Default modelResearch answer
Definition
Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines requires that every person, in exercising rights and performing duties, must act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. This principle is recognized by the Supreme Court in Manaloto v. Veloso as the basis for liability when rights are exercised in bad faith or with the intent to prejudice another.
Explanation
- legal right or duty exists to be exercised or performed (Manaloto v. Veloso, G.R. No. 171365 (2010-10-06))
- the right or duty is exercised in bad faith (Manaloto v. Veloso, G.R. No. 171365 (2010-10-06))
- the exercise is for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another (Manaloto v. Veloso, G.R. No. 171365 (2010-10-06))
In Manaloto v. Veloso, the Supreme Court also said that the “absence of good faith is essential to abuse of right,” and it described good faith as “an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through the forms or technicalities of the law, together with an absence of all information or belief of fact which would render the transaction unconscientious.” (Manaloto v. Veloso, G.R. No. 171365 (2010-10-06))
Article 19 is closely connected to the idea of abuse of rights, and it is not limited to actions that are clearly “illicit” in the strict sense; the Court recognized indemnity for damages for abuse of rights even when the act is not otherwise illegal. (Manaloto v. Veloso, G.R. No. 171365 (2010-10-06))
- citation lookup failed (5 provisions numbered 19 — name the Article/Title/Rule to disambiguate); used search
Article 19 of the Civil Code provides that in exercising rights and performing duties, a person must act justly, give others their due, and observe honesty and good faith.
This means that even when someone is exercising a right or doing something they think they are allowed to do, they must still act justly and with honesty and good faith; otherwise, it can be treated as an abuse of rights. In Manaloto v. Veloso, the Supreme Court explained that this principle can create liability as a tortuous conduct.
"First, respondent filed the complaint to protect his good character, name, and reputation. Every man has a right to build, keep, and be favored with a good name. This right is protected by law with the recognition of slander and libel as actionable wrongs, whether as criminal offenses or tortuous conduct.23 Second, petitioners are obliged to respect respondent's good name even though they are opposing parties in the unlawful detainer case. As Article 19 of the Civil Code requires, "
very 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." A violation of such principle constitutes an abuse of rights, a tortuous conduct. We expounded in Sea Commercial Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals24 that: The principle of abuse of rights stated in the above article, departs from the classical ..." (Manaloto v. Veloso, G.R. No. 171365 (2010-10-06))
Cases retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.