ALYANNA R. CBANu !"#"$" &' !(&)*" FACTS: Petitionei's iight to be infoimeu on matteis of public concein, a iight iecognizeu in Sec. 6 of Ait. 6 ofthe197SPhilippineConstitutionistheissueinthiscase.Piesiuentialueciees,letteiof instiuctions,geneialoiueis,executiveoiueis,letteisofimplementationanuauministiative oiueis weie passeu without publication as iequiieu unuei Ait. 2 of the Civil Coue. ISS0E:Whetheioinotpublicationinthe0fficialuazetteisnotasinequanoniequiiementfoithe effectiveoflawswheiethelawsthemselvespioviuefoitheiiowneffectivityuates.P0BLICATI0NIS REQ0IREB. BELB:Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 6S8 pioviues as follows: Section1.Theieshallbepublisheuinthe0fficialuazette|1jallimpoitantlegisiativeactsanu iesolutionsofapublicnatuieofthe,CongiessofthePhilippines;|2jallexecutiveanu auministiativeoiueisanupioclamations,exceptsuchashavenogeneialapplicability;|Sj uecisionsoiabstiactsofuecisionsoftheSupiemeCouitanutheCouitofAppealsasmaybe ueemeu by saiu couits of sufficient impoitance to be so publisheu; |4j such uocuments oi classes of uocuments as may be iequiieu so to be publisheu by law; anu |Sj such uocuments oi classes of uocumentsasthePiesiuentofthePhilippinesshallueteiminefiomtimetotimetohavegeneial applicability anu legal effect, oi which he may authoiize so to be publisheu. The cleai object of the above-quoteu piovision is to give the geneial public auequate notice of the vaiious laws which aie to iegulate theii actions anu conuuct as citizens. Without such notice anu publication,theiewoulubenobasisfoitheapplicationofthemaxim"ignoiantialegisnon excusat."Itwoulubetheheightofinjusticetopunishoiotheiwisebuiuenacitizenfoithe tiansgiession of a law of which he hau no notice whatsoevei, not even a constiuctive one. Itisneeulesstoauuthatthepublicationofpiesiuentialissuances"ofapublicnatuie"oi"of geneial applicability" is a iequiiement of uue piocess. It is a iule of law that befoie a peison may be bounu by law, he must fiist be officially anu specifically infoimeu of its contents. TheCouit,inonecase,saiu:publicationisnecessaiytoappiisethepublicofthecontentsof |penaljiegulationsanumakethesaiupenaltiesbinuingonthepeisonsaffecteutheieby."The cogencyofthisholuingisappaientlyiecognizeubyiesponuentofficialsconsiueiingthe manifestationintheiicommentthat"thegoveinment,asamatteiofpolicy,iefiainsfiom piosecutingviolationsofciiminallawsuntilthesameshallhavebeenpublisheuinthe0fficial uazette oi in some othei publication, even though some ciiminal laws pioviue that they shall take effect immeuiately. +($,) $"$-.) &' /-00121-3 -3 "($1! FACTS: The RTC anu NTC juuges of Nanuaue City weie ieceiving monthly allowances of P1,26u each yeai anu latei the Sangguniang Panlungsou inciease the amount to P1,Suu foi each juuge.0n maich 1994, BBN issueu local buuget ciiculai no. SS (LBC SS) which pioviueu that: In the light oftheauthoiitygianteutothelocalgoveinmentunitsunueitheLocaluoveinmentCoueto pioviuefoiauuitionalallowancesanuotheibenefitstonationalgoveinmentofficialsanu employees assigneu in theii locality, such auuitional allowances in the foim of honoiaiium at iates notexceeuingP1,uuu.uuinpiovincesanucitiesanuP7uu.uuinmunicipalitiesmaybegianteu subjecttothefollowingconuitions.thesaiuciiculaipioviueufoiitsimmeuiateeffectivity without neeu of publication. ALYANNA R. CBANu Acting on the BBN uiiective, Nanuaue City Auuitoi issueu notices of uisallowance to petitioneis in excessoftheamountauthoiizeubyLBCSS.Theyweiealsoaskeutoieimbuisetheamountthey ieceiveu in excess of P1,uuu fiom Apiil to Septembei 1994.ISS0E: Whethei LBC SS of the BBN is voiu foi going beyonu the supeivisoiy poweis of the Piesiuent anu foi not having been publisheu. YES!BELB: We iecognize that, although oui Constitution guaiantees autonomy to local goveinment units, the exeicise of local autonomy iemains subject to the powei of contiol by Congiess anu the powei of supeivisionbythePiesiuent.Section4ofAiticleXofthe1987PhilippineConstitutionpioviues that:Sec.4.ThePiesiuentofthePhilippinesshallexeicisegeneialsupeivisionoveilocal goveinments. x x Supeivisionmeansoveiseeingoithepoweioiauthoiityofanofficeitoseethatsuboiuinate officeispeifoimtheiiuuties.Ifthelatteifailoineglecttofulfillthem,thefoimeimaytakesuch action oi step as piesciibeu by law to make them peifoim theii uuties. Contiol, on the othei hanu, means the powei of an officei to altei oi mouify oi nullify oi set asiue what a suboiuinate officei ha|sj uone in the peifoimance of his uuties anu to substitute the juugment of the foimei foi that of the lattei. In Taule v. Santos, we fuithei stateu that the Chief Executive wielueu no moie authoiity than that of checking whethei local goveinments oi theii officials weie peifoiming theii uuties as pioviueu bythefunuamentallawanubystatutes.Becannotinteifeiewithlocalgoveinments,solongas they act within the scope of theii authoiity. "Supeivisoiy powei, when contiasteu with contiol, is thepoweiofmeieoveisightoveianinfeiioibouy;ituoesnotincluueanyiestiainingauthoiity ovei such bouy," Cleaily then, the Piesiuent can only inteifeie in the affaiis anu activities of a local goveinment unit ifheoishefinusthatthelatteihasacteucontiaiytolaw.ThisisthescopeofthePiesiuent's supeivisoiypoweisoveilocalgoveinmentunits.Bence,thePiesiuentoianyofhisoiheialtei egoscannotinteifeieinlocalaffaiisaslongastheconceineulocalgoveinmentunitactswithin the paiameteis of the law anu the Constitution. Any uiiective theiefoie by the Piesiuent oi any of his oi hei altei egos seeking to altei the wisuom of a law-confoiming juugment on local affaiis of a localgoveinmentunitisapatentnullitybecauseitviolatesthepiincipleoflocalautonomyanu sepaiationofpoweisoftheexecutiveanulegislativeuepaitmentsingoveiningmunicipal coipoiations. Fuitheimoie,LBCSSisvoiuonaccountofitslackofpublication,inviolationofouiiulingin Taauavs.Tuveiawheieweheluthat:xxx.Auministiativeiulesanuiegulationsmustalsobe publisheu if theii puipose is to enfoice oi implement existing law puisuant to a valiu uelegation. Inteipietativeiegulationsanuthosemeielyinteinalinnatuie,thatis,iegulatingonlythe peisonnelofanauministiativeagencyanuthepublic,neeunotbepublisheu.Neitheiis publicationiequiieuoftheso-calleuletteisofinstiuctionissueubyauministiativesupeiiois conceining the iules oi guiuelines to be followeu by theii suboiuinates in the peifoimance of theii uuties. Attheveiyleast,befoiethesaiuciiculaiunueiattackmaybepeimitteutosubstantiallyieuuce theiiincome,thegoveinmentofficialsanuemployeesconceineushoulubeappiiseuanualeiteu bythepublicationofsubjectciiculaiinthe0fficialuazetteoiinanewspapeiofgeneial ciiculationinthePhilippines-totheenuthattheybegivenamplestoppoitunitytovoiceout whatevei opposition they may have, anu to ventilate theii stance on the mattei. This appioach is moie in keeping with uemociatic piecepts anu iuuiments of faiiness anu tianspaiency. Even if the auministiative oiuei has been ie-issueu in its entiiety anu submitteu foi publication in the0fficialuazettei,thepublicationwillnotcuietheuefectanuietioacttothetimethatitswas uisalloweu. Publication is iequiieu as a conuition pieceuent to the effectivity of a law to infoim the ALYANNA R. CBANu publicofthecontentsofthelawoiiulesanuiegulationsbefoietheiiiightsanuinteiestsaie affecteu by the same. ,"*/1.."3- &' 4-(2) -5 *)6*)2)3!"!1&)2 /-001!!))2 -3 6(7.1/ 135-*0"!1-38 )!' ".' FACTS: Tapes ostensibly containing a wiietappeu conveisation puipoiteuly between the Piesiuent anu a high-ianking official of the C0NELEC suifaceu. Petitionei uaicillano fileu a petition foi piohibition anuinjunctionwithpiayeifoiTRPanuoiwiitofpieliminaiyinjunctionthattheBouse Committeesbeiestiaineufiomusingthesetapeiecoiuingoftheillegalyobtaineuwiietappeu conveisationsintheiicommitteeiepoitsanufoianyotheipuipose.Latei,petitioneisinu.Rno. 17927SfileubefoietheCouitaPetitionfoiPiohibitionwithPiayeifoitheIssuanceofaR0 anuoiWiitofPieliminaiyinjunctionseekingtobaitheSenatefiomconuuctingitsscheuuleu legislative inquiiy because it violates RA 42uu anu Sec. S, Ait. S of the Constitution.ISS0E:WhetheitheSenatecancontinuetheconuuctofthequestioneulegislativeinquiiywithoutuuly publisheu iules of pioceuuie, in cleai ueiogation of the constitutional iequiiement. N0! BELB: Section 21, Aiticle vI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly pioviues that "the Senate oi the Bouse of Repiesentatives, oi any of its iespective committees may conuuct inquiiies in aiu of legislation !" $%%&'($"%)*!