G.R. No. 132344 February 17, 2000 UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST vs. ROMEO A.

JADER Facts : Plaintiff was enrolled in the defendants' College of Law from 1984 up to 1988. He enrolled for the second semester as fourth year law student and filed an application for the removal of the incomplete grade given him by his professor which was approved by the Dean after payment of the required fee. He took the examination and on May 1988 his Professor submitted his grade and it was a grade of five. The plaintiff's name appeared in the Tentative List of Candidates for graduation, and attended the investiture ceremonies, where he went up the stage when his name was called and he was thereafter handed the Law Diploma by the dean. He thereafter prepared himself for the bar examination. Having learned of the deficiency he dropped his review class and was not able to take the bar examination. Issue : May an educational institution be held 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? Ruling : Yes. Art. 19 was intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. In civilized society, men must be able to assume that others will do them no intended injury that others will commit no internal aggressions upon them; that their fellowmen, when they act affirmatively will do so with due care which the ordinary understanding and moral sense of the community exacts and that those with whom they deal in the general course of society will act in good faith. G.R. No. L-44484 March 16, 1987 OSMUNDO G. RAMA vs. COURT OF APPEALS et al. Facts : The provincial governor of Cebu, vice-governor and members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan adopted Resolution No. 990 which appropriated funds "for the maintenance and repair of provincial roads and bridges and for the operation and maintenance of the office of the provincial engineer and for other purposes." To implement said policy, the provincial board resolved to abolish around thirty positions, thus doing away with the caminero (pick-shovel-wheelbarrow) system. Consequently around 200 employees of the province were eased out of their respective jobs and, to implement the mechanization program in the maintenance of roads and bridges, the provincial government purchased heavy equipment worth P4,000,000.00. Issue : Whether or not officials are personally liable for damages for adopting a resolution which abolished positions to the detriment of the occupants. Ruling : Indeed, municipal officers are liable for damages if they act maliciously or wantonly and if the work which they perform is done rather to injure an individual than to discharge a public. A public officer is civilly liable for failure to observe honesty and good faith in the performance of their duties as public officers or for willfully or negligently causing damage to another (Article 20, Civil Code) or for willfully causing loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs and/or public policy (Article 21, New Civil Code).

G.R. No. L-17396 May 30, 1962 CECILIO PE, ET AL. vs. ALFONSO PE Facts : Plaintiffs are the parents, brothers and sisters of one Lolita Pe. At the time of her disappearance, Lolita was 24 years old and unmarried. Defendant is a married man and works as agent of the La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory. The two eventually fell in love with each other and conducted clandestine tryst. They exchanged love notes with each other the contents of which reveal not only their infatuation for each other but also the extent to which they had carried their relationship. Issue : Plaintiffs brought this action before the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover moral, compensatory, exemplary and corrective damages. Ruling : There is no doubt that the claim of plaintiffs for damages is based on the fact that defendant, being a married man, carried on a love affair with Lolita Pe thereby causing plaintiffs injury in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy. 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. 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 an 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. G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. Facts : On October 4, 1954, Soledad Cagigas, hereinafter referred to as complaint, filed with said of her child, Chris Hermosisima, as natural child and moral damages for alleged breach of promise. Petitioner admitted the paternity of child and expressed willingness to support the latter, but denied having ever promised to marry the complainant. Issue : Whether or not moral damages are recoverable, under our laws, for breach of promise to marry. Breach of promise to marry is not actionable. "The action for breach of promises to marry has no standing in the civil law, apart from the right to recover money or property advanced . . . upon the faith of such promise".

G.R. No. L-14733 September 30, 1960 ERLINDA ESTOPA vs. LORETA PIANSAY, JR. Facts : The plaintiff Erlinda Estopa, stated that she fell in love and submitted herself completely to the defendant Loreta Piansay, Jr. after a courtship that lasted for a couple of months during which period the defendant consistently promised and succeeded to make her believe in him that he was going to marry her; the plaintiff was informed reliably that defendant was backing out from his promise of marriage so she demanded defendant's compliance to his promise in order to vindicate her honor, and plaintiff went to the extent of asking the help of defendant's parents, but all her efforts were in vain. Issue : Whether or not plaintiff can claim damages for breach of promise to marry. Ruling : Under the New Civil Code, the mere breach of a promise to marry is not actionable. Now, as plaintiff has no right to moral damages, she may not demand exemplary damages. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. Therefore, as plaintiff is not entitled to any damages at all, there is no reason to require Piansay, Jr. to satisfy attorney's fees. G.R. No. L-20089 December 26, 1964 BEATRIZ P. WASSMER vs. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ Facts : On August 23, 1954 plaintiff and defendant applied for a license to contract marriage, which was subsequently issued. Their wedding was set for September 4, 1954. Invitations were printed and distributed to relatives, friends and acquaintances. The bride-to-be's trousseau, party dresses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased .Dresses for the maid of honor and the flower girl were prepared. A matrimonial bed, with accessories, was bought. Bridal showers were given and gifts received. And then, with but two days before the wedding, defendant, who was then 28 years old,: simply left a note for plaintiff stating: "Will have to postpone wedding My mother opposes it ... " He enplaned to his home city in Mindanao, and the next day, the day before the wedding, he wired plaintiff: "Nothing changed rest assured returning soon." But he never returned and was never heard from again. Issue : Whether or not plaintiff can claim for damages for breach of promise to marry. Ruling : Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.

