3. Liwayway Vinzons-Chato vs.

Fortune Tobacco Corp PET filed certiorari to CA; was also dismissed because
(June 19 2007) ART 32 liability may arise even if PET didnt act in bad faith;
FACTS malice is not needed in complaint for damages;
PET was Commissioner of Internal Revenue, RES was certification defect was cured; PET still contended the
manufacturer of cigarettes (Hope, Champion, More, suit stating that she was only performing her functions
etc.) and Administrative Code should be applied (AC = special
RA 7654 subjected local cigarette brands to ad valorem law on the superior public officers liability, such that, if
tax rate 20-45%; 2 days before RA took effect, PET the complaint, as in the instant case, does not allege bad
reclassified Champion, Hope, and More as locally faith, malice, or gross negligence, the same is dismissible
manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand subject for failure to state a cause of action.) Under Sec 38 Book
to 55% ad valorem tax (RMC 37-93); minimum shall not I, there should only be liability when there is clear malice
be 5php per pack RES countered that under Art 32 of Civil Code, it is
RES filed complaint before RTC for damages against enough that there was a violation of the constitutional
private PET; RES contended that she should be held rights of the plaintiff and it is not required that said
liable for RM 37-93 which violated constitutional right public officer should have acted with malice or in bad
against deprivation of property without due process & faith and that provision cited by PET was a general law
right of equal protection ISSUES
PET filed to dismiss; contends that 1)RES had no cause of 1. W/N a public officer may be sued in private capacity
action because she was only performing her official while performing official functions
function and the Republic was responsible for her acts, 2. W/N Civil Code or Admin Code should govern case
2)it was not done in bad faith 3)certification against 3. W/N petitioner be held liable for damages
forum shopping was signed by RES counsel and not RES HELD
RTC denied PETs motion to dismiss because allegations 1. YES. General rule is a public officer is not liable for acts
on PET were premature without RES evidence; defect in done in the performance of their functions; however,
certification against forum shopping was cured by they are not immune from damages to their personal
submission of the corporates secretarys authorization capacity in acts of bad faith; a public officer who directly
for counsel to sign or indirectly violates constitutional rights of another may
 be sued for damages under Art 32 of Civil Code even if RES, with husband, filed complaint against PET for the
they were without malice. rescission of an alleged construction agreement; also
2. YES. A general statute is one which embraces a class of files Motion to Suspend Proceedings alleging that both
subjects or places and does not omit any subject or cases (civil and criminal) were so similar that the civil
place naturally belonging to such class. A special statute, case posed a prejudicial question against the criminal
as the term is generally understood, is one which relates cases
to particular persons or things of a class or to a PET opposed, contending that there is no prejudicial
particular portion or section of the state only; they question because the rescission and the bouncing checks
should be harmonized although special law must prevail were separate issues and that Sec 7 Rule 111 of ROC
because the intent is clearer; intent of Art 32 of CC was states that one of the elements of a prejudicial
not only to hold public officers but also private question is that the previously instituted civil action
individuals civilly liable and presence of malice is involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue
irrelevant as long as constitutional rights were violated; raised in the subsequent criminal action; thus, this
Sec 38 and 39 of Book 2 of Admin Code specifies element is missing in this case, the criminal case having
violation of rights as cause for liability. preceded the civil case.
3. YES. The Complaint in the instant petition was brought ISSUE: W/N a prejudicial question exists between the two
under Art 2 of CC; since malice is not needed, appeal is cases.
denied. HELD: NO.