+,!+-(./01.2/!-,)('./)-&31'&%)(.')."Theiequisiteofpublicationoftheiulesis intenueutosatisfythebasiciequiiementsofuuepiocess.Publicationisinueeuimpeiative,foiit will be the height of injustice to punish oi otheiwise buiuen a citizen foi the tiansgiession of a law oiiuleofwhichhehaunonoticewhatsoevei,notevenaconstiuctiveone.Whatconstitutes publicationissetfoithinAiticle2oftheCivilCoue,whichpioviuesthat"lawsshalltakeeffect aftei1Suaysfollowingthecompletionoftheiipublicationeitheiinthe0fficialuazette,oiina newspapei of geneial ciiculation in the Philippines." ResponuentsaumitintheiipleauinganuinoialaiguemntsthattheSenateofthe14thCongiess uiunotpublishiuleswhentheyfiistopeneutheisession.Asheluinonecase,Thephiase"uuly publisheuiulesofpioceuuie"iequiiestheSenateofeveiyCongiesstopublishitsiulesof pioceuuiegoveininginquiiiesinaiuoflegislationbecauseeveiySenateisuistinctfiomtheone befoieitoiafteiit.SinceSenatoiialelectionsaiehelueveiythiee(S)yeaisfoione-halfofthe Senate'smembeiship,thecompositionoftheSenatealsochangesbytheenuofeachteim.Each Senate may thus enact a uiffeient set of iules as it may ueem fit. 39:;?@ABCD>E;FG>:E!"#$% '()*'+$,"*$8:;FEBCHFI:;F?@E>?G9KDF@>ED9?I9?GBI:FGCL:;FMN:;2F?"+)'6)(!$+) E11)//$+) F&.'+5 |u.R. No. 74824, Sept. 1S, 1986,144 SCRA 161j,stiesseu the piospective application of saiu iule, anu explaineu the opeiation of the giace peiiou, to wit: In othei woius, theie is a one-month giace peiiou fiom the piomulgation on Nay Su, 1986 of the Couit'sResolutionintheclaiificatoiyBabaluyascase,oiupto}uneSu,1986,withinwhichthe iulebaiiingextensionsoftimetofilemotionsfoinewtiialoiieconsiueiationis,asyet,not stiictly enfoiceable. Since petitioneis heiein fileu theii motion foi extension on Febiuaiy 27, 1986, it is still within the giace peiiou, which expiieu on }une Su, 1986, anu may still be alloweu. Intheinstantcase,howevei,petitioneis'motionfoiextensionoftimewasfileuonSeptembei9, 1987,moiethanayeaiafteitheexpiiationofthegiacepeiiouon}uneSu,1986.Bence,itisno longei within the coveiage of the giace peiiou. Consiueiing the length of time fiom the expiiation of the giace peiiou to the piomulgation of the uecision of the Couit of Appeals on August 2S, 1987, petitioneis cannot seek iefuge in the ignoiance of theii counsel iegaiuing saiu iule foi theii failuie to file a motion foi ieconsiueiation within the ieglementaiy peiiou. Petitioneis contenu that the iule enunciateu in the A$2$/.0$- case shoulu not be maue to apply to the case at bai owing to the non-publication of the A$2$/.0$- uecision in the 0fficial uazette as of thetimethesubjectuecisionoftheCouitofAppealswaspiomulgateu.Contiaiytopetitioneis' view,theieisnolawiequiiingthepublicationofSupiemeCouituecisionsinthe0fficialuazette befoie they can be binuing anu as a conuition to theii becoming effective. It is the bounuen uuty of counselaslawyeiinactivelawpiacticetokeepabieastofuecisionsoftheSupiemeCouit paiticulailywheieissueshavebeenclaiifieu,consistentlyieiteiateu,anupublisheuinthe auvance iepoits of Supieme Couit uecisions (u.R.s) anu in such publications as the Supieme Couit Repoits Annotateu (SCRA) anu law jouinals. U(1U(1 &' 7-3/"*-2 FACTS: Accoiuingtopiivateiesponuents,theyowneuthesubjectlotastheyweieabletosecuieafiee patent title. 0n the othei hanu, petitioneis contenu that saiu lot was puichaseu by theii late fathei sometimein192uanuthateveisince,theyhavebeeninactualpossessiontheieof,peacefully, openlycontinuouslyanuauveiselyfoiapeiiouofS6yeaisalieauy.Afteithepie-tiialwas teiminateu,piivateiesponuentsfileuamotiontouismissthecaseonthegiounuoflackof juiisuictiononthepaitofthetiialcouit.Petitioneisopposeuonthemotionanutiialcouit uismisseuthecomplaintonthegiounuthatithaunojuiisuictionoveithecase.Counselfoithe petitioneis ieceiveu a copy on }uly 17, 1979. 0naugust17,1979,petitioneisfileuamotionfoiieconsiueiationoftheoiueiofthetiialcouit uismissingthecomplaint.Responuentsopposeuthemotionfoiieconsiueiation,statingthatthe samehaubeenfileubeyonutheSuuayieglementaiypeiiouunueitheRules.Thetiialcouit uenieu the motion foi ieconsiueiation.ISS0E: Whethei the tiial couit eiieu in uismissing the motion foi ieconsiueiation. N0! BELB: At the time this litigation was instituteu in the tiial couit, Section S, Rule 41 of the Rules of Couit wasthepiovisiongoveiningthepeiiouwithinwhichanAppealmaybetakentotheCouitof Appeals, to wit SEC. S. A&* $11)$/ !- +$7)". Appeal may be taken by seiving upon the auveise paity anu filing with the tiial couit within thiity (Su) uays fiom notice of oiuei oi juugment, a notice of appeal, an appeal bonu, anu a iecoiu on appeal. The time uuiing which a motion to set asiue the juugment oi oiuei oi foi a new tiial has been penuing shall be ueuucteu, unless such motion fails to satisfy the iequiiements of Rule S7. Butwheiesuchamotionhasbeenfileuuuiingofficehouisofthelastuayofthepeiiouheiein ALYANNA R. CBANu pioviueu, the appeal must be peifecteu within the uay following that in which the paity appealing ieceiveu notice of the uenial of saiu motion. The petitioneis aumit that they ieceiveu theii copy of the 0iuei of uismissal of theii Complaint on }uly17,1979.0nueiSectionS,Rule41,theyhauSuuayswithinwhichtoappealtheiicaseoito file a Notion foi Reconsiueiation of the juugment oi oiuei of the tiial couit. In computing the Su-uay peiiou, }uly 17, 1979 (the fiist uay) is excluueu, puisuant to Aiticle 1S of the New Civil Coue. Counting Su uays theieaftei, beginning on }uly 18, 1979, the petitioneis hau up to August 16, 1979 to file theii Notion foi Reconsiueiation. Theii Notion foi Reconsiueiation, although uateu August 16,1979,wasfileuwiththetiialcouitonAugust17,1979oioneuaybeyonutheSu-uay ieglementaiy peiiou piesciibeu by Section S of Rule 41. 0nuei these ciicumstances, the oiuei of the tiial couit uismissing the Complaint has become final anu executoiy. As such, it is beyonu the ieach of a Notion foi consiueiation. The Notice of Appeal, theiefoie,waspiopeilyuenieu.Peifectionofanappealinthemanneianuwithinthepeiioulaiu uownbylawisnotonlymanuatoiybutalsojuiisuictionalanufailuietopeifectanappealas iequiieubytheiuleshastheeffectofienueiingthejuugmentfinalanuexecutoiy.Astiict obseivanceoftheieglementaiypeiiouwithinwhichtoexeicisethestatutoiyiightofappealhas been consiueieu as absolutely inuispensable to the pievention of neeuless uelays. Foi the petitioneis to seek exception foi theii failuie to comply stiictly with the iequiiements foi peifectingtheiiAppeal,stiongcompellingieasons,likethepieventionofagiavemiscaiiiageof justice,mustbeshowntoexistinoiueitowaiiantthisCouittosuspenutheRules.Nosuch ieasonshavebeenshowntoexistinthiscase.Infact,thepetitioneisuiunotevenoffeiany ieasonable explanation foi theii uelay. 6"(." ..-*)3!) &' /" T ".1/1" ..-*)3!) FACTS: BeceaseuLoienzoLloientewasanenlisteuseivicemanofthe0SanuwasmaiiieutoPaula.Be staueu in the 0S anu was given citizenship. When he came back to the Philippines, he uiscoveieu that his wife Paula was piegnant anu was living in anu having an auulteious ielationship with his biothei. Paula gave biith to a boy anu iegisteieu without stating the name of the fathei anu as "not legitimate".BeuiunotfoigivePaulaanutheyexecuteuawiittenagieementtotheeffectthat Paula will not have any iight ovei Loienzo's piopeity anu will not suppoit hei anymoie.Loienzoietuineutothe0Sanufileufoiuivoicewhichwasgianteu.Whenheietuineutothe Philippines,hemaiiieuAliciaanuliveutogetheiashusbanuanuwifefoi2SyeaisanuhauS chiluien. Loienzo then executeu a last will anu testament, uuly executeu accoiuing to oui law.Buiing the pioceeuing of the piobate of his will, Loienzo uies. Paula fileu with the same couit foi letteis of auministiation ovei Loienzo's estate in hei favoi. Alicia fileu in the testate pioceeuing a petition foi the issuance of letteis testamentaiy.The RTC founu the uivoice ueciee to be voiu anu inapplicable in the Philippines, anu his maiiiage with Alicia is likewise voiu. This being so the petition of Alicia F. Lloiente foi the issuance of letteis testamentaiyisuenieu.Likewise,sheisnotentitleutoieceiveanyshaiefiomtheestateevenif thewillespeciallysaiusoheiielationshipwithLoienzohavinggaineuthestatusofpaiamoui which is unuei Ait. 7S9 (1). "0ntheotheihanu,thecouitfinusthepetitionofPaulaTitulaiLloiente,meiitoiious,anuso ueclaies the intiinsic uisposition of the will of Loienzo Lloiente uateu Naich 1S, 1981 as voiu anu ueclaies hei entitleu as conjugal paitnei anu entitleu to one-half of theii conjugal piopeities, anu aspiimaiycompulsoiyheii,PaulaT.Lloienteisalsoentitleutoone-thiiuoftheestateanuthen one-thiiu shoulu go to the illegitimate chiluien, Raul, Luz anu Beveily, all suiname (-!