G.R. No. 57227 May 14, 1992 AMELITA CONSTANTINO and MICHAEL CONSTANTINO, the latter represented herein by the former, his mother and natural guardian vs. IVAN MENDEZ and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

Facts : Amelita Constantino alleges, among others, that she met Ivan Mendez at a restaurant where she worked as a waitress. Ivan professed his love and courted Amelita. Ivan brought Amelita inside his hotel room and through a promise of marriage succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the latter; that after the sexual contact, Ivan confessed to Amelita that he is a married man; that they repeated their sexual whenever Ivan is in Manila. Issue : Whether or not Amelita can claim actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees plus costs. Ruling : 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. Had she been induced or deceived because of a promise of marriage, she could have immediately severed her relation with Ivan when she was informed after their first sexual contact that he was a married man. G.R. No. 97336 February 19, 1993 GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T. GONZALES Facts : Gashem Shookat Baksh courted and proposed to marry Marilou T. Gonzales; she accepted his love on the condition that they would get married. The petitioner forced her to live with him; she was a virgin before she began living with him; petitioner's attitude towards her started to change; he maltreated and threatened to kill her; as a result of such maltreatment, she sustained injuries; petitioner repudiated their marriage agreement and asked her not to live with him anymore and; the petitioner is already married to someone else. Issue : Whether or not plaintiff can claim damages for breach of promise to marry. Ruling : The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. Where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.

G.R. No. L-56168 December 22, 1988 CARLOTA P. VALENZUELA, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS et al Facts : Carlos Telosa, a fisherman and farmer with a very limited education, obtained a loan from the Rural Bank of Lucena Inc. and as a security thereof, he mortgaged a parcel of land. Several months thereafter, the Rural Bank of Lucena became a distressed bank. The Monetary Board later on decided to liquidate the Lucena Bank. The Board in its resolution ordered the Superintendent of Banks to convert the assets of the Lucena bank to money. Among the accounts of the Lucena bank inventoried by the Central Bank's representative was the account of Carlos Telosa in the principal amount of P5,000.00. Because Carlos Telosa knew that his obligation to the rural bank was only P300.00 not P5,000.00, he executed an affidavit protesting the demand. Claiming that the payments made did not fully satisfy the whole amount due because the record still showed a balance of P9,032.22 including interest, authorized deputy of the Centra, petitioned the Deputy Provincial Sheriff to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage and sell the collateral at public auction. Issue : Whether or not foreclosure of mortgage can be nullified. Ruling : Yes. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the Court must be vigilant for his protection.

G.R. No. L-45404 August 7, 1987 G. JESUS B. RUIZ vs. ENCARNACION UCOL and THE COURT OF APPEALS Facts : Agustina Tagaca, laundrywoman for plaintiff-appellant Atty. Jesus B. Ruiz filed an administrative charge against defendant-appellee Encarnacion Ucol, a midwife in the health center of Sarratt Ilocos Norte. In her answer to the charges, Ucol alleged that Tagaca was merely used as a tool by Atty. Ruiz who wanted to get back at the Ucol's because of a case filed by Encarnacion Ucol's husband against Ruiz. She was also alleged to have made remarks that Atty. Ruiz instigated the complaint and fabricated the charges. Issue : Whether or not the civil action for damages was already barred by the criminal case of libel. Ruling : The findings in the criminal case show a pattern of harassment. First, petitioner Ruiz had something to do with the administrative complaint. The complaint was dismissed. Second, he filed a criminal case for libel based on portions of Mrs. Ucol's answer in the administrative case. Third, he acted as private prosecutor in the criminal case actively handling as a lawyer the very case where he was the complainant. And fourth, after the accused was acquitted on the basis of the facts stated above, Atty. Ruiz pursued his anger at the Ucols with implacability by filing a civil action for damages. As stated by the trial judge, "court actions are not established for parties to give bent to their prejudice." This is doubly true when the party incessantly filing cases is a member of the bar. He should set an example in sobriety and in trying to prevent false and groundless suits. G.R. No. L-39999 May 31, 1984 ROY PADILLA et al vs. COURT OF APPEALS Facts : In the morning of February 8, 1964, then Chief Galdones, complying with the instructions contained in said Memorandum No. 32 of the Mayor, and upon seeing that Antonio Vergara had not vacated the premises in question, with the aid of his policemen, forced upon the store or stall and ordered the removal of the goods inside the store of Vergara, at the same time taking inventory of the goods taken out, piled them outside in front of the store and had it cordoned with a rope, and after all the goods were taken out from the store, ordered the demolition of said stall of Antonio Vergara. Issue : Whether or not the respondent court committed a reversible error in requiring the petitioners to pay civil indemnity to the complainants after acquitting them from the criminal charge. Ruling : There is nothing contrary to the Civil Code provision in the rendition of a judgment of acquittal and a judgment awarding damages in the same criminal action. A judgment of acquittal operates to extinguish the criminal liability. It does not, however, extinguish the civil liability unless there is clear showing that the act from which civil liability might arise did not exist.