According to the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the
4. Dreamwork Construction Inc. vs. Janiola and Famini elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously
(June 30 2009) ART 36 instituted civil action involves an issue similar or
FACTS intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
PET, thru its president and VP for Finance and criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue
Marketing, filed a Complaint Affidavit for violation of BP determines whether or not the criminal action may
22 (Bouncing Checks Act) against Cleofe Janiola of the proceed; prejudicial question avoids two conflicting
Office of the City Priosecutor, Las Pinas decisions
 The court ruled that the civil action must precede the the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to
filing of the criminal action, for a prejudicial question the prosecution for the violation of BP 22.
to exist The law punishes the mere act of issuing a bouncing
The circumstances present in the instant case indicate check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the
that the filing of the civil action and the subsequent terms and conditions relating to its issuance. Thus, even
move to suspend the criminal proceedings by reason of if the trial court in the civil case declares that the
the presence of a prejudicial question were a mere construction agreement between the parties is void,
afterthought, and instituted to delay the criminal proceedings. this would not affect the prosecution of the respondent in the
The civil case was filed 2 years after the institution of criminal case.
the criminal complaint and from the time that private
respondent allegedly withdrew its equipment from the 5. Consing, Jr. vs. People (July 15 2003, Bersamin, J.)
job site. Also, it is worth noting that the civil case was FACTS
instituted more than 2 years from the time that PET Rafael Consing Jr. and his mother Cecilia de la Cruz
private respondent allegedly stopped construction of obtained various loans from Unicapital Inc. and were
the proposed building for no valid reason. More secured by a property; Unicapital agreed to buy one half
importantly, the civil case praying for the rescission of of the property, the other half was bought by Plus
the construction agreement for lack of consideration Builders Inc.
was filed more than 3 years from the execution of Before Unicapital and PBI could develop the property,
the construction agreement. they learned that the title was under the names Po
The court also ruled that the resolution of the civil case is Willie Yu and Juanito Tan Teng; RES refused to return
not determinative of the prosecution of the criminal case. payment
Even if the civil case here was instituted prior to the PET filed a civil case at Pasig RTC to enjoin Unicapital
criminal action, there is still no prejudicial question. The from collecting payment because he acted as a mere
mere fact that there exists a valid contract or agreement to agent of his mother; Unicapital initiated a criminal
support the issuance of the check/s, or that the checks complaint for estafa thru falsification of public
were issued for valuable consideration, does not make up document; RTC suspended criminal case because a
the elements of the crime. The agreement surrounding prejudicial question exists; CA upheld RTC ruling
ISSUE: W/N the civil case posed a prejudicial question. damages against PET; PET denied any liability, stating
HELD: NO. that RES dollar credit card transactions were placed
under suspension because RES was using it in excess of
his credit limit and failed to settle prior purchases
6. Capili vs. People (July 3, 2013 Peralta, J.)
ISSUE: W/N the PET is liable to pay RES for damages.
FACTS HELD: NO.
PET James Capili was charged with bigamy before RTC of PET were not acting in bad faith when they blacklisted
Pasig; PET filed motion to suspend proceedings on RES credit card since the RES exceeded his credit limit;
grounds that there is a pending civil case for nullity of his there is no basis for holding PET negligent for not
second marriage, when the marriage is it will exculpate notifying PET of the status of his card because RES,
him from charge of bigamy, the civil case (declaration of although depositing money to his lacking dollar account,
failed to reinstate his credit privileges
nullity) serves as a prejudicial question to the criminal
There can be damage without injury in those instances in
case which loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a
ISSUE: W/N the civil case serves as a prejudicial question to legal duty (damnum absque injuria); RES must establish
the criminal case of bigamy. injuries resulted from breach of duty for him to be
HELD: NO. awarded for damages
All elements of bigamy are present in criminal case
8. Amonoy vs. Fornida (Feb 15 2001 Panganiban, J.)
It is clear then that the crime of bigamy was committed
FACTS:
by petitioner from the time he contracted the second
marriage. Thus, the finality of the judicial declaration of Damnum absque injuria: the legitimate exercise of a
nullity of petitioners second marriage does not impede person's rights, even if it causes loss to another, does not
the filing of a criminal charge for bigamy against him. automatically result in an actionable injury. The law does
not prescribe a remedy for the loss. This principle does
7. Equitable Banking Corporation vs. Calderon (Dec 14, not, however, apply when there is an abuse of a
2004 Garcia, J.) person's right, or when the exercise of this right is
FACTS suspended or extinguished pursuant to a court order.
