This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-08-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it disappears when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of others. The mask of a right without the spirit of justice which gives it life is repugnant to the modern concept of social law. It cannot be said that a person exercises a right when he unnecessarily prejudices another or offends morals or good customs. Over and above the specific precepts of positive law are the supreme norms of justice which the law develops and which are expressed in three principles: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere and jus suum quique tribuere; and he who violates them violates the law. For this reason, it is not permissible to abuse our rights to prejudice others.[75] In the sphere of our law on human relations, the victim of a wrongful act or omission, whether done willfully or negligently, is not left without any remedy or recourse to obtain relief for the damage or injury he sustained. Incorporated into. our civil law are not only principles of equity but also universal moral precepts which are designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience and which are meant to serve as guides for human conduct.[76] | |||||
|
2010-01-19 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Under the abuse of right principle found in Article 19 of the Civil Code,[9] a person must, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, act in good faith. He would be liable if he instead acts in bad faith, with intent to prejudice another. Complementing this principle are Articles 20[10] and 21[11] of the Civil Code which grant the latter indemnity for the injury he suffers because of such abuse of right or duty.[12] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioner not only failed to rebut the evidence presented, he himself presented no evidence of his own. His bare denials are telling. Well-settled is the rule that denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving which merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[23] | |||||
|
2007-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The foregoing provision provides the legal basis for the award of damages to a party who suffers damage whenever one commits an act in violation of some legal provision.[30] This was incorporated by the Code Commission to provide relief to a person who suffers damage because another has violated some legal provision.[31] | |||||
|
2005-09-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that the Court's jurisdiction under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is limited to the review of errors of law committed by the appellate court. Nonetheless, while this Court is not a trier of facts, it may review the evidence on record to arrive at the correct factual conclusion,[14] especially when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts, or when the inference drawn from the facts is manifestly mistaken,[15] as in the case at bar. | |||||