Lessons Applicable: Quasi-delict (Torts and Damages)
FACTS:
- Gashem Shookat Baksh (Gashem), a medical student in Lyceum Northwestern Dagupan City, courted and proposed to marry 22 years old, single, Filipino and a pretty lass of good moral character and reputation duly respected in her community
- she accepted his love on the condition that they would get married after the end of the school semester (October that year)
- Gashem visited her parents in Pangasinan for approval for marriage
- August 20 1987: Gashem forced her to live with him when she was still a virgin then he started to maltreat and threatened to kill her resulting into injuries
- would tie plaintiff's hands and feet while he went to school, and he even gave her medicine at 4 o'clock in the morning that made her sleep the whole day and night until the following day
- she became pregnant, but Gashem gave her some medicine to abort the fetus
- Gashem continued to live with defendant and kept reminding him of his promise to marry her until he asked her not to live with him anymore as he is already married to someone living in Bacolod City
- he lived with another woman in Bacolod City but did not marry that woman, just like what he did to plaintiff
- resigned from her job at the restaurant after she had accepted defendant's proposal
- Plaintiff's father, a tricycle driver, already looked for sponsors for the wedding, started preparing for the reception by looking for pigs and chickens, and even already invited many relatives and friends to the forthcoming wedding.
- prayed for judgment ordering Gashem to pay her damages
- Gashem: never proposed marriage to or agreed to be married; he did not maltreat her, but only told her to stop coming to his place because he discovered that she had deceived him by stealing his money and passport
- RTC: favored private respondent and against Gashem
- gave full credit to the private respondent's testimony because, inter alia, she would not have had the temerity and courage to come to court and expose her honor and reputation to public scrutiny and ridicule if her claim was false
- CA: affirmed RTC
- Gashem's acts are palpably and undoubtedly against morals, good customs, and public policy, and are even gravely and deeply derogatory and insulting to our women, coming as they do from a foreigner who has been enjoying the hospitality of our people and taking advantage of the opportunity to study in one of our institutions of learning
- Gashem criticizes the trial court for liberally invoking Filipino customs, traditions and culture, and ignoring the fact that since he is a foreigner, he is not conversant with such Filipino customs, traditions and culture. As an Iranian Moslem, he is not familiar with Catholic and Christian ways. He stresses that even if he had made a promise to marry, the subsequent failure to fulfill the same is excusable or tolerable because of his Moslem upbringing; he then alludes to the Muslim Code which purportedly allows a Muslim to take four (4) wives and concludes that on the basis thereof, the trial court erred in ruling that he does not posses good moral character. Moreover, his controversial "common law life" is now his legal wife as their marriage had been solemnized in civil ceremonies in the Iranian Embassy. As to his unlawful cohabitation with the private respondent, petitioner claims that even if responsibility could be pinned on him for the live-in relationship, the private respondent should also be faulted for consenting to an illicit arrangement
- promised to marry her would not be actionable since mere breach of promise is not actionable
ISSUE: W/N damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
HELD: YES. Petition is denied.
- existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong
- Under the present laws, there is no crime, as the girl is above nineteen years of age
- Art. 23. 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.
- Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which defines a quasi-delict thus:
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
- Quasi-delict, known in Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, is a civil law concept while torts is an Anglo-American or common law concept. Torts is much broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but international criminal acts as well such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit.
- intentional and malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be governed by the Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code
- Article 21 fills that vacuum and has greatly broadened the scope of the law on civil wrongs; it has become much more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-American law on torts
- acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21
- It is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
- In fact, it is apparent that she had qualms of conscience about the entire episode for as soon as she found out that the petitioner was not going to marry her after all, she left him. She is not, therefore, in pari delicto with the petitioner. Pari delicto means "in equal fault; in a similar offense or crime; equal in guilt or in legal fault."
- let it not be said that this Court condones the deplorable behavior of her parents in letting her and the petitioner stay together in the same room in their house after giving approval to their marriage. It is the solemn duty of parents to protect the honor of their daughters and infuse upon them the higher values of morality and dignity.