RES Jose Calderon was issued a Visa card by the RES; as PET Sergio Amonoy was counsel for the settlement of
RES used it for a transaction while in Hong Kong, it was estate of deceased Julio Cantolos involving 6 parcels of
revealed to be blacklisted and caused him much torment land; his attorneys fees were not paid because his two
and embarrassment as it was wrongful; RES filed for clients Alfonso Fornilda and Asuncion Pasamba died and
 the lands which secured his fees were closed and Paternity Leave, Bereavement Leave and Death &
terminated; Accident Insurance for his dependent and wife Marife
The lots were sold at public auction where PET was the who had a miscarriage; PET granted paternity leave but
highest bidder; among the lots sold was the one which denied benefits; parties mutually chose PET Montano to
the RES Jose Gutierrez and Angela Fornidas house was be arbitrator
on; PET ordered their house and the other buildings to Continental Steel contends that Hortillano is not
be demolished qualified to be granted benefits because no death of the
RES filed a petition and SC granted a TRO which enjoined latters dependent occurred since it was a fetus and was
demolition, but by the time the SC decided the RES excluded from the coverage of the Collective Bargaining
house was already demolished because CFI affirmed Agreement (CBA) and that the fetus did not have any
demolition by issuing Writ of Demolition prior; RES filed juridical personality (it was not yet a child/cannot have
for damages and CA approved; PET filed motion for died)
reconsideration contending he was only acting in ISSUE: W/N PET should pay Hortillano for benefits.
accordance with Writ of Demolition HELD: YES.
ISSUE: W/N the PET is liable to pay RES for damages. The elements of the bereavement leave and death and
HELD: YES. accident insuurance under the CBA are (1) death; (2) the
Damnum absque injuria finds no application in this case; death must be of a dependent, i.e., parent, spouse, child,
PET did not heed the TROs served to him; he unlawfully brother, or sister, of an employee; and (3) legitimate
pursued demolition of RES house; testimony of RES relations of the dependent to the employee.
shows that when TRO was served, demolition was PETs contention is solely based on their interpretation
stopped but was continued by the men of the PET; PET of death and dependent on the CBA
acts not only constituted an abused of his right, but an According to Art 37 of the CC Juridical capacity, which is
invalid exercise of a suspended right the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is inherent
in every natural person and is lost only through death.
9. Continental Steel vs. Allan Montano (Oct. 13, 2009 Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts with legal
Chico-Nozano, J.) effect, is acquired and may be lost.; juridical capacity is
FACTS not an issue since the benefits does not pertain to the
Roland Hortillano, an employee of PET, and member of child but to the parents of the child
RES Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Centro Steel CC does not explicitly say that only those with juridical
Corporation-Solidarity of Trade Unions in the Philippines personality could die; death is defined as cessation of
for Empowerment and Reforms, filed a claim for life, since every child inside the womb already has life
 then the cessation of it prior to the child even being Art. 21 defines quasi-delict: Whoever by act or omission
born qualifies as death causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
10. Baksh vs. Court of Appeals (Feb 19, 1993 Davide, Jr., fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
J)* relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict and is
FACTS governed by the Civil Code.
A private respondent (Marilou Gonzales) filed a It is clear that petitioner harbors a condescending if not
complaint for damages against PET Gashem Shookat sarcastic regard for the private respondent on account
Baksh for the alleged violation of the agreement to get of the latters ignoble birth, inferior educational
married; PET and respondents relationship was background, poverty and, as perceived by him,
allegedly good at the start, but PET eventually forced her dishonorable employment. From the beginning,
to live with him and PETs attitude towards her became obviously, he was not at all moved by good faith and an
more hostile and she was maltreated; PET revealed that honest motive. Thus, his profession of love and promise
he didnt want to live with her anymore and that he was to marry were empty words directly intended to fool,
already married to someone back in Bacolod; dupe, entice, beguile and deceive the poor woman into
respondent asked PET to pay her 45k for damages but believing that indeed, he loved her and would want her
the actual expense was just 600php; PET contends that to be his life partner. His was nothing but pure lust
he never proposed to her and that she deceived him by which he wanted satisfied by a Filipina who honestly
stealing his money and passport, PET prayed for an believed that by accepting his proffer of love and
award of 5k misc expenses and 25k moral damages proposal of marriage, she would be able to enjoy a life of
RTC was in favor of RES; CA affirmed RTC ease and security. Petitioner clearly violated the Filipino
ISSUE: W/N PET is liable to pay damages to RES. concept of morality and so brazenly defied the
HELD: YES. traditional respect Filipinos have for their women. It can
The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per even be said that the petitioner committed such
se is not an actionable wrong. deplorable acts in blatant disregard of Article 19 of the
This, notwithstanding, Art. 21 of CC is designed to Civil Code which directs every person to act with justice,
expand the concept of torts or quasi-delict in this give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
jurisdictions by granting adequate legal remedy for the faith in the exercise of his right and in the performance
untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for of his obligations; No foreigner must be allowed to make
human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in a mockery of our laws, customs and traditions.
