Acts Contra Bonus Mores
General Concept- Article 21 of the Civil Code is the controlling
provision on acts contra bonus mores; it is part of the set of
provisions on human relations in the Civil Code.- It provides that
any person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same.- The
purpose of Article 21 was to provide a remedy for moral wrongs,
which may not be covered by existing statutes It has been held in
one case that Article 21 expands the concept of torts and
quasi-delicts in this jurisdiction, as it provides a legal remedy
for a great number of moral wrongs, which are incapable of being
specified and enumerated in statutes. In the same case, the Court
stated that Article 21 performs this function of expanding the
concept of torts by acting as the catch-all provision that covers
all moral wrongs that falls neither under Art. 2176 (negligent acts
or omissions) nor the RPC (intentional and malicious acts).- In the
case of Velayo v. Shell, Article 21 is the result of adopting moral
norms into actual legal rules, which the Court found as acceptable,
as it notes that the conscience of man has remained fixed to
ancient moorings and that this will impart an enduring quality to
our laws, which is a desirable thing from the Courts perspective.-
A reading of the provision may provide an inference of two
requisites for a cause of action under Article 21: (a) that one
willfully causes injury or loss to another and (b) that it was done
in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public
policy. However, the Court in Albenson v. CA added a third
requisite: (c) That the act done to cause injury or loss must be
legal.
Applied in Moral Seduction Cases- Tanjanco v. CA The Court,
apart from the requisites of Article 21, also required the
plaintiff to prove deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of
confidence AND that the plaintiff did not succumb to voluntariness
and mutual passion.- Baksh v. CA A test was employed in this case:
if the promise of marriage is the proximate cause of promisees
consent to sexual intercourse with the promissor, then the
promissor shall be liable if it can be proven that he had no
intention to comply with the promise at the time it was made. This
can be divided into two elements: (1) the promise to marry was the
proximate cause, and (2) there was a lack of intent on the part of
the prom The test, however, is problematic, in that it employs the
concept of proximate cause even if Article 21 cases do not require
the application of proximate cause.
Applied in Public Humiliation Cases- It is against morals, good
customs and public policy to humiliate, embarrass and degrade a
persons dignity.- A person may be held liable under Article 21 if
he/she makes an accusation against another and acts to prejudice
such person, without proof substantiating her accusation.
