G.R. No. 81262 August 25, 1989 GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., an !ERBER" C. !

ENDRY, petitioners, vs. "!E !ONORABLE CO#R" O$ APPEAL% an RE%"I"#"O M. "OBIA%, respondents. COR"E%, J.: Private respondent Restituto M. Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GLO ! M"C#"$% in a dual capacity as a purc&asin' a'ent and administrative assistant to t&e en'ineerin' operations mana'er. (n )*+,, GLO ! M"C#"$ discovered -ictitious purc&ases and ot&er -raudulent transactions -or w&ic& it lost several t&ousands o- pesos. "ccordin' to private respondent it was &e w&o actually discovered t&e anomalies and reported t&em on .ovember )/, )*+, to &is immediate superior !duardo T. 0erraren and to petitioner 1erbert C. 1endry w&o was t&en t&e !2ecutive 3ice4President and General Mana'er o- GLO ! M"C#"$. On .ovember )), )*+,, one day a-ter private respondent Tobias made t&e report, petitioner 1endry con-ronted &im by statin' t&at &e was t&e number one suspect, and ordered &im to take a one week -orced leave, not to communicate wit& t&e o--ice, to leave &is table drawers open, and to leave t&e o--ice keys. On .ovember ,/, )*+,, w&en private respondent Tobias returned to work a-ter t&e -orced leave, petitioner 1endry went up to &im and called &im a 5crook5 and a 5swindler.5 Tobias was t&en ordered to take a lie detector test. 1e was also instructed to submit specimen o- &is &andwritin', si'nature, and initials -or e2amination by t&e police investi'ators to determine &is complicity in t&e anomalies. On 6ecember 7,)*+,, t&e Manila police investi'ators submitted a laboratory crime report (!2&. 5"5% clearin' private respondent o- participation in t&e anomalies. .ot satis-ied wit& t&e police report, petitioners &ired a private investi'ator, retired Col. 8ose G. 0ernande9, w&o on 6ecember )/, )*+,, submitted a report (!2&. 5,5% -indin' Tobias 'uilty. T&is report &owever e2pressly stated t&at -urt&er investi'ation was still to be conducted. .evert&eless, on 6ecember ),, )*+,, petitioner 1endry issued a memorandum suspendin' Tobias -rom work preparatory to t&e -ilin' o- criminal c&ar'es a'ainst &im. On 6ecember )*,)*+,, Lt. 6ioscoro 3. Ta'le, Metro Manila Police C&ie- 6ocument !2aminer, a-ter investi'atin' ot&er documents pertainin' to t&e alle'ed anomalous transactions, submitted a second laboratory crime report (!2&. 5 5% reiteratin' &is previous -indin' t&at t&e &andwritin's, si'natures, and initials appearin' in t&e c&ecks

and ot&er documents involved in t&e -raudulent transactions were not t&ose o- Tobias. T&e lie detector tests conducted on Tobias also yielded ne'ative results. .otwit&standin' t&e two police reports e2culpatin' Tobias -rom t&e anomalies and t&e -act t&at t&e report o- t&e private investi'ator, was, by its own terms, not yet complete, petitioners -iled wit& t&e City 0iscal o- Manila a complaint -or esta-a t&rou'& -alsi-ication o- commercial documents, later amended to :ust esta-a. ;ubse<uently -ive ot&er criminal complaints were -iled a'ainst Tobias, -our o- w&ic& were -or esta-a t&rou'& 0alsi-ication o- commercial document w&ile t&e -i-t& was -or o- "rticle ,*/ o-= t&e Revised Penal Code (6iscoverin' ;ecrets T&rou'& ;ei9ure oCorrespondence%.lwph1.t Two o- t&ese complaints were re-iled wit& t&e 8ud'e "dvocate General=s O--ice, w&ic& &owever, remanded t&em to t&e -iscal=s o--ice. "ll ot&e si2 criminal complaints were dismissed by t&e -iscal. Petitioners appealed -our ot&e -iscal=s resolutions dismissin' t&e criminal complaints wit& t&e ;ecretary o8ustice, w&o, &owever, a--irmed t&eir dismissal. (n t&e meantime, on 8anuary )+, )*+>, Tobias received a notice (!2&. 505% -rom petitioners t&at &is employment &as been terminated e--ective 6ecember )>, )*+,. ?&ereupon, Tobias -iled a complaint -or ille'al dismissal. T&e labor arbiter dismissed t&e complaint. On appeal, t&e .ational Labor Relations Commission (.LRC% reversed t&e labor arbiter=s decision. 1owever, t&e ;ecretary o- Labor, actin' on petitioners= appeal -rom t&e .LRC rulin', reinstated t&e labor arbiter=s decision. Tobias appealed t&e ;ecretary o- Labor=s order wit& t&e O--ice o- t&e President. 6urin' t&e pendency o- t&e appeal wit& said o--ice, petitioners and private respondent Tobias entered into a compromise a'reement re'ardin' t&e latter=s complaint -or ille'al dismissal. @nemployed, Tobias sou'&t employment wit& t&e Republic Telep&one Company (R!T!LCO%. 1owever, petitioner 1endry, wit&out bein' asked by R!T!LCO, wrote a letter to t&e latter statin' t&at Tobias was dismissed by GLO ! M"C#"$ due to dis&onesty. Private respondent Tobias -iled a civil case -or dama'es anc&ored on alle'ed unlaw-ul, malicious, oppressive, and abusive acts o- petitioners. Petitioner 1endry, claimin' illness, did not testi-y durin' t&e &earin's. T&e Re'ional Trial Court (RTC% oManila, ranc& (A, t&rou'& 8ud'e Manuel T. Reyes rendered :ud'ment in -avor oprivate respondent by orderin' petitioners to pay &im ei'&ty t&ousand pesos (PB/,///.//% as actual dama'es, two &undred t&ousand pesos (P,//,///.//% as moral dama'es, twenty t&ousand pesos (P,/,///.//% as e2emplary dama'es, t&irty t&ousand pesos (P>/,///.//% as attorney=s -ees, and costs. Petitioners appealed t&e RTC decision to t&e Court o- "ppeals. On t&e ot&er &and, Tobias appealed as to t&e amount o- dama'es. 1owever, t&e Court o- "ppeals, an a decision dated "u'ust >), )*B+ a--irmed t&e RTC decision in toto. Petitioners= motion -or reconsideration &avin' been denied, t&e instant petition -or review on certiorari was -iled. T&e main issue in t&is case is w&et&er or not petitioners are liable -or dama'es to private respondent. Petitioners contend t&at t&ey could not be made liable -or dama'es in t&e law-ul e2ercise o- t&eir ri'&t to dismiss private respondent.

On t&e ot&er &and, private respondent contends t&at because o- petitioners= abusive manner in dismissin' &im as well as -or t&e in&uman treatment &e 'ot -rom t&em, t&e Petitioners must indemni-y &im -or t&e dama'e t&at &e &ad su--ered. One o- t&e more notable innovations o- t&e .ew Civil Code is t&e codi-ication o5some basic principles t&at are to be observed -or t&e ri'&t-ul relations&ip between &uman bein's and -or t&e stability o- t&e social order.5 CR!PORT O. T1! CO6! COMM(;;(O. O. T1! PROPO;!6 C(3(L CO6! O0 T1! P1(L(PP(.!;, p. >*D. T&e -ramers o- t&e Code, seekin' to remedy t&e de-ect o- t&e old Code w&ic& merely stated t&e e--ects o- t&e law, but -ailed to draw out its spirit, incorporated certain -undamental precepts w&ic& were 5desi'ned to indicate certain norms t&at sprin' -rom t&e -ountain o- 'ood conscience5 and w&ic& were also meant to serve as 5'uides -or &uman conduct Ct&atD s&ould run as 'olden t&reads t&rou'& society, to t&e end t&at law may approac& its supreme ideal, w&ic& is t&e sway and dominance o- :ustice5 (Id.% 0oremost amon' t&ese principles is t&at pronounced in "rticle )* w&ic& providesE "rt. )*. !very person must, in t&e e2ercise o- &is ri'&ts and in t&e per-ormance o- &is duties, act wit& :ustice, 'ive everyone &is due, and observe &onesty and 'ood -ait&. T&is article, known to contain w&at is commonly re-erred to as t&e principle o- abuse o- ri'&ts, sets certain standards w&ic& must be observed not only in t&e e2ercise oone=s ri'&ts but also in t&e per-ormance o- one=s duties. T&ese standards are t&e -ollowin'E to act wit& :usticeF to 'ive everyone &is dueF and to observe &onesty and 'ood -ait&. T&e law, t&ere-ore, reco'ni9es a primordial limitation on all ri'&tsF t&at in t&eir e2ercise, t&e norms o- &uman conduct set -ort& in "rticle )* must be observed. " ri'&t, t&ou'& by itsel- le'al because reco'ni9ed or 'ranted by law as suc&, may nevert&eless become t&e source o- some ille'ality. ?&en a ri'&t is e2ercised in a manner w&ic& does not con-orm wit& t&e norms ens&rined in "rticle )* and results in dama'e to anot&er, a le'al wron' is t&ereby committed -or w&ic& t&e wron'doer must be &eld responsible. ut w&ile "rticle )* lays down a rule o- conduct -or t&e 'overnment o- &uman relations and -or t&e maintenance o- social order, it does not provide a remedy -or its violation. Generally, an action -or dama'es under eit&er "rticle ,/ or "rticle ,) would be proper. "rticle ,/, w&ic& pertains to dama'e arisin' -rom a violation o- law, provides t&atE "rt. ,/. !very person w&o contrary to law, wil-ully or ne'li'ently causes dama'e to anot&er, s&all indemni-y t&e latter -or t&e same. 1owever, in t&e case at bar, petitioners claim t&at t&ey did not violate any provision olaw since t&ey were merely e2ercisin' t&eir le'al ri'&t to dismiss private respondent. T&is does not, &owever, leave private respondent wit& no relie- because "rticle ,) ot&e Civil Code provides t&atE "rt. ,). "ny person w&o wil-ully causes loss or in:ury to anot&er in a manner t&at is contrary to morals, 'ood customs or public policy s&all compensate t&e latter -or t&e dama'e.

