Torts Cases (Batch3) Full Text

7/24/2019 Torts Cases (Batch3) Full Text

1/86

G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968

CITY OF MANILA,petitioner,

vs.

GNARO N. TOTICO an! CO"RT OF A##AL$,respondents.

City Fiscal Manuel T. Reyes for petitioner.

Sevilla, Daza and Associates for respondents.

CONC#CION, C.J.:

Appeal by certiorarifrom a decision of the Court of Appeals.

On January 27, 195, at about !"" p.m., #enaro $. %eotico &as at the corner of the Old 'uneta and (. )ur*os Avenue,

+anila, &ithin a loadin* and unloadin* -one, &aitin* for a eepney to ta/e him do&n to&n. After &aitin* for about five

minutes, he mana*ed to hail a eepney that came alon* to a stop. As he stepped do&n from the curb to board the eepney, and

too/ a fe& steps, he fell inside an uncovered and unli*hted catch basin or manhole on (. )ur*os Avenue. 0ue to the fall, his

head hit the rim of the manhole brea/in* his eye*lasses and causin* bro/en pieces thereof to pierce his left eyelid. As blood

flo&ed therefrom, impairin* his vision, several persons came to his assistance and pulled him out of the manhole. One of them

brou*ht %eotico to the (hilippine #eneral ospital, &here his inuries &ere treated, after &hich he &as ta/en home. n addition

to the lacerated &ound in his left upper eyelid, %eotico suffered contusions on the left thi*h, the left upper arm, the ri*ht le* andthe upper lip apart from an abrasion on the ri*ht infra3patella re*ion. %hese inuries and the aller*ic eruption caused by anti3

tetanus inections administered to him in the hospital, re4uired further medical treatment by a private practitioner &ho char*ed

therefor (1,""."".

As a conse4uence of the fore*oin* occurrence, %eotico filed, &ith the Court of 6irst nstance of +anila, a complaint &hich

&as, subse4uently, amended for dama*es a*ainst the City of +anila, its mayor, city en*ineer, city health officer, city

treasurer and chief of police. As stated in the decision of the trial court, and 4uoted &ith approval by the Court of Appeals,

At the time of the incident, plaintiff &as a practicin* public accountant, a businessman and a professor at the

8niversity of the ast. e held responsible positions in various business firms li/e the (hilippine +erchandisin* Co.,

the A.8. :alencia and Co., the ;ilver ;&an +anufacturin* Company and the ;incere (ac/in* Corporation. e &as

also associated &ith several civic or*ani-ations such as the


2/86

or from ne*li*ence of said +ayor, +unicipal )oard, or other officers &hile enforcin* or attemptin* to enforce said

provisions.

or by Article 219 of the Civil Code of the (hilippines &hich provides!

(rovinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for dama*es for the death of, or inuries suffered by, any person by

reason of defective conditions of road, streets, brid*es, public buildin*s, and other public &or/s under their control or

supervision.

+anila maintains that the former provision should prevail over the latter, because @epublic Act "9, is a special la&, intended

eclusively for the City of +anila, &hereas the Civil Code is a *eneral la&, applicable to the entire (hilippines.

%he Court of Appeals, ho&ever, applied the Civil Code, and, &e thin/, correctly. t is true that, insofar as its territorial

application is concerned, @epublic Act $o. "9 is a special la& and the Civil Code a *eneral le*islationD but, as re*ards the

subect3matter of the provisions above 4uoted, ;ection of @epublic Act "9 establishes a *eneral rule re*ulatin* the liability

of the City of +anila for! dama*es or inury to persons or property arisin* from the failure of city officers to enforce the

provisions of said Act or any other la& or ordinance, or from ne*li*ence of the city +ayor, +unicipal )oard, or other officers

&hile enforcin* or attemptin* to enforce said provisions. 8pon the other hand, Article 219 of the Civil Code constitutes a

particular prescription ma/in* provinces, cities and municipalities . . . liable for dama*es for the death of, or inury suffered by

any person by reason specifically of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and otherpublic

!or"s under their control or supervision . n other &ords, said section refers to liability arisin* from ne*li*ence, in *eneral,re*ardless of the obect thereof, &hereas Article 219 *overns liability due to defective streets, in particular. ;ince the

present action is based upon the alle*ed defective condition of a road, said Article 219 is decisive thereon.

t is ur*ed that the City of +anila cannot be held liable to %eotico for dama*es! 1 because the accident involvin* him too/

place in a national hi*h&ayD and 2 because the City of +anila has not been ne*li*ent in connection there&ith.

As re*ards the first issue, &e note that it is based upon an alle*ation of fact not made in the ans&er of the City. +oreover,

%eotico alle*ed in his complaint, as &ell as in his amended complaint, that his inuries &ere due to the defective condition of a

street &hich is under the supervision and control of the City. n its ans&er to the amended complaint, the City, in turn, alle*ed

that #the streets afore$entioned !ere and have been constantly "ept in good condition and regularly inspected and the stor$

drains and $anholes thereof covered by the defendant City and the officers concerned# !ho #have been ever vigilant and

zealous in the perfor$ance of their respective functions and duties as i$posed upon the$ by la!.#%hus, the City had, in

effect, admitted that (. )ur*os Avenue &as and is under its control and supervision.

+oreover, the assertion to the effect that said Avenue is a national hi*h&ay &as made, for the first time, in its motion for

reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals. ;uch assertion raised, therefore, a 4uestion of fact, &hich had not

been put in issue in the trial court, and cannot be set up, for the first time, on appeal, much less after the rendition of the

decision of the appellate court, in a motion for the reconsideration thereof.

At any rate, under Article 219 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary for the liability therein established to attach that the

defective roads or streets belong to the province, city or municipality from &hich responsibility is eacted.


3/86

%his authority has been neither &ithdra&n nor restricted by @epublic Act $o. 917 and ecutive Order $o. 11E, dated +ay 2,

1955, upon &hich the City relies. ;aid Act *overns the disposition or appropriation of the hi*h&ay funds and the *ivin* of aid to

provinces, chartered cities and municipalities in the construction of roads and streets &ithin their respective boundaries, and

ecutive Order $o. 11E merely implements the provisions of said @epublic Act $o. 917, concernin* the disposition and

appropriation of the hi*h&ay funds. +oreover, it provides that the construction, $aintenance and improvement of national

primary, national secondary and national aid provincial and city roads shall be accomplished by the i*h&ay 0istrict n*ineers

and i*h&ay City n*ineers under the supervision of the Commissioner of (ublic i*h&ays and shall be financed from such

appropriations as may be authori-ed by the @epublic of the (hilippines in annual or special appropriation Acts.

%hen, a*ain, the determination of &hether or not (. )ur*os Avenue is under the control or supervision of the City of +anila and

&hether the latter is *uilty of ne*li*ence, in connection &ith the maintenance of said road, &hich &ere decided by the Court of

Appeals in the affirmative, is one of fact, and the f indin*s of said Court thereon are not subect to our revie&.


4/86

1. %o return the amount of (E,1""."" to plaintiff +irasol 'u*atiman &ith interest at 12I per annum from

January 12, 19, the date of the last receipt issued, until fully paidD

2. %o pay plaintiff A*nes :illa Cru- the sum of (2,"""."" for the 2F pieces of *irl scout items not returnedD

E. %o pay plaintiffs the amount of (5","""."" for and as moral dama*es and (15,"""."" for and as

eemplary dama*esD and

. (5,"""."" for and as attorney>s fees and liti*ation epenses.

Costs a*ainst the defendants.

;O O@0@0.

%he decision &as appealed to the respondent court. On January 1, 199, its 6ifth 0ivision, 5affirmed the 0ecision &ith

modification, thus!


5/86

eamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the &itnesses he may produce, and

particularly describin* the place to be searched and the persons or thin*s to be sei-ed.

%his provision protects not only those &ho appear to be innocent but also those &ho appear to be *uilty but are nevertheless

to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. 6n the case at bench, the sei-ure &as made &ithout any &arrant.

8nder the @ules of Court, %a &arrantless search can only be underta/en under the follo&in* circumstance!

;ec. 12. ;earch incident to a la&ful arrest. 3 A person la&fully arrested may be searched for dan*erous&eapons or anythin* &hich may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, &ithout a search

&arrant.

*oods. (etitioner

corporation received information that private respondents &ere ille*ally sellin* )oy ;couts items and paraphernalia in October

19E. %he specific date and time are not established in the evidence adduced by the parties. (etitioner de #u-man then made

a surveillance of the stores of private respondents. %hey reported to the (hilippine Constabulary and on October 25, 19E, the

raid &as made on the stores of private respondents and the supposed illicit *oods &ere sei-ed. %he pro*ression of time

bet&een the receipt of the information and the raid of the stores of private respondents sho&s there &as sufficient time for

petitioners and the (C raidin* party to apply for a udicial &arrant. 0espite the sufficiency of time, they did not apply for a

&arrant and sei-ed the *oods of private respondents. n doin* so, they too/ the ris/ of a suit for dama*es in case the sei-ure

&ould be proved to violate the ri*ht of private respondents a*ainst unreasonable search and sei-ure. n the case at bench, the

search and sei-ure &ere clearly ille*al. %here &as no probable cause for the sei-ure. (robable cause for a search has beendefined as such facts and circumstances &hich &ould lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense

has been committed and that the obects sou*ht in connection &ith the offense are in the place sou*ht to be

searched. 8%hese facts and circumstances &ere not in any &ay sho&n by the petitioners to ustify their

&arrantless search and sei-ure. ndeed, after a preliminary investi*ation, the (rovincial 6iscal of @i-al dismissed

their complaint for unfair competition and later ordered the return of the sei-ed *oods.