the statute books.
 She is not in pari delicto with the petitioner. Pari delicto 12. Ong vs. Landbank (Nov 24 2010 Velasco, Jr. J.)*
means in equal fault. At most, it could be conceded that FACTS
she is merely in delicto. Spouses Johnson and Evangeline Sy secured a loan from
Equity often interfered for the relief of the less guilty of Land Bank Legazpi City in the amount of 16 million. The
the parties, where his transgression has been brought loan was secured by three (3) residential lots, five (5)
about by the imposition of undue influence of the party cargo trucks, and a warehouse. Under the loan
on whom the burden of the original wrong principally agreement, 6 million would be short-term and would
rests, or where his consent to the transaction was itself mature on February 28, 1997, while the balance of 10
procured by fraud. million would be payable in seven (7) years. The Spouses
Sy could no longer pay their loan which resulted to the
11.Wassmer vs. Velez (Dec 26 1964 Bengzon J.P., J.) sale of three (3) of their mortgaged parcels of land for
FACTS PhP 150,000 to Angelina Gloria Ong, Evangelines
PET (Francisco Wassmer) and RES (Beatriz Velez) were mother, under a Deed of Sale with Assumption of
engaged to be married; two days before the wedding, Mortgage.
PET left RES on grounds that his parents did not Evangelines father, petitioner Alfredo Ong, later went to
approved of their engagement Land Bank to inform them about the sale and
RES sued PET for damages; PET filed no answer and was assumption of mortgage. Land Bank Branch Head told
declared in default; the court wanted them to both Alfredo that there was nothing wrong with agreement
appear for amicable settlement; PET failed to appear with the Spouses Sy and provided him requirements for
ISSUE: W/N breach of promise to marry is an actionable the assumption of mortgage. Alfredo later found out
wrong. that his application for assumption of mortgage was not
HELD: approved by Land Bank.
Case was not a mere breach of contract to marry; even if On December 12, 1997, Alfredo initiated an action for
the mere breach of contract to marry is not an recovery of sum of money with damages against Land
actionable wrong, formally setting a wedding only to Bank, as Alfredos payment was not returned by Land
walk out of it is quite different; contrary to Art 21 of CC Bank. Alfredo said that Land Banks foreclosure without
(any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to informing him of the denial of his assumption of the
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good mortgage was done in bad faith and that he was made
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for to believed that P750,000 would cause Land Bank to
the damage); PET acted recklessly and oppressively approve his assumption to the mortgage. He also
claimed incurring expenses for attorneys fees of PhP
 150,000, filing fee of PhP 15,000, and PhP 250,000 in mentioned as to the first part of paragraph 1 of Art.
moral damages. This prompted Alfredo to file a case 1236. However, Alfredo made a conditional payment so
with RTC against Land Bank. that the properties subject of the Deed of Sale with
On its decision to the case, RTC held that the contract Assumption of Mortgage which Land Bank required from
approving the assumption of mortgage was not him would be approved. Thus, he made payment not as
perfected as a result of the credit investigation a debtor but as a prospective mortgagor.
conducted on Alfredo where he was disapproved. As Furthermore, the contract between Alfredo and
such, it ruled that it would be incorrect to consider LandBank was not perfected nor consummated because
Alfredo a third person with no interest in the fulfillment of the adverse disapproval of the proposed assumption.
