1.)What is the Legal dispute?

Whether AB’s act of questioning CD regarding her(CD’s) text message which accuses him
(AB) of creating and implementing a policy without prior notice constitute an act of
humilation.

2.)What are the facts of the case?

CD accused AB through a text message that he (AB) created and implemented a pollicy
without prior notice. AB questioneed CD inside his office about it.That time, the door was
closed but not locked. A week later CD filed a complaint against AD for humiliation.

3.)What is the general nature of the legal dispute involved?

The legal dispute consists in the allegation that AB questioned CD in a manner humilating
to the latter, hence, tainted with malice and bad faith.

4.)What is the law?

The applicable laws are article 21 in relation to article 19 of the civil code.

5.)what are the jurisprudence?

For prosecution

Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary
to morals or good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

In view of the foregoing, respondent is entitled to an award of moral damages and attorney s
fees. Moral damages may be awarded whenever the defendant s wrongful act or omission is the
proximate cause of the plaintiffs physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury in
the cases specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.41 Moral
damages are not a bonanza. They are given to ease the defendant s grief and suffering. They
should, thus, reasonably approximate the extent of hurt caused and the gravity of the wrong
done.42 They are awarded not to enrich the complainant but to enable the latter to obtain means,
diversions, or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone.
[CALIFORNIA CLOTHING INC. and MICHELLE S. YBAÑEZ vs.
SHIRLEY G. QUIÑONES, G.R. No. 175822 , October 23, 2013]

PAL’s actions in implicating Montinola and penalizing her for no clear reason show bad faith.
PAL’s denial of her request to clarify the charges against her shows its intent to do a wrongful act
for moral obliquity. If it were acting in good faith, it would have gathered more evidence from its
contact in Honolulu or from other employees before it started pointing fingers.

When the alleged participation of the employee in the illicit act which serves as a basis for the
disciplinary action is not clear from the notice, the opportunity to be heard will not be
reasonable. The notice fails to meet reasonable standards. It does not have enough information to
enable the employee to adequately prepare a defense. G.R. No. 198656, September 8, 2014
NANCY S. MONTINOLA, vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES .

According to the principle of damnum absque injuria, damage or loss which does not constitute a
violation of a legal right or amount to a legal wrong is not actionable . This principle finds no
application in this case. It bears repeating that even granting that petitioners might have had the
right to dismiss Tobias from work, the abusive manner in which that right was exercised
amounted to a legal wrong for which petitioners must now be held liable. Moreover, the damage
incurred by Tobias was not only in connection with the abusive manner in which he was
dismissed but was also the result of several other quasi-delictual acts committed by petitioners.
[GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., and HERBERT C. HENDRY vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS and RESTITUTO M. TOBIAS, G.R. No. 81262 August 25, 1989]