(etitioners &ould deflect their liability &ith the ar*ument that it &as the (hilippine Constabulary that conducted the raid and

their participation &as only to report the alle*ed ille*al activity of private respondents.

constitutional ri*hts, still, the omission &ill not eculpate petitioners.

n the case of %i$ vs. 3once de %eon, 9&e ruled for the recovery of dama*es for violation of constitutional ri*hts and

liberties from public officer or private individual, thus!

Art. E2. Any public officer or e$ployee, or any private individual, !ho directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,

violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the follo&in* ri*hts and liberties of another person shall

be liable to the latter for dama*es.

B9 %he ri*hts to be secure in one>s person, house, papers, and effects a*ainst unreasonable searches and

sei-ures.

%he indemnity shall include moral dama*es. emplary dama*es may also be adud*ed.

Art. 2219. +oral dama*es may be recovered in the follo&in* and analo*ous cases!

BF lle*al searchD

B1 Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 2F, 27, 2, 29, E", 45, E, and E5.

(ursuant to the fore*oin* provisions, a person &hose constitutional ri*hts have been violated or impaired is

entitled to actual and moral dama*es from the public officer or e$ployee responsible therefor. n addition,

eemplary dama*es may also be a&arded.

%he very nature of Article E2 is that the &ron* may be civil or criminal. t is not necessary therefore that there

should be malice or bad faith. %o ma/e such a re4uisite &ould defeat the main purpose of Article E2 &hich is


6/86

the effective protection of individual ri*hts. (ublic officials in the past have abused their po&ers on the

pretet of ustifiable motives or *ood faith in the performance of their duties. (recisely, the obect of the

Article is to put an end to official abuse by plea of the *ood faith. n the 8nited ;tates this remedy is in the

nature of a tort. Bemphasis supplied

n the subse4uent case ofAberca vs. 6er, 10the Court -n anc eplained the liability of persons indirectly

responsible,viz!

K%Lhe decisive factor in this case, in our vie&, is the lan*ua*e of Article E2. %he la& spea/s of an officer

or e$ployee or person #directly or indirectly# responsible for the violation of the constitutional ri*hts and

liberties of another. %hus, it is not the actor alone Bi.e., the one directly responsible &ho must ans&er for

dama*es under Article E2D the person indirectly responsible has also to ans&er for the dama*es or inury

caused to the a**rieved party.

Brespondents> merchandiseand of filin* the criminal complaint for unfair competition a*ainst appellees Brespondents &ere for the

protection and benefit of appellant Bpetitioner corporation. ;uch bein* the case, it is, thus, reasonably fair to

infer from those acts that it !as upon appellant 7petitioner8 corporation9s instance that the 3C soldiers

conducted the raid and effected the illegal seizure. %hese circumstances should ans&er the trial court>s

4uery posed in its decision no& under consideration as to !hy the 3C soldiers i$$ediately turned

over the seized $erchandise to appellant 7petitioner8 corporation. 12

%he raid &as conducted &ith the active participation of their employee. 'arry de #u-man did not lift a fin*er to stop the sei-ure

of the boy and *irl scouts items. )y standin* by and apparently assenting thereto, he &as liable to the same etent as the

officers themselves. 13;o &ith the petitioner corporation &hich even received for safe/eepin* the *oods

unreasonably sei-ed by the (C raidin* team and de #u-man, and refused to surrender them for 4uite a time

despite the dismissal of its complaint for unfair competition.

;econdly, 'etter of nstruction $o. 1299 &as precisely crafted on +arch 9, 19E to safe*uard not only the privile*e of franchise

holder of scoutin* items but also the citi-en>s constitutional ri*hts, to !it!

%%'! A((@$;O$ O6 8$A8%O@0 +A$86AC%8@@; A$0

0;%@)8%O@; O6 ;CO8% (A@A(@$A'A A$0 +(O8$0$# O6 ;A0

(A@A(@$A'A.

A);%@AC%!

0irects all la& enforcement a*encies of the @epublic of the (hilippines, to apprehend immediately

unauthori-ed manufacturers and distributors of ;cout paraphernalia, upon proper application by the oyScouts of the 3hilippines and:or 0irl Scouts of the 3hilippines for !arrant of arrest and:or search !arrant

!ith a &udge, or such other responsible officer as $ay be authorized by la!D and to impound the said

paraphernalia to be used as evidence in court or other appropriate administrative body. Orders

thei$$ediate and strict co$pliance !ith the /nstructions. 1+

8nder the above provision and as aforediscussed, petitioners miserably failed to report the unla&ful peddlin* of scoutin*

*oods to the )oy ;couts of the (hilippines for the proper application of a &arrant. (rivate respondents> ri*hts are immutable

and cannot be sacrificed to transient needs. 15(etitioners did not have the unbridled license to cause the sei-ure of

respondents> *oods &ithout any &arrant.


7/86

And thirdly, if petitioners did not have a hand in the raid, they should have filed a third3party complaint a*ainst the raidin* team

for contribution or any other relief, 16in respect of respondents> claim for @ecovery of ;um of +oney &ith 0ama*es.

A*ain, they did not.

avo&als ofembarrassment and humiliation durin* the sei-ure of their merchandise &ere supported by their testimonies.

@espondent Cru- declared!

felt very nervous. &as cryin* to loss Bsic my *oods and capital because am doin* business &ith

borro&ed money only, there &as commotion created by the raidin* team and they even stepped on some of

the pants and dresses on display for sale. All passersby stopped to &atch and stared at me &ith accusin*

epressions. &as tremblin* and terribly ashamed, sir. 18

@espondent 'u*atiman testified!

felt very nervous. &as cryin* and &as very much ashamed because many people have been &atchin*

the (C soldiers haulin* my items, and manyM Bsic heard say na/a& pala an* m*a iyan for &hich amclaimin* (25,"""."" for dama*es.19


8/86

%his case stems from alle*ed ille*al searches and sei-ures and other violations of the ri*hts and liberties of plaintiffs by

various intelli*ence units of the Armed 6orces of the (hilippines, /no&n as %as/ 6orce +a/abansa B%6+ ordered by #eneral

6abian :er to conduct pre3emptive stri/es a*ainst /no&n communist3terrorist BC% under*round houses in vie& of increasin*

reports about C% plans to so& disturbances in +etro +anila, (laintiffs alle*e, amon* others, that complyin* &ith said order,

elements of the %6+ raided several places, employin* in most cases defectively issued udicial search &arrantsD that durin*

these raids, certain members of the raidin* party confiscated a number of purely personal items belon*in* to plaintiffsD that

plaintiffs &ere arrested &ithout proper &arrants issued by the courtsD that for some period after their arrest, they &ere denied

visits of relatives and la&yersD that plaintiffs &ere interro*ated in violation of their ri*hts to silence and counselD that military

men &ho interro*ated them employed threats, tortures and other forms of violence on them in order to obtain incriminatoryinformation or confessions and in order to punish themD that all violations of plaintiffs constitutional ri*hts &ere part of a

concerted and deliberate plan to forcibly etract information and incriminatory statements from plaintiffs and to terrori-e,

harass and punish them, said plans bein* previously /no&n to and sanctioned by defendants.

(laintiffs sou*ht actualMcompensatory dama*es amountin* to (E9,"E".""D moral dama*es in the amount of at least

(15","""."" each or a total of (E,""",""".""D eemplary dama*es in the amount of at least (15","""."" each or a total of

(E,""",""".""D and attorney>s fees amountin* to not less than (2"","""."".

A motion to dismiss &as filed by defendants, throu*h their counsel, then ;olicitor3#eneral stelito +endo-a, alle*in* that B1

plaintiffs may not cause a udicial in4uiry into the circumstances of their detention in the *uise of a dama*e suit because, as to

them, the privile*e of the &rit of habeas corpus is suspendedD B2 assumin* that the courts can entertain the present action,

defendants are immune from liability for acts done in the performance of their official dutiesD and BE the complaint states nocause of action a*ainst the defendants. Opposition to said motion to dismiss &as filed by plaintiffs +arco (alo, 0anilo de la

6uente, )enamin ;es*undo, $el taba*, Alfredo +ansos and @olando ;alutin on July , 19E, and by plaintiffs d&in 'ope-,

+anuel +ario #u-man, Alan Jasmine-, $estor )odino, Carlos (alma, Arturo %abara, Joseph Olayer, @odolfo )enosa, )elen

0ia-, 6lores, @o*elio Aberca, Ale +arcelino and li-abeth +arcelino on July 21, 19E. On $ovember 7, 19E, a Consolidated

@eply &as filed by defendants> counsel.

%hen, on $ovember , 19E, the @e*ional %rial Court, $ational Capital @e*ion, )ranch 95, Jud*e

contention B1 the plaintiffs may not cause a udicial in4uiry into the circumstances of their detention in the *uise of

a dama*e suit because, as to them, the privile*e of the &rit of habeas corpus is suspendedD B2 that assumin*

that the court can entertain the present action, defendants are immune from liability for acts done in the

performance of their official dutiesD and BE that the complaint states no cause of action a*ainst defendants, since

there is no alle*ation that the defendants named in the complaint confiscated plaintiffs> purely personal properties

in violation of their constitutional ri*hts, and &ith the possible eception of +aor @odolfo A*uinaldo and ;er*eant

)ienvenido )alabo committed acts of torture and maltreatment, or that the defendants had the duty to eercise

direct supervision and control of their subordinates or that they had vicarious liability as employers under Article

21" of the Civil Code. %he lo&er court stated, After a careful study of defendants> ar*uments, the court finds the

same to be $eritorious

and must, therefore, be *ranted. On the other hand, plaintiffs> ar*uments in their

opposition are lac/in* in merit.

