l case may be filed for the same fault or negligence. The only condition is that the offended party cannot recover damages from both, and would only be entitled to the bigger award. [39]
B. Special Torts: Human Relations
The term human relations is defined as “the interaction [ ] of one person [with] another ... in accordance with mores, habits, customs, and public policy not contrary to laws.” [40] Human relations also “refer to the rules needed to govern the interrelationship of human beings in a society for the purpose of maintaining social order.” [41]
It is an undisputable fact that each person has his own desires and interests. These interests, however, are often not the same, and may in fact conflict with the interests of other persons. Thus, laws are necessary to create (1) legal protection for these diverse interests and (2) a balance of the same. Not all situations though can be foreseen or predicted by the legislature. Far from being soothsayers or omniscient, the congress cannot pass laws that would address all situations. In this regard, a “catch all” provision was included in the Civil Code. According to Hector S. De Leon, the Chapter on Human Relations found in the new Civil Code,
[I]ncorporate not only basic principles of equity and justice but also universal moral precepts not expressly recognized by specific provisions of law. They cover not only negligent acts but also intentional torts involving malice or bad faith.
According to the Code Commission:
“Therein are formulated some basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of the social order. The [old] Civil Code merely states the effects of the law, but fails to draw out the spirit of the law. This chapter is designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience. These guides for human conduct should run as golden threads through society, to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal, which is the sway and dominance of justice.
Needless to say, every sound legislation from time immemorial has sought to act as an arbiter between the conflicting rights of individuals. To accomplish so noble a commission, the lawmaker makes it imperative that every one duly respect the rights of others.” [42]
Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that not only principles of equity are integrated in our
civil law but universal moral precepts as well. With this, the Code Commission envisions to achieve “the supreme ideal of justice, [which is to] vindicate every conceivable social wrong.” [43]
Article 19 of the Civil Code provides:
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. [44]
A person cannot be said to exercise a right if in doing so he prejudices other people. The same is true if his actions are contrary to morals or good customs. In consonance with the spirit of justice, a right of a person disappears when its exercise is abused, especially if it injures another. Hence, “[t]he exercise of [one’s] rights must [always] be done within certain limits.” [45] In Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained:
This article, known to
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。