SC: Scorned girlfriend may sue ex-fiancé for damages if…

ILOILO City – The phrase “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” is a popular motto that stresses the vengeful reaction of a woman who has been betrayed in a romantic relationship.

But can a scorned woman lodge a damage suit against her former boyfriend such as his failure to keep his promise to marry her?

The Supreme Court, being the highest court of the land, hears and decides a variety of cases such as constitutional issues, high-profile criminal cases, and cases involving essential legal principles.

But the tribunal also interprets and upholds the law, including matters of the heart.

The high tribunal, in one of its landmark cases decided in 1993, was confronted by a petition filed by a beleaguered woman who sued her former fiancé for damages for not fulfilling his promise to marry her.

Will the scorned woman be awarded damages from her former boyfriend for breach of promise to marry?

In the case of Baksh versus the Court of Appeals, the high court ruled that a mere breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong or a wrongful act that gives rise to a legal action or remedy from the court.

But the tribunal stressed that if a man’s promise to marry is the “proximate cause” why the woman accepted his love and consented to have sex with him, then such could justify the award for damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

“Thus, his profession of love and promise to marry were empty words directly intended to fool, dupe, entice, beguile, and deceive the poor woman into believing that indeed, he loved her and would want her to be his life partner,” the high court ruled.

In this case, Marilou Gonzales hauled her former boyfriend, Iranian Gashem Shookat Baksh, before the Regional Trial Court in Pangasinan in October 1987 and sought damages for a breach of promise to marry her.

Gonzales described herself as a “pretty lass of good moral character and reputation” as she is in their community. Baksh, on the other hand, is an Iranian citizen and an exchange student who was taking a medical course in Dagupan City.

The I ranian courted and proposed to marry Gonzales, who later accepted his love on the condition that they would get married. They agreed to get married after the end of the school semester, but it did not happen.

When they started living together under the same roof, Gonzales said Baksh’s attitude changed. He allegedly maltreated and even threatened to kill Gonzales. She even suffered bruises and injuries during one of their confrontations.

Replying to the charges, the Iranian said he never proposed marriage to or agreed to be married to Gonzales. He also said he never sought the consent and approval of her parents nor forced her to live in his apartment.

In 1989, the trial court ruled in favor of Gonzales under Article 21 of the Civil Code. The lower court ordered Baksh to pay Gonzales P20,000 as moral damages; P3,000 as attorney’s fees, and P2,000 as litigation expenses.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

This prompted Baksh to elevate his petition to the tribunal and insist he had not committed any moral wrong or injury or violated any good custom or public policy.

Baksh denied professing love or marriage to Gonzales and that he had never maltreated her. He also criticized the trial court for liberally invoking Filipino customs, traditions, and culture.

Since he is a foreigner, Baksh said he was not conversant with Filipino customs, traditions, and culture.

In the decision, the tribunal held that Baksh employed a “subtle scheme or deceptive device” to convince her to have sex with her.

Hence, the award for damages can be justified under Article 21 of the Civil Code not merely because of the promise to marry but because he used “fraud and deceit” behind it,