A motion to set aside the order dismissin* the complaint and a supplemental motion for reconsideration &as filed by the

plaintiffs on $ovember 1, 19E, and $ovember 2, 19E, respectively. On 0ecember 9, 19E, the defendants filed a

comment on the aforesaid motion of plaintiffs, furnishin* a copy thereof to the attorneys of all the plaintiffs, namely, Attys. Jose


9/86

Assailin* the said order of +ay 11, 19, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on +ay 2,19, alle*in* that it &as

not true that plaintiffs @o*elio Aberca, 0anilo de la 6uente, +arco (alo, Alan Jasmine-, Ale +arcelino, li-abeth (rotacio3

+arcelino, Alfredo +ansos and @olando ;alutin failed to file a motion to reconsider the order of $ovember , 19E dismissin*

the complaint, &ithin the re*lementary period. (laintiffs claimed that the motion to set aside the order of $ovember , 19E

and the amplificatory motion for reconsideration &as filed for all the plaintiffs, althou*h si*ned by only some of the la&yers.

n its resolution of ;eptember 21, 19, the respondent court dealt &ith both motions B1 to reconsider its order of +ay 11,

19 declarin* that &ith respect to certain plaintiffs, the resolution of $ovember , 19E had already become final, and B2 to

set aside its resolution of $ovember , 19E *rantin* the defendants> motion to dismiss. n the dispositive portion of the order

of ;eptember 21, 19, the respondent court resolved!

B1 %hat the motion to set aside the order of finality, dated +ay 11, 19, of the @esolution of dismissal of the

complaint of plaintiffs @o*elio Aberca, 0anilo de la 6uente, +arco (alo, Alan Jasmine- Ale +arcelino,

li-abeth (rotacio3+arcelino, Alfredo +ansos and @olando ;alutin is deed for lac/ of meritD

B2 6or lac/ of cause of action as a*ainst the follo&in* defendants, to &it!

1. #en 6abian :er

2. Col. 6idel ;in*son

E. Col. @olando Abadilla

. 't. Col. Conrado 'antoria, Jr.

5. Col. #alileo +ontanar

F. Col. (anfilo 'acson

7. Capt. 0anilo (i-aro

. 1 't (edro %an*o

9. 't. @omeo @icardo

1". 't. @aul )acalso


10/86

the motion to set aside and reconsider the @esolution of dismissal of the present action or complaint, dated

$ovember , 19E, is also denied but in so far as it affects and refers to defendants, to &it!

1. +aor @odolfo A*uinaldo, and

2. +aster ;*t. )ienvenido )alaba

the motion to reconsider and set aside the @esolution of dismissal dated $ovember E, 19E is *ranted andthe @esolution of dismissal is, in this respect, reconsidered and modified.

ence, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari on +arch 15, 195 see/in* to annul and set aside the respondent

court>s resolution of $ovember , 19E, its order of +ay 11, 19, and its resolution dated ;eptember 21, 19. @espondents

&ere re4uired to comment on the petition, &hich it did on $ovember 9, 195. A reply &as filed by petitioners on Au*ust 2F,

19F.

complaint is Article E2 of the Civil Code &hich provides!

A@%. E2. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual &ho directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,

violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the follo&in* ri*hts and liberties of another person shall

be liable to the latter for dama*es!

B1 6reedom of reli*ionD

B2 6reedom of speechD

BE 6reedom to &rite for the press or to maintain a periodical publicationD

B 6reedom from arbitrary or ille*al detentionD

B5 6reedom of suffra*eD

BF %he ri*ht a*ainst deprivation of property &ithout due process

B7 of la&D

B %he ri*ht to a ust compensation &hen private property is ta/en for public useD

B9 %he ri*ht to the e4ual protection of the la&sD

B1" %he ri*ht to be secure in one>s person, house, papers, and effects a*ainst unreasonable searches and

sei-uresD

B11 %he liberty of abode and of chan*in* the sameD

B12 %he privacy of cmmunication and correspondenceD

B1E %he ri*ht to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to la&D

B1 %he ri*ht to ta/e part in a peaceable assembly to petition the #overnment for redress of *rievancesD

B15 %he ri*ht to be free from involuntary servitude in any formD

B1F %he ri*th of the accused a*ainst ecessive bailD

B17 %he ri*th of the aaccused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of

the accusation a*ainst him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the &itnesses face to face, and to

have compulsory process to secure the attendance of &itness in behalfD

B1 6reedom from bein* compelled to be a &itness a*ainst ones self, or from bein* forced to confess *uilt,

or from bein* induced by a promise of immunity or re&ard to ma/e such confession, ecept &hen the

person confessin* becomes a ;tate &itnessD


11/86

B19 6reedom from ecessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted

in accordance &ith a statute &hich has not been udicially declared unconstitutionalD and

B2" 6reedom of access to the courts.

n any of the cases referred to in this article, &hether or not the defendant>s act or omission constitutes a

criminal offense, the a*ainst *rieved party has a ri*ht to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil

action for dama*es, and for other relief. ;uch civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal

prosecution Bif the latter be instituted, and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.

%he indemnity shall include moral dama*es. emplary dama*es may also be adudicated.

%he responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a ud*e unless his act or omission constitutes a

violation of the (enal Code or other penal statute.

t is obvious that the purpose of the above codal provision is to provide a sanction to the deeply cherished ri*hts and freedoms

enshrined in the Constitution. ts messa*e is clearD no man may see/ to violate those sacred ri*hts &ith impunity. n times of

*reat upheaval or of social and political stress, &hen the temptation is stron*est to yield borro&in* the &ords of Chief

Justice Claudio %eehan/ee to the la& of force rather than the force of la&, it is necessary to remind ourselves that certain

basic ri*hts and liberties are immutable and cannot be sacrificed to the transient needs or imperious demands of the rulin*

po&er. %he rule of la& must prevail, or else liberty &ill perish. Our commitment to democratic principles and to the rule of la&compels us to reect the vie& &hich reduces la& to nothin* but the epression of the &ill of the predominant po&er in the

community. 0emocracy cannot be a rei*n of pro*ress, of liberty, of ustice, unless the la& is respected by him &ho ma/es it

and by him for &hom it is made. $o& this respect implies a maimum of faith, a minimum of dealism. On *oin* to the bottom

of the matter, &e discover that life demands of us a certain residuum of sentiment &hich is not derived from reason, but &hich

reason nevertheless controls. 2

;ee/in* to ustify the dismissal of plaintiffs> complaint, the respondents postulate the vie& that as public officers they are

covered by the mantle of state immunity from suit for acts done in the performance of official duties or function n support of

said contention, respondents maintain that

@espondents are members of the Armed 6orces of the (hilippines. %heir primary duty is to safe*uard public

safety and order. %he Constitution no less provides that the (resident may call them to prevent or supressla&less violence, invasion, insurrection or rebellion, or imminent dan*er thereof. BConstitution, Article :,

;ection 9.

On January 17, 191, the (resident issued (roclamation $o. 2"5 liftin* martial la& but providin* for the

continued suspension of the privile*e of the &rit of habeas corpus in vie& of the remainin* dan*ers to the

security of the nation. %he proclamation also provided that the call to the Armed 6orces of the (hilippines to

prevent or suppress la&less violence, insuitection rebellion and subversion shall continue to be in force and

effect.

(etitioners alle*e in their complaint that their causes of action proceed from respondent #eneral :er>s order

to %as/ 6orce +a/abansa to launch pre3emptive stri/es a*ainst communist terrorist under*round houses in

+etro +anila. (etitioners claim that this order and its subse4uent implementation by elements of the tas/

force resulted in the violation of their constitutional ri*hts a*ainst unla&ful searches, sei-ures and arrest,ri*hts to counsel and to silence, and the ri*ht to property and that, therefore, respondents :er and the

named members of the tas/ force should be held liable for dama*es.

)ut, by launchin* a pre3emptive stri/e a*ainst communist terrorists, respondent members of the armed

forces merely performed their official and constitutional duties. %o allo& petitioners to recover from

respondents by &ay of dama*es for acts performed in the eercise of such duties run contrary to the policy

considerations to shield respondents as public officers from undue interference &ith their duties and from

potentially disablin* threats of hability BAarlon v. 6it-*erald 1"2 ;. Ct. 27E131 6orbes v. Chuoco %iaco, 1F

(hil. FE, and upon the necessity of protectin* the performance of *overnmental and public functions from

bein* harassed unduly or constantly interrupted by private suits B+cCallan v. ;tate, E5 Cal. App. F"5D

+etran v. (aredes, 79 (hil. 19.

%he immunity of public officers from liability arisin* from the performance of their duties is no& a settled

urisprudence Al-ua v. Johnson, 21 (hil. E"D ulueta v. $icolas, 1"2 (hil. 9D ;paldin* v. :ilas, 1F1 8;

ED " '. d. 7", 1F ;. Ct. FE1D )arr v. +ateo, EF"D )ut- v. conomon, E 8; 7D 57 '. d. 2d 95, 9

;. Ct. 29D ;cheuer v. @hodes, 1F 8; 2E2D 6orbes v. Chuoco %iaco, supraD +iller v. de 'eune, F"2 6. 2d

19D ;ami v. 8;, F17 6. 2d 755.


