The law on human relations

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III

Describing the Covid-19 pandemic as like waves in its surges is the perfect metaphor to what everyone is enduring nowadays. It starts as a ripple in one area, then on to the next;  and before you know it, an outbreak had already infected a household, an office, a community, or a district.

What is inhuman about the virus is that it strikes at the very core of humanity. People must get together for no man is an island. We talk. We smile. We laugh. We eat and drink together. And we laugh more when we share a meal or we drink together. But now all these had to change because of the dictates of health protocols to social-distance, to wear masks and face shields.

While buying fruits on a stand along the street, this column observed a police officer approaching an elderly woman who was not wearing a face mask. Expecting an impending arrest, the elderly woman threw a meek look at the police officer who kindly reminded her that she was not wearing a mask. Behind his mask and face shield, the police officer’s smile was evident. The elderly woman then hurried to her nearby car, took her mask, put it on, and thanked the police officer.  Witnessing this act of humanity, the other people nearby who were either improperly wearing their face masks, or none at all, also put on their masks securely.

Assuredly, this act of humanity had touched the heart of many during that morning at a time when humanity is facing one of its most trying times in terms of human relations.

This calls to mind the fundamental tenets of human relations in our present law. These  were articulated by the authors of the present Civil Code of the Philippines as follows:

“Human relations refers to rules needed to govern the inter-relationships of human beings in a society for the purpose of maintaining social order. As people have diverse and different interests and desires, it is but natural that clashes of interest arise in their interactions. To balance opposing or crisscrossing interests, there is a need for regulation and control to secure a “rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of the social order” (Report, Commission, p. 39).

Poignant in substance, succinct in form, and elegant in language, Article 19 of the New Civil Code enunciates the basic rule on human relations. It states:

Art. 19. 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.

“The principle of abuse of rights x x x departs from the classical theory that ‘he who uses a right injures no one.’ The modern tendency is to depart from the classical and traditional theory, and to grant indemnity for damages in cases where there is an abuse of rights, even when the act is not illicit:

“Article 19 [of the New Civil Code] was intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide[,] x x x specifically in statutory law. 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. The absence of good faith is essential to abuse of right. Good faith is 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. In business relations, it means good faith as understood by men of affairs.”  

“While Article 19 [of the New Civil Code] may have been intended as a mere declaration of principle, the ‘cardinal law on human conduct’ expressed in said article has given rise to certain rules, e.g. that where a person exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or unjustly or performs his duties in a manner that is not in keeping with honesty and good faith, he opens himself to liability. The elements of an abuse of rights under Article 19 are: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.” (Metroheights Subdivision Homeowners Association, Inc. v. CMS Construction and Development Corp., GR No. 209359, October 17, 2018).

A couple whose loan secured by a mortgage with a financing company turned sour attempted to take out the loan by applying with a bank. The bank approved the application and issued a Letter of Guaranty to the financing company so that as soon as the mortgage is released, and the bank’s own mortgage is annotated on the title of the mortgaged property, the bank will pay the loan. However, the financing company refused to accept the Letter of Guaranty by claiming that it cannot be forced to accept payment from the bank which is a third person. The Supreme Court ruled that while the bank indeed may refuse to accept payment from a third person, nonetheless, because it acted with bad faith when despite knowing that it is accepted business practice for loans to be taken out, then it was held liable for damages under Article 19 of the New Civil Code. (Manuel Go Cinco v. CA et al., G.R. No. 151903, October 9, 2009). 

A water district which cut off the water supply of its customers in one subdivision without sufficient prior notice was held liable as well under the principle of “abuse of rights” as enunciated in Metroheights Subdivision Homeowners Association, Inc. v. CMS Construction and Development Corp., GR No. 209359, October 17, 2018. While in the much later case of Ismael G. Lomarda and Crispina Raso v. Engr. Elmer T. Fudalan, G.R. No. 246012. June 17, 2020,  an electric distributing company was also taken to task under this rule for making it extremely difficult for the applicant for electricity service to get a connection. Thus, it was pronounced that:

“Under the foregoing circumstances, it is clear that petitioners should be held liable for damages under Article 19, in relation to Article 21, of the Civil Code. While it appears that petitioners were engaged in a legal act, i.e., exacting compliance with the requirements for the installation of respondent’s electricity in his farmhouse, the circumstances of this case show that the same was conducted contrary to morals and good customs, and were in fact done with the intent to cause injury to respondent. Petitioners did not only fail to apprise respondent of the proper procedure to expedite compliance with the requirements, they also misled him to believe that everything can be settled, extorted money from him when only a meager amount was due, and worse, publicly humiliated him in front of many people which ended up in the disconnection of his electricity altogether. To be sure, the clean hands doctrine — which was invoked by petitioners herein  should not apply in their favor, considering that while respondent may have technically failed to procure the required BAPA certification and proceeded with the tapping, the same was not due to his lack of effort or intention in complying with the rules in good faith. As exhibited above, it was, in fact, petitioners’ own acts which made compliance with the rules impossible.”

Indeed, possessing a right or our entitlement to the same is one thing; while the manner of exercising it is another. It also means that just because we have a right, it does not mean that we possess the unlimited power to enforce it even if it will cause harm on others.

This is akin to the golden rule that both citizens and government regulators alike must observe in the exercise of their rights and in the performance of their duties, respectively.   In short, the legal exercise of our rights ends where the rights of others begin. The lawful performance of duty turns unlawful when tainted with abuse. That police officer detailed at the fruit stand who instead of apprehending the elderly woman for not wearing a face mask chose to simply remind her for her honest mistake, may or may not know about the “doctrine of abuse of rights”: but he surely knows the essence of humanity.

This elementary rule on human relations teaches us to infect others with kindness and justness and not to inoculate unto society abusive conduct that can cause a contagion far worse than what we are currently facing.