T&is article, adopted to remedy t&e 5countless 'aps in t&e statutes, w&ic& leave so many victims o- moral wron's &elpless, even t&ou'& t&ey &ave actually su--ered material and moral in:ury5 CId.D s&ould 5vouc&sa-e ade<uate le'al remedy -or t&at untold number o- moral wron's w&ic& it is impossible -or &uman -oresi'&t to provide -or speci-ically in t&e statutes5 CId. it p. G/F See also P. v. C", G.R. .o. L4,+)HH, May )B,)*+B, B> ;CR" ,>+, ,G+D. (n determinin' w&et&er or not t&e principle o- abuse o- ri'&ts may be invoked, t&ere is no ri'id test w&ic& can be applied. ?&ile t&e Court &as not &esitated to apply "rticle )* w&et&er t&e le'al and -actual circumstances called -or its application CSee -or e.'., 3elayo v. ;&ell Co. o- t&e P&il., Ltd., )// P&il. )B7 ()*H7%F P. v. C", supra;Grand @nion ;upermarket, (nc. v. !spino, 8r., G.R. .o. L4GB,H/, 6ecember ,B, )*+*, *G ;CR" *H>F P"L v. C", G.R. .o. L4G7HHB, 8uly >),)*B),)/7 ;CR" >*)F @nited General (ndustries, (nc, v. Paler G.R. .o. L4>/,/H, Marc& )H,)*B,,)), ;CR" G/GF Rubio v. C", G.R. .o. H/*)), "u'ust ,), )*B+, )H> ;CR" )B>D t&e <uestion ow&et&er or not t&e principle o- abuse o- ri'&ts &as been violated resultin' in dama'es under "rticle ,/ or "rticle ,) or ot&er applicable provision o- law, depends on t&e circumstances o- eac& case. "nd in t&e instant case, t&e Court, a-ter e2aminin' t&e record and considerin' certain si'ni-icant circumstances, -inds t&at all petitioners &ave indeed abused t&e ri'&t t&at t&ey invoke, causin' dama'e to private respondent and -or w&ic& t&e latter must now be indemni-ied. T&e trial court made a -indin' t&at notwit&standin' t&e -act t&at it was private respondent Tobias w&o reported t&e possible e2istence o- anomalous transactions, petitioner 1endry 5s&owed belli'erence and told plainti-- (private respondent &erein% t&at &e was t&e number one suspect and to take a one week vacation leave, not to communicate wit& t&e o--ice, to leave &is table drawers open, and to leave &is keys to said de-endant (petitioner 1endry%5 CRTC 6ecision, p. ,F Rollo, p. ,>,D. T&is, petitioners do not dispute. ut re'ardless o- w&et&er or not it was private respondent Tobias w&o reported t&e anomalies to petitioners, t&e latter=s reaction towards t&e -ormer upon uncoverin' t&e anomalies was less t&an civil. "n employer w&o &arbors suspicions t&at an employee &as committed dis&onesty mi'&t be :usti-ied in takin' t&e appropriate action suc& as orderin' an investi'ation and directin' t&e employee to 'o on a leave. 0irmness and t&e resolve to uncover t&e trut& would also be e2pected -rom suc& employer. ut t&e &i'&4&anded treatment accorded Tobias by petitioners was certainly uncalled -or. "nd t&is repre&ensible attitude o- petitioners was to continue w&en private respondent returned to work on .ovember ,/, )*+, a-ter &is one week -orced leave. @pon reportin' -or work, Tobias was con-ronted by 1endry w&o said. 5Tobby, you are t&e crook and swindler in t&is company.5 Considerin' t&at t&e -irst report made by t&e police investi'ators was submitted only on 6ecember )/, )*+, C;ee !2&. "D t&e statement made by petitioner 1endry was baseless. T&e imputation o- 'uilt wit&out basis and t&e pattern o- &arassment durin' t&e investi'ations o- Tobias trans'ress t&e standards o- &uman conduct set -ort& in "rticle )* o- t&e Civil Code. T&e Court &as already ruled t&at t&e ri'&t o- t&e employer to dismiss an employee s&ould not be con-used wit& t&e manner in w&ic& t&e ri'&t is e2ercised and t&e e--ects -lowin' t&ere-rom. (- t&e dismissal is done abusively, t&en t&e employer is liable -or dama'es to t&e employee CIuisaba v. ;ta. (nes4Melale 3eneer and Plywood (nc., G.R. .o. L4>B/BB, "u'ust >/, )*+G, HB ;CR" ++)F See also P&ilippine Re-inin' Co., (nc. v. Garcia, G.R. .o. L4,)B+), ;eptember ,+,)*77, )B ;CR" )/+D @nder t&e circumstances o- t&e instant case, t&e petitioners clearly -ailed to e2ercise in a le'itimate manner t&eir ri'&t to dismiss Tobias, 'ivin' t&e latter

