7/28/2019 Silahis v. Soluta DIGEST

1/2

Silahis International Hotel, Inc vs SolutaG.R. No. 163087 February 20, 2006SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. and JOSEMARCEL PANLILIO, Petitioners,vs.ROGELIO S. SOLUTA, JOSELITO SANTOS, EDNA

BERNATE, VICENTA DELOLA, FLORENTINOMATILLA, and GLOWHRAIN-SILAHIS UNIONCHAPTER, Respondents.

FACTS: Loida Somacera (Loida), a laundrywoman of thehotel, stayed overnight at the female locker room at thebasement of the hotel. At dawn, she heard poundingsounds outside, she saw five men in barong tagalogwhom she failed to recognize but she was sure were not

employees of the hotel, forcibly opening the door of theunion office. In the morning, as union officer Soluta wastrying in vain to open the door of the union office, Loidanarrated to him what she had witnessed at dawn.Soluta immediately lodged a complaint before theSecurity Officer. And he fetched a locksmith. At thatinstant, men in barong tagalog armed with clubs arrivedand started hitting Soluta and his companions. Panlilio

thereupon instructed Villanueva to force open the door,and the latter did. Once inside, Panlilio and hiscompanions began searching the office, over theobjection of Babay who even asked them if they had asearch warrant. A plastic bag was found containingmarijuana flowering tops.As a result of the discovery of the presence of marijuanain the union office and after the police conducted aninvestigation of the incident, a complaint against the 13

union officers was filed before the Fiscals Office ofManila. RTC acquitted the accused. On appeal, the CA

affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE: Whether respondent individual can recoverdamages for violation of constitutional rights.

RULING: Article 32, in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10)

of the Civil Code, allows so.

ART. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any privateindividual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of thefollowing rights and liberties of another person shall beliable to the latter for damages: x x x x

In the present case, petitioners had, by their own claim,

already received reports in late 1987 of illegal activitiesand Maniego conducted surveillance. Yet, in the morningof January 11, 1988, petitioners and their companionsbarged into and searched the union office without asearch warrant, despite ample time for them to obtainone.

The course taken by petitioners and company stinks inillegality. Petitioners violation of individual respondentsconstitutional right against unreasonable search thusfurnishes the basis for the award of damages underArticle 32 of the Civil Code. For respondents, being thelawful occupants of the office had the right to raise thequestion of validity of the search and seizure.

Article 32 speaks of an officer or employee or person"directly or indirectly" responsible for the violation of the

constitutional rights and liberties of another. Hence, it isnot the actor alone who must answer for damages under

7/28/2019 Silahis v. Soluta DIGEST

2/2

Article 32; the person indirectly responsible has also toanswer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrievedparty. Such being the case, petitioners, together withManiego and Villanueva, the ones who orchestrated theillegal search, are jointly and severally liable for actual,moral and exemplary damages to herein individual

respondents in accordance with the earlier-quotedpertinent provision of Article 32, in relation to Article2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code which provides:

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in thefollowing and analogous cases, among others, (6) Illegalsearch and (10) Acts and action referred to in Articles 21,26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35.

DECISION: Denied.