Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

ARTICLE 21.  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 THE DAMAGE.

This article was adopted with the intention to bring into the realm of law certain good Philippine customs, morals and traditions, especially those that concern family and personal relations. 

Under this article are the following circumstances:

1.RECOVERY OF DAMAGES EVEN WITHOUT POSITIVE LAW.

There is marked distinction between Articles 20 and 21 of the civil code, for while the recovery under the former is based on law, the latter IS NOT BASED on law. If the loss or injury was due to a wilful act or omission and the same is contrary to morals, public policy, or good customs, LIABILITY would still attach upon the VIOLATOR.

CASE:

SOLID BANK CORP. VS. MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORP.

G.R. No. 153535 July 28, 2005

FACTS: 

Private respondents herein secured a loan to the petitioner bank under the name of the respondent corporation. In the course of the corporations operation, it was not able to pay its obligation to the petitioner and has to stop its operation. 

Petitioner bank filed an action against the corporation together with its principal officers for the collection of the loan they acquired. The RTC ruled in favor of the bank petitioner and ordering the respondent corporation to pay the amount of loan plus interest. On appeal, the CA held the decision of the RTC and ruled also that the private respondents were not solidary liable to the petitioner.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not principal officers can be held personally liable upon signing the contract of loan under the name of the corporation?

RULING: 

Basic is the principle that a corporation is vested by law with a personality separate and distinct from that of each person composing or representing it. Equally fundamental is the general rule that corporate officers cannot be held personally liable for the consequences of their acts, for as long as these are for and on behalf of the corporation, within the scope of their authority and in good faith. The separate corporate personality is a shield against the personal liability of corporate officers, whose acts are properly attributed to the corporation. 

Moreover, it is axiomatic that solidary liability cannot be lightly inferred. Since solidary liability is not clearly expressed in the Promissory Note and is not required by law or the nature of the obligation in this case, no conclusion of solidary liability can be made. Furthermore, nothing supports the alleged joint liability of the individual petitioners because, as correctly pointed out by the two lower courts, the evidence shows that there is only one debtor: the corporation.

HOW THE LAW WAS JUSTIFIED?

Case below justified Article 21. 

CASE:

Pe et. al. vs. Pe

G.R. No. L-17396. 30 May 1962.

Bautista Angelo J.:

Appeal from a decision of the CFI Mla.

FACTS: 

Plaintiffs are parents, brothers and sisters of Lolita Pe, an unmarried woman 24 years of age. Defendant, a married man, frequently visited Lolita’s house on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him to pray the rosary. They fell in love and conducted clandestine trysts. When the parents learned about this they prohibited defendant from going to their house. The affair continued just the same. On April 14, 1957 Lolita disappeared from her brother’s house where she was living. A note in the handwriting of the defendant was found inside Lolita’s aparador. The present action was instituted under Article 21 of the Civil Code. The lower court dismissed the action and plaintiffs appealed.

ISSUE: 

Wether or not the defendant committed 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.”

HELD: 

“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 and 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.”

2. BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY; WHEN DAMAGES CAN BE RECOVERED.

Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. There must be an act independent of such breach in order that it may give rise to liability. There is no law that allows it. To be actionable, there must be some act independent of the breach of promise to marry as such:

1. CARNAL KNOWLEDGE:

a. If it constitutes seduction as defined by the Penal Code, moral damages under Article 2219(3), NCC, may be recovered.

b. If it constitutes tort, damages under Arts. 21 and 2219(10), NCC may be recovered;

c. If the woman becomes pregnant and delivers, compensatory damages may be recovered;

d. If money was advanced and property was given to the defendant, plaintiff can recover the money and property. No one shall enrich himself at the expense of another.

2. IF THERE WAS NO CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, BUT THE ACT RESULTED IN A TORT, MORAL DAMAGES MAY BE RECOVERED. THE RULE IS ALSO TRUE IF MONEY OR PROPERTY WERE ADVANCED, IN WHICH CASE THE SAME MAY BE RECOVERED. 

CASE:

Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals  

G.R. No. L-14628

FACTS: 

Complainant Soledad Cagigas, was then a teacher in the in Cebu, and petitioner, who was almost 10 years younger than she, used to go around together and were regarded as engaged, although he had made no promise of marriage prior thereto.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not moral damages are recoverable, under our laws, for breach of promise to marry?

RULING: 

NO. She cannot recover moral damages for the breach, nevertheless she can recover compensatory damages for medical and hospitalization expenses during her pregnancy and delivery as well as attorney’s fees.

Because of defendant-appellant's seduction power, plaintiff-appellee, overwhelmed by her love for him finally yielded to his sexual desires in spite of her age and self-control, she being a woman after all, we hold that said defendant-appellant is liable for seduction and, therefore, moral damages may be recovered from him under the provision of Article 2219, paragraph 3, of the new Civil Code.

3. SOME SITUATIONS WHERE ARTICLE 21 CAN BE APPLIED:

1.Breach of promise to marry; when actionable; defense of pari delicto (Gashem Shookat Baksh and Marilou Gonzales, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993)

2.When not a case of breach of promise to marry. (Wassmer vs. Velez, 12 SCRA 648)

3. No breach of promise to marry (Tanjanco vs. CA, 18 SCRA 994)

4. Forcible taking of franchise is violative of Article. 2, NCC. (Cogo-Cubao Operators and Drivers Assn. vs. CA, et al., G.R No. 100727)

5. Justify moral damages awarded to agricultural lessees. (Magbanua, et. Al. vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, et. Al., L-66870-72, June 29, 1985)

6. Liability in case a wife deserts her husband (Tenchavez vs. Escaňo, 15 SCRA 355)

7. Declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity with award or moral damages. (Noel Buenaventura vs. CA, et al., G.R. Nos. 127358, March 3, 2005)

8. When liability arises in case of abuse of right. (Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, et al. vs. Roberto Reyes, alias “ Amay Bisaya,” G.R. No. 154259, February 28, 2005.)