t&e ri'&t to recover dama'es under "rticle )* in relation to "rticle ,) o- t&e Civil Code. ut petitioners were not content wit& :ust dismissin' Tobias. ;everal ot&er tortious acts were committed by petitioners a'ainst Tobias a-ter t&e latter=s termination -rom work. Towards t&e latter part o- 8anuary, )*+>, a-ter t&e -ilin' o- t&e -irst o- si2 criminal complaints a'ainst Tobias, t&e latter talked to 1endry to protest t&e actions taken a'ainst &im. (n response, 1endry cut s&ort Tobias= protestations by tellin' &im to :ust con-ess or else t&e company would -ile a &undred more cases a'ainst &im until &e landed in :ail. 1endry added t&at, 5$ou 0ilipinos cannot be trusted.5 T&e t&reat unmasked petitioner=s bad -ait& in t&e various actions taken a'ainst Tobias. On t&e ot&er &and, t&e scorn-ul remark about 0ilipinos as well as 1endry=s earlier statements about Tobias bein' a 5crook5 and 5swindler5 are clear violations o- =Tobias= personal di'nity C;ee "rticle ,7, Civil CodeD. T&e ne2t tortious act committed by petitioners was t&e writin' o- a letter to R!T!LCO sometime in October )*+G, statin' t&at Tobias &ad been dismissed by GLO ! M"C#"$ due to dis&onesty. ecause o- t&e letter, Tobias -ailed to 'ain employment wit& R!T!LCO and as a result o- w&ic&, Tobias remained unemployed -or a lon'er period o- time. 0or t&is -urt&er dama'e su--ered by Tobias, petitioners must likewise be &eld liable -or dama'es consistent wit& "rticle ,)+7 o- t&e Civil Code. Petitioners, &owever, contend t&at t&ey &ave a 5moral, i- not le'al, duty to -orewarn ot&er employers o- t&e kind o- employee t&e plainti-- (private respondent &erein% was.5 CPetition, p. )GF Rollo, p. )HD. Petitioners -urt&er claim t&at 5it is t&e accepted moral and societal obli'ation o- every man to advise or warn &is -ellowmen o- any t&reat or dan'er to t&e latter=s li-e, &onor or property. "nd t&is includes warnin' one=s bret&ren o- t&e possible dan'ers involved in dealin' wit&, or acceptin' into con-idence, a man w&ose &onesty and inte'rity is suspect5 CId.D. T&ese ar'uments, rat&er t&an :usti-y petitioners= act, reveal a seemin' obsession to prevent Tobias -rom 'ettin' a :ob, even a-ter almost two years -rom t&e time Tobias was dismissed. 0inally, t&ere is t&e matter o- t&e -ilin' by petitioners o- si2 criminal complaints a'ainst Tobias. Petitioners contend t&at t&ere is no case a'ainst t&em -or malicious prosecution and t&at t&ey cannot be 5penali9ed -or e2ercisin' t&eir ri'&t and prero'ative o- seekin' :ustice by -ilin' criminal complaints a'ainst an employee w&o was t&eir principal suspect in t&e commission o- -or'eries and in t&e perpetration oanomalous transactions w&ic& de-rauded t&em o- substantial sums o- money5 CPetition, p. )/, Rollo, p. ))D. ?&ile sound principles o- :ustice and public policy dictate t&at persons s&all &ave -ree resort to t&e courts -or redress o- wron's and vindication o- t&eir ri'&ts C uenaventura v. ;to. 6omin'o, )/> P&il. ,>* ()*HB%D, t&e ri'&t to institute criminal prosecutions can not be e2ercised maliciously and in bad -ait& C3entura v. ernabe, G.R. .o. L4,7+7/, "pril >/, )*+), >B ;CR" HB+).D 1ence, in Yutuk V. Manila Electric Co., G.R. .o. L4 )>/)7, May >), )*7), , ;CR" >>+, t&e Court &eld t&at t&e ri'&t to -ile criminal complaints s&ould not be used as a weapon to -orce an alle'ed debtor to pay an indebtedness. To do so would be a clear perversion o- t&e -unction o- t&e criminal processes and o- t&e courts o- :ustice. "nd in awpia C", G.R. .o. L4,//G+, 8une >/, )*7+. ,/ ;CR" H>7 t&e Court up&eld t&e :ud'ment a'ainst t&e petitioner -or actual and moral dama'es and attorney=s -ees a-ter makin' a -indin' t&at petitioner, wit&

persistence, -iled at least si2 criminal complaints a'ainst respondent, all o- w&ic& were dismissed. To constitute malicious prosecution, t&ere must be proo- t&at t&e prosecution was prompted by a desi'n to ve2 and &umiliate a person and t&at it was initiated deliberately by t&e de-endant knowin' t&at t&e c&ar'es were -alse and 'roundless CManila Gas Corporation v. C", G.R. .o. L4GG)*/, October >/,)*B/, )// ;CR" 7/,D. Concededly, t&e -ilin' o- a suit by itsel-, does not render a person liable -or malicious prosecution C(n&elder Corporation v. C", G.R. .o. H,>HB, May >/)*B>),, ;CR" H+7D. T&e mere dismissal by t&e -iscal o- t&e criminal complaint is not a 'round -or an award o- dama'es -or malicious prosecution i- t&ere is no competent evidence to s&ow t&at t&e complainant &ad acted in bad -ait& C;ison v. 6avid, G.R. .o. L4)),7B, 8anuary ,B,)*7), ) ;CR" 7/D. (n t&e instant case, &owever, t&e trial court made a -indin' t&at petitioners acted in bad -ait& in -ilin' t&e criminal complaints a'ainst Tobias, observin' t&atE 222 6e-endants (petitioners &erein% -iled wit& t&e 0iscal=s O--ice oManila a total o- si2 (7% criminal cases, -ive (H% o- w&ic& were -or esta-a t&ru -alsi-ication o- commercial document and one -or violation o- "rt. ,*/ o- t&e Revised Penal Code 5discoverin' secrets t&ru sei9ure o- correspondence,5 and all were dismissed -or insu--iciency or lack o- evidence.5 T&e dismissal o- -our (G% o- t&e cases was appealed to t&e Ministry o- 8ustice, but said Ministry invariably sustained t&e dismissal o- t&e cases. "s above adverted to, two o- t&ese cases were re-iled wit& t&e 8ud'e "dvocate General=s O--ice o- t&e "rmed 0orces o- t&e P&ilippines to railroad plainti--s arrest and detention in t&e military stockade, but t&is was -rustrated by a presidential decree trans-errin' criminal cases involvin' civilians to t&e civil courts. 222 To be sure, w&en despite t&e two (,% police reports embodyin' t&e -indin's o- Lt. 6ioscoro Ta'le, C&ie- 6ocument !2aminer o- t&e Manila Police 6epartment, clearin' plainti-- o- participation or involvement in t&e -raudulent transactions complained o-, despite t&e ne'ative results o- t&e lie detector tests w&ic& de-endants compelled plainti-- to under'o, and alt&ou'& t&e police investi'ation was 5still under -ollow4up and a supplementary report will be submitted a-ter all t&e evidence &as been 'at&ered,5 de-endants &astily -iled si2 (7% criminal cases wit& t&e city 0iscal=s O--ice oManila, -ive (H% -or esta-a t&ru -alsi-ication o- commercial document and one ()% -or violation o- "rt. ,*/ o- t&e Revised Penal Code, so muc& so t&at as was to be e2pected, all si2 (7% cases were dismissed, wit& one o- t&e investi'atin' -iscals, "sst. 0iscal de Guia, commentin' in one case t&at, 5(ndeed, t&e &ap&a9ard way t&is case was investi'ated is evident. !vident likewise is t&e -lurry

and &aste in t&e -ilin' o- t&is case a'ainst respondent Tobias,5 t&ere can be no mistakin' t&at de-endants would not but be motivated by malicious and unlaw-ul intent to &arass, oppress, and cause dama'e to plainti--. 222 CRTC 6ecision, pp. H47F Rollo, pp. ,>H4,>7D. (n addition to t&e observations made by t&e trial court, t&e Court -inds it si'ni-icant t&at t&e criminal complaints were -iled durin' t&e pendency o- t&e ille'al dismissal case -iled by Tobias a'ainst petitioners. T&is e2plains t&e &aste in w&ic& t&e complaints were -iled, w&ic& t&e trial court earlier noted. ut petitioners, to prove t&eir 'ood -ait&, point to t&e -act t&at only si2 complaints were -iled a'ainst Tobias w&en t&ey could &ave alle'edly -iled one &undred cases, considerin' t&e number oanomalous transactions committed a'ainst GLO ! M"C#"$. 1owever, petitioners= 'ood -ait& is belied by t&e t&reat made by 1endry a-ter t&e -ilin' o- t&e -irst complaint t&at one &undred more cases would be -iled a'ainst Tobias. (n e--ect, t&e possible -ilin' o- one &undred more cases was made to &an' like t&e sword o- 6amocles over t&e &ead o- Tobias. (n -ine, considerin' t&e &aste in w&ic& t&e criminal complaints were -iled, t&e -act t&at t&ey were -iled durin' t&e pendency o- t&e ille'al dismissal case a'ainst petitioners, t&e t&reat made by 1endry, t&e -act t&at t&e cases were -iled notwit&standin' t&e two police reports e2culpatin' Tobias -rom involvement in t&e anomalies committed a'ainst GLO ! M"C#"$, coupled by t&e eventual dismissal oall t&e cases, t&e Court is led into no ot&er conclusion t&an t&at petitioners were motivated by malicious intent in -ilin' t&e si2 criminal complaints a'ainst Tobias. Petitioners ne2t contend t&at t&e award o- dama'es was e2cessive. (n t&e complaint -iled a'ainst petitioners, Tobias prayed -or t&e -ollowin'E one &undred t&ousand pesos (P)//,///.//% as actual dama'esF -i-ty t&ousand pesos (PH/,///.//% as e2emplary dama'esF ei'&t &undred t&ousand pesos (PB//,///.//% as moral dama'esF -i-ty t&ousand pesos (PH/,///.//% as attorney=s -eesF and costs. T&e trial court, a-ter makin' a computation o- t&e dama'es incurred by Tobias CSee RTC 6ecision, pp. +4 BF Rollo, pp. )HG4)HH), awarded &im t&e -ollowin'E ei'&ty t&ousand pesos (PB/,///.//% as actual dama'esF two &undred t&ousand pesos (P,//,///.//% as moral dama'esF twenty t&ousand pesos (P,/,///.//% as e2emplary dama'esF t&irty t&ousand pesos (P>/,///.//% as attorney=s -eesF and, costs. (t must be underscored t&at petitioners &ave been 'uilty o- committin' several actionable tortious acts, i.e., t&e abusive manner in w&ic& t&ey dismissed Tobias -rom work includin' t&e baseless imputation o- 'uilt and t&e &arassment durin' t&e investi'ationsF t&e de-amatory lan'ua'e &eaped on Tobias as well as t&e scorn-ul remark on 0ilipinosF t&e poison letter sent to R!T!LCO w&ic& resulted in Tobias= loss o- possible employmentF and, t&e malicious -ilin' o- t&e criminal complaints. Considerin' t&e e2tent o- t&e dama'e wrou'&t on Tobias, t&e Court -inds t&at, contrary to petitioners= contention, t&e amount o- dama'es awarded to Tobias was reasonable under t&e circumstances. $et, petitioners still insist t&at t&e award o- dama'es was improper, invokin' t&e principle o- damnum abs<uein!uria. (t is ar'ued t&at 5CtD&e only probable actual dama'e t&at plainti-- (private respondent &erein% could &ave su--ered was a direct result o- &is &avin' been dismissed -rom &is employment, w&ic& was a valid and le'al