%) Lloiente, foithemtopaititioninequalshaiesanualsoentitleutotheiemainingfieepoitioninequal shaies. ALYANNA R. CBANu CA affiimeu RTC's uecision except that it ueclaieu that the two chiluien of Loienzo with Alica aie not his chiluien, legitimate oi otheiwise since they weie not legally auopteu by him. ISS0E: Who aie entitleu to inheiit fiom the late Loienzo. BELB: The fact that the late Loienzo N. Lloiente became an Ameiican citizen long befoie anu at the time of:(1)hisuivoicefiomPaula;(2)maiiiagetoAlicia;(S)executionofhiswill;anu(4)ueath,is uuly establisheu, aumitteu anu unuisputeu. Thus, as a iule, issues aiising fiom these inciuents aie necessaiily goveineu by foieign law. The Civil Coue cleaily pioviues: "Ait. 1S. Laws ielating to family iights anu uuties, oi to the status, conuition anu legal capacity of peisons aie -./,./0 "1'/ +.2.3$/% '( 24$ )4.#.11./$%, even though living abioau. "Ait. 16. Real piopeity as well as peisonal piopeity is subject to the law of the countiy wheie it is situateu. "Bowevei, intestate anu testamentaiy succession, both with iespect to the oiuei of succession anu to the amount of successional iights anu to the intiinsic valiuity of testamentaiy piovisions, %45## -$*$0"#52$,-624$/52.'/5##57'(24$1$*%'/74'%$%"++$%%.'/.%"/,$*+'/%.,$*52.'/, whatevei may be the natuie of the piopeity anu iegaiuless of the countiy wheiein saiu piopeity may be founu." In G$" H&'" 8= 4&6!//&5 C'. we helu that owing to the nationality piinciple embouieu in Aiticle 1S of theCivilCoue,onlyPhilippinenationalsaiecoveieubythepolicyagainstabsoluteuivoices,the same being consiueieu contiaiy to oui concept of public policy anu moiality. In the same case, the Couitiuleuthat$/!)"-mayobtainuivoicesabioau,pioviueutheyaievaliuaccoiuingtotheii nationallaw.Citingthislanumaikcase,theCouitheluinI.!+$8=F&.'+&3E11)$/-,thatonce pioventhatiesponuentwasnolongeiaFilipinocitizenwhenheobtaineutheuivoicefiom petitionei,theiulinginG$"H&'"woulubecomeapplicableanupetitioneicoulu"veiywelllose hei iight to inheiit" fiom him. In :!/$1!/ 8= >2$0JK&6)'$, we iecognizeu the uivoice obtaineu by the iesponuent in his countiy, the Feueial Republic of ueimany. Theie, we stateu that uivoice anu its legaleffectsmaybeiecognizeuinthePhilippinesinsofaiasiesponuentisconceineuinviewof thenationalitypiincipleinouicivillawonthestatusofpeisons.Foifailingtoapplythese uoctiines,theuecisionoftheCouitofAppealsmustbeieveiseu.Weholuthattheuivoice obtaineubyLoienzoB.LloientefiomhisfiistwifePaulawasvaliuanuiecognizeuinthis juiisuictionasamatteiofcomity.Now,theeffectsofthisuivoice(astothesuccessiontothe estate of the ueceuent) aie matteis best left to the ueteimination of the tiial couit. The Civil Coue pioviues: "Ait.17.The('*8%5/,%'#$8/.2.$%ofcontiacts,wills,anuotheipublicinstiumentsshallbe goveineu by the laws of 24$ +'"/2*6 ./ 74.+4 24$6 5*$ $9$+"2$,= "When the acts iefeiieu to aie executeu befoie the uiplomatic oi consulai officials of the Republic ofthePhilippinesinafoieigncountiy,thesolemnitiesestablisheubyPhilippinelawsshallbe obseiveu in theii execution." ThecleaiintentofLoienzotobequeathhispiopeitytohisseconuwifeanuchiluienbyheiis glaiinglyshowninthewillheexecuteu.Weuonotwishtofiustiatehiswishes,sincehewasa foieignei,notcoveieubyouilawson"familyiightsanuuuties,status,conuitionanulegal capacity." WhetheithewillisintiinsicallyvaliuanuwhoshallinheiitfiomLoienzoaieissuesbestpioveu byfoieignlawwhichmustbepleaueuanupioveu.Whetheithewillwasexecuteuinaccoiuance with the foimalities iequiieu is answeieu by iefeiiing to Philippine law. In fact, the will was uuly piobateu. As a guiue howevei, the tiial couit shoulu note that whatevei public policy oi goou customs may beinvolveuinouisystemoflegitimes,Congiessuiunotintenutoextenuthesametothe ALYANNA R. CBANu succession of foieign nationals. Congiess specifically lefttheamountofsuccessionaliightstothe ueceuent's national law. !"&)*" &' 641.16613) !(7)*/(.-212 2-/1)!S8 13/' FACTS: Plaintiff is a uoctoi of Neuicine anu is piacticing. She is a membei of the Boaiu of Biiectois of the uefenuant society anu was then appointeu as Executive Secietaiy. Bowevei, she was alleging that she was iemoveu fiom hei post without infoiming hei of the lawful cause anu theieaftei, Romulo wasappointeuasheiieplacement.Shewasclaimingthat4membeisoftheBoaiuweienot membeis of the Society anu hence, they uiu not have the powei to be appointeu in the Boaiu anu to vote.She fileu a case against them, claiming that they violateu the Buman Rights piovisions of the Civil Coue.Befenuants weie claiming that the position of petitionei is helu at the pleasuie of the Boaiu anu hence, she may be iemoveu at anytime. ISS0E: Can petitionei invoke the human ielations piovisions of the Civil Coue. BELB: Petitionei cannot likewise seek ielief fiom the geneial piovisions of the New Civil Coue on Buman Relations noi fiom the funuamental piinciples of the New Constitution on pieseivation of human uignity.Whilethesepiovisionspiesentsomebasicpiinciplesthataietobeobseiveufoithe iightfulielationshipbetweenhumanbeingsanuthestabilityofsocialoiuei,theseaiemeiely guiuesfoihumanconuuctintheabsenceofspecificlegalpiovisionsanuuefinitecontiactual stipulations.Inthecaseatbai,theCoueofBy-LawsoftheSocietycontainsaspecificpiovision goveiningtheteimofofficeofpetitionei.ThesamenecessaiilylimitsheiiightsunueitheNew Civil Coue anu the New Constitution upon acceptance of the appointment. Noieovei,theactoftheBoaiuinueclaiingheipositionasvacantisnotonlyinaccoiuancewith theCoueofBy-LawsoftheSocietybutalsomeetstheexactingstanuaiusofhonestyanugoou faith. The meeting of Nay 29, 1974, at which petitionei ,petitionei's position was ueclaieu vacant, wascageuspecificallytotakeuptheunfinisheubusinessoftheReoiganizationalNeetingofthe BoaiuofApiilSu,1974.Bence,anuactcannotbesaiutoimpaitauishonestpuiposeoisome moial obliquity anu conscious uoing to wiong but iathei emanates fiom the uesiie of the Boaiu to ieoiganize itself. /4"!- &' 5-*!(3) !-7"//- /-*6-*"!1-3 FACTS: Petitionei was then the CIR while iesponuent is an entity engageu in the manufactuie of uiffeient bianusofcigaiettes.LegislatuieenacteuRA76S4whichconsiueieuiesponuents'piouuctsas localbianus.Bowevei,twouaysbefoieittookeffect,petitioneiissueuRNCieclassifyingits piouucts as locally manufactuieu cigaiettes beaiing a foieign bianu subject to highei au valoiem tax.Ineffect,theRNCsubjecteuthecigaiettebianustotheRAevenbefoieittookeffect.Ina sepaiatecase(CIRv.CA),RNCS7-9Swashelutobenotvaliufoihavingfallenshoitofthe iequiiementsfoiavaliuauminissuance.Foitune(thecigaiettemanufactuiei)fileuacomplaint foiuamagesagainstChatoinheipiivatecapacity.ItcontenueuthatChatoviolateuAit.S2ofthe CCbyuepiivingitofitspiopeitywithoutuuepiocessofthelawanuinviolationofequal piotection.Tothis,ChatoaigueuthatsheissueutheRNCinthepeifoimanceofheiofficial functions anu within the scope of hei authoiity so she can't be liable. She fileu motion to uismiss. via petition foi ceitioiaii, the uenial of the motion to uismiss ieacheu the SC. In its }une 19, 2uu7 uecision it oiueieu the tiial couit to pioceeu with the case. Chato moveu foi the ieconsiueiation of that uecision. ISS0E: Nay a public officei be valiuly sueu in hishei piivate capacity foi acts uone in connection with the ALYANNA R. CBANu uischaige of the functions of hishei office. BELB: Thegeneialiulesisthatapublicofficeiisnotliablefoiuamageswhichapeisonmaysuffei aiising fiom the just peifoimance of his official uuties anu within the scope of his