In good faith

The exercise of one’s rights should not be attended by malice or bad faith or intent to injure. Otherwise he/she may be liable for damages under Articles 19 and 21 in relation to Article 20 of the Civil Code. This case of five security guards is an example of lack of malice or bad faith.

Alex, Ed, Pat, Andy and Gil worked as security guards (SG) of a security agency (BPSA) owned by Marita. They were assigned in Cebu City. When they started questioning some violations of labor laws and manifested their desire to take formal actions, they were subjected to retaliatory acts of harassments that led to their dismissal. So on October 27, 1993, with the assistance of counsel, they filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Cebu City for illegal dismissal and non payment of salaries/wages and other benefits.

Subsequently, the five former guards also filed an affidavit complaint with the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Camp Crame, Quezon City requesting an investigation of BPSA and cancellation of its license to operate as security agency for violation of labor laws. Copies of said affidavit-complaint were likewise sent to seven other executive offices of the national government including the Office of the Secretary of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) which was the biggest client of BPSA.

Said moves of Alex, Ed, Pat Andy and Gil through their lawyer prompted Marita, the owner of BPSA, to institute an action for damages against them. She averred that the five former guards filed unfounded, baseless complaints with the NLRC and the PNP driven by unrestrained hatred and revenge to the extent of disseminating their letter complaint with the PNP to seven government offices including her biggest client DPWH, with the intention to destroy her reputation and, more importantly, her business. She claimed that the five former SGs have abused their right to her prejudice, and that of her security agency which has tried very hard to protect its name and hard earned reputation. She concluded that they have violated Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code and should be held liable for moral damages in the sum of P1 million and attorney’s fees of P200,000. Can Marita recover said amounts?

No. Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, is not a panacea for all human hurts and social grievances. The object of this article is to set 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: act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Article 21 on the other hand refers to acts contra bonos mores and has the following elements: (1) an act that is legal; (2) but which is contrary to morals, good customs, public order or public policy and (3) done with intent to injure.

The common element under Articles 19 and 21 is that the act complained of must be intentional and attended with malice or bad faith. There is no hard and fast rule that can be applied to determine whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked. It depends on the circumstances of each case.

In this case, the circumstances do not warrant an award of damages. In the action of the five former SGs there was no malicious intention to injure Marita’s good name and reputation or that of the BPSA. The act of furnishing copies to seven other executive offices is consistent with and a rational consequence of seeking justice through legal means for the alleged abuses they suffered in the course of their employment in BPSA. They merely wanted to call the attention of responsible government agencies in order to secure appropriate action upon erring private security agency and obtain redress for their grievances. In the absence of proof that there was malice or bad faith on the part of the former SGs, no damages can be awarded to Marita or BPSA (Mata etc. vs. Agravante et. al. G.R. 147597, August 6, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]