act o- t&e de-endants4appellants (petitioners &erein%.lwph1.t 5 CPetition, p. )+F Rollo, p. )BD. "ccordin' to t&e principle o- da"nu" a#s$ue in!uria, dama'e or loss w&ic& does not constitute a violation o- a le'al ri'&t or amount to a le'al wron' is not actionable C!scano v. C", G.R. .o. L4G+,/+, ;eptember ,H, )*B/, )// ;CR" )*+F ;ee also Gilc&rist v. Cuddy ,* P&il, HG, ()*)H%F T&e oard o- Li<uidators v. #alaw, G.R. .o. L4 )BB/H, "u'ust )G, )*7+, ,/ ;CR" *B+D. T&is principle -inds no application in t&is case. (t bears repeatin' t&at even 'rantin' t&at petitioners mi'&t &ave &ad t&e ri'&t to dismiss Tobias -rom work, t&e abusive manner in w&ic& t&at ri'&t was e2ercised amounted to a le'al wron' -or w&ic& petitioners must now be &eld liable. Moreover, t&e dama'e incurred by Tobias was not only in connection wit& t&e abusive manner in w&ic& &e was dismissed but was also t&e result o- several ot&er <uasi4delictual acts committed by petitioners. Petitioners ne2t <uestion t&e award o- moral dama'es. 1owever, t&e Court &as already ruled in %ass"er &. Vele', G.R. .o. L4,//B*, 6ecember ,7, )*7G, ), ;CR" 7GB, 7H>, t&at CpDer e2press provision o- "rticle ,,)* ()/% o- t&e .ew Civil Code, moral dama'es are recoverable in t&e cases mentioned in "rticle ,) o- said Code.5 1ence, t&e Court o- "ppeals committed no error in awardin' moral dama'es to Tobias. Lastly, t&e award o- e2emplary dama'es is impu'ned by petitioners. "lt&ou'& "rticle ,,>) o- t&e Civil Code provides t&at 5CiDn <uasi4delicts, e2emplary dama'es may be 'ranted i- t&e de-endant acted wit& 'ross ne'li'ence,5 t&e Court, in (ulueta &. )an *"erican %orld *irwa+s, Inc., G.R. .o. L4 ,BHB*, 8anuary B, )*+>, G* ;CR" ), ruled t&at i- 'ross ne'li'ence warrants t&e award o- e2emplary dama'es, wit& more reason is its imposition :usti-ied w&en t&e act per-ormed is deliberate, malicious and tainted wit& bad -ait&. "s in t&e (uluetacase, t&e nature o- t&e wron'-ul acts s&own to &ave been committed by petitioners a'ainst Tobias is su--icient basis -or t&e award oe2emplary dama'es to t&e latter. ?1!R!0OR!, t&e petition is &ereby 6!.(!6 and t&e decision o- t&e Court o"ppeals in C"4G.R. C3 .o. /*/HH is "00(RM!6. ;O OR6!R!6.

G.R. No. 821&6 'anua() 22, 199* E#LOGIO OCCENA, petitioner, vs. !ON. PEDRO M. ICAMINA, P(+s, ,ng 'u g+, B(an-. / o0 t.+ R+g,ona1 "(,a1 Cou(t %,2t. 'u ,-,a1 R+g,on, %an 'os+, Ant,3u+4 "!E PEOPLE O$ "!E P!ILIPPINE%, (+5(+s+nt+ 6) t.+ !ono(a61+ $ERNAN, C.J.: On May >), )*+*, &erein petitioner !ulo'io Occena instituted be-ore t&e ;econd Municipal Circuit Trial Court o- ;ibalom, ;an Remi'io J elison, Province o- "nti<ue, Criminal Case .o. )+)+, a criminal complaint -or Grave Oral 6e-amation a'ainst &erein private respondent Cristina 3e'a-ria -or alle'edly openly, publicly and maliciously utterin' t&e -ollowin' insultin' words and statementsE 5Ga'o ikaw n'a aran'ay Captain, montisco, traidor, malu'us, 1udas,5 w&ic&, -reely translated, meanE 5$ou are a -oolis& aran'ay Captain, i'noramus, traitor, tyrant, 8udas5 and ot&er words and statements o- similar import w&ic& caused 'reat and irreparable dama'e and in:ury to &is person and &onor. Private respondent as accused t&erein entered a plea o- not 'uilty. Trial t&erea-ter ensued, at w&ic& petitioner, wit&out reservin' &is ri'&t to -ile a separate civil action -or dama'es actively intervened t&ru a private prosecutor. "-ter trial, private respondent was convicted o- t&e o--ense o- ;li'&t Oral 6e-amation and was sentenced to pay a -ine o- 0i-ty Pesos (PH/.//% wit& subsidiary imprisonment in case o- insolvency and to pay t&e costs. .o dama'es were awarded to petitioner in view o- t&e trial court=s opinion t&at 5t&e -acts and circumstances o- t&e case as adduced by t&e evidence do not warrant t&e awardin' o- moral dama'es.5 1 6isa'reein', petitioner sou'&t relie- -rom t&e Re'ional Trial Court, w&ic& in a decision dated Marc& )7, )*B+ disposed o- petitioner=s appeal as -ollowsE (. 3(!? O0 "LL T1! 0OR!GO(.G, t&e civil aspect o- t&e lower court=s decision o- "pril ,/, )*B) sub:ect o- t&is appeal, -or lack omerit, is &ereby 6!.(!6. "-ter t&e decision s&all &ave become -inal, remand t&e records ot&is case to t&e court o- ori'in, ;econd Municipal Circuit Trial Court o- ;ibalom, ;an Remi'io4 elison, "nti<ue, -or t&e e2ecution o- its decision on t&e criminal aspect. ;O OR6!R!6. 2 Petitioner is now be-ore us by way o- a petition -or review on certiorari seekin' to annul t&e RTC decision -or bein' contrary to "rticle )// o- t&e Revised Penal Code providin' t&at every person criminally liable -or a -elony is also civilly liable, and "rticle ,,)* o- t&e .ew Civil Code providin' t&at moral dama'es may be recovered in

