence. His unjustified hopes, perhaps inspired by courteous
dealings of the other party, do not constitute a promise of employment whose breach is
actionable at law.

6. Claim for Damages When Victim is at Fault

If a man defaults in the payment of his light bills, he cannot successfully bring an action
for moral damages if the electric company should temporarily disconnect his light
facilities. Even assuming that the act of the electric company constitutes a breach of
public policy, still no recovery can be had, for Art. 21 of the Civil Code which is relied
upon by him must necessarily be construed as granting the right to recover damages
only to injured persons who are not themselves at fault.

7. Nominal Damages

Nominal damages ate granted for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or
invaded. And this is so even if actual damages be not proved. Nominal damages in the
amount of P10,000 may even be granted, and should there be bad faith on the part of
the offender, the amount may be greater.

8. Effect of Price Increases

Although it is of judicial notice that prices and costs of materials and labor have
substantially increased since 1970, it is not fair to give material men and laborers four
times the value of what they had furnished or constructed. It is sufficient to give them
12% interest per annum from the time they filed their complaint.

9. May Moral Damages be Granted?

Facts: A school administrator, because of a personal grudge, relieved two vocational

teachers of their assignments, and even when ordered by the Secretary of Education to
reinstate them to refuse to do so. May said administrator be held liable for moral
damages?

Thru Justice Ramon C. Aquino: No, because the case does not fall under any of the cases
when moral damages can be granted.

Dissenting (J. Abad Santos)

Yes, because, in connection with Art. 21, entitles them to damages because of
harassment on the part of the administrator.

--------

The failure to give prior notice amounts to a tort, and the petitioners act in
disconnecting respondents gas service without prior notice constituted breach of
contract amounting to an independent tort. The pre-maturity of the action was held
indicative of intent to cause additional mental and moral suffering to private
respondents and a clear violation of Art. 21, providing that any person who willfully
causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy shall compensate the latter for damages.