This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-08-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We, however, disagree with the Court of Appeals when it decided that the allegations in the complaint show a cause of action against petitioners for abuse of rights under Article 19[34] of the Civil Code. The elements of abuse of rights are: (1) a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; and (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.[35] Rather, the allegations bare commission of an act contrary to law under Article 20 of the same Code, which provides:Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. | |||||
|
2000-02-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner cannot pass on its blame to the professors to justify its own negligence that led to the delayed relay of information to respondent. When one of two innocent parties must suffer, he through whose agency the loss occurred must bear it.[13] The modern tendency is to grant indemnity for damages in cases where there is abuse of right, even when the act is not illicit.[14] If mere fault or negligence in one's acts can make him liable for damages for injury caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or bad faith make him liable. A person should be protected only when he acts in the legitimate exercise of his right, that is, when he acts with prudence and in good faith, but not when he acts with negligence or abuse.[15] | |||||