libel, slander or any ot&er -orm o- de-amation. 1e submits t&at public respondent RTC erred in relyin' on t&e cases o--oa &s. de la Cru', )/+ P&il. )/ and .an &s. Standard Vacuu" /il Co., et al., *) P&il. 7+, cited t&erein. 1e di--erentiates said cases -rom t&e case at bar by sayin' t&at in t&e case o- Roa, t&e decision o- t&e trial court &ad become -inal be-ore Maria C. Roa instituted a civil action -or dama'esF w&ereas in t&e instant case, t&e decision o- t&e trial court &as not yet become -inal by reason o- t&e timely appeal interposed by &im and no civil action -or dama'es &as been instituted by petitioner a'ainst private respondent -or t&e same cause. .an, on t&e ot&er &and, contemplates o- two actions, one criminal and one civil, and t&e prosecution o- t&e criminal case &ad resulted in t&e ac<uittal o- t&e accused, w&ic& is not t&e situation &ere w&ere t&e civil aspect was impliedly instituted wit& t&e criminal action in accordance wit& ;ection ), Rule ))), o- t&e Rules o- Court. Private respondent -or &er part ar'ues t&at t&e decision o- t&e trial court carries wit& it t&e -inal ad:udication o- &er civil liability. ;ince petitioner c&ose to actively intervene in t&e criminal action wit&out reservin' &is ri'&t to -ile a separate civil action -or dama'es, &e assumed t&e risk t&at in t&e event &e -ailed to recover dama'es &e cannot appeal -rom t&e decision o- t&e lower court. ?e -ind merit in t&e petition. T&e issues con-rontin' us in t&e instant petition is w&et&er or not t&e decision o- t&e ;econd Municipal Trial Court o- ;ibalom, ;an4Remi'io4 elison, Province o- "nti<ue constitutes t&e -inal ad:udication on t&e merits o- private respondent=s civil liabilityF and w&et&er or not petitioner is entitled to an award o- dama'es arisin' -rom t&e remarks uttered by private respondent and -ound by t&e trial court to be de-amatory. T&e decision o- t&e Municipal Circuit Trial Court as a--irmed by t&e Re'ional Trial Court in Criminal Case .o. )+/* cannot be considered as a -inal ad:udication on t&e civil liability o- private respondent simply because said decision &as not yet become -inal due to t&e timely appeal -iled by petitioner wit& respect to t&e civil liability o- t&e accused in said case. (t was only t&e unappealed criminal aspect o- t&e case w&ic& &as become -inal. (n t&e case o- )eople &s. Colo"a, )/H P&il. ),B+, we cate'orically stated t&at -rom a :ud'ment convictin' t&e accused, two (,% appeals may, accordin'ly, be taken. T&e accused may seek a review o- said :ud'ment, as re'ards bot& civil and criminal actionsF w&ile t&e complainant may appeal wit& respect only to t&e civil action, eit&er because t&e lower court &as re-used to award dama'es or because t&e award made is unsatis-actory to &im. T&e ri'&t o- eit&er to appeal or not to appeal in t&e event oconviction o- t&e accused is not dependent upon t&e ot&er. T&us, private respondent=s t&eory t&at in actively intervenin' in t&e criminal action, petitioner waived &is ri'&t to appeal -rom t&e decision t&at may be rendered t&erein, is incorrect and inaccurate. Petitioner may, as &e did, appeal -rom t&e decision on t&e civil aspect w&ic& is deemed instituted wit& t&e criminal action and suc& appeal, timely taken, prevents t&e decision on t&e civil liability -rom attainin' -inality. ?e tackle t&e second issue by determinin' t&e basis o- civil liability arisin' -rom crime. Civil obli'ations arisin' -rom criminal o--enses are 'overned by "rticle )// ot&e Revised Penal Code w&ic& provides t&at 5(!%very person criminally liable -or a

-elony is also civilly liable,5 in relation to "rticle ,)++ o- t&e Civil Code on <uasi4delict, t&e provisions -or independent civil actions in t&e C&apter on 1uman Relations and t&e provisions re'ulatin' dama'es, also -ound in t&e Civil Code. @nderlyin' t&e le'al principle t&at a person w&o is criminally liable is also civilly liable is t&e view t&at -rom t&e standpoint o- its e--ects, a crime &as dual c&aracterE ()% as an o--ense a'ainst t&e state because o- t&e disturbance o- t&e social orderF and (,% as an o--ense a'ainst t&e private person in:ured by t&e crime unless it involves t&e crime otreason, rebellion, espiona'e, contempt and ot&ers w&erein no civil liability arises on t&e part o- t&e o--ender eit&er because t&ere are no dama'es to be compensated or t&ere is no private person in:ured by t&e crime. 7 (n t&e ultimate analysis, w&at 'ives rise to t&e civil liability is really t&e obli'ation o- everyone to repair or to make w&ole t&e dama'e caused to anot&er by reason o- &is act or omission, w&et&er done intentional or ne'li'ently and w&et&er or not punis&able by law. & (n t&e case at bar, private respondent was -ound 'uilty o- sli'&t oral de-amation and sentenced to a -ine o- PH/.// wit& subsidiary imprisonment in case o- insolvency, but no civil liability arisin' -rom t&e -elonious act o- t&e accused was ad:ud'ed. T&is is erroneous. "s a 'eneral rule, a person w&o is -ound to be criminally liable o--ends two (,% entitiesE t&e state or society in w&ic& &e lives and t&e individual member o- t&e society or private person w&o was in:ured or dama'ed by t&e punis&able act or omission. T&e o--ense o- w&ic& private respondent was -ound 'uilty is not one ot&ose -elonies w&ere no civil liability results because eit&er t&ere is no o--ended party or no dama'e was caused to a private person. T&ere is &ere an o--ended party, w&ose main contention precisely is t&at &e su--ered dama'es in view o- t&e de-amatory words and statements uttered by private respondent, in t&e amount oTen T&ousand Pesos (P)/,///.//% as moral dama'es and t&e -urt&er sum o- Ten T&ousand Pesos (P)/,///% as e2emplary dama'es. "rticle ,,)*, par. (+% o- t&e Civil Code allows t&e recovery o- moral dama'es in case o- libel, slander or any ot&er -orm o- de-amation T&is provision o- law establis&es t&e ri'&t o- an o--ended party in a case -or oral de-amation to recover -rom t&e 'uilty party dama'es -or in:ury to &is -eelin's and reputation. T&e o--ended party is likewise allowed to recover punitive or e2emplary dama'es. (t must be remembered t&at every de-amatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even i- it be true, i- no 'ood intention and :usti-iable motive -or makin' it is s&own. "nd malice may be in-erred -rom t&e style and tone o- publication 5 sub:ect to certain e2ceptions w&ic& are not present in t&e case at bar. Callin' petitioner w&o was a baran'ay captain an i'noramus, traitor, tyrant and 8udas is clearly an imputation o- de-ects in petitioner=s c&aracter su--icient to cause &im embarrassment and social &umiliation. Petitioner testi-ied to t&e -eelin's o- s&ame and an'uis& &e su--ered as a result o- t&e incident complained o-. 6 (t is patently error -or t&e trial court to overlook t&is vital piece o- evidence and to conclude t&at t&e 5-acts and circumstances o- t&e case as adduced by t&e evidence do not warrant t&e awardin' o- moral dama'es.5 1avin' misappre&ended t&e -acts, t&e trial court=s -indin's wit& respect t&ereto is not conclusive upon us.

0rom t&e evidence presented, we rule t&at -or t&e in:ury to &is -eelin's and reputation, bein' a baran'ay captain, petitioner is entitled to moral dama'es in t&e sum oPH,///.// and a -urt&er sum o- PH,///.// as e2emplary dama'es. ?1!R!0OR!, t&e petition is &ereby GR".T!6. T&e decision o- t&e Re'ional Trial Court is &ereby MO6(0(!6 and private respondent is ordered to pay petitioner t&e amount o- PH,///.// as moral dama'es and anot&er PH,///.// as e2emplary dama'es. Costs a'ainst private respondent. ;O OR6!R!6. G.R. No. L819796 Ma) 7*, 1962

CECILIO PE, E" AL., plainti--s4appellants, vs. AL$ON%O PE, de-endant4appellee. BA#"I%"A ANGELO, J.: Plainti--s brou'&t t&is action be-ore t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- Manila to recover moral, compensatory, e2emplary and corrective dama'es in t&e amount oP*G,///.// e2clusive o- attorney=s -ees and e2penses o- liti'ation. 6e-endant, a-ter denyin' some alle'ations contained in t&e complaint, set up as a de-ense t&at t&e -acts alle'ed t&erein, even i- true, do not constitute a valid cause oaction. "-ter trial, t&e lower court, a-ter -indin' t&at de-endant &ad carried on a love a--air wit& one Lolita Pe, an unmarried woman, bein' a married man &imsel-, declared t&at de-endant cannot be &eld liable -or moral dama'es it appearin' t&at plainti--s -ailed to prove t&at de-endant, bein' aware o- &is marital status, deliberately and in bad -ait& tried to win Lolita=s a--ection. ;o it rendered decision dismissin' t&e complaint.10wph11.2t Plainti--s brou'&t t&is case on appeal be-ore t&is Court on t&e 'round t&at t&e issues involved are purely o- law. T&e -acts as -ound by t&e trial court areE Plainti--s are t&e parents, brot&ers and sisters o- one Lolita Pe. "t t&e time o- &er disappearance on "pril )G, )*H+, Lolita was ,G years old and unmarried. 6e-endant is a married man and works as a'ent o- t&e La Perla Ci'ar and Ci'arette 0actory. 1e used to stay in t&e town o- Gasan, Marindu<ue, in connection wit& &is a-oresaid occupation. Lolita was stayin' wit& &er parents in t&e same town. 6e-endant was an adopted son o- a C&inaman named Pe eco, a collateral relative o- Lolita=s -at&er. ecause o- suc& -act and t&e similarity in t&eir -amily name, de-endant became close to t&e plainti--s w&o re'arded &im as a member o- t&eir -amily. ;ometime in )*H,, de-endant -re<uented t&e &ouse o- Lolita on t&e prete2t t&at &e wanted &er to teac& &im &ow to pray t&e rosary. T&e two eventually -ell in love wit& eac& ot&er and conducted clandestine trysts not only in t&e

