CIVIL LAW: Quasi-Delicts

Abuse of Right: Principles and Elements

The doctrine of abuse of rights under Philippine law is a foundational principle enshrined in Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides that every person must act with justice, give everyone their due, and observe honesty and good faith. This principle underpins the prohibition against using one's rights in a manner that causes damage to another. The abuse of rights principle plays a significant role in quasi-delicts, as it provides a basis for liability even in the exercise of what would otherwise be lawful rights.

I. The Principle of Abuse of Right

Abuse of rights arises when a person exercises a legal right or privilege in bad faith, with malice, or in a manner contrary to justice, fairness, and good faith. While a person is generally free to exercise their rights, this freedom is not absolute. The exercise of a right becomes actionable when it is used:

To prejudice another,
Beyond its intended purpose,
Contrary to the moral standards of society.

The rationale for this limitation is that no right should exist in isolation from the obligations imposed by law, morality, or public order.

II. Elements of Abuse of Rights

To establish the presence of an abuse of rights, the following elements must be proven:

Legal Right or Duty
- The defendant must have exercised a legal right or duty recognized by law. This right must be legitimate and ordinarily protected by legal norms.
Bad Faith or Intent to Prejudice
- The exercise of the right must have been motivated by bad faith, malice, or an intent to cause harm. Bad faith implies a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.
Damage or Injury
- There must be actual harm or injury suffered by another party as a result of the exercise of the right. The harm may be in the form of pecuniary loss, emotional distress, or other recognized forms of damage.
Absence of Justification
- The exercise of the right must lack any legitimate justification or purpose. Even if a right is legally conferred, its abuse cannot be justified if it causes harm without a legitimate objective.

III. Legal Basis

The principle of abuse of rights is anchored on the following provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines:

Article 19:
"Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith."
Article 20:
"Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same."
Article 21:
"Any person who wilfully 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."
Article 2176:
"Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter."

IV. Applications and Examples

Abuse of rights may manifest in various ways, such as:

Vindictiveness in Litigation
- Filing multiple baseless cases or motions against another party to harass or intimidate them.
Abuse of Property Rights
- Using one's property in a way that unreasonably interferes with the rights of neighbors, such as deliberately creating excessive noise or blocking access to pathways.
Malicious Termination of Contracts
- Terminating a contract with the sole purpose of prejudicing the other party, despite no legitimate business or legal justification.
Interference with Third Parties
- Using one's influence or rights to unjustly damage the business, relationships, or reputation of another.

V. Liability for Abuse of Rights

When an abuse of right is proven, the offending party may be held liable for damages. The following types of damages may be awarded:

Actual Damages
- Compensation for the quantifiable harm or injury suffered by the victim.
Moral Damages
- Awarded when the abuse of rights causes mental anguish, emotional distress, or similar harm.
Exemplary Damages
- Imposed to set an example and deter others from engaging in similar abusive conduct.
Attorney's Fees and Costs of Litigation
- May be awarded if the victim is compelled to litigate due to the abusive acts of the defendant.

VI. Distinction from Other Doctrines

Abuse of Rights vs. Negligence
- Abuse of rights involves intentional acts or malice, whereas negligence is the failure to exercise due care or prudence.
Abuse of Rights vs. Good Faith Exercise of Rights
- The exercise of rights in good faith and with legitimate justification, even if it results in harm, does not constitute abuse.
Abuse of Rights vs. Legal Malice
- Abuse of rights overlaps with malice, but the latter may be more specific in requiring a deliberate intent to harm, as seen in libel or slander cases.

VII. Jurisprudence

Philippine case law has elaborated on the doctrine of abuse of rights:

Velayo v. Shell Co. of the Philippines (G.R. No. L-7813, 1955)
- Held that a party's right to enforce a contract is limited by the principle of good faith.
Cruz v. CA (G.R. No. 119155, 1996)
- Clarified that the exercise of a legal right that unnecessarily prejudices another constitutes abuse of rights.
Far East Bank and Trust Co. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 117654, 1998)
- Emphasized that the abuse of rights doctrine requires proof of bad faith or malice.
Lita Enterprises, Inc. v. IAC (G.R. No. L-64693, 1987)
- Highlighted that rights must be exercised in a manner consistent with justice and equity.

VIII. Conclusion

The doctrine of abuse of rights serves as a vital safeguard against the misuse of legally conferred powers or privileges. It reflects the civil law’s emphasis on equity, fairness, and moral responsibility. In cases involving quasi-delicts, the doctrine ensures that rights are exercised within the bounds of good faith, justice, and societal norms, providing remedies to victims of abusive conduct.