Short answer. Yes. Having the right to do something is not a defence to how you did it. The Civil Code requires everyone to exercise their rights with justice, honesty and good faith, so a right used mainly to injure someone else can still ground a claim for damages.
What the law says
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Civil Code, Article 19 — Abuse of Rights (Principle of Human Relations). Read the full provision →
What the law says
Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Civil Code, Article 20 — Damage Contrary to Law. Read the full provision →
A right comes with a standard for using it
Article 19 sets the baseline for all of private law: every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Read carefully, it does not say you may do as you like with what is yours. It says the exercise itself is subject to a standard. That is why "I was within my rights" answers the wrong question. The right existed; what is being examined is the manner and the motive with which it was used, and whether that use was aimed at a legitimate end or at harming somebody.
What usually turns an ordinary act into an actionable one
Three things tend to matter together: that a legal right or duty genuinely existed, that it was exercised in bad faith, and that the exercise was intended to prejudice or injure another person. Bad faith here means something more than a hard bargain or an unwelcome decision — it is a dishonest purpose, an act done for the sake of the harm rather than for any benefit to the person doing it. A creditor who collects what he is owed is not liable because the debtor suffers; a person who invokes a right he has no real use for, in a way calculated to damage someone, is in a different position.
The companion rule for acts contrary to law
Article 19 is a standard rather than a self-contained cause of action, which is why it usually travels with Article 20: every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. That provision supplies the remedy where the conduct also breaks some legal rule, and it reaches both deliberate and negligent acts. Together they mean the law does not require a contract, a crime or a special statute before someone who was harmed by another's conduct can ask a court for indemnity.
What a claim like this actually needs from you
Cases of this kind are won on the record of how the other side behaved, not on how unfair the outcome felt. Keep the messages, notices and demands in the order they arrived; note what was said in meetings and by whom; and preserve anything showing the other party knew the harm their act would cause and proceeded anyway. You will also need to show real loss, because the standard in Article 19 gives you a ground of complaint but not an automatic sum. Take that chronology to a lawyer early — the sequence of events is usually what decides whether bad faith is visible or merely suspected.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited vs. Cecilia Diez Catalan, G.R. No. 159590, October 18, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Equatorial Realty, et al. vs. Mayfair Theater, G.R. No. 106063, November 21, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Metroheights Subdivision Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. CMS Construction and Development Corporation, et al, G.R. No. 209359, October 17, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Adelaida C. Navarro-Banaria vs. Ernesto A. Banaria, et al, G.R. No. 217806, July 28, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 19 — Abuse of Rights (Principle of Human Relations)
- Civil Code, Article 20 — Damage Contrary to Law