town o- Gasan but also in oac w&ere Lolita used to teac& in a barrio sc&ool. T&ey e2c&an'ed love notes wit& eac& ot&er t&e contents o- w&ic& reveal not only t&eir in-atuation -or eac& ot&er but also t&e e2tent to w&ic& t&ey &ad carried t&eir relations&ip. T&e rumors about t&eir love a--airs reac&ed t&e ears o- Lolita=s parents sometime, in )*HH, and since t&en de-endant was -orbidden -rom 'oin' to t&eir &ouse and -rom -urt&er seein' Lolita. T&e plainti--s even -iled deportation proceedin's a'ainst de-endant w&o is a C&inese national. T&e a--air between de-endant and Lolita continued nonet&eless. ;ometime in "pril, )*H+, Lolita was stayin' wit& &er brot&ers and sisters at t&eir residence at HG4 !spaKa !2tension, Iue9on City. On "pril )G, )*H+, Lolita disappeared -rom said &ouse. "-ter s&e le-t, &er brot&ers and sisters c&ecked up &er t&in' and -ound t&at Lolita=s clot&es were 'one. 1owever, plainti--s -ound a note on a crumpled piece o- paper inside Lolita=s aparador. ;aid note, written on a small slip opaper appro2imately G5 by >5 in si9e, was in a &andwritin' reco'ni9ed to be t&at ode-endant=s. (n !n'lis& it readsE 1oney, suppose ( leave &ere on ;unday ni'&t, and t&at=s )>t& o- t&is mont& and we will &ave a date on t&e )Gt&, t&at=s Monday mornin' at )/ a.m. Reply Love T&e disappearance o- Lolita was reported to t&e police aut&orities and t&e . ( but up to t&e present t&ere is no news or trace o- &er w&ereabouts. T&e present action is based on "rticle ,) o- t&e .ew Civil Code w&ic& providesE "ny person w&o wil-ully causes loss or in:ury to anot&er in a manner w&ic& is contrary to morals, 'ood customs or public policy s&all compensate t&e latter -or t&e dama'e. T&ere is no doubt t&at t&e claim o- plainti--s -or dama'es is based on t&e -act t&at de-endant, bein' a married man, carried on a love a--air wit& Lolita Pe t&ereby causin' plainti--s in:ury in a manner contrary to morals, 'ood customs and public policy. ut in spite o- t&e -act t&at plainti--s &ave clearly establis&ed t&at in illicit a--air was carried on between de-endant and Lolita w&ic& caused 'reat dama'e to t&e name and reputation o- plainti--s w&o are &er parents, brot&ers and sisters, t&e trial court considered t&eir complaint not actionable -or t&e reason t&at t&ey -ailed to prove t&at de-endant deliberately and in bad -ait& tried to win Lolita=s a--ection T&us, t&e trial court saidE 5(n t&e absence o- proo- on t&is point, t&e court may not presume t&at it was t&e de-endant w&o deliberately induced suc& relations&ip. ?e cannot be unmind-ul o- t&e uncertainties and sometimes ine2plicable mysteries o- t&e &uman emotions. (t is a possibility t&at t&e de-endant and Lolita simply -ell in love wit& eac& ot&er, not only wit&out any desire on t&eir part, but also a'ainst t&eir better :ud'ment and in -ull consciousness o- w&at it will brin' to bot& o- t&em. T&is is specially so wit& respect to Lolita, bein' an unmarried woman, -allin' in love wit& de-endant w&o is a married man.5

?e disa'ree wit& t&is view. T&e circumstances under w&ic& de-endant tried to win Lolita=s a--ection cannot lead, to any ot&er conclusion t&an t&at it was &e w&o, t&ru an in'enious sc&eme or trickery, seduced t&e latter to t&e e2tent o- makin' &er -all in love wit& &im. T&is is s&own by t&e -act t&at de-endant -re<uented t&e &ouse o- Lolita on t&e prete2t t&at &e wanted &er to teac& &im &ow to pray t&e rosary. ecause o- t&e -re<uency o- &is visits to t&e latter=s -amily w&o was allowed -ree access because &e was a collateral relative and was considered as a member o- &er -amily, t&e two eventually -ell in love wit& eac& ot&er and conducted clandestine love a--airs not only in Gasan but also in oac w&ere Lolita used to teac& in a barrio sc&ool. ?&en t&e rumors about t&eir illicit a--airs reac&ed t&e knowled'e o- &er parents, de-endant was -orbidden -rom 'oin' to t&eir &ouse and even -rom seein' Lolita. Plainti--s even -iled deportation proceedin's a'ainst de-endant w&o is a C&inese national. .evert&eless, de-endant continued &is love a--airs wit& Lolita until s&e disappeared -rom t&e parental &ome. (ndeed, no ot&er conclusion can be drawn -rom t&is c&ain o- events t&an t&at de-endant not only deliberately, but t&rou'& a clever strate'y, succeeded in winnin' t&e a--ection and love o- Lolita to t&e e2tent o- &avin' illicit relations wit& &er. T&e wron' &e &as caused &er and &er -amily is indeed immeasurable considerin' t&e -act t&at &e is a married man. 3erily, &e &as committed an in:ury to Lolita=s -amily in a manner contrary to morals, 'ood customs and public policy as contemplated in "rticle ,) o- t&e new Civil Code. ?1!R!0OR!, t&e decision appealed -rom is reversed. 6e-endant is &ereby sentenced to pay t&e plainti--s t&e sum o- PH,///.// as dama'es and P,,///.// as attorney=s -ees and e2penses o- liti'ations. Costs a'ainst appellee. G.R. No. 96&89 No:+;6+( 9, 199* !EIR% O$ 'O!N <. %YCIP NAMELY NA"I=IDAD D. %YCIP, 'O%E %YCIP, 'O!N %YCIP, 'R., AL$ON%O %YCIP RO%E II, MARIE NA"I=IDAD D. %YCIP, petitioners, vs. CO#R" O$ APPEAL%, MELENCIO Y# AND "ALINANAP MA"#ALAGA respondents. PARA%, J.: T&is is a petition -or review on certiorari seekin' t&e reversal o- t&e ;eptember ,,, )*B7 decision >> o- t&e Court o- "ppeals in C"4G.R. .o. 7*/// entitled 5Melencio $u, et al. v. 1eirs o- 8o&n L. ;ycip5 a--irmin' t&e decision >>> o- t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- ;out& Cotabato, ranc& ( dated "pril ,,, )*B, in Civil Case .o. ),*) w&ic&, amon' ot&ers, ad:ud'ed private respondents Melencio $u and Talinanap Matuala'a as t&e re'istered absolute owners o- Lot .o. G and ordered t&e petitioner to deliver to t&e private respondents t&e property in <uestion and to pay t&e attorney=s -ees. T&e decretal portion o- t&e appealed decision reads as -ollowsE ?1!R!0OR! no reversible error in t&e decision appealed -rom, t&e same is &ereby a--irmed wit& costs a'ainsts de-endant4 appellants.