assigneu tasks. An officei who acts within his authoiity to auministei the affaiis of the office which heshe heaus isnotliablefoiuamagesthatmayhavebeencauseutoanothei,asitwouluviituallybeachaige against the Republic, which is not amenable to juugment foi monetaiy claims without its consent. Bowevei, a public officei is by law not immune fiom uamages in hishei peisonal capacity foi acts uoneinbaufaithwhich,beingoutsiuethescopeofhisauthoiity,aienolongeipiotecteubythe mantle of immunity foi official actions. Specifically,unueiSectionS8,BookIoftheAuministiativeCoue,civilliabilitymayaiisewheie theieisbaufaith,malice,oigiossnegligenceonthepaitofasupeiioipublicofficei.Anu,unuei SectionS9ofthesameBook,civilliabilitymayaiisewheiethesuboiuinatepublicofficei'sactis chaiacteiizeu by willfulness oi negligence. In auuition, the Couit helu in Cojuangco, }i. v. Couit of Appeals, that a public officei who uiiectly oi inuiiectlyviolatestheconstitutionaliightsofanothei,maybevaliulysueufoiuamagesunuei Aiticle S2 of the Civil Coue even if his acts weie not so tainteu with malice oi bau faith. Thus,theiuleinthisjuiisuictionisthatapublicofficeimaybevaliulysueuinhisheipiivate capacityfoiactsuoneinthecouiseofthepeifoimanceofthefunctionsoftheoffice,wheiesaiu publicofficei:(1)acteuwithmalice,baufaith,oinegligence;oi(2)wheiethepublicofficei violateu a constitutional iight of the plaintiff. AiticleS2waspatteineuafteithe"toit"inAmeiicanlaw.Atoitisawiong,atoitiousactwhich has been uefineu as the commission oi omission of an act by one, without iight, wheieby anothei ieceivessomeinjuiy,uiiectlyoiinuiiectly,inpeison,piopeity,oiieputation.Theieaiecasesin whichithasbeenstateuthatcivilliabilityintoitisueteimineubytheconuuctanunotbythe mentalstateofthetoitfeasoi,anutheieaieciicumstancesunueiwhichthemotiveofthe uefenuanthasbeenienueieuimmateiial.Theieasonsometimesgivenfoitheiuleisthat otheiwise,thementalattituueoftheallegeuwionguoei,anunottheactitself,wouluueteimine whetheitheactwaswiongful.Piesenceofgooumotive,oiiathei,theabsenceofanevilmotive, uoesnotienueilawfulanactwhichisotheiwiseaninvasionofanothei'slegaliight;thatis, liability in toit is not piecluueu by the fact that uefenuant acteu without evil intent. The cleai intention theiefoie of the legislatuie was to cieate a uistinct cause of action in the natuie oftoitfoiviolationofconstitutionaliights,iiiespectiveofthemotiveoiintentoftheuefenuant. ThisisafunuamentalinnovationintheCivilCoue,anuinenactingtheAuministiativeCoue puisuanttotheexeiciseoflegislativepoweis,thenPiesiuentCoiazonC.Aquino,coulunothave intenueu to obliteiate this constitutional piotection on civil libeities. Contiaiily, Aiticle S2 of the Civil Coue specifies in cleai anu unequivocal teims a paiticulai specie of an "act" that may give iise to an action foi uamages against a public officei, anu that is, a toit foi impaiiment of iights anu libeities. Inueeu, Aiticle S2 is the special piovision that ueals specifically with violation of constitutional iights by public officeis. All othei actionable acts of public officeis aie goveineu by Sections S8 anu S9 of the Auministiative Coue. While the Civil Coue, specifically, theChapteionBumanRelationsisageneiallaw,AiticleS2ofthesameChapteiisaspecialanu specific piovision that holus a public officei liable foi anu allows ieuiess fiom a paiticulai class of wiongfulactsthatmaybecommitteubypublicofficeis.CompaieuthuswithSectionS8ofthe AuministiativeCoue,whichbioaulyuealswithcivilliabilityaiisingfiomeiioisinthe peifoimance of uuties, Aiticle S2 of the Civil Coue is the specific piovision which must be applieu in the instant case piecisely fileu to seek uamages foi violation of constitutional iights. The complaint in the instant case was biought unuei Aiticle S2 of the Civil Coue. Consiueiing that bau faith anu malice aie not necessaiy in an action baseu on Aiticle S2 of the Civil Coue, the failuie ALYANNA R. CBANu tospecificallyallegethesamewillnotamounttofailuietostateacauseofaction.Thecouits below theiefoie coiiectly uenieu the motion to uismiss on the giounu of failuie to state a cause of action,sinceitisenoughthatthecomplaintaveisaviolationofaconstitutionaliightofthe plaintiff.

..-*)3!) &' 2"3$1,"37"S"3 FACTS: Lloiente, then municipal mayoi of Zamboanga uel Noite was chaigeu with violation of Sec. S|ej of Republic Act No. Su19, otheiwise known as the Anti-uiaft anu Coiiupt Piactices Act. Accoiuing to the infoimation:he "uiu then anu theie, wilfully, unlawfully anu ciiminally with eviuent bau faith iefusetosignanuappiovethepayiollsanuvoucheisiepiesentingthepaymentsofthesalaiies anuotheiemolumentsofLeticiau.Fueites,withoutjustvaliucauseanuwithoutuuepiocessof law,theiebycausingunuueinjuiytothesaiuLeticiau.Fueites."Whileaumittingsomeuelaysin thepaymentofthecomplainant'sclaims,petitioneisoughttopiovetheuefenseofgooufaith-- thatthewithholuingofpaymentwasuuetoheifailuietosubmittheiequiieumoneyanu piopeity cleaiance, anu to the Sangguniang Bayan's uelayeu enactment of a supplemental buuget to covei the claims.Be auus that such uelays uiu not iesult in "unuue injuiy" to complainant. ResponuentCouitheluthattheuelayoiwithholuingofcomplainant'ssalaiiesanuemoluments was unieasonable anu causeu complainant unuue injuiy.Being then the sole bieauwinnei in theii family,thewithholuingofheisalaiiescauseuheiuifficultiesinmeetingheifamily'sfinancial obligations like paying foi the tuition fees of hei foui chiluien. ISS0E: Biu the piosecution faileu to establish the elements of unuue injuiy anu bau faith. YES! BELB: Petitionei was chaigeu with violation of Sec. S(e) of R.A No. Su19, which states:Sec.S.Coiiuptpiacticesofpublicofficeis.Inauuitiontoactsoiomissionsofpublicofficeis alieauypenalizeubyexistinglaw,thefollowingshallconstitutecoiiuptpiacticesofanypublic officei anu aie heieby ueclaieu to be unlawful: x x x x x xx x x (e) Causing any unuue injuiy to any paity, incluuing the uoveinment, oi giving any piivate paity any unwaiianteu benefits, auvantage oi piefeience in the uischaige of his official, auministiative oi juuicial functions thiough manifest paitiality, eviuent bau faith oi gioss inexcusable negligence. Thispiovisionshallapplytoofficeisanuemployeesofofficesoigoveinmentcoipoiations chaigeu with the giant of licenses oi peimits oi othei concessions. Toholuapeisonliableunueithissection,theconcuiienceofthefollowingelementsmustbe establisheu beyonu ieasonable uoubt by the piosecution: (1) that the accuseu is a public officei oi a piivate peison chaigeu in conspiiacy with the foimei; (2)thatsaiupublicofficeicommitsthepiohibiteuactsuuiingthepeifoimanceofhisoihei official uuties oi in ielation to his oi hei public positions; (S)thatheoishecausesunuueinjuiytoanypaity,whetheithegoveinmentoiapiivatepaity; anu (4) that the public officei has acteu with manifest paitiality, eviuent bau faith oi gioss inexcusable negligence. 0nuueinjuiyinthiscaseiequiiespioofofactualinjuiyoiuamage.0nlikeinactionsfoitoits, unuue injuiy cannot be piesumeu even aftei a wiong oi a violation of aiight has been establisheu. Itsexistencemustbepiovenasoneoftheelementsoftheciime.Itisiequiieuthattheunuue injuiy be specifieu, quantifieu anu pioven to the point of moial ceitainty.0nuueinjuiyisconsistentlyinteipieteuas"actualuamage".0nuuehasbeenuefineuas"moie than necessaiy, not piopei, oi illegal"; anu injuiy as "any wiong oi uamage uone to anothei, eithei ALYANNA R. CBANu in his peison, iights, ieputation oi piopeity. Actual uamage, in the context of these uefinitions, is akin to that in civil law.Complainant'stestimonyiegaiuingheifamily'sfinancialstiesswasinauequateanulaigely speculative.Withoutgivingspecificuetails,shemaueonlyvagueiefeiencestothefactthathei fouichiluienweieallgoingtoschoolanuthatshewasthebieauwinneiinthefamily.She, howevei, uiu not say that she was unable to pay theii tuition fees anu the specific uamage biought by such nonpayment. The fact that the "injuiy" to hei family was unspecifieu oi unquantifieu uoes not satisfy the element of unuue injuiy, as akin to actual uamages. As in civil cases, actual uamages, if not suppoiteu by eviuence on iecoiu, cannot be consiueieu. ResponuentCouitcannotshifttheblameonthepetitionei,whenitwasthecomplainantwho faileutosubmittheiequiieucleaiance.Thisiequiiement,whichthecomplainantuisiegaiueu, wasevenpiinteuatthebackoftheveiyvoucheissoughttobeappioveu.Foiheiownfailuieto submit the iequiieu cleaiance, complainant is not entiiely blameless foi the uelay in the appioval of hei claims. Bau faith uoes not simply connote bau juugment oi negligence; it imputes a uishonest puipose oi somemoialobliquityanuconsciousuoingofawiong;abieachofswoinuutythioughsome motiveoiintentoiillwill;itpaitakesofthenatuieoffiauu.Itcontemplatesastateofminu affiimativelyopeiatingwithfuitiveuesignoisomemotiveofselfinteiestoiillwillfoiulteiioi puiposes. Eviuent bau faith connotes a manifest uelibeiate intent on the pait of the accuseu to uo wiong oi cause uamage. 