Acts Contrary to Morals | Principles | QUASI-DELICTS

CIVIL LAW > XI. QUASI-DELICTS > A. Principles > 5. Acts Contrary to Morals

Overview

Acts contrary to morals, as a principle in quasi-delicts under Philippine civil law, stem from the broader legal mandate that no person shall unjustly cause damage to another, whether willfully or negligently, without a valid legal or moral justification. This principle is codified under the Civil Code of the Philippines and operates as a cornerstone of liability, particularly where harm arises not from breaches of specific laws but from violations of fundamental moral principles.

Legal Basis

1. Article 19, Civil Code of the Philippines:

   • "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."
   • This provision introduces the general duty to adhere to moral principles when exercising rights or performing duties.

2. Article 20, Civil Code of the Philippines:

   • "Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same."
   • An act contrary to morals may be considered a violation of "law" in the context of this provision if such act breaches general principles of justice and fairness.

3. Article 21, Civil Code of the Philippines:

   • "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."
   • This article specifically establishes liability for acts that violate moral standards or good customs, regardless of whether they constitute a violation of a written law.

Elements of Liability Under Article 21

For an act contrary to morals to give rise to liability under quasi-delict principles, the following elements must be present:

1. There is an act or omission by the defendant:

   • The act must be deliberate or negligent, and it must violate societal standards of morality, good customs, or public policy.

2. The act is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy:

   • Morals refer to universally accepted standards of right and wrong.
   • Good customs pertain to the accepted practices within the community that embody societal values.
   • Public policy involves considerations of fairness and equity that transcend individual interests.

3. There is damage or injury caused to the plaintiff:

   • The plaintiff must prove that actual harm, whether material, emotional, or reputational, was caused by the defendant’s act.

4. Causal connection:

   • A direct link between the act contrary to morals and the injury sustained must be established.

Nature and Scope

1. Moral Obligations in Law:

   • Acts contrary to morals address instances where legal technicalities might not strictly apply but where justice demands the imposition of liability. For example, adultery may not result in criminal liability under certain circumstances but can give rise to a claim for damages under Article 21.

2. Scope of Moral Violations:

   • Includes acts such as fraud, abuse of rights, betrayal of trust, malicious gossip, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, among others.
   • Acts contrary to morals often intersect with violations of Article 19 and Article 20, creating a framework for civil liability even in non-contractual disputes.

Application in Jurisprudence

1. Case Examples:

   • Filipinas Broadcasting Network v. Ago Medical Center:
     • The court ruled that disparaging remarks or publications made with malice and intended to harm the reputation of an institution violated morals and warranted damages.
   • Aquino v. Aure:
     • A case involving a lover who abandoned his pregnant partner was deemed an act contrary to morals, entitling the woman to damages.
   • Alonzo v. Cebu Country Club:
     • The expulsion of a club member without just cause, violating the principles of fair play and justice, was held to be contrary to good customs and public policy.

2. Standards of Morality and Interpretation:

   • Courts generally defer to societal norms and moral standards prevailing in the Philippines. However, these standards are not fixed and may evolve with societal progress.

3. Overlaps with Other Legal Principles:

   • Acts contrary to morals often overlap with tortious conduct under quasi-delicts and abuse of rights under Article 19. Courts take a comprehensive approach to assess liability.

Remedies Available

1. Indemnification for Actual Damages:

   • Plaintiffs may recover compensation for tangible losses directly caused by the act.

2. Moral Damages:

   • These are awarded to compensate the victim for emotional or psychological suffering resulting from the act.

3. Exemplary Damages:

   • In cases where the act contrary to morals is particularly egregious or involves gross malice, exemplary damages may be imposed as a deterrent.

4. Attorney’s Fees:

   • Courts may also award attorney’s fees if the act forced the plaintiff to litigate.

Key Defenses

1. Justification:

   • The defendant may argue that the act was justified by valid moral, legal, or societal considerations.

2. Absence of Damage:

   • Without proof of actual harm, the plaintiff’s claim may fail.

3. Absence of Causal Connection:

   • The defendant may assert that the damage was not directly caused by the act.

4. Good Faith:

   • A bona fide exercise of rights or duties, even if it incidentally causes harm, may negate liability.

Conclusion

Acts contrary to morals serve as a safety net for imposing liability in the absence of explicit statutory provisions. By upholding societal values and good customs, this principle reinforces the Civil Code’s overarching aim of fairness and equity in interpersonal relations. In the Philippine legal context, it underscores the judiciary’s commitment to justice not merely by adherence to written law but by rooting its decisions in fundamental moral principles.