;O OR6!R!6. (p. H/, Rollo% T&e antecedent -acts o- t&e case as -ound by t&e appellate court are as -ollowsE T&e plainti--s4spouses are native muslims. Prior to )*H,, Talinanap Matuala'a bou'&t a parcel o- land wit& an area o- HG.G*B/ &ectares more or less, situated at Makar, General ;antos City (usin' t&e money 'iven to &er by &er parents% -rom vendors Cosin entaib and 1ad:i "bdaua Mo&amad. T&e land was, &owever, surveyed in t&e name o- an'on $u (-at&er o- plainti-- Melencio $u% on 8une )G to )7, )*H, by private surveyor 8ustino Mendo9a w&ic& was approved by t&e 6irector o- Lands on Marc& G, )*H>. On ;eptember )) to ),, )*H>, t&e land was subdivided into -ive (H% lots in anot&er survey conducted and e2ecuted by 8ustino Mendo9a, and approved by t&e 6irector o- Lands on 8uly ), )*HG. T&e subdivision was as -ollowsE Lot .o. ) -or en'on $uF Lot .o. , -or Melencio $uF Lot .o. > -or 6omin'a Pina'awan'F Lot .o. G -or Talinanap Matuala'a and Lot .o. H -or (son $u (t&e brot&er oplainti-- Melencio $u%. (!2&. 5"5% Melencio $u, to'et&er wit& &is wi-e, Talinanap Matuala'a -iled on 6ecember ,), t&eir respective 0ree Patent "pplication -or bot& Lot .os. G and ,. On "pril )B, )*7), t&e approval o- t&e 6irector oLands o- t&e 0ree Patent "pplication, 0ree Patent .o. 34)+BBB* was issued on 8une ,,, )*7) by aut&ority o- t&e President o- t&e P&ilippines (!2&. 5"5%. @pon transmittal to t&e Re'ister o- 6eeds on 8uly )+, )*7), t&e latter issued to Melencio $u, married to Talinanap Matuala'a, Ori'inal Certi-icate o- Title .o. (C4)GG*7% (P4 H,>% on "u'ust ,>, )*7) (!2&. 5 5%, 5 4)5 and 5 5%. T&e owner=s copy o- said title, &owever, was not received by t&e patentee Melencio $u because t&e same was 'iven to de-endant 8o&n L. ;ycip (now deceased%. (n )*HB, on account o- :ealousy, Talinanap Matuala'a le-t &er &usband at Tocanaba'o, General ;antos, ;out& Cotabato, w&ere t&ey &ad a &ouse in t&e land in <uestion since t&eir marria'e and lived wit& &er parents at aluan, Cotabato. 0or t&e same period, Melencio $u lived in Tupi ;out& Cotabato. T&ey reconciled, &owever, in )*7> and since t&en lived to'et&er in uluan. @pon t&eir reconciliation, &owever, Melencio $u asked &is wi-e i- a certain "l-onso .on &ad approac&ed &er re'ardin' t&e sale o- t&eir land to 8o&n ;ycip. Talinanap Matuala'a answered in t&e ne'ative and -urt&er said t&at s&e never e2ecuted any instrument conveyin' &er property to anyone. Melencio $u t&en e2plained t&at w&ile t&ey were separated, "l-onso .on approac&ed &im and told &im t&at t&ere was a buyer interested in t&eir land at a price o- P,//.// per &ectare. Melencio told .on t&at t&e land belon'ed to &is wi-e as &er parap&ernal property, &ence, &e did not &ave aut&ority to sell t&e same. "l-onso .on, &owever, convinced Melencio t&at i- &e would

only si'n t&e documents w&ic& .on &ad prepared t&en .on will secure t&e si'nature o- Talinanap in uluan, and i- .on -ails to 'et Talinanap=s si'nature, t&en Melencio=s si'nature will be null and void. ?it& suc& understandin', Melencio si'ned t&e 5"'reement oTrans-er o- Ri'&ts and 6eed o- ;ale5 (!2&. 5 5% and t&e 5Iuitclaim 6eed5 (!2&. 565% wit&out receivin' any consideration t&ere-or. (t turned out t&at t&e deeds involved t&e sale o- t&e w&ole parcel oland consistin' o- more t&an HG &ectares in -avor o- 8o&n ;ycip -or a consideration o- P*,H//.//. y reason o- t&ese in-ormation, t&e spouses sou'&t t&e assistance o- t&e Commission on .ational (nte'ration o- ;out&ern Mindanao o--ice w&ic& in-ormed t&em t&at t&eir ori'inal certi-icate o- titles were taken and delivered to 8o&n ;ycip by virtue o- t&e sale documents in <uestion. Plainti--s demanded t&e return o- t&eir land to t&em and t&e declaration o- nullity o- t&e documents in <uestion. (pp. GH4G7, Rollo% On 6ecember 7, )*B7, private respondents -iled a complaint a'ainst 8o&n L. ;ycip, (later substituted by &is &eirs upon &is deat&% petitioners &erein, be-ore t&e trial court, docketed as Civil Case .o. *7* -or t&e 6eclaration o- .ullity o- 6ocument and Recovery o- Possession o- Real Property wit& a prayer -or a writ o- Preliminary Mandatory (n:unction and 6ama'es, wit& Lot .o. G Psu4)>H+G/4"md, as t&e sub:ect matter w&ic& was ad:acent to Lot .o. ,, Psu4)>H+G/4"md. (Rollo, p. )G*%. On Marc& ,, )*+) t&e trial court up&eld t&e ri'&t o- t&e private respondents to be restored to t&e possession o- t&e a-oresaid parcel o- land by declarin' null and void a# initio or ine2istent all documents o- conveyance o- sale by t&e petitioners. On appeal, t&e appellate court in its decision dated October ,, )*+B a--irmed in toto t&e decision ot&e trial court. ;aid decision became -inal and e2ecutory and t&e private respondents were restored to t&e possession o- Lot .o. G Psu4)>H+G/4"md by virtue o- t&e writ oe2ecution issued by t&e trial court. (Rollo, p. )H/% Meanw&ile, on May ,, )*+,, private respondents -iled anot&er complaint in t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- Cotabato ranc& ( -or t&e 6eclaration o- .ullity o- 6ocuments and Recovery o- Possession o- Real Property wit& a prayer -or a ?rit o- Preliminary Mandatory (n:unction and 6ama'es docketed as Civil Case .o. ),*), t&is time it was Lot .o. , Psu4)>H+G/4"md as t&e sub:ect matter o- t&e a-oresaid case. On 8une ,), )*+>, t&e trial court issued its order dismissin' t&e case on t&e 'round oprescription (Rollo, p. *H%. (t was on 8uly )B, )*+> t&at private respondents -iled t&eir ur'ent motion -or reconsideration to set aside t&e order dated 8une ,), )*+> w&ic& was denied on October ), )*+> (Rollo, p. )G7%. On appeal, t&e Court o- "ppeals, ;pecial !i'&t& 6ivision, rendered its decision in -avor o- private respondents t&ereby settin' aside t&e order o- dismissal o- t&e trial court dated 8une ,), )*+> and remandin' t&e case -or -urt&er proceedin's (Rollo, p. )G+%.

On "pril ,,, )*B), t&e trial court in its order adopted t&e evidence presented in Civil Case .o. *7* bot& oral and documentary and reversed its Order dated 8une ,), )*+> dismissin' t&e complaint and declared private respondent as t&e re'istered and absolute owners o- t&e land in <uestion. (Rollo, p. )G+F Record on "ppeal p. +)% Petitioners= motion -or reconsideration was denied by t&e trial court on 8une H, )*B). (Rollo, p. *7% 1ence, t&is petition -or review be-ore @s. T&e pivotal issue o- t&is case is w&et&er or not t&e sale o- lot .o. , Psu4)>H+G/4"md is null and void a# initio. T&e petition is devoid o- merit.

?it& t&e resolution o- t&is issue t&ere appears to be no necessity to dwell on t&e ot&er issues o- t&is case. PR!M(;!; CO.;(6!R!6, t&e petition is &ereby 6(;M(;;!6 and t&e decision ot&e Court o- "ppeals is &ereby "00(RM!6. ;O OR6!R!6. G.R. No. L8&6*61 No:+;6+( 1&, 198& %". LO#I% REAL"Y CORPORA"ION, petitioner, vs. CO#R" O$ APPEAL% an CONRADO '. ARAMIL, respondents. A?#INO, J.:

(t is not disputed t&at t&e private respondents are Muslims w&o belon' to t&e cultural minority or non4C&ristian 0ilipinos as members o- t&e Ma'uindanao Tribe. "ny transaction, involvin' real property wit& t&em is 'overned by t&e provisions o;ections )GH and )G7 o- t&e Revised "dministrative Code o- Mindanao and ;ulu, ;ection ),/ o- t&e Public Land "ct (Commonwealt& "ct .o. )G)%, as amended, and Republic "ct .o. >B+,, -urt&er amendin' t&e Public Land "ct. ;ection )GH o- t&e Revised "dministrative Code o- Mindanao and ;ulu provides t&at any transaction involvin' real property wit& said non4C&ristian tribes s&all bear t&e approval o- t&e provincial 'overnor w&erein t&e same was e2ecuted or o- &is representative duly aut&ori9ed in writin' -or suc& purpose, indorsed upon it. Section 134 o5 the sa"e code considers e&er+ contract or a6ree"ent "ade in &iolation o5 Section 137 as null and &oid. (!mp&asis supplied% ;ection ),/ o- t&e Public Land "ct (Commonwealt& "ct .o. )G)% provides t&at conveyances and encumbrances made by persons belon'in' to t&e so4called 5non4 C&ristian tribes5 s&all be valid i- t&e person makin' t&e conveyance or encumbrance is able to read and can understand t&e lan'ua'e in w&ic& t&e instrument oconveyance or encumbrance is written. Conveyances and encumbrances made by illiterate non4C&ristians s&all not be valid unless duly approved by t&e Commissioner o- Mindanao and ;ulu. Republic "ct .o. >B+, provides t&at conveyances and encumbrances made by illiterate non4C&ristian or literate non4C&ristians w&ere t&e instrument o- conveyance or encumbrance is in a lan'ua'e not understood by said literate non4C&ristians s&all not be valid unless duly approved by t&e C&airman o- t&e Commission on .ational (nte'ration. "ll t&e documents declared null and void or ine2istent by t&e trial court and a--irmed by t&e Court o- "ppeals were -ound to &ave been -alsi-ied in Civil Case .o. *7*F wit&out consideration and more importantly wit&out approval by any o- t&e -ollowin' o--icialsE t&e Provincial Governor o- Cotabato, Commissioner o- Mindanao and ;ulu, or t&e C&airman o- t&e Commission on .ational (nte'ration and t&ere-ore nun and void.