7(3", &' /" T /1*1.- FACTS: Coniauo Bunag, }i. biought Zenaiua Ciiilo to a motel wheie they hau sexual inteicouise. Latei that evening,saiuBunagbioughtCiiilotothehouseofhisgianumotheiinLasPias,NetioNanila, wheietheyliveutogetheiashusbanuanuwifefoi21uays.Soon,BunaganuCiiilofileutheii iespective applications foi a maiiiage license with the 0ffice of the Local Civil Registiai of Bacooi, Cavite.Bowevei,BunagleftCiiiloanusoonfileuanaffiuavitwithuiawinghisapplicationfoia maiiiagelicense.Ciiiloclaimsthatshewasabuucteuanuiapeu.0neofthecasesshefileuwasa suitfoiuamagesbaseuonabieachofapiomisetomaiiy.Thetiialcouitueciueuinheifavoi. This was affiimeu by the CA. ISS0E: Whethei uefenuant can file an action foi bieach of piomise to maiiy. YES! BELB: It is tiue that in this juiisuiction, we auheie to the time-honoieu iule that an action foi bieach of piomisetomaiiyhasnostanuinginthecivillaw,apaitfiomtheiighttoiecoveimoneyoi piopeity auvanceu by the plaintiff upon the faith of such piomise. ueneially, theiefoie, a bieach of piomisetomaiiypeiseisnotactionable,exceptwheietheplaintiffhasactuallyincuiieu expenses foi the weuuing anu the necessaiy inciuents theieof. Bowevei,theawaiuofmoialuamagesisalloweuincasesspecifieuinoianalogoustothose pioviueu in Aiticle 2219 of the Civil Coue. Coiielatively, unuei Aiticle 21 of saiu Coue, in ielation to paiagiaph 1u of saiu Aiticle 2219, any peison who wilfully causes loss oi injuiy to anothei in a manneithatiscontiaiytomoials,gooucustomsoipublicpolicyshallcompensatethelatteifoi moialuamages.Aiticle21wasauopteutoiemeuythecountlessgapsinthestatuteswhichleave somanyvictimsofmoialwiongshelplesseventhoughtheyhaveactuallysuffeieumateiialanu moial injuiy, anu is intenueu to vouchsafe auequate legal iemeuy foi that untolu numbei of moial wiongs which is impossible foi human foiesight to specifically pioviue foi in the statutes.0nueitheciicumstancesobtaininginthecaseatbai,theactsofpetitioneiinfoiciblyabuucting piivateiesponuentanuhavingcainalknowleugewithheiagainstheiwill,anutheieaftei piomisingtomaiiyheiinoiueitoescapeciiminalliability,onlytotheieafteiienegeonsuch ALYANNA R. CBANu piomiseafteicohabitingwithheifoitwenty-oneuays,iiiemissiblyconstituteactscontiaiyto moialsanugooucustoms.Theseaiegiosslyinsensateanuiepiehensibletiansgiessionswhich inuisputablywaiiantanuabunuantlyjustifytheawaiuofmoialanuexemplaiyuamages, puisuant to Aiticle 21 in ielation to paiagiaphs S anu 1u, Aiticle 2219, anu Aiticle 2229 anu 22S4 of Civil Coue. ueneially, the basis of civil liability fiom ciime is the funuamental postulate of oui law that eveiy peison ciiminally liable foi a felony is also civilly liable. In othei woius, ciiminal liability will give iisetocivilliabilityexuelictoonlyifthesamefeloniousactoiomissioniesultsinuamageoi injuiytoanotheianuistheuiiectanupioximatecausetheieof.Bence,extinctionofthepenal actionuoesnotcaiiywithittheextinctionofcivilliabilityunlesstheextinctionpioceeusfioma ueclaiationinafinaljuugmentthatthefactfiomwhichthecivilmightaiiseuiunotexist.Inthe instantcase,theuismissalofthecomplaintfoifoicibleabuuctionwithiapewasbymeie iesolutionofthefiscalatthepieliminaiyinvestigationstage.Theieisnoueclaiationinafinal juugmentthatthefactfiomwhichthecivilcasemightaiiseuiunotexist.Consequently,the uismissal uiu not in any way affect the iight of heiein piivate iesponuent to institute a civil action aiising fiom the offense because such pieliminaiy uismissal of the penal action uiu not caiiy with it the extinction of the civil action. 7"R24 &' /" T ,-3V".)2 FACTS: Baksh(29yeaisolu),anIianiancitizen,couiteuiesponuentuonzales(21yeaisolu,highschool giauuate,baiiiolassanuawaitiess).Sheaccepteuhisloveontheconuitionthattheywillget maiiieu,sohepiomiseuheithathewillmaiiyhei.uonzales'paientsmauepiepaiationsby lookingfoipigsanuchickens,invitingfiienusanuielativesanucontiactingsponsois.Without gettingmaiiieu,Bakshanuuonzalesliveutogethei.uonzales''cheiiygotpoppeu.'Theieaftei, Baksh began maltieating uonzales anu eventually tolu hei that he no longei wanteu to maiiy hei anu that he was alieauy maiiieu to anothei woman. uonzales fileu a complaint foi uamages. ISS0E: Whethei oi not uozanles can claim uamages. YES! BELB: Theexistingiuleisthatabieachofpiomisetomaiiypeiseisnotanactionablewiong.This notwithstanuing,thesaiuCouecontainsapiovision,Aiticle21,whichisuesigneutoexpanuthe conceptoftoitsoiquasi-uelictinthisjuiisuictionbygiantingauequatelegaliemeuyfoithe untolu numbei of moial wiongs which is impossible foi human foiesight to specifically enumeiate anu punish in the statute books. Aiticle2176oftheCivilCoue,whichuefinesaquasi-uelictthus:Whoeveibyactoiomission causes uamage to anothei, theie being fault oi negligence, is obligeu to pay foi the uamage uone. Suchfaultoinegligence,iftheieisnopie-existingcontiactualielationbetweenthepaities,is calleuaquasi-uelictanuisgoveineubythepiovisionsofthisChapteiislimiteutonegligentacts oi omissions anu excluues the notion of willfulness oi intent. InthelightoftheabovelauuablepuiposeofAiticle21,Weaieoftheopinion,anusoholu,that wheieaman'spiomisetomaiiyisinfactthepioximatecauseoftheacceptanceofhislovebya womananuhisiepiesentationtofulfillthatpiomisetheieafteibecomesthepioximatecauseof thegivingofheiselfuntohiminasexualcongiess,pioofthathehau,inieality,nointentionof maiiyingheianuthatthepiomisewasonlyasubtleschemeoiueceptiveuevicetoenticeoi inveigleheitoaccepthimanutoobtainheiconsenttothesexualact,coulujustifytheawaiuof uamages puisuant to Aiticle 21 not because of such piomise to maiiy but because of the fiauu anu ueceit behinu it anu the willful injuiy to hei honoi anu ieputation which followeu theieaftei. It is essential, howevei, that such injuiy shoulu have been committeu in a mannei contiaiy to moials, goou customs oi public policy. ALYANNA R. CBANu In the instant case, iesponuent Couit founu that it was the petitionei's "fiauuulent anu ueceptive piotestationsoflovefoianupiomisetomaiiyplaintiffthatmaueheisuiienueiheiviitueanu womanhoou to him anu to live with him on the honest anu sinceie belief that he woulu keep saiu piomise,anuitwaslikewisethesefiauuanuueceptiononappellant'spaitthatmaueplaintiff's paients agiee to theii uaughtei's living-in with him piepaiatoiy to theii supposeu maiiiage." Petitionei's contenueu that iesponuent is also at fault as she is also inteiesteu in the petitionei as the lattei will become a uoctoi soonei oi latei. Take notice that she is a plain high school giauuate anuameieemployee...oiawaitiessinaluncheonetteanuwithoutuoubt,isinneeuofaman whocangiveheieconomicsecuiity.Beifamilyisinuiieneeuoffinancialassistance.Anuthis pieuicament piompteu hei to accept a pioposition that may have been offeieu by the petitionei. The statements ieveal the tiue chaiactei anu motive of the petitionei. fiom the veiy beginning, he wasnotatallmoveubygooufaithanuanhonestmotive.Naiiyingwithawomanso ciicumstancescoulunothaveeveniemotelyoccuiieutohim.Thus,hispiofessionofloveanu piomisetomaiiyweieemptywoiusuiiectlyintenueutofool,uupe,entice,beguileanuueceive thepooiwomanintobelievingthatinueeu,heloveuheianuwouluwantheitobehislife's paitnei.BiswasnothingbutpuielustwhichhewanteusatisfieubyaFilipinawhohonestly believeu that by accepting his pioffei of love anu pioposal of maiiiage, she woulu be able to enjoy alifeofeaseanusecuiity.PetitioneicleailyviolateutheFilipino'sconceptofmoialityanu biazenly uefieu the tiauitional iespect Filipinos have foi theii women. It can even be saiu that