12/86

@espondents3defendants &ho merely obeyed the la&ful orders of the (resident and his call for the

suppression of the rebellion involvin* petitioners enoy such immunity from ;uit. 3

invocation of the doctrine of state immunity from suit totally misplaced. %he cases invo/ed by

respondents actually involved acts done by officers in the performance of official duties &ritten the ambit of their po&ers. As

held in 6orbes, etc. vs. Chuoco %iaco and Crossfield! +

$o one can be held le*ally responsible in dama*es or other&ise for doin* in a le*al manner &hat he had

authority, under the la&, to do. %herefore, if the #overnor3#eneral had authority, under the la& to deport or

epel the defendants, and circumstances ustifyin* the deportation and the method of carryin* it out are left

to him, then he cannot be held liable in dama*es for the eercise of this po&er. +oreover, if the courts are

&ithout authority to interfere in any manner, for the purpose of controllin* or interferrin* &ith the eercise of

the political po&ers vested in the chief eecutive authority of the #overnment, then it must follo& that the

courts cannot intervene for the purpose of declarin* that he is liable in dama*es for the eeercise of this

authority.

t may be that the respondents, as members of the Armed 6orces of the (hilippines, &ere merely respondin* to their duty, as

they claim, to prevent or suppress la&less violence, insurrection, rebellion and subversion in accordance &ith (roclamation

$o. 2"5 of (resident +arcos, despite the liftin* of martial la& on January 27, 191, and in pursuance of such obective, to

launch pre3 emptive stri/es a*ainst alle*ed communist terrorist under*round houses. )ut this cannot be construed as a

blan/et license or a rovin* commission untramelled by any constitutional restraint, to disre*ard or trans*ress upon the ri*htsand liberties of the individual citi-en enshrined in and protected by the Constitution. %he Constitution remains the supreme la&

of the land to &hich all officials, hi*h or lo&, civilian or military, o&e obedience and alle*iance at all times.

Article E2 of the Civil Code &hich renders any public officer or employee or any private individual liable in dama*es for

violatin* the Constitutional ri*hts and liberties of another, as enumerated therein, does not eempt the respondents from

responsibility. Only ud*es are ecluded from liability under the said article, provided their acts or omissions do not constitute a

violation of the (enal Code or other penal statute.

%his is not to say that military authorities are restrained from pursuin* their assi*ned tas/ or carryin* out their mission &ith

vi*or.


13/86

o&ever, &e find it unnecessary to address the constitutional issue pressed upon us. On +arch 25, 19F, (resident Cora-on

C. A4uino issued (roclamation $o. 2, revo/in* (roclamation $os. 2"5 and 2"53A and liftin* the suspension of the privile*e

of the &rit of habeas corpus. %he 4uestion therefore has become moot and academic.

%his brin*s us to the crucial issue raised in this petition. +ay a superior officer under the notion of respondent superior be

ans&erable for dama*es, ointly and severally &ith his subordinates, to the person &hose constitutional ri*hts and liberties

have been violated

@espondents contend that the doctrine ofrespondent superioris applicable to the case. directly> or indirectly responsible for the violation of the constitutional ri*hts and liberties of

another. %hus, it is not the actor alone Bi.e. the one directly responsible &ho must ans&er for dama*es under Article E2D the

person indirectly responsible has also to ans&er for the dama*es or inury caused to the a**rieved party.

)y this provision, the principle of accountability of public officials under the Constitution 5ac4uires added meanin* and

as*ilrnes a lar*er dimension. $o lon*er may a superior official rela his vi*ilance or abdicate his duty to supervise

his subordinates, secure in the thou*ht that he does not have to ans&er for the trans*ressions committed by the

latter a*ainst the constitutionally protected ri*hts and liberties of the citi-en. (art of the factors that propelled

people po&er in 6ebruary 19F &as the &idely held perception that the *overnment &as callous or indifferent to, if

not actually responsible for, the rampant violations of human ri*hts.


14/86

&hat appears on the face of the complaint. 6%o determine the sufficiency of the cause of action, only the facts alle*ed

in the complaint, and no others, should be considered. %6or this purpose, the motion to dismiss must

hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alle*ed in the complaint. 8

Applyin* this test, it is difficult to ustify the trial court>s rulin*, dismissin* for lac/ of cause of action the complaint a*ainst all the

defendants, ecept +aor @odolfo A*uinaldo and +aster ;*t. )ienvenido )alaba. %he complaint contained alle*ations a*ainst

all the defendants &hich, if admitted hypothetically, &ould be sufficient to establish a cause or causes of action a*ainst all of

them under Article E2 of the Civil Code.

%his brin*s us to the last issue. s resolution of

$ovember , 19E, *rantin* the respondent>s motion to dismiss

t is undisputed that a timely motion to set aside said order of $ovember , 19E &as filed by >plaintiffs, throu*h counsel. %rue,

the motion &as si*ned only by Atty. Jo/er (. Arroyo, counsel for )enamin ;es*ulidoD Atty. Antonio @osales, counsel for d&in

'ope- and +anuel +artin #u-manD Atty. (edro ). lla, Jr., counsel for $estor )odino and Carlos (almaD Atty. Arno :. ;anidad,

counsel for Arturo %abaraD Atty. 6elicitas ;. A4uino, counsel for Joseph OlayerD and Atty. Aleander (adilla, counsel for @odolfo

)enosa.

)ut the body of the motion itself clearly indicated that the motion &as filed on behalf of all the plaintiffs. And this must have

been also the understandin* of defendants> counsel himself for &hen he filed his comment on the motion, he furnished copies

thereof, not ust to the la&yers &ho si*ned the motion, but to all the la&yers of plaintiffs, to &it! Attys. Jose 0io/no, (rocopio

)eltran, @ene ;armiento, fren +ercado, Au*usto ;anche-, Antonio @osales, (edro fla Jr., Arno ;anidad, Aleander (adilla,

Jo/er Arroyo, @ene ;a*uisa*, @amon s*uerra and 6elicitas ;. A4uino.

n filin* the motion to set aside the resolution of $ovember , 19E, the si*nin* attorneys did so on behalf of all the plaintiff.

%hey needed no specific authority to do that. %he authority of an attorney to appear for and in behalf of a party can be

assumed, unless 4uestioned or challen*ed by the adverse party or the party concerned, &hich &as never done in this case.

%hus, it &as *rave abuse on the part of respondent ud*e to ta/e it upon himself to rule that the motion to set aside the order

of $ovember , 195E dismissin* the complaint &as filed only by some of the plaintiffs, &hen by its very lan*ua*e it &as clearly

intended to be filed by and for the benefit of all of them. t is obvious that the respondent ud*e too/ umbra*e under a

contrived technicality to declare that the dismissal of the complaint had already become final &ith respect to some of theplaintiffs &hose la&yers did not si*n the motion for reconsideration. ;uch action tainted &ith le*al infirmity cannot be

sanctioned.

Accordin*ly, &e *rant the petition and annul and set aside the resolution of the respondent court, dated $ovember , 19E, its

order dated +ay 11, 19 and its resolution dated ;eptember 21, 19. 'et the case be remanded to the respondent court for

further proceedin*s. s ud*ment at bar ma/es clear that all persons, be they public officers or employees, or members of the military or

police force or private individuals &ho directly or indirectly obstruct, defeat, violate or in any manner impede or impair the

constitutional ri*hts and civil liberties of another person, stand liable and may be sued in court for dama*es as provided in Art.

E2 of the Civil Code.

%he case at bar specifically upholds and reinstates the civil action for dama*es filed in the court belo& by petitioners3plaintiffs

for ille*al searches conducted by military personnel and other violations of their constitutional ri*hts and liberties. At the same

time it reects the automatic application of the principle of respondeat superioror command responsibility that &ould hold a

superior officer ointly and severally accountable for dama*es, includin* moral and eemplary, &ith his subordinates &ho

committed such trans*ressions. o&ever, the ud*ment *ives the caveat that a superior officer must not abdicate his duty to

properly supervise his subordinates for he runs the ris/ of bein* held responsible for *ross ne*li*ence and of bein* held under

the cited provision of the Civil Code as indirectly and solidarily accountable &ith the tortfeasor.

%he rationale for this rule of la& &as best epressed by )randeis in &ise! n a *overnment of la&s, eistence of the

*overnment be imperilled follo&in* it fails to observe the la& scrupulously. Our *overnment is the potent omnipresent teacher.

6or *ood or ill, it teaches the &hole people by eample. Crime is conta*ious. f the *overnment becomes the la& brea/er, it

breeds contempt for the la&, it invites every man to become a la& unto himself, it invites anarchy. %o declare that in the

administration of criminal la& the end ustifies the means ... &ould brin* terrible retribution. 1


15/86

As the &riter stress in 2ilda!a vs. -nrile2t stoop to the level of criminals. f &e stoop to

&hat they do, then &e>re no better than they ... there &ould be no difference. ... %he ;upreme Court stands as the

*uarantor of the Constitutional and human ri*hts of all persons &ithin its urisdiction and cannot abdicate its basic

role under the Constitution that these ri*hts be respected and enforced. %he spirit and letter of the Constitution

ne*ates as contrary to the basic precepts of human ri*hts and freedom that a person>s life be snuffed out &ithout

due process in a split second even if he is cau*ht in flagrante delicto unless it &as caned for as an act of self3

defense by the la& a*ents usin* reasonable means to prevent or repel an unla&ful a**ression on the part of thedeceased.

$eedless to say, the criminal acts of the ;parro& 8nits or death s4uads of the $(A &hich have infutrated the cities and

suburbs and performed their despicable /illin*s of innocent civilians and military and police officers constitute an e4ually

perverse violation of the sanctity of human life and must be severely condemned by all &ho adhere tothe @ule of the 'a&.

t need only be pointed out that one of the first acts of the present *overnment under (resident Cora-on C. A4uino after her

assumption of office in 6ebruary, 19F &as to file our *overnment>s ratification and access to all human ri*hts instruments

adopted under the auspices of the 8nited $ations, declarin* thereby the *overnment>s commitment to observe the precepts of

the 8nited $ations Charter and the 8niversal 0eclaration of uman @i*hts. +ore than this, pursuant to our Constitution &hich

the people decisively ratified on 6ebruary 2, 197, the independent office of the Commission on uman @i*hts hats been

created and or*ani-ed &ith ample po&ers to investi*ate human ri*hts violations and ta/e remedial measures a*ainst all suchviolations by the military as &ell as by the civilian *roups.

$&'ara(& O'non=

TAN, C.J., concurrin*!

