7/28/2019 Silahis vs Soluta Dl

1/2

SILAHIS VS SOLUTAFACTS: Petitioner Panlilio was the Vice President forFinance of his co-petitioner Silahis International Hotel,Inc. (hotel), while respondents Soluta, Santos, Edna,Vicenta, and Matilla were employees of the hotel andofficers of the Glowhrain-Silahis Union Chapter, the hotelemployees union.Petitioners version:

1. The General Manager of the security agency ofSilahis Hotel allegedly received information ofillegal activities including sale of marijuana, dollarssmuggling, and prostitution going on in the UnionOffice at the hotel.

2. GM with other security personnel allegedly entered

the Union Office with the permission of the unionofficers and found marijuana.Respondents version:

1. Loida Somacera (Loida), a laundrywoman of thehotel, stayed overnight at the female locker roomat the basement of the hotel. At dawn, she heardpounding sounds outside, she saw five men inbarong tagalog whom she failed to recognize butshe was sure were not employees of the hotel,

forcibly opening the door of the union office.2. In the morning, as union officer Soluta was trying

in vain to open the door of the union office, Loidanarrated to him what she had witnessed at dawn.

3. Soluta immediately lodged a complaint before theSecurity Officer. And he fetched a locksmith. Atthat instant, men in barong tagalog armed withclubs arrived and started hitting Soluta and hiscompanions. Panlilio thereupon instructedVillanueva to force open the door, and the latter

did. Once inside, Panlilio and his companionsbegan searching the office, over the objection ofBabay who even asked them if they had a searchwarrant. 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 13union officers was filed before the Fiscals Office ofManila. RTC acquitted the accused.

On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification thedecision of the trial court.

Hence, this petition. Petitioners contend that they are notliable for damages under Article 32 and that their searchof the union office in the instant case was entirelyreasonable under the circumstances.

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

HELD: YES. 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.

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

7/28/2019 Silahis vs Soluta Dl

2/2

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 theconstitutional rights and liberties of another. Hence, it isnot the actor alone who must answer for damages underArticle 32; the person indirectly responsible has also toanswer for the damages or injury caused to theaggrieved party. Such being the case, petitioners,together with Maniego and Villanueva, the ones who

orchestrated the illegal search, are jointly and severallyliable for actual, moral and exemplary damages to hereinindividual respondents in accordance with the earlier-quoted pertinent provision of Article 32, in relation toArticle 2219(6) and (10).

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in thefollowing and analogous cases, among others,(6) Illegal search and

(10) Acts and action referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28,

29, 30, 32, 34 and 35.

Doctrines:

The Code Commission thus deemed it necessary to

hold not only public officers but also privateindividuals civilly liable for violation of rights

enumerated in Article 32 of the Civil Code. That is whyit is not even necessary that the defendant under thisArticle should have acted with malice or bad faith,otherwise, it would defeat its main purpose, which isthe effective protection of individual rights. It sufficesthat there is a violation of the constitutional right of theplaintiff.

While it is doctrinal that the right against

unreasonable searches and seizures is aPERSONAL right which may be waived expressly orimpliedly, a w aiver by implication CANNOT bepresumed. To constitute a valid waiver of the right,there must be proof that (1) the right exists; (2) theperson involved had knowledge, either actual orconstructive, of the existence of such right; and (3)that the said person had an actual intention torelinquish the right. The waiver must be voluntary,

knowingly, and intelligently made. A violation of one's constistution rights against illegal

search and seizure can be the basis for the recoveryof damages under CC Art. 32 in reln to CC Art.2219(6) and (10) on MORAL DAMAGES, since thecomplaint filed was for damages due to MaliciousProsecution AND violation of constitution right.

DISPOSTION: PETITION DENIED!