The Rule on ‘Human Relations’ (Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code)

I. Introduction

This memorandum provides an exhaustive analysis of the Rule on Human Relations, enshrined in Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. These articles constitute the fundamental legal norms governing the conduct of every person in the exercise of their rights and in the performance of their duties. They establish a general standard of behavior intended to promote a just and humane social order, operating as a catch-all provision to provide relief for injuries arising from acts that, while not necessarily falling under a specific nominate tort or provision of law, are contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. The analysis will cover their legal basis, individual elements, jurisprudential applications, defenses, and procedural considerations.

II. Legal Basis and Codification

The Rule on Human Relations is codified in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code (Articles 19-21), under Chapter 2, entitled “Human Relations.” This placement is significant, as it indicates that these articles are foundational principles that permeate the entire legal system. They were introduced in the Civil Code of 1950 (Republic Act No. 386) under the direction of the Code Commission, chaired by Dr. Arturo M. Tolentino, to embody the social justice principles of the Constitution. Article 19 is the overarching principle, while Articles 20 and 21 provide specific applications and a general clause for actionable wrongs.

III. Article 19: The Umbrella Principle

Article 19 states: “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.”
This article is known as the principle of abuse of right. It establishes a general limitation on the exercise of one’s rights. A right, though legally recognized, ceases to be protected by law when it is exercised in a manner that does not conform to the norms set forth in Article 19. The elements for a cause of action under Article 19, as established in jurisprudence, are: (1) the existence of a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith or in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy; and (3) with the primary intent to prejudice or injure another. The malice or bad faith is central, focusing on the motive and manner of the act, not merely its legality.

IV. Article 20: Liability for Wilful or Negligent Acts

Article 20 states: “Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.”
This article provides the basis for quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, but is broader. It covers any act or omission that is contrary to law-which includes statutes, executive orders, administrative rules, and even constitutional provisions-and causes damage. The elements are: (1) an act or omission; (2) which is contrary to law (i.e., unlawful); (3) performed wilfully (with dolus) or negligently (with culpa); (4) which causes damage to another; and (5) there is a causal connection between the act/omission and the damage. It serves as a general sanction for violations of legal norms resulting in injury.

V. Article 21: Liability for Acts Contrary to Morals, Good Customs, or Public Policy

Article 21 states: “Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”
This is the most expansive provision, often called the “catch-all” clause. It creates a cause of action for damages even when the act does not constitute a breach of a specific law or contract. The elements are: (1) there is an act which is contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy; (2) it is done wilfully; (3) it causes loss or injury to another; and (4) there is a causal relation between the act and the injury. The wilfulness required pertains to the performance of the act itself, not necessarily to the intent to cause the specific injury. The act’s contrariety to societal norms is the core of the wrong.

VI. Interrelation and Distinction Among the Three Articles

The three articles are interrelated and often pleaded together. Article 19 is the general principle that informs the application of the other two. Articles 20 and 21 provide specific grounds for liability: Article 20 for acts contrary to law, and Article 21 for acts contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. A single set of facts may give rise to liability under all three. For instance, an act may constitute an abuse of right (Art. 19) that is also contrary to law (Art. 20) and contrary to good customs (Art. 21). The key distinctions lie in the standard violated (law vs. societal norms) and the required mental state. Article 21 does not require the act to be illegal, only that it is wilful and contravenes non-legal norms.

VII. Comparative Analysis with Other Sources of Obligation

The Human Relations articles, particularly Articles 20 and 21, are sources of obligations that exist alongside and independent of contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts (crimes), and specific quasi-delicts (torts under Article 2176). The following table illustrates the distinctions:

VIII. Jurisprudential Applications and Illustrative Cases

Philippine jurisprudence has extensively applied the Human Relations articles.
Article 19: Applied in cases of malicious prosecution (Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. CA), where a suit was filed not to enforce a right but to harass; in corporate disputes where majority stockholders exercise rights to oppress minority (PNB v. Andrada Electric); and in eviction cases done in bad faith.
Article 20: Used to award damages for violations of constitutional rights (e.g., illegal dismissal violating labor laws) or statutory rights.
Article 21: Most frequently invoked for novel wrongs. Landmark applications include: Seduction under a promise of marriage (Wassmer v. Velez); Breach of promise to marry if attended by bad faith (Cariño v. Cariño); Unfair competition beyond intellectual property laws; Interference with contractual relations; Emotional distress inflicted intentionally (Mendoza v. ARC Hotel); and Violation of privacy.

IX. Defenses and Limitations

Potential defenses against claims under the Human Relations articles include: (1) Absence of wilfulness or bad faith – a showing that the act was done in good faith or without intent to injure; (2) Exercise of a right in a lawful manner – if the act is a legitimate exercise of a right without contravening the standards in Articles 19-21; (3) Lack of causal connection (proximate cause) between the act and the alleged damage; (4) Prescription – actions based on Articles 20 and 21 prescribe in four (4) years from the time the cause of action accrues (Article 1146, Civil Code); (5) Waiver, release, or accord and satisfaction; and (6) Damages are too remote or speculative. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the elements, particularly bad faith or wilfulness, and the fact and extent of damages.

X. Conclusion and Procedural Considerations

The Rule on Human Relations is a dynamic and essential component of Philippine civil law, ensuring that legal technicalities do not preclude justice for wrongful acts that offend societal norms. It empowers courts to adjudicate claims for damages arising from antisocial behavior not specifically catalogued elsewhere in the law. In practice, claims under these articles are typically pleaded as alternative causes of action in complaints for damages. Moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses are often recoverable under these provisions when the defendant’s acts are wanton, fraudulent, oppressive, or done in bad faith. Practitioners must carefully allege and prove the specific elements of the article invoked, with particular emphasis on the manner and motive of the act, to successfully invoke these foundational principles of human dignity and social justice.