%he Court>s ud*ment at bar ma/es clear that all persons, be they public officers or employees, or members of the military or

police force or private individuals &ho directly or indirectly obstruct, defeat, violate or in any manner impede or impair theconstitutional ri*hts and civil liberties of another person, stand liable and may be sued in court for dama*es as provided in Art.

E2 of the Civil Code.

%he case at bar specifically upholds and reinstates the civil action for dama*es filed in the court belo& by petitioners3plaintiffs

for ille*al searches conducted by military personnel and other violations of their constitutional ri*hts and liberties. At the same

time it reects the automatic application of the principle of respondeat superioror command responsibility that &ould hold a

superior officer ointly and severally accountable for dama*es, includin* moral and eemplary, &ith his subordinates &ho

committed such trans*ressions. o&ever, the ud*ment *ives the caveat that a superior officer must not abdicate his duty to

properly supervise his subordinates for he runs the ris/ of bein* held responsible for *ross ne*li*ence and of bein* held under

the cited provision of the Civil Code as indirectly and solidarily accountable &ith the tortfeasor.

%he rationale for this rule of la& &as best epressed by )randeis in &ise! n a *overnment of la&s, eistence of the

*overnment be imperilled follo&in* it fails to observe the la& scrupulously. Our *overnment is the potent omnipresent teacher.6or *ood or ill, it teaches the &hole people by eample. Crime is conta*ious. f the *overnment becomes the la& brea/er, it

breeds contempt for the la&, it invites every man to become a la& unto himself, it invites anarchy. %o declare that in the

administration of criminal la& the end ustifies the means ... &ould brin* terrible retribution. 1

As the &riter stress in 2ilda!a vs. -nrile2t stoop to the level of criminals. f &e stoop to

&hat they do, then &e>re no better than they ... there &ould be no difference. ... %he ;upreme Court stands as the

*uarantor of the Constitutional and human ri*hts of all persons &ithin its urisdiction and cannot abdicate its basic

role under the Constitution that these ri*hts be respected and enforced. %he spirit and letter of the Constitution

ne*ates as contrary to the basic precepts of human ri*hts and freedom that a person>s life be snuffed out &ithout

due process in a split second even if he is cau*ht in flagrante delicto unless it &as caned for as an act of self3

defense by the la& a*ents usin* reasonable means to prevent or repel an unla&ful a**ression on the part of the

deceased.

$eedless to say, the criminal acts of the ;parro& 8nits or death s4uads of the $(A &hich have infutrated the cities and

suburbs and performed their despicable /illin*s of innocent civilians and military and police officers constitute an e4ually

perverse violation of the sanctity of human life and must be severely condemned by all &ho adhere tothe @ule of the 'a&.

t need only be pointed out that one of the first acts of the present *overnment under (resident Cora-on C. A4uino after her

assumption of office in 6ebruary, 19F &as to file our *overnment>s ratification and access to all human ri*hts instruments


16/86

adopted under the auspices of the 8nited $ations, declarin* thereby the *overnment>s commitment to observe the precepts of

the 8nited $ations Charter and the 8niversal 0eclaration of uman @i*hts. +ore than this, pursuant to our Constitution &hich

the people decisively ratified on 6ebruary 2, 197, the independent office of the Commission on uman @i*hts hats been

created and or*ani-ed &ith ample po&ers to investi*ate human ri*hts violations and ta/e remedial measures a*ainst all such

violations by the military as &ell as by the civilian *roups.

G.R. No. 1+1309 Jun& 19, 200%

LIAYAY INON$-CATO,petitioner,

vs.

FORT"N TO/ACCO COR#ORATION,respondent.

C I $ I O N

YNAR$-$ANTIAGO, J.>

(etitioner assails the +ay 7, 1999 0ecision 1of the Court of Appeals in CA3#.@. ;( $o. 71F7, &hich affirmed the ;eptember

29, 1997 Order2of the @e*ional %rial Court B@%C of +ari/ina, )ranch 272, in Civil Case $o. 973E13+?, denyin* petitionerPs

motion to dismiss. %he complaint filed by respondent sou*ht to recover dama*es for the alle*ed violation of its constitutional

ri*hts arisin* from petitionerPs issuance of @evenue +emorandum Circular $o. E739E B@+C E739E, &hich the Court declared

invalid in Co$$issioner of /nternal Revenue v. Court of Appeals.E

(etitioner 'i&ay&ay :in-ons3Chato &as then the Commissioner of nternal @evenue &hile respondent 6ortune %obacco

Corporation is an entity en*a*ed in the manufacture of different brands of ci*arettes, amon* &hich are Champion, ope,

and +ore ci*arettes.

On June 1", 199E, the le*islature enacted @epublic Act $o. 7F5 B@A 7F5, &hich too/ effect on July E, 199E. (rior to its

effectivity, ci*arette brands QChampion, ope, and +ore &ere considered local brands subected to an ad valorem ta at

the rate of 2"35I. o&ever, on July 1, 199E, or t&o days before @A 7F5 too/ effect, petitioner issued @+C E739E

reclassifyin* Champion, ope, and +ore as locally manufactured ci*arettes bearin* a forei*n brand =u*?&((o (&

55@ ad valorem(a.@+C E739E in effect subected ope, +ore, and#Champion ci*arettes to the provisions of @A 7F5,

specifically, to ;ec. 12,5BcB1 on locally manufactured ci*arettes &hich are urr&n(y a==B&! an! (a&! a( 55@, and

&hich imposes an advalore$ta of 55I provided that the minimum ta shall not be less than 6ive (esos B(5."" per pac/. F

On July 2, 199E, at about 5!5" p.m., )@ 0eputy Commissioner :ictor A. 0eoferio, Jr. sent viatelefa;a copy of @+C E739E to

6ortune %obacco but it &as addressed to no one in particular. On July 15, 199E, 6ortune %obacco received, by ordinary mail, a

certified ero copy of @+C E739E. On July 2", 199E, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration re4uestin* the recall of

@+C E739E, but &as denied in a letter dated July E", 199E. 7%he same letter assessed respondent for ad valore$ta

deficiency amountin* to (9,59,EE."" Bcomputed on the basis of @+C E739E and demanded payment &ithin 1" days from

receipt thereof.On Au*ust E, 199E, respondent filed a petition for revie& &ith the Court of %a Appeals BC%A, &hich on

;eptember E", 199E, issued an inunction enoinin* the implementation of @+C E739E. 9n its decision dated Au*ust 1", 199,

the C%A ruled that @+C E739E is defective, invalid, and unenforceable and further enoined petitioner from collectin* the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt1


17/86

deficiency ta assessment issued pursuant to @+C $o. E739E. %his rulin* &as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and finally by

this Court in Co$$issioner of /nternal Revenue v. Court of Appeals.1"t &as held, amon* others, that @+C E739E, has fallen

short of the re4uirements for a valid administrative issuance.

On April 1", 1997, respondent filed before the @%C a complaint 11 for dama*es a*ainst petitioner in her private capacity.

@espondent contended that the latter should be held liable for dama*es under Article E2 of the Civil Code considerin* that the

issuance of @+C E739E violated its constitutional ri*ht a*ainst deprivation of property &ithout due process of la& and the ri*ht

to e4ual protection of the la&s.

(etitioner filed a motion to dismiss12contendin* that! B1 respondent has no cause of action a*ainst her because she issued

@+C E739E in the performance of her official function and &ithin the scope of her authority. ;he claimed that she acted merely

as an a*ent of the @epublic and therefore the latter is the one responsible for her actsD B2 the complaint states no cause of

action for lac/ of alle*ation of malice or bad faithD and BE the certification a*ainst forum shoppin* &as si*ned by respondentPs

counsel in violation of the rule that it is the plaintiff or the principal party &ho should si*n the same.

On ;eptember 29, 1997, the @%C denied petitionerPs motion to dismiss holdin* that to rule on the alle*ations of petitioner

&ould be to prematurely decide the merits of the case &ithout allo&in* the parties to present evidence. t further held that the

defect in the certification a*ainst forum shoppin* &as cured by respondentPs submission of the corporate secretaryPs certificate

authori-in* its counsel to eecute the certification a*ainst forum shoppin*. %he dispositive portion thereof, states!


18/86

&ould virtually be a char*e a*ainst the @epublic, &hich is not amenable to ud*ment for monetary claims &ithout its

consent.1Fo&ever, a public officer is by la& not immune from dama*es in hisMher personal capacity for acts done in bad faith

&hich, bein* outside the scope of his authority, are no lon*er protected by the mantle of immunity for official actions.17

;pecifically, under ;ection E, )oo/ of the Administrative Code, civil liability may arise &here there is bad faith, malice, or

*ross ne*li*ence on the part of a superior public officer. And, under ;ection E9 of the same )oo/, civil liability may arise &here

the subordinate public officerPs act is characteri-ed by &illfulness or ne*li*ence. %hus R

$&. 38. La*(y oB $u'&ror OBB&r=. R B1 A public officer shall not be civilly liable for acts done in the

performance of his official duties, unless there is a clear sho&in* of bad faith, malice or *ross ne*li*ence.

$&(on 39. La*(y oB $u*or!na(& OBB&r=. R $o subordinate officer or employee shall be civilly liable for acts

done by him in *ood faith in the performance of his duties. o&ever, he shall be liable for &illful or ne*li*ent acts

done by him &hich are contrary to la&, morals, public policy and *ood customs even if he acts under orders or

instructions of his superior.

n addition, the Court held in Co&uangco,


19/86

(&r&oB, &r&a= Ar(& 2189 7oD&rn= a*(y !u& (o E!&B&(D& =(r&&(=,E n 'ar(uar. $n& (& 'r&=&n(

a(on = *a=&! u'on (& a&7&! !&B&(D& on!(on oB a roa!, =a! Ar(& 2189 = !&=D& (&r&on.2E

n the case of agatsing v. Ra$irez,2the issue &as &hich la& should *overn the publication of a ta ordinance, the City

Charter of +anila, a special act &hich treats ordinances in *eneral and &hich re4uires their publication before enactment and

after approval, or the %a Code, a *eneral la&, &hich deals in particular &ith ordinances levyin* or imposin* taes, fees or

other char*es, and &hich demands publication only after approval. n holdin* that it is the %a Code &hich should prevail, the

Court elucidated that!