the petitioneicommitteusuchueploiableactsinblatantuisiegaiuofAiticle19oftheCivilCoue whichuiiectseveiypeisontoactwithjustice,giveeveiyonehisuueanuobseivehonestyanu goou faith in the exeicise of his iights anu in the peifoimance of his obligations. ,"*/1" &' 641.16613) "1*.13)2 FACTS: Petitioneis}uanitouaiciaanuAlbeitoBumagoaieemployeesofPALwhohavebeenuismisseu aftei being caught in the act of sniffing shabu in the tool ioom. uaicia et al fileu an illegal uismissal case against PAL befoie the Laboi Aibitei (LA). The LA iuleu in favoi of uaicia et al anu oiueieu PALtoimmeuiatelyieinstatepetitioneis.0nappealtotheNLRCbyPAL,theuecisionoftheLA wasieveiseu.Neanwhile,theLAissueuaNoticeofuainishmenttheWiitofExecutionfoithe ieinstatement aspect of its uecision. When PAL tiieu to enjoin the ieinstatement anu gainishment, NLRCaffiimeusuchNoticeanuWiitbutsuspenueuanuiefeiieutheactiontotheRehabilitation ReceiveiofPALwhichatthattimewasunueigoingiehabilitationieceiveiship.Bowevei,when PAL manifesteu that SEC hau appioveu its exit fiom the iehabilitation, SC iesolveu to enteitain the issue of whethei PAL shoulu pay back wages to the uaicia et al fiom the time the LA oiueieu theii ieinstatement up to the time the NLRC ieveiseu the finuings of the LA.. ISS0E: Whethei petitioneis may collect theii wages uuiing the peiiou between the Laboi Aibitei's oiuei ofieinstatementpenuingappealanutheNLRCuecisionoveituiningthatoftheLaboiAibitei,nowthat PAL has exiteu fiom iehabilitation pioceeuings. BELB:Paiagiaph S of Aiticle 22S of the Laboi Coue ieaus: Inanyevent,theuecisionoftheLaboiAibiteiieinstatingauismisseuoisepaiateu employee, insofai as the ieinstatement aspect is conceineu, shall immeuiately be executoiy, penuing appeal.The employee shall eithei be aumitteu back to woik unuei the same teims anuconuitionspievailingpiioitohisuismissaloisepaiationoi,attheoptionofthe employei, meiely ieinstateu in the payioll. The posting of a bonu by the employei shall not stay the execution foi ieinstatement pioviueu heiein. ALYANNA R. CBANu ItwasheluinanumbeiofcasesthatwhentheoiueiofieinstatementoftheLaboiAibiteiis ieveiseu on appeal, it is obligatoiy on the pait of the employei to ieinstate anu pay the wages of theuismisseuemployeeuuiingthepeiiouofappealuntilieveisalbythehigheicouit.Ifthe employee has been ieinstateu uuiing the appeal peiiou anu such ieinstatement oiuei is ieveiseu withfinality,theemployeeisnotiequiieutoieimbuisewhateveisalaiyheieceiveufoiheis entitleutosuch,moiesoifheactuallyienueieuseivicesuuiingthepeiiou.Bence,itimmateiial whetheianemployeeisactuallyieinstateuoionpayiollieinstatement,heshewoulustillbe entitleu foi wages uuiing the penuency peiiou. Boweveiinthecaseofuenuinotheoppositeviewwasaiticulateu.Inthiscase,itwasheluthat when LA's uecision is latei ieveiseu on appeal upon finuing that the giounu foi uismissal is valiu, thentheemployeihastheiighttoiequiietheuismisseuemployeeonpayiollieinstatementto iefunuthesalaiiessheieceiveuwhilethecasewaspenuingappeal,oiitcanbeueuucteufiom theacciueubenefitsthattheuismisseuemployeewasentitleutoieceivefiomhisheiemployei unueiexistinglaws,collectivebaigainingagieementpiovisions,anucompany piactices. Bowevei,iftheemployeewasieinstateutowoikuuiingthepenuencyoftheappeal, thentheemployeeisentitleutothecompensationieceiveufoiactualseivicesienueieuwithout neeu of iefunu. SC uoes not agiee with the iuling in the uenuino case on the ff ieasons: o"iefunu uoctiine" easily uemonstiates how a favoiable uecision by the Laboi Aibitei coulu haim,moiethanhelp,auismisseuemployee. Theemployee,tomakebothenusmeet, woulu necessaiily have to use up the salaiies ieceiveu uuiing the penuency of the appeal, only to enu up having to iefunu the sum in case of a final unfavoiable uecision. It is miiage of a stop-gap leauing the employee to a iisky cliff of insolvency.oNot only uoes it uisiegaiu the social justice piinciples behinu the iule, but also institutes a schemeunuulyfavoiabletomanagement. 0nueisuchscheme,thesalaiiesuispenseu penuentelitemeielyseiveasabonuposteuininstallmentbytheemployei. Foiinthe eventofaieveisaloftheLaboiAibitei'suecisionoiueiingieinstatement,theemployei gets back the same amount without having to spenu oiuinaiily foi bonu piemiums.The Court reaffirms the prevailing principle that even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. However this rule is not without exception, the employee may be barred from collecting the accrued wages when: otheieisactualuelayoithefactthattheoiueiofieinstatementpenuingappealwasnot executeu piioi to its ieveisal; anu ouelay must not be uue to the employei's unjustifieu act oi omission.Inthecaseatbai,petitioneisexeiteutoexecutetheLaboiAibitei'soiueiofieinstatementuntil they weie able to secuie a wiit of execution, albeit issueu on 0ctobei S, 2uuu aftei the ieveisal by the NLRC of the Laboi Aibitei's uecision.Technically, theie was still actual uelay which biings to the question of whethei the uelay was uue to iesponuent. Itisappaientthattheiewasinactiononthepaitofiesponuenttoieinstatethem,butwhethei such omission was justifieu uepenus on the onset of the exigency of coipoiate iehabilitation. Responuent'sfailuietoexeicisethealteinativeoptionsofactualieinstatementanupayioll ieinstatement was justifieu. While ieinstatement penuing appeal aims to aveit the continuing thieat oi uangei to the suivival oi even the life of the uismisseu employee anu his family, it uoes not contemplate the peiiou when the employei-coipoiation itself is similaily in a juuicially monitoieu state of being iesuscitateu in oiuei to suivive. PAL,uuiingthepeiioumateiialtothecase,waseffectivelyuepiiveuofthealteinativechoices unuei Aiticle 22S of the Laboi Coue, not only by viitue of the statutoiy injunction but also in view ALYANNA R. CBANu of the inteiim ielinquishment of management contiol to give way to the full exeicise of the poweis of the iehabilitation ieceivei.Bau theie been no neeu to iehabilitate, iesponuent may have opteu foiactualphysicalieinstatementpenuingappealtooptimizetheutilizationofiesouices. Then again,thoughthemanagementmaythinkthiswise,theiehabilitationieceiveimayueciue otheiwise, not to mention the subsistence of the injunction on claims. Insum,theobligationtopaytheemployee'ssalaiiesupontheemployei'sfailuietoexeicisethe alteinative options unuei Aiticle 22S of the Laboi Coue is not a haiu anu fast iule, consiueiing the inheient constiaints of coipoiate iehabilitation. Sepaiateopinion:Cleaily,thepiincipleofunjusteniichmentuoesnotapply.Fiist,thepiovisionon ieinstatementpenuingappealisinaccoiuwiththesocialjusticephilosophyofouiConstitution.Itis meanttoaffoiufullpiotectiontolaboiasitaimstostop(albeittempoiaiily,sincetheappealmaybe ueciueuinfavoiofemployei)acontinuingthieatoiuangeitothesuivivaloieventhelifeofthe uismisseu employee anu his family. Seconu, the piovision on ieinstatement penuing appeal paiatakes of a special law that must govein the instant case. The piovision of the Civil Coue on unjust eniichment, being of geneial application, must give way. In any case, }ustice velasco points out that the wiit of execution in theinstantcasewasissueuafteithepiomulgationoftheNLRCiesolution.Aspetitioneifaileutoacton theiiiightsanuseekenfoicementoftheieinstatementpenuingappeal,PALisnotliabletopaytheii acciueu salaiies foi the peiiou in question. "7)*/" &' &)* FACTS: Sometimeintheeaily198us,vaiiousIntelligenceunitsoftheAFPknownasTaskFoice Nakabansa (TFN) weie oiueieu by iesponuents then Naj. uen. Fabian vei to conuuct pie-emptive stiikes against known communist-teiioiist (CT) unueigiounu houses in view of incieasing iepoits aboutCTplanstosowuistuibancesinNetioNanila. Incompliancetheieof,theTFNiaiueu seveial places, employing in most cases uefectively issueu juuicial seaich waiiants.Buiing these iaius,ceitainmembeisoftheiaiuingTFNconfiscateuanumbeiofpuielypeisonalitems belonging to the 2u petitioneis.Petitioneis weie aiiesteu without piopei aiiest waiiants issueu bythecouits. Foisomepeiiouafteitheiiaiiest,theyweieaiiesteuwithoutuenieuvisitsof ielativesanulawyeis;inteiiogateuinviolationoftheiiiightstosilenceanucounsel,thiough thieats,toituieanuotheifoimsofviolenceinoiueitoobtaininciiminatoiyinfoimationoi