Lawyerly

GR No. 199601

2015-11-23

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. JOSEPHINE D. GOMEZ

BRION, J.

[Article 19], known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human' relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper.[11] [emphasis supplied]

GR No. 156162

2015-06-22

CCC INSURANCE CORPORATION v. KAWASAKI STEEL CORPORATION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Bad faith has been defined as "a breach of a known duty through some motive of interest or ill will. It must, however, be substantiated by evidence. Bad faith under the law cannot be presumed, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence."[48] There is no evidence in this case to show bad faith on the part of CCCIC. CCCIC, in refusing the claim of Kawasaki, was merely acting based on its belief in the righteousness of its defense. Hence, even though Kawasaki was compelled to litigate to enforce its claim against CCCIC, the award of attorney's fees is not proper.

GR No. 191475

2013-12-11

PHILIPPINE CARPET MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. IGNACIO B. TAGYAMON

PERALTA, J.

Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[30] It has been repeatedly[31] held by the Court that:x x x Laches is a doctrine in equity while prescription is based on law. Our courts are basically courts of law not courts of equity. Thus, laches cannot be invoked to resist the enforcement of an existing legal right. x x x Courts exercising equity jurisdiction are bound by rules of law and have no arbitrary discretion to disregard them. In Zabat Jr. v. Court of Appeals x x x, this Court was more emphatic in upholding the rules of procedure. We said therein:

GR No. 174646

2012-08-22

PHILIPPINES v. DOLE REYNALDO B. RODRIGUEZ

PERALTA, J.

As aptly explained by the Court in GF Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona[74] -

GR No. 174646

2012-08-22

PHILIPPINES v. DOLE REYNALDO B. RODRIGUEZ

PERALTA, J.

As aptly explained by the Court in GF Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona[74] -

GR No. 174104

2011-02-14

INSURANCE OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CORPORATION v. SPS. VIDAL S. GREGORIO AND JULITA GREGORIO

PERALTA, J.

The essence of laches or "stale demands" is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[9] It is not concerned with mere lapse of time; the fact of delay, standing alone, being insufficient to constitute laches.[10][ ]

GR No. 174269

2010-08-25

POLO S. PANTALEON v. AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL

BRION, J.

While Article 19 enumerates the standards of conduct, Article 21 provides the remedy for the person injured by the willful act, an action for damages. We explained how these two provisions correlate with each other in GF Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona:[38]

GR No. 174466

2008-07-14

ACI PHILIPPINES v. EDITHA C. COQUIA

TINGA, J,

Finally, we find the appellate court's citation of Article 21 of the Civil Code misplaced not only because of the pre-existing contractual relation between the parties which bars the application of this provision, but more importantly because we do not deem petitioner to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith.[26]

GR No. 160273

2008-01-18

CEBU COUNTRY CLUB v. RICARDO F. ELIZAGAQUE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In GF Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona,[5] we expounded Article 19 and correlated it with Article 21, thus:This article, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper. (Emphasis in the original)

GR NO. 145291

2005-09-21

PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY v. ROSARIO GANAC CHU

The foregoing provision sets standards which must be observed in the exercise of one's rights as well as in the performance of its duties, to wit: to act with justice; give everyone his due; and observe honesty and good faith.[22] When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which the actor can be held accountable.[23]

	GR No. 199601 2015-11-23	PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. JOSEPHINE D. GOMEZ BRION, J.
[Article 19], known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human' relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper.[11] [emphasis supplied]
	GR No. 156162 2015-06-22	CCC INSURANCE CORPORATION v. KAWASAKI STEEL CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Bad faith has been defined as "a breach of a known duty through some motive of interest or ill will. It must, however, be substantiated by evidence. Bad faith under the law cannot be presumed, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence."[48] There is no evidence in this case to show bad faith on the part of CCCIC. CCCIC, in refusing the claim of Kawasaki, was merely acting based on its belief in the righteousness of its defense. Hence, even though Kawasaki was compelled to litigate to enforce its claim against CCCIC, the award of attorney's fees is not proper.
	GR No. 191475 2013-12-11	PHILIPPINE CARPET MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. IGNACIO B. TAGYAMON PERALTA, J.
Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[30] It has been repeatedly[31] held by the Court that:x x x Laches is a doctrine in equity while prescription is based on law. Our courts are basically courts of law not courts of equity. Thus, laches cannot be invoked to resist the enforcement of an existing legal right. x x x Courts exercising equity jurisdiction are bound by rules of law and have no arbitrary discretion to disregard them. In Zabat Jr. v. Court of Appeals x x x, this Court was more emphatic in upholding the rules of procedure. We said therein:
	GR No. 174646 2012-08-22	PHILIPPINES v. DOLE REYNALDO B. RODRIGUEZ PERALTA, J.
As aptly explained by the Court in GF Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona[74] -
	GR No. 174646 2012-08-22	PHILIPPINES v. DOLE REYNALDO B. RODRIGUEZ PERALTA, J.
As aptly explained by the Court in GF Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona[74] -
	GR No. 174104 2011-02-14	INSURANCE OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CORPORATION v. SPS. VIDAL S. GREGORIO AND JULITA GREGORIO PERALTA, J.
The essence of laches or "stale demands" is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[9] It is not concerned with mere lapse of time; the fact of delay, standing alone, being insufficient to constitute laches.[10][ ]
	GR No. 174269 2010-08-25	POLO S. PANTALEON v. AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BRION, J.
While Article 19 enumerates the standards of conduct, Article 21 provides the remedy for the person injured by the willful act, an action for damages. We explained how these two provisions correlate with each other in GF Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona:[38]
	GR No. 174466 2008-07-14	ACI PHILIPPINES v. EDITHA C. COQUIA TINGA, J,
Finally, we find the appellate court's citation of Article 21 of the Civil Code misplaced not only because of the pre-existing contractual relation between the parties which bars the application of this provision, but more importantly because we do not deem petitioner to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith.[26]
	GR No. 160273 2008-01-18	CEBU COUNTRY CLUB v. RICARDO F. ELIZAGAQUE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In GF Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona,[5] we expounded Article 19 and correlated it with Article 21, thus:This article, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper. (Emphasis in the original)
	GR NO. 145291 2005-09-21	PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY v. ROSARIO GANAC CHU
The foregoing provision sets standards which must be observed in the exercise of one's rights as well as in the performance of its duties, to wit: to act with justice; give everyone his due; and observe honesty and good faith.[22] When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which the actor can be held accountable.[23]

GF EQUITY v. ARTURO VALENZONA