Short answer. Yes, potentially. Article 21 of the Civil Code says any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. An act that breaks no specific statute can still be actionable if done wilfully and against good morals.
What the law says
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.
Civil Code, Article 21 — Acts Contrary to Morals or Good Customs. Read the full provision →
The law reaches beyond what a statute forbids
It is a common assumption that if no specific law was broken, no one can be sued. Article 21 corrects that. It provides that 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. The provision exists precisely to catch conduct that slips through the gaps of the penal and civil statutes, the person who works real harm on another through means that, though not expressly outlawed, offend the community's sense of decency. No legislature can foresee every way one person may wrongfully injure another, and this article fills that space.
The three things you must show
The article has distinct elements, and a claim needs all of them. There must be an act that is legal in the sense that it violates no specific prohibition; it must be done wilfully, that is, intentionally, not by mere accident or negligence; and it must cause loss or injury in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. The heart of the claim is that combination: a deliberate act aimed at or producing harm, carried out in a way the community would condemn as against good morals. Mere hurt feelings, or lawful conduct that incidentally disadvantages you, is not enough; the wrongful, immoral character of the act is what the article demands.
Where this typically applies
Article 21 is the ground on which the law redresses wrongs that older, rigid categories missed, deliberate acts that exploit, humiliate or betray another in ways decent conduct forbids, even where no criminal offence fits. It embodies the principle that a person should not be left without a remedy simply because the wrongdoer was clever enough to injure them by lawful-looking means. Because "contrary to morals, good customs or public policy" is an open standard, courts assess it against prevailing community norms and the particular circumstances, which is why the surrounding facts, the intent, and the manner of the act carry so much weight.
Proving intent and impropriety is the challenge
The strength of an Article 21 claim lies in evidence of the defendant's wilfulness and of the morally offensive character of what was done. Because the act itself may look lawful on the surface, you will usually need to show the intent behind it and the circumstances that make it contrary to good morals, communications, conduct, and the harm that followed. This is a fact-heavy inquiry and outcomes vary with how convincingly intent and impropriety are established. If you believe you were deliberately harmed by conduct that was technically legal but plainly wrong, having the specific facts reviewed will tell you whether they meet this article's demanding standard.