confessions anu in oiuei to punish them. PlaintiffsthenfileuanactionfoiuamagesbefoietheRTCofQuezonCityagainstiesponuents-officeisoftheAFPheaueubyvei. Responuents,intheiimotiontouismiss,claimeuthat(1)the witiofhabeascoipuswassuspenueu,thusgivingcieuencetopetitioneis'uetention;(2) iesponuentsweieimmunefiomliabilityfoiactsuoneinthepeifoimanceoftheiiofficialuuties, anu that (S) the complaint uiu not state a cause of action against iesponuents.0n Novembei 8, 198S, the RTC gianteu the motion to uismiss the case.A motion to set asiue the oiueiuismissingthecomplaint,anuasupplementalmotionfoiieconsiueiationweiefileuby petitioneis.0n Nay 11, 1984, the tiial couit, without acting on the motion to set asiue the 0iuei ofNov.8,198S,ueclaieuthefinalityofsaiu0iueiagainstpetitioneis. Afteitheiimotionfoi ieconsiueiation was uenieu by the RTC, petitioneis then fileu the instant petition foi ceitioiaii, on Naich 1S, 198S, seeking to annul anu set asiue the iesponuent couit's iesolutions anu oiuei.ISS0ES: 1.Whethei oi not the suspension of the piivilege of the wiit of habeas coipus bais a civil action foi uamagesfoiillegalseaichesconuucteubymilitaiypeisonnelanuotheiviolationsofiightsanu libeities guaianteeu unuei the Constitution; 2.Whetheioinotiesponuentsmayinvokestateimmunityfiomsuitfoiactsuoneinthe peifoimance of official uuties anu functions; S.Whetheioinotasupeiioiofficei,unueithenotionofiesponueatsupeiioi,beansweiablefoi ALYANNA R. CBANu uamages jointly anu seveially with his suboiuinates, to the peison whose constitutional iights anu libeities have been violateu.BELB: (1)Thesuspensionofthepiivilegeofthewiitofhabeascoipus(PWBC)uoesnotuestioy petitioneis' iight anu cause of action foi uamages foi illegal aiiest anu uetention anu othei violations of theiiconstitutionaliights. Thesuspensionuoesnotienueivaliuanotheiwiseillegalaiiestoi uetention.What is suspenueu is meiely the iight of the inuiviuual to seek ielease fiom uetention thiough the wiit of habeas coipus as a speeuy means of obtaining his libeity.Noieovei, as pointeu out by petitioneis, theii iight anu cause of action foi uamages aie explicitly iecognizeu in PB 17SS which amenueu Ait. 1146 of the Civil Coue by auuing the following text: A&*)8)'5 *,)"+,)$%+!&"L3&'!"M.'0+&+,)'!9,+-&3+,)1/$!"+!33&'3&'N.$-!J()/!%+O$'!-)-3'&6&'&.+&3$"0$%+5 $%+!8!+0&'%&"(.%+&3$"01.2/!%&33!%)'!"8&/8!"9+,))P)'%!-)&31&*)'-&'$.+,&'!+0$'!-!"93'&66$'+!$/ /$* !"%/.(!"9 +,) $'')-+5 ()+)"+!&" $"(Q&' +'!$/ &3 +,) 1/$!"+!335 +,) -$6) 6.-+ 2) 2'&.9,+ *!+,!" &") 0)$'= EvenassumingthatthesuspensionofthePWBCsuspenuspetitioneis'iightofactionfoi uamages foi illegal aiiest anu uetention, it uoes not anu cannot suspenu theii iights anu causes of action foiinjuiiessuffeieubecauseofiesponuents'confiscationoftheiipiivatebelongings,theviolationof theiiiighttoiemainsilentanutocounselanutheiiiighttopiotectionagainstunieasonableseaiches anu seizuies anu against toituie anu othei ciuel anu inhuman tieatment.The question became moot anu acauemic since the suspension of the PWBC hau been lifteu with the issuance of then Pies. Coiazon Aquino of Pioclamation No. 2 on Naich 2S, 1986. (2)Itmaybethattheiesponuents,asmembeisoftheAFP,weiemeielyiesponuingtotheii uuties, as they claim, "to pievent oi suppiess lawless violence, insuiiection, iebellion anu subveision" in accoiuance with Pioclamation No. 2uS4 of Pies. Naicos, uespite the lifting of Naitial Law on }anuaiy 27, 1981, anu in puisuance of such objective, to launch pie-emptive stiikes against allegeu CT unueigiounu houses.Butthiscannotbeconstiueuasablanketlicenseoiiovingcommissionuntiammeleubyany constitutionaliestiaint,touisiegaiuoitiansgiessupontheiightsanulibeitiesoftheinuiviuualcitizen enshiineu anu piotecteu by the Constitution. AiticleS2oftheCivilCoue,whichienueisanypublicofficeioiemployees,oianypiivate inuiviuual,liableinuamagesfoiviolatingtheconstitutionaliightsanulibeitiesofanothei,uoesnot exempttheiesponuentsfiomiesponsibility. 0nlyjuugesaieexcluueufiomliabilityunueithesaiu aiticle, pioviueu theii acts oi omissions uo not constitute a violation of the Reviseu Penal Coue oi othei penal statute. Thisisnotsaythatmilitaiyauthoiitiesaieiestiaineufiompuisuingtheiiassigneutaskoi caiiying out theii mission with vigoi, to piotect the Philippines fiom its enemies, whethei of the left oi of theiight,oifiomwithinoiwithout,seekingtouestioyoisubveitouiuemociaticinstitutionsanu impeiiltheiiveiyexistence.Whatismeantisthatincaiiyingouttheiitaskanumission,constitutional anu legal safeguaius must be obseiveu; otheiwise, the veiy fabiic of oui faith will stait to uniavel.In the battle of competing iueologies, the stiuggle of minu is just as vital as the stiuggle of aims.The linchpin in that psychological stiuggle is faith in the iule of law.0nce that faith is lost oi compiomiseu, the stiuggle may well be abanuoneu. (S) Theuoctiineofiesponueatsupeiioiisnotapplicableinthiscase. Ithasbeengeneially limiteuinitsapplicationtopiincipalanuagentoitomasteianuseivantielationships. Nosuch ielationshipexistssupeiioisofthemilitaiyanutheiisuboiuinates. Bowevei,theuecisivefactoiinthis case is the language of Ait. S2, Civil Coue; the law speaks of an officei oi employee oi peison "uiiectly" oi "inuiiectly"iesponsiblefoitheviolationoftheconstitutionaliightsanulibeitiesofanothei. Thus,itis nottheactoialonewhomustansweifoiuamagesunueiAit.S2;thepeisoninuiiectlyiesponsiblehas also to answei foi the uamages oi injuiy causeu to the aggiieveu paity.Ait. S2 makes the peisons who aie uiiectly as well as inuiiectly iesponsible foi the tiansgiession joint toitfeasois. ALYANNA R. CBANu In any of the cases iefeiieu to in this aiticle, whethei oi not the uefenuant's act oi omission constitutes a ciiminal offense, the against giieveu paity has a iight to commence an entiiely sepaiate anu uistinct civil actionfoiuamages,anufoiotheiielief.Suchcivilactionshallpioceeuinuepenuentlyofanyciiminal piosecution (if the lattei be instituteu), anu may be pioveu by a pieponueiance of eviuence. It is obvious that the puipose of the above coual piovision is to pioviue a sanction to the ueeply cheiisheu iights anu fieeuoms enshiineu in the Constitution. Its message is cleai; no man may seek to violate those sacieuiightswithimpunity.Intimesofgieatupheavaloiofsocialanupoliticalstiess,whenthe temptation is stiongest to yielu boiiowing the woius of Chief }ustice Clauuio Teehankee to the law offoiceiatheithanthefoiceoflaw,itisnecessaiytoieminuouiselvesthatceitainbasiciightsanu libeitiesaieimmutableanucannotbesaciificeutothetiansientneeusoiimpeiiousuemanusofthe iulingpowei.Theiuleoflawmustpievail,oielselibeitywillpeiish.0uicommitmenttouemociatic piinciplesanutotheiuleoflawcompelsustoiejecttheviewwhichieuuceslawtonothingbutthe expiessionofthewillofthepieuominantpoweiinthecommunity."Bemociacycannotbeaieignof piogiess, of libeity, of justice, unless the law is iespecteu by him who makes it anu by him foi whom it is maue. Now this iespect implies a maximum of faith, a minimum of Iuealism. 0n going to the bottom of the mattei,weuiscoveithatlifeuemanusofusaceitainiesiuuumofsentimentwhichisnotueiiveufiom ieason, but which ieason neveitheless contiols. Aiticle S2 of the Civil Coue which ienueis any public officei oi employee oi any piivate inuiviuual liable inuamagesfoiviolatingtheConstitutionaliightsanulibeitiesofanothei,asenumeiateutheiein,uoes notexempttheiesponuentsfiomiesponsibility.0nlyjuugesaieexcluueufiomliabilityunueithesaiu aiticle,pioviueutheiiactsoiomissionsuonotconstituteaviolationofthePenalCoueoiotheipenal statute. Thisisnottosaythatmilitaiyauthoiitiesaieiestiaineufiompuisuingtheiiassigneutaskoicaiiying out theii mission with vigoi. We have no quaiiel with theii uuty to piotect the Republic fiom its enemies, whetheioftheleftoioftheiight,oifiomwithinoiwithout,seekingtouestioyoisubveitoui uemociaticinstitutionsanuimpeiiltheiiveiyexistence.Whatweaiemeielytiyingtosayisthatin caiiyingoutthistaskanumission,constitutionalanulegalsafeguaiusmustbeobseiveu,otheiwise,the veiyfabiicofouifaithwillstaittouniavel.InthebattleofcompetingIueologies,thestiugglefoithe minu is just as vital as the stiuggle of aims. The linchpin in that psychological stiuggle is faith in the iule of law. 0nce that faith is lost oi compiomiseu, the stiuggle may well be abanuoneu. Responuentscontenuthattheuoctiineof')-1&"()"+-.1)'!