%here is no 4uestion that the @evised Charter of the City of +anila is a special act since it relates only to the City of

+anila, &hereas the 'ocal %a Code is a *eneral la& because it applies universally to all local *overnments.

)lac/stone defines *eneral la& as a universal rule affectin* the entire community and special la& as one relatin* to

particular persons or thin*s of a class. And the rule commonly said is that a prior special la& is not ordinarily repealed

by a subse4uent *eneral la&. %he fact that one is special and the other *eneral creates a presumption that the

special is to be considered as remainin* an eception of the *eneral, one as a *eneral la& of the land, the other as

the la& of a particular case. o&D&r, (& ru& r&a!y y&!= (o a =(ua(on &r& (& ='&a =(a(u(& r&B&r= (o a

=u*?&( n 7&n&ra, (& 7&n&ra =(a(u(& (r&a(= n 'ar(uar. T= &a(y = (& ru)=(an& o*(ann7

n (& a=& a( *ar. $&(on 1% oB (& R&D=&! Car(&r oB (& C(y oB Mana ='&aH= oB Eor!nan&E n 7&n&ra,

.&., rr&='&(D& oB (& na(ur& an! =o'& (&r&oB, &r&a=, $&(on +3 oB (& Loa Ta Co!& r&a(&= (o

Eor!nan&= &Dyn7 or )'o=n7 (a&=, B&&= or o(&r ar7&=E n 'ar(uar. In r&7ar!, (&r&Bor&, (o

or!nan&= n 7&n&ra, (& R&D=&! Car(&r oB (& C(y oB Mana = !ou*(&== !o)nan(, *u(, (a( !o)nan(Bor& o=&= (= on(nu(y &n ( a''roa&= (& r&a) oB Eor!nan&= &Dyn7 or )'o=n7 (a&=, B&&= or

o(&r ar7&=E n 'ar(uar. T&r&, (& Loa Ta Co!& on(ro=.ere, as al&ays, a *eneral provision must *ive

&ay to a particular provision. ;pecial provision *overns.

'et us eamine the provisions involved in the case at bar. Article E2 of the Civil Code provides!

A@%. E2. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, &ho directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,

violates, or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the follo&in* ri*hts and liberties of another person shall be liable

to the latter for dama*es!

BF %he ri*ht a*ainst deprivation of property &ithout due process of la&D

B %he ri*ht to the e4ual protection of the la&sD

%he rationale for its enactment &as eplained by 0ean )ocobo of the Code Commission, as follo&s!

0A$ )OCO)O. Article E2, re*ardin* individual ri*hts, Attorney Cirilo (aredes proposes that Article E2 be so

amended as to ma/e a public official liable for violation of another personPs constitutional ri*hts only if the public

official acted maliciously or in bad faith. %he Code Commission opposes this su**estion for these reasons!

%he very nature of Article E2 is that the &ron* may be civil or criminal. t is not necessary therefore that there should

be malice or bad faith. %o ma/e such a re4uisite &ould defeat the main purpose of Article E2 &hich is the effective

protection of individual ri*hts. (ublic officials in the past have abused their po&ers on the pretet of ustifiable motives

or *ood faith in the performance of their duties. (recisely, the obect of the Article is to put an end to official abuse by

the plea of *ood faith. n the 8nited ;tates this remedy is in the nature of a tort.

+r. Chairman, this article is firmly one of the fundamental articles introduced in the $e& Civil Code to implement

democracy. %here is no real democracy if a public official is abusin* and &e made the article so stron* and so

comprehensive that it concludes an abuse of individual ri*hts even if done in *ood faith, that official is liable. As a

matter of fact, &e /no& that there are very fe& public officials &ho openly and definitely abuse the individual ri*hts of

the citi-ens. n most cases, the abuse is ustified on a plea of desire to enforce the la& to comply &ith onePs duty. Andso, if &e should limit the scope of this article, that &ould practically nullify the obect of the article. (recisely, the

openin* obect of the article is to put an end to abuses &hich are ustified by a plea of *ood faith, &hich is in most

cases the plea of officials abusin* individual ri*hts.25

%he Code Commission deemed it necessary to hold not only public officers but also private individuals civilly liable for violation

of the ri*hts enumerated in Article E2 of the Civil Code. t is not necessary that the defendant under this Article should have

acted &ith malice or bad faith, other&ise, it &ould defeat its main purpose, &hich is the effective protection of individual ri*hts.

t suffices that there is a violation of the constitutional ri*ht of the plaintiff. 2F
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_141309_2007.html#fnt26


20/86

Article E2 &as patterned after the tort in American la&.27A tort is a &ron*, a tortious act &hich has been defined as the

commission or omission of an act by one, &ithout ri*ht, &hereby another receives some inury, directly or indirectly, in person,

property, or reputation.2%here are cases in &hich it has been stated that civil liability in tort is determined by the conduct and

not by the mental state of the tortfeasor, and there are circumstances under &hich the motive of the defendant has been

rendered immaterial. %he reason sometimes *iven for the rule is that other&ise, the mental attitude of the alle*ed &ron*doer,

and not the act itself, &ould determine &hether the act &as &ron*ful. 29(resence of *ood motive, or rather, the absence of an

evil motive, does not render la&ful an act &hich is other&ise an invasion of anotherPs le*al ri*htD that is, liability in tort is not

precluded by the fact that defendant acted &ithout evil intent. E"

%he clear intention therefore of the le*islature &as to create a distinct cause of action in the nature of tort for violation of

constitutional ri*hts, irrespective of the motive or intent of the defendant. E1%his is a fundamental innovation in the Civil Code,

and in enactin* the Administrative Code pursuant to the eercise of le*islative po&ers, then (resident Cora-on C. A4uino,

could not have intended to obliterate this constitutional protection on civil liberties.

nAberca v. 6er,E2it &as held that &ith the enactment of Article E2, the principle of accountability of public officials under the

Constitution ac4uires added meanin* and assumes a lar*er dimension. $o lon*er may a superior official rela his vi*ilance or

abdicate his duty to supervise his subordinates, secure in the thou*ht that he does not have to ans&er for the trans*ressions

committed by the latter a*ainst the constitutionally protected ri*hts and liberties of the citi-en. (art of the factors that propelled

people po&er in 6ebruary 19F &as the &idely held perception that the *overnment &as callous or indifferent to, if not actually

responsible for, the rampant violations of human ri*hts.


21/86

- versus -

FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION,

Respondent.

PUNO, C.J.,QUISUMBING,YNARES-SANTIAGO,ARPIO,AUSTRIA-MARTINE!,ORONA,"

ARPIO MORA#ES,A!UNA,TINGA,

$IO-NA!ARIO,%E#ASO, &R.,NA$URA,REYES,#EONAR'O-'E ASTRO, (ndBRION,JJ.Pro)u*+(ted:'ee)er /, 001

2-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2RESOLUTION

NACHURA, J.:

It is ( 3und()ent(* prinip*e in t4e *(5 o3 pu*i o33iers t4(t ( dut6 o5in+ to t4e pu*i in +ener(* (nnot +ive rise

to ( *i(i*it6 in 3(vor o3 p(rtiu*(r individu(*s. 789 T4e 3(i*ure to per3or) ( pu*i dut6 (n onstitute (n individu(* 5ron+

on*6 54en ( person (n s4o5 t4(t, in t4e pu*i dut6, ( dut6 to 4i)se*3 (s (n individu(* is (*so invo*ved, (nd t4(t 4e 4(s

su33ered ( spei(* (nd peu*i(r inur6 6 re(son o3 its i)proper per3or)(ne or non-per3or)(ne.79

B6 t4is to;en, t4e ourt reonsiders its &une 8


22/86

5(s ured 6 respondentJs su)ission o3 t4e orpor(te seret(r6Js erti3i(te (ut4oriKin+ its ounse* toe2eute t4e erti3i(tion (+(inst 3oru) s4oppin+. 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2T4e (se 5(s e*ev(ted to t4e ourt o3 Appe(*s via( petition 3or ertior(ri under Ru*e

>?. $o5ever, s()e 5(s dis)issed on t4e +round t4(t under Arti*e / o3 t4e ivi* ode, *i(i*it6 )(6 (riseeven i3 t4e de3end(nt did not (t 5it4 )(*ie or (d 3(it4. T4e (ppe**(te ourt r(tioin(ted t4(t Setion/1, Boo; I o3 t4e Ad)inistr(tive ode is t4e +ener(* *(5 on t4e ivi* *i(i*it6 o3 pu*i o33iers 54i*e Arti*e

/ o3 t4e ivi* ode is t4e spei(* *(5 t4(t +overns t4e inst(nt (se. onseHuent*6, )(*ie or (d 3(it4need not e (**e+ed in t4e o)p*(int 3or d()(+es. It (*so sust(ined t4e ru*in+ o3 t4e RT t4(t t4e de3eto3 t4e erti3i(tion (+(inst 3oru) s4oppin+ 5(s ured 6 t4e su)ission o3 t4e orpor(te seret(r6Jserti3i(te +ivin+ (ut4orit6 to its ounse* to e2eute t4e s()e. 7@97it(tions (nd undersorin+ o)itted.9

In t4e (3ores(id &une 8


23/86

In deter)inin+ 54et4er ( pu*i o33ier is *i(*e 3or (n i)proper per3or)(ne or non-per3or)(ne o3 ( dut6, it

)ust 3irst e deter)ined 54i4 o3 t4e t5o *(sses o3 duties is invo*ved. or, indeed, (s t4e e)inent *o6d R. Me4e)

instruts, 7t94e liability o3 ( pu*i o33ier to (n individu(* or t4e pu*i is (sed upon (nd is o-e2tensive 5it4 4is dutyto

t4e individu(* or t4e pu*i. I3 to t4e one or t4e ot4er 4e o5es no dut6, to t4(t one 4e (n inur no *i(i*it6.D78/9

St(ted di33erent*6, 54en 54(t is invo*ved is ( dut6 o5in+ to t4e pu*i in +ener(*D, (n individu(* (nnot 4(ve (

(use o3 (tion 3or d()(+es (+(inst t4e pu*i o33ier, even t4ou+4 4e )(6 4(ve een inured 6 t4e (tion or in(tion o3

t4e o33ier. In su4 ( (se, t4ere is d()(+e to t4e individu(* ut no 5ron+ to 4i). In per3or)in+ or 3(i*in+ to per3or) (

pu*i dut6, t4e o33ier 4(s tou4ed 4is interest to 4is preudie ut t4e o33ier o5es no dut6 to 4i) (s (n individu(*.