of the obligation under Article1236 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court did not agree with the Court of
Although Land Bank was not bound by the Deed Appeals that there was novation in the contract between
between Alfredo and the Spouses Sy, the appellate court the parties because not all elements of novation were
found that Alfredo and Land Banks active preparations present.
for Alfredos assumption of mortgage essentially The court further stresses that the instant case would
novated (substituted old agreement with new one) the not have been litigated had Land Bank been more
agreement. circumspect in dealing with Alfredo. The bank chose to
ISSUES accept payment from Alfredo even before a credit
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding investigation was underway and also failed to informed
that Art. 1236 of the Civil Code does not apply and in him of the disapproval. The court found that there was
finding that there is novation. negligence to a certain degree on the part of Land Bank
2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals misconstrued the in handling the transaction with Alfredo. A bank as a
evidence and the law when it affirmed the trial court business entity should observe a higher standard of
decisions ordering Land Bank to pay Ong the amount of diligence when dealing with the public which Land Bank
Php750,000.00 with interest at 12% annum. neglect to observe in this case.
HELD: The petitioners appeal was denied by the Supreme
The Supreme Court affirmed with modification to the Court and the decision of the Court of Appeals was
appealed decision that recourse against Land Bank. affirmed with modification in that the amount of PhP
Land Bank contends that Art.1236 of the Civil Code 750,000 will earn interest at 6% per annum and the total
backs their claim that Alfredo should have sought aggregate monetary awards will in turn earn 12% per
recourse against the Spouses Sy instead of Land annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
Bank. The court agreed with Land Bank on the point
13.Rep of the PH vs. Lacap (March 2 2007 Austria- 14. Bill & Victoria Hing vs. Alexander Choachuy, Sr. & Allan
Martinez, J.) ART 22 Choachuy (Jun 26, 2013 Del Castillo, J.) ART 26
FACTS FACTS
RES Carlito Lacaps construction company Carwin RES owned an auto repair shop; RES owned PET filed
Construction and Construction Supply had a contract complaint to RTC against RES; RES alleged that PET were
with the Dist Engr of Pampanga for the concreting of constructing a fence without a valid permit and that the
Sitio 5 Bahay Pare. Once the construction was done, the construction would destroy the walls of its building,
DPWH prepared a disbursement voucher but it was which is adjacent to RESs property; in order to get
withheld by the COA on grounds that RESs contractors evidence for the case, RES illegally set up and installed 2
license had expired at the time of the execution of the video surveillance cameras facing PETs property and
contract. took pictures of construction without PETs consent
ISSUE: W/N RES is entitled to be paid for the completed ISSUE: W/N PETs right to privacy was violated.
project. HELD:
HELD: YES. PET cite Art 26(1) of CC which enjoins persons from
The issue raised is a pure question of law; there is a prying into the private lives of others even if their place
question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to of business is not used as residence (Arturo Tolentino)
what the law is on certain facts and not as to the truth or The Bill of Rights guarantees the peoples right to
falsehood of alleged facts; decision rests with the court privacy; Art 26 also covers business offices where the
According to Sec 35 of RA 4566 (Contractors Licensing public are excluded and only certain individuals are
Law), any contractor who is paid for a contract when allowed to enter
their license is already expired shall be deemed guilty of Right to privacy under Art 26 is not only in ones house
misdemeanor and shall pay a fine; nonetheless, RES but also in places where one has the right to exclude the
should be paid for the completed projects since they are public or deny them access
not declared as void by the provision; such payment In ascertaining if there is violation of privacy, courts use
should be without prejudice to the fine the reasonable expectation of privacy test; 1) whether,
Art 22 of the CC embodies the maxim nemo ex alterius by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an
incommode debt lecupletari or no man ought to be expectation of privacy 2) this expectation is one that
made rich out of anothers injury; since the RES has society recognizes as reasonable; court ruled that PET
rendered his services to the satisfaction of PET, the RES had reasonable expectation of privacy
should be compensated