&'isapplicabletothecase.Weagiee.The uoctiineof')-1&"()"+ -.1)'!&'hasbeengeneiallylimiteuinitsapplicationtopiincipalanuagentoito masteianuseivant(i.e.employeianuemployee)ielationship.Nosuchielationshipexistsbetween supeiioi officeis of the militaiy anu theii suboiuinates. Be that as it may, howevei, the uecisive factoi in this case, in oui view, is the language of Aiticle S2. The lawspeaksofanofficeioiemployeeoipeison'uiiectly'oi"inuiiectly"iesponsiblefoitheviolationof theconstitutionaliightsanulibeitiesofanothei.Thus,itisnottheactoialone(i.e.theoneuiiectly iesponsible) who must answei foi uamages unuei Aiticle S2; the peison inuiiectly iesponsible has also to answei foi the uamages oi injuiy causeu to the aggiieveu paity. !"7()3" &' 2"3$1,"37"S"3 FACTS: ThenPiesiuentNaicosinstiucteuLuisTabuenaoveithephonetopayuiiectlytothepiesiuent'soffice anuincashwhattheNanilaInteinationalAiipoitAuthoiity(NIAA)owesthePhilippineNational ConstiuctionCoipoiation(PNCC),puisuanttothe7}anuaiy198SmemoianuumofthenNinisteiTiaue ALYANNA R. CBANu anu Inuustiy Robeito 0ngpin. Tabuena agieeu. About a week latei, Tabuena ieceiveu fiom Nis. Fe Roa-uimenez, then piivate secietaiy of Naicos, a Piesiuential Nemoianuum uateu 8 }anuaiy 1986 ieiteiating inblackanuwhitesuchveibalinstiuction.InobeuiencetoPiesiuentNaicos'veibalinstiuctionanu memoianuum, Tabuena, with the help of ueiaiuo u. Babao anu Auolfo Peialta, causeu the ielease of PSS Nillion of NIAA funus by means of thiee (S) withuiawals. 0n 1u }anuaiy 1986, the fiist withuiawal was mauefoiP2SNillion,followingaletteiofevenuatesigneubyTabuenaanuBabaoiequestingthePNB extensionofficeattheNIAAtheuepositoiybianchofNIAAfunus,toissueamanagei'scheckfoisaiu amountpayabletoTabuena.Thecheckwasencasheu,howevei,atthePNBvillamoiBianch.Babaoanu thecashieiofthePNBvillamoibianchcounteuthemoneyafteiwhich,Tabuenatookueliveiytheieof. TheP2SNillionincashwasueliveieuonthesameuaytotheofficeofNis.uimenez.Nis.uimenezuiu notissueanyieceiptfoithemoneyieceiveu.Similaiciicumstancessuiiounueutheseconu withuiawalencashmentanuueliveiyofanotheiP2SNillion,maueon16}anuaiy1986.Thethiiuanu last withuiawal was maue on S1 }anuaiy 1986 foi PS Nillion. Peialta was Tabuena's co-signatoiy to the lettei- iequest foi a managei's check foi this amount. Peialta accompanieu Tabuena to the PNB villamoi bianch as Tabuena iequesteu him to uo the counting of the PS Nillion. Aftei the counting, the money was loaueuinthetiunkofTabuena'scai.PeialtauiunotgowithTabuenatoueliveithemoneytoNis. uimenez' office. It was only upon ueliveiy of the PS Nillion that Nis. uimenez issueu a ieceipt foi all the amounts she ieceiveu fiom Tabuena. The ieceipt was uateu }anuaiy Su, 1986. Tabuena anu Peialta weie chaigeufoimalveisationoffunus,whileBabaoiemaineuatlaige.0neofthejusticesofthe Sanuiganbayan actively took pait in the questioning of a uefense witness anu of the accuseu themselves; thevolumeofthequestionsaskeuweiemoiethecombineuquestionsofthecounsels.0n120ctobei 199u, they weie founu guilty beyonu ieasonable uoubt. Tabuena anu Peialta fileu sepaiate petitions foi ieview,appealingtheSanuiganbayanuecisionuateu120ctobei1999uanutheResolutionof2u Becembei 1991.1EEBFWWhetheiTabuenaanuPeialtaweieuenieuuuepiocessbytheactivepaiticipationofa Sanuiganbayan justice in the questioning witnesses in the tiial.4FDGWBuepiocessiequiiesnolessthanthecoluneutialityofanimpaitialjuuge.Bolsteiingthis iequiiement,wehaveauueuthatthejuugemustnotonlybeimpaitialbutmustalsoappeaitobe impaitial, to give auueu assuiance to the paities that his uecision will be just. The paities aie entitleu to nolessthanthis,asaminimumguaiantyofuuepiocess.0uicouitsshouluiefiainfiomshowingany semblance of one-siueu oi moie oi less paitial attituue in oiuei not to cieate any false impiession in the minusofthelitigants.Foiobviousieasons,itisthebounuenuutyofalltostiivefoithepieseivationof the people's faith in oui couits. Respect foi the Constitution is moie impoitant than secuiing a conviction baseuonaviolationoftheiightsoftheaccuseu.TheCouitwasstiuckbythewaytheSanuiganbayan actively took pait in the questioning of a uefense witness anu of the accuseu themselves, as shown in the iecoius. The volume of questions huileu by the Sanuiganbayan was moie the combineu questions of the counsels.Noieimpoitantly,thequestionsofthecouitweieinthenatuieofciossexaminations chaiacteiistic of confiontation, piobing anu insinuation. We have not auopteu in this countiy the piactice ofmakingthepiesiuingjuugethechiefinquisitoi.Itisbetteitoobseiveouitime-honoieucustomof oiueilyjuuicialpioceuuie,evenattheexpenseofoccasionaluelays.Theimpaitialityofthejuuge;his avoiuanceoftheappeaianceofbecomingtheauvocateofeitheionesiueoitheotheiofthepenuing contioveisy is a funuamental anu essential iule of special impoitance in ciiminal cases.uoou faith is a valiu uefense in a piosecution foi malveisation foi it woulu negate ciiminal intent on the pait of the accuseu. To constitute a ciime, the act must, except in ceitain ciimes maue such by statute, be accompanieu by a ciiminal intent, oi by such negligence oi inuiffeience to uuty oi to consequences as, in law, is equivalent to ciiminal intent. The maxim is $%+.- "&" 3$%!+ ').65 "!-! 6)"- -!+ ')$ a ciime is not committeuiftheminuofthepeisonpeifoimingtheactcomplaineuofisinnocent.Ameiican ALYANNA R. CBANu juiispiuuenceechoesthesamepiinciple.Itauheiestotheviewthatciiminalintentinembezzlementis not baseu on technical mistakes as to the legal effect of a tiansaction honestly enteieu into, anu theie can be no embezzlement if the minu of the peison uoing the act is innocent oi if theie is no wiongful puipose. Theaccuseumaythusalwaysintiouuceeviuencetoshowheacteuingooufaithanuthathehauno intention to conveit. Anu this, to oui minu, Tabuena anu Peialta hau meiitoiiously shown. Fiist,Tabuenahaunootheichoicebuttomakethewithuiawals,foithatwaswhattheNARC0S memoianuumiequiieuhimtouo.Tabuenatheiefoieisentitleutothejustifyingciicumstanceof"E"0 1)'-&" *,& $%+- !" &2)(!)"%) +& $" &'()' !--.)( 20 $ -.1)'!&' 3&' -&6) /$*3./ 1.'1&-)." Thesuboiuinate-supeiioiielationshipbetweenTabuenaanuNaicosiscleai.Anusotoo,isthelawfulnessoftheoiuei containeuintheNARC0SNemoianuum,asithasfoiitspuiposepaitialpaymentoftheliabilityofone goveinment agency (NIAA) to anothei (PNCC). Noie so, NARC0S memoianuum is patently legal anu that Tabuena acteu unuei the honest belief that the SSmillion was a uue anu uemanuable uebt anu that it was just a poition of a biggei liability to PNCC. Bau he known oi suspecteu that his piincipal was committing an impiopei act of falsification, he woulu be liable eithei as a co-piincipal oi as an accomplice. Bowevei, theiebeingnomaliceonhispait,hewasexempteufiomciiminalliabilityashewasameieemployee following the oiueis of his piincipal. +"*1..- &' 6)-6.) -5 !4) 641.16613)2 FACTS: victoiiaanuRafaelweiemaiiieu.Theieaftei,victoiiacontiacteuasubsequentmaiiiagewith Emmanuel.AnuthenEmmanuelfileuagainstvictoiiafoiannulmentofmaiiiage.Also,victoiia fileu against Rafael a ueclaiation of nullity of theii maiiiage anu finus victoiia guilty of the ciime of bigamy anu sentenceu to an inueiteiminate penalty of 6 yeais to 1u yeais.BELB: Itistiuethatiightafteithepiesentationofthepiosecutioneviuence,petitioneimoveufoi suspensionofthepioceeuingsonthegiounuofthepenuencyofthepetitionfoiueclaiationof nullityofpetitioneismaiiiagestoAlocillo,which,petitioneiclaimeuinvolveuapiejuuicial question.Inheiappeal,shealsoasseiteuthatthepetitionfoiueclaiationofnullityofhei maiiiage to 0y, initiateu by the lattei, was a giounu foi suspension of the pioceeuings. as iuleu in R$"(!%,& 8= 4)/&8$, he who contiacts a seconu maiiiage befoie the juuicial ueclaiation of nullity of the fiist maiiiage assumes the iisk of being piosecuteu foi bigamy, anu in such a case :;FIJ>O>?:L8 :;F K>JE: OEAJFEBOFG:9CFEBCE>E:>?@.Inthecaseatbai,iesponuentwasfoialllegalintents anupuiposesiegaiueuasamaiiieumanatthetimehecontiacteuhisseconumaiiiagewith petitionei.Againstthislegalbackuiop,?:;FI>=>D9?K9J?BDD>:LX9BDG?9: FJ?:;FI>=>DIE?9:FEEF?:>?9?9K:;F IJ>O>?=>DI