78@9 T4e re)ed6 in t4is (se is not udii(* ut po*iti(*.78?9

T4e e2eption to t4is ru*e ours 54en t4e o)p*(inin+ individu(* su33ers (particular or special injuryon (ount

o3 t4e pu*i o33ierJs i)proper per3or)(ne or non-per3or)(ne o3 4is pu*i dut6. An individu(* (n never e su33ered to

sue 3or (n inur6 54i4, te4ni(**6, is one to t4e pu*i on*6 4e )ust s4o5 ( 5ron+ 54i4 4e spei(**6 su33ers, (nd d()(+e

(*one does not onstitute ( 5ron+.78>9

A ontr(r6 preept t4(t (n individu(*, in t4e (sene o3 ( spei(* (nd peu*i(r inur6,(n sti** institute (n (tion (+(inst ( pu*i o33ier on (ount o3 (n i)proper per3or)(ne or non-per3or)(ne o3 ( dut6

o5in+ to t4e pu*i +ener(**6 5i** *e(d to ( de*u+e o3 suits, 3or i3 one )(n )i+4t 4(ve (n (tion, (** )en )i+4t 4(ve t4e

*i;et4e o)p*(inin+ individu(* 4(s no etter ri+4t t4(n (n6od6 e*se.78=9 I3 su4 5ere t4e (se, no one 5i** serve ( pu*i

o33ie. T4us, t4e ru*e rest(ted is t4(t (n individu(* (nnot 4(ve ( p(rtiu*(r (tion (+(inst ( pu*i o33ier it!out a

particular injury, or a particular ri"!t, 54i4 (re t4e +rounds upon 54i4 (** (tions (re 3ounded. 7819

&u2t(posed 5it4 Arti*e /78


24/86

or o)ission, t4e o)p*(int t4en 3(i*s to st(te ( (use o3 (tion, e(use ( (use o3 (tion is t4e (t or o)ission 6 54i4 (

p(rt6 vio*(tes ( ri+4t o3 (not4er.7=9

A (use o3 (tion e2ists i3 t4e 3o**o5in+ e*e)ents (re present: 8 ( ri+4t in 3(vor o3 t4e p*(inti33 6 54(tever )e(ns

(nd under 54(tever *(5 it (rises or is re(ted (n o*i+(tion on t4e p(rt o3 t4e n()ed de3end(nt to respet or not to

vio*(te su4 ri+4t (nd / (n (t or o)ission on t4e p(rt o3 su4 de3end(nt vio*(tive o3 t4e ri+4t o3 t4e p*(inti33 or

onstitutin+ ( re(4 o3 t4e o*i+(tion o3 de3end(nt to p*(inti33 3or 54i4 t4e *(tter )(6 )(int(in (n (tion 3or reover6 o3

d()(+es.719

T4e re)ed6 o3 ( p(rt6 54enever t4e o)p*(int does not (**e+e ( (use o3 (tion is to set up t4is de3ense in (

)otion to dis)iss, or in t4e (ns5er. A )otion to dis)iss (sed on t4e 3(i*ure to st(te ( (use o3 (tion in t4e o)p*(int

46pot4eti(**6 (d)its t4e trut4 o3 t4e 3(ts (**e+ed t4erein. $o5ever, t4e 46pot4eti(* (d)ission is *i)ited to t4e

re*ev(nt (nd )(teri(* 3(ts 5e**-p*e(ded in t4e o)p*(int (nd in3erenes dedui*e t4ere3ro). T4e (d)ission does not

e2tend to on*usions or interpret(tions o3 *(5 nor does it over (**e+(tions o3 3(t t4e 3(*sit6 o3 54i4 is suet to

udii(* notie.D7


25/86

.08. On or (out &u*6 8, 8


26/86

A nu)er o3 suseHuent deisions 4(ve up4e*d Bivens. or inst(ne, in 9c!euer v. R!odes,7/=9( *i(i*it6 suit 3or

)one6 d()(+es 5(s (**o5ed (+(inst O4io Governor &()es R4odes 6 petitioners 54o represented t4ree students 54o 4(d

een ;i**ed 6 O4io N(tion(* Gu(rd troops (t Lent St(te Universit6 (s t4e6 protested (+(inst U.S. invo*ve)ent

in %ietn(). In 8ood v. 9tricland,7/19*o(* s4oo* o(rd )e)ers 5ere sued 6 4i+4 s4oo* students 54o (r+ued t4(t t4e6

4(d een deprived o3 onstitution(* due proess ri+4ts 54en t4e6 5ere e2pe**ed 3ro) s4oo* 3or 4(vin+ spi;ed ( pun4 o5*

(t ( s4oo* 3untion 5it4out t4e ene3it o3 ( 3u** 4e(rin+. In But7 v. Economou,7/


27/86

Be(use t4e respondentJs o)p*(int does not i)pute ne+*i+ene or (d 3(it4 to t4e petitioner, (n6 )one6 ud+)ent 6 t4e

tri(* ourt (+(inst 4er 5i** 4(ve to e (ssu)ed 6 t4e Repu*i o3 t4e P4i*ippines. As su4, t4e o)p*(int is in t4e n(ture o3

( suit (+(inst t4e St(te.7@>9

WHEREFORE, pre)ises onsidered, 5e GRANTpetitionerJs )otion 3or reonsider(tion o3 t4e &une 8CT C N@T 6G6N>T T: >T6T:.+13,

The Court &enies the otion.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/141309.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/141309.htm#_ftn47


28/86

6t any tie a%ter a ivision ta=es !onizan!e o% a !ase an& e%ore a Eu&ent or resoution therein ren&ere& e!oes %inaan& ee!utory) the ivision ay re%er the !ase en !onsuta to the Court :n $an!.+14, n this !ase) at the tie "etitioner%ie& her otion %or the re%erra o% the !ase to the $an! on 6"ri 9) 00/) the ivision Resoution (&ate& 6"ri 14) 00/#&enyin her otion %or re!onsi&eration ha& not yet attaine& %inaity) !onsi&erin that "etitioner ha& yet to re!eive a !o"y o%the sai& resoution. >he) in %a!t) ani%este& that she was ony serve& a !o"y o% the sae on *ay /) 00/.+17, Further) noentry o% Eu&ent was yet issue& y the Court in the !ase. The 2une 7) 00/ Resoution) there%ore) whi!h re%erre& the !aseto the $an!) is a vai& issuan!e.

Li=ewise vai& is the e!eer 3) 00/ Resoution o% the Court :n $an! re!onsi&erin the earier &e!ision. Consi&ere& as:n $an! !ases are those assine& to a ivision whi!h in the o"inion o% at east three (3# eers thereo% erit theattention o% the Court :n $an! an& are a!!e"tae to a aEority o% the a!tua eershi" o% the Court :n $an!.+1;, t isnote& that here) the Court :n $an! area&y a!!e"te& the ivision's re%erra o% the !ase on Noveer 1/) 00/.+1,

The Court aso "ossesses a"e authority to treat the otion %or re%erra as a se!on& otion %or re!onsi&eration iven that"etitioner) in the sae otion) reiterate& her "ea %or the reversa o% the 2une 19) 00 e!ision. Dhie it is a sette& ruethat a se!on& otion %or re!onsi&eration is a "rohiite& "ea&in) this Court) in not a %ew instan!es) even when entry o%

Eu&ent ha& area&y een issue&) sti entertaine& a se!on& otion %or re!onsi&eration) re%erre& the !ase to the $an!) an&resove& the otion.+1/,

$e that as it ay) the Court has an inherent "ower to sus"en& its own rues) to e!e"t a "arti!uar !ase or save a "etition%ro its o"erations) wherever the &ean&s o% Eusti!e so reuire.+19,

6s to the other roun&s raise& in the otion) su%%i!e it to state that the Court has a"y a&&resse& the in the assaie&resoution an& %in&s no !o"ein reason to overturn its ruin as state& therein.

N T: LGT res"on&ent !o"any's otion %or re!onsi&erationDT FN6LTA. (Anares->antiao) 2.) aintains her &issent.#

Very truy yours)

/. +A. L%IA . VILLARA+ACer= o% Court

G.R. No. L-51183 &&)*&r 21, 1983

CARMN L. MAJA, petitioner,

vs.

ON. FLI4 T. CARO an! A ARLLANO-JA#ON, respondents.

-rnesto 3. Miel for petitioner.

0orgonio T. Alvarez for respondents.


29/86

A/A $ANTO$, J.:+.wph!1

n Criminal Case $o. 753 of the defunct Court of 6irst nstance of astern ;amar, 0@. :A A. JA(O$ is accused of

homicide throu*h rec/less imprudence for the death of Cleto +adea after an appendectomy. %he complainin* &itness is the

&ido& of the deceased, Carmen '. +adea. %he information states that! %he offended party Carmen '. +adea reservin* her

ri*ht to file a separate civil action for dama*es. B@ollo, p. EF.

