Mata Vs Agravante
Mata Vs Agravante
August 6, 2008
Nachura, J.
* DEFINITION
Article 21 refers to acts contra bonos mores
ELEMENTS
(1) an act which is legal; (2) but which is contrary to morals, good
custom, public order or public policy; and (3) is done with intent to
injure.
Facts
Mata owns a security agency. Respondents were former security gurads who
filed a complaint in the NLRC for non-payment of salaries and wages. They
then subsequently filed an affidavit complaint with the PNP, copies were then
sent to various offices including the Office of the President and the DPWH,
petitioner’s biggest client.
Issue
Whether or not respondents furninshing of copies to the PNP, DPWH etal was
tainted with bad faith and hence liable for damages.
Decision
Ratio
In filing the letter-complaint with the Philippine National Police and furnishing
copies thereof to seven (7) other executive offices of the national
government, the defendants-appellants may not be said to be motivated
simply by the desire to “unduly prejudice the good name and reputation” of
plaintiff-appellee. Such act was consistent with and a rational consequence
of seeking justice through legal means for the alleged abuses defendants-
appellants suffered in the course of their employment.
The act of furnishing copies was merely to inform said offices of the fact of
filing of such complaint, as is usually done by individual complainants seeking
official government action to address their problems or grievances.
In the absence of proof that there was malice or bad faith on the part of the
respondents, no damages can be awarded.