%he criminal case still pendin*, Carmen '. +adea sued 0r. va A. Jap-on for dama*es in Civil Case $o. 11 of the same

court. ;he alle*ed that her husband died because of the *ross ne*li*ence of 0r. Jap-on. %he respondent ud*e *ranted the

defendant>s motion to dismiss &hich motion invo/ed ;ection EBa of @ule 111 of the @ules of Court &hich reads! t=*.>?h@!>

;ec. E. ther civil actions arising fro$ offenses. n all cases not included in the precedin* section the

follo&in* rules shall be observed!

Ba Criminal and civil actions arisin* from the same offense may be instituted separately, but after the

criminal action has been commenced the civil action can not be instituted until final ud*ment has been

rendered in the criminal action. ...

Accordin* to the respondent ud*e, under the fore*oin* ;ec. E Ba, @ule 111, $e& @ules of Court, the instant civil action may

be instituted only after final ud*ment has been rendered in the criminal action. B@ollo, p. EE.

%he instant petition &hich see/s to set aside the order of the respondent ud*e *rantin* the defendant>s motion to dismiss Civil

Case $o. 11 is hi*hly impressed &ith merit.

;ection 2, @ule 111 of the @ules of Court in relation to Article EE of the Civil Code is the applicable provision. %he t&o

enactments are 4uoted hereinbelo&! t=*.>?h@!>

;ec. 2. /ndependent civil

action. n the cases provided for in Articles E1,E2, EE, E and 2177 of the Civil

Code of the (hilippines, an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action,

may be brou*ht by the inured party durin* the pendency of the criminal case, provided the ri*ht is reserved

as re4uired in the precedin* section. ;uch civil action shall proceed independently of the criminalprosecution, and shall re4uire only a preponderance of evidence. B@ule 111, @ules of Court.

Art. EE. n cases of defamation, fraud, and physical inuries, a civil action for dama*es, entirely separate and

distinct from the criminal action, may be brou*ht by the inured party. ;uch civil action shall proceed

independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall re4uire only a preponderance of evidence. BCivil Code,

%here are at least t&o thin*s about Art. EE of the Civil Code &hich are &orth notin*, namely!

1. %he civil action for dama*es &hich it allo&s to be instituted is e;delicto. %his is manifest from the provision &hich uses the

epressions criminal action and criminal prosecution. %his conclusion is supported by the comment of the Code

Commission, thus!t=*.>?h@!>

%he underlyin* purpose of the principle under consideration is to allo& the citi-en to enforce his ri*hts in a

private action brou*ht by him, re*ardless of the action of the ;tate attorney. t is not conducive to civic spirit

and to individual self3reliance and initiative to habituate the citi-ens to depend upon the *overnment for the

vindication of their o&n private ri*hts. t is true that in many of the cases referred to in the provision cited, a

criminal prosecution is proper, but it should be remembered that &hile the ;tate is the complainant in the

criminal case, the inured individual is the one most concerned because it is he &ho has suffered directly. e

should be permitted to demand reparation for the &ron* &hich peculiarly affects him. B@eport, p. F.

And %olentino says!t=*.>?h@!>

%he *eneral rule is that &hen a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arisin*

from the offense char*ed is impliedly instituted &ith the criminal action, unless the offended party reserves

his ri*ht to institute it separatelyD and after a criminal action has been commenced, no civil action arisin*

from the same offense can be prosecuted. %he present articles creates an eception to this rule &hen the

offense is defamation, fraud, or physical inuries, n these cases, a civil action may be filed independently of

the criminal action, even if there has been no reservation made by the inured partyD the la& itself in this

article ma/es such reservationD but the claimant is not *iven the ri*ht to determine &hether the civil action

should be scheduled or suspended until the criminal action has been terminated. %he result of the civil

action is thus independent of the result of the civil action. B Civil Code, p. 1 K197.L


30/86

2. %he term physical inuries is used in a *eneric sense. t is not the crime of physical inuries defined in the @evised (enal

Code. t includes not only physical inuries but consummated, frustrated and attempted homicide. t=*.>?h@!>

%he Article in 4uestion uses the &ords >defamation>, >fraud> and >physical inuries.> 0efamation and fraud are

used in their ordinary sense because there are no specific provisions in the @evised (enal Code usin* these

terms as means of offenses defined therein, so that these t&o terms defamation and fraud must have been

used not to impart to them any technical meanin* in the la&s of the (hilippines, but in their *eneric sense.

physical inuries> could not have been

used in its specific sense as a crime defined in the @evised (enal Code, for it is difficult to believe that the

Code Commission &ould have used terms in the same article3some in their *eneral and another in its

technical sense. n other &ords, the term >physical inuries> should be understood to mean bodily inury, not

the crime of physical inuries, bacause the terms used &ith the latter are *eneral terms. n any case the

Code Commission recommended that the civil action for physical inuries be similar to the civil action for

assault and battery in American 'a&, and this recommendation must hove been accepted by the 'e*islature

&hen it approved the article intact as recommended. f the intent has been to establish a civil action for the

bodily harm received by the complainant similar to the civil action for assault and battery, as the Code

Commission states, the civil action should lie &hether the offense committed is that of physical inuries, or

frustrated homicide, or attempted homicide, or even death, BCarandan* vs. Santiago, 97 (hil. 9, 9F397

K1955L.

Corpus vs. 3a&e, '32F7E7, July E1, 19F9, 2 ;C@A 1"F2, &hich states that rec/less imprudence or criminal ne*li*ence is notincluded in Article EE of the Civil Code is not authoritative. Of eleven ustices only nine too/ part in the decision and four of

them merely concurred in the result.

n the li*ht of the fore*oin*, it is apparent that the civil action a*ainst 0r. Jap-on may proceed independently of the criminal

action a*ainst her.


31/86

G.R. No. 135306 January 28, 2003

MR$ #"/LICATION$, INC., MAR$ C. LACON$AY, MYLA C. AG"JA an! AG"$TINO G. /INGA$, JR.,petitioners,vs.

I$LAMIC AA CO"NCIL OF T #ILI##IN$, INC., A/"LRAMAN R.T. LINAG, I/RAIM F.#. ARCILLA,A/"L RA$I G"MAN, AL-FAR A $ILA an! I/RAIM /.A. J"NIO, respondents.

/LLO$ILLO, J.>

/ $ay utterly detest !hat you !rite, but / shall fight to the death to $a"e it possible for you to continue !riting it.

Voltaire

:O'%A@>; (O$%6CA' :@; bestirs once a*ain the basic liberties to free speech and free press liberties that belon*

as &ell, if not more, to those &ho 4uestion, &ho do not conform, &ho differ. 6or the ultimate *ood &hich &e all strive to achievefor ourselves and our posterity can better be reached by a free echan*e of ideas, &here the best test of truth is the po&er ofthe thou*ht to *et itself accepted in the competition of the free mar/et not ust the ideas &e desire, but includin* thosethou*hts &e despise.1

;'A+C 0A>


32/86

0efamation, &hich includes libel and slander, means the offense of inurin* a person>s character, fame or reputation throu*hfalse and malicious statements.5t is that &hich tends to inure reputation or to diminish the esteem, respect, *ood &ill orconfidence in the plaintiff or to ecite dero*atory feelin*s or opinions about the plaintiff.Ft is the publication of anythin* &hichis inurious to the *ood name or reputation of another or tends to brin* him into disrepute. 70efamation is an invasion of arelational interest since it involves the opinion &hich others in the community may have, or tend to have, of the plaintiff.

t must be stressed that &ords &hich are merely insultin* are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere &ords of*eneral abuse ho&ever opprobrious, ill3natured, or veatious, &hether &ritten or spo/en, do not constitute a basis for an actionfor defamation in the absence of an alle*ation for special dama*es. 9%he fact that the lan*ua*e is offensive to the plaintiff doesnot ma/e it actionable by itself.1"

0eclarations made about a lar*e class of people cannot be interpreted to advert to an identified or identifiable individual.Absent circumstances specifically pointin* or alludin* to a particular member of a class, no member of such class has a ri*htof action11&ithout at all impairin* the e4ually demandin* ri*ht of free speech and epression, as &ell as of the press, underthe ill of Rights.12%hus, in 1e!s!ee", /nc. v. /nter$ediate Appellate Court,1E&e dismissed a complaint for libela*ainst 1e!s!ee", /nc., on the *round that private respondents failed to state a cause of action since they made no alle*ationin the complaint that anythin* contained in the article complained of specifically referred to any of them. (rivate respondents,incorporated associations of su*arcane planters in $e*ros Occidental claimin* to have ,5"" members and several individualmembers, filed a class action suit for dama*es in behalf of all su*arcane planters in $e*ros Occidental. %he complaint filed inthe Court of 6irst nstance of )acolod City alle*ed that $e&s&ee/, nc., committed libel a*ainst them by the publication of thearticle sland of 6ear in its &ee/ly ne&sma*a-ine alle*edly depictin* $e*ros (rovince as a place dominated by &ealthylando&ners and su*ar planters &ho not only eploited the impoverished and underpaid su*arcane &or/ers but also brutali-edand /illed them &ith impunity. (rivate respondents alle*ed that the article sho&ed a deliberate and malicious use of falsehood,

slanted presentation andMor misrepresentation of facts intended to put the su*arcane planters in a bad li*ht, epose them topublic ridicule, discredit and humiliation in the (hilippines and abroad, and ma/e them the obects of hatred, contempt andhostility of their a*ricultural &or/ers and of the public in *eneral.


33/86

A *eneral char*e that the la&yers in the city are shysters &ould obviously not be a char*e

Torts Cases (Batch3) Full Text

Documents

Transcript of Torts Cases (Batch3) Full Text