T&is case is about t&e recovery o- dama'es -or a wron'-ul advertisement in t&e Sunda+ .i"es w&ere ;aint Louis Realty Corporation misrepresented t&at t&e &ouse o- 6octor Conrado 8. "ramil belon'ed to "rcadio ;. "rcadio. ;t. Louis Realty caused to be publis&ed wit& t&e permission o- "rcadio ;. "rcadio (but wit&out permission o- 6octor "ramil% in t&e issue o- t&e Sunda+ .i"es o6ecember )H, )*7B an advertisement wit& t&e &eadin' 5?1!R! T1! 1!"RT (;5. elow t&at &eadin' was t&e p&oto'rap& o- t&e residence o- 6octor "ramil and t&e*rcadio 5a"il+ and t&en below t&e p&oto'rap& was t&e -ollowin' write4upE 1ome is w&ere t&e &eart is. "nd t&e &earts o- MR. ".6 MR;. "RC"6(O ;. "RC"6(O and t&eir -amily &ave been captured by ROO#;(6! 1(LL;. T&ey used to rent a small ,4bedroom &ouse in a cramped nei'&bor&ood, sadly inade<uate and unw&olesome -or t&e needs o- a lar'e -amily. T&ey dream(ed% o- a more pleasant place -ree -rom t&e din and dust o- city li-e yet near all -acilities. Plans took s&ape w&en t&ey &eard o- ROO#;(6! 1(LL;. ?it& t&ri-t and determination, t&ey bou'&t a lot and built t&eir dream &ouse ... -or P>),///. T&e "rcadios are now part o- t&e -riendly, t&rivin' community o- ROO#;(6! 1(LL;... a beauti-ul -irst4class subdivision planned -or w&olesome -amily livin'. T&e same advertisement appeared in t&e Sunda+ .i"es dated 8anuary H, )*7*. 6octor "ramil a neuropsyc&iatrist and a member o- t&e -aculty o- t&e @. !. Ramon Ma'saysay Memorial 1ospital, noticed t&e mistake. On t&at same date, &e wrote ;t. Louis Realty t&e -ollowin' letter o- protestE 6ear ;irsE T&is is anent to your advertisements appearin' in t&e 6ecember )H, )*7B and 8anuary H, )*7* issues o- t&e Sunda+ .i"es w&ic& boldly depicted my &ouse at t&e above4mentioned address and

implyin' t&at it belon'ed to anot&er person. ( am not aware oany per"ission or authorit+ on "+ part-or t&e use o- my &ouse -or suc& publicity. .his unauthori'ed use o5 "+ house 5or +our pro"otional 6ain and "uch "ore the apparent distortions therein are I #elie&e not onl+ trans6ression to "+ pri&ate propert+ #ut also da"a6in6 to "+ presti6e in the "edical pro5ession I ha&e had in&ited in se&eral occasions nu"erous "edical collea6ues, "edical students and 5riends to "+ house and a5ter readin6 +our 8ece"#er 17 ad&ertise"ent so"e o5 the" ha&e uttered so"e re"arks purportin6 dou#ts as to "+ pro5essional and personal inte6rit+. Such sl+ re"arks althou6h in li6ht &ein as 9it looks like +our house,9 9how "uch are +ou rentin6 5ro" the *rcadios:9, 9 like +our wi5e portra+ed in the papers as #elon6in6 to another hus#and,9 etc., ha&e resulted in no little "ental an6uish on "+ part. ( &ave re-erred t&is matter to t&e Le'al Panel o- t&e P&ilippine Medical "ssociation and t&eir -inal advice is pendin' upon my submission o- supportin' owners&ip papers. ( will t&ere-ore be constrained to pursue court action a'ainst your corporation unless you could satis-actorily e2plain t&is matter wit&in a week upon receipt o- t&is letter. T&e letter was received by !rnesto Ma'toto, an o--icer o- ;t. Louis Realty in c&ar'e oadvertisin'. 1e stopped publication o- t&e advertisement. 1e contacted 6octor "ramil and o--ered &is apolo'ies. 1owever, no recti-ication or apolo'y was publis&ed. On 0ebruary ,/, )*7*, "ramil=s counsel demanded -rom ;t. Louis Realty actual, moral and e2emplary dama'es o- P))/,/// (!2&. 6%. (n its answer dated Marc& )/, ;t. Louis Realty claimed t&at t&ere was an &onest mistake and t&at i- "ramil so desired, recti-ication would be publis&ed in t&e Manila .i"es (!2&. >%. (t publis&ed in t&e issue o- t&e Manila .i"es o- Marc& )B, )*7* a new advertisement wit& t&e "rcadio -amily and t&eir real &ouse. ut it did not publis& any apolo'y to 6octor "ramil and an e2planation o- t&e error. On Marc& ,*, "ramil -iled &is complaint -or dama'es. ;t. Louis Realty publis&ed in t&e issue o- t&e Manila .i"es o- "pril )H, )*7* t&e -ollowin' 5.OT(C! O0 R!CT(0(C"T(O.5 in a space G by > inc&esE T&is will serve as a notice t&at our print ad =?&ere t&e 1eart is= w&ic& appeared in t&e Manila .i"esissue o- Marc& )B, )*7* is a recti-ication o- t&e same ad t&at appeared in t&e Manila .i"es issues recti-ication o- t&e same ad t&at appeal o- 6ecember )H, )*7B and 8anuary H, )*7* w&erein a p&oto o- t&e &ouse oanot&er rookside 1omeowner (6r. "ramil4private respondent% was

mistakenly used as a back'round -or t&e -eatured &omeowner=s t&e "rcadio -amily. T&e ad o- Marc& )B, )*7* s&ows t&e "rcadio -amily wit& t&eir real &ouse in t&e back'round, as was intended all alon'. 8ud'e 8ose M. Leuterio observed t&at ;t. Louis Realty s&ould &ave i""ediatel+ pu#lished a recti5ication and apolo6+. 1e -ound t&at as a result o- ;t. Louis Realty=s mistake, ma'ni-ied by its utter lack o- sincerity, 6octor "ramil su--ered mental an'uis& and &is income was reduced by about P),/// to P),H// a mont&. Moreover, t&ere was violation o- "ramil=s ri'&t to privacy ("rt. ,7, Civil Code%. T&e trial court awarded "ramil PB,/// as actual dama'es, P,/,/// as moral dama'es and P,,/// as attorney=s -ees. ;t. Louis Realty appealed to t&e Court o"ppeals. T&e "ppellate Court a--irmed t&at :ud'ment, wit& "ctin' Presidin' 8ustice Ma'no ;. Gatmaitan as ponente, and 8ustices ;i2to ". 6omondon and ;amuel 0. Reyes concurrin'. T&e "ppellate Court reasoned out t&at ;t. Louis Realty committed an actionable <uasi4delict under articles ,) and ,7 o- t&e Civil Code because t&e <uestioned advertisements pictured a beauti-ul &ouse w&ic& did not belon' to "rcadio but to 6octor "ramil w&o, naturally, was annoyed by t&at contretemps. (n t&is appeal, ;t. Louis Realty contends t&at t&e "ppellate Court i'nored certain -acts and resorted to surmises and con:ectures. T&is contention is unwarranted. T&e "ppellate Court adopted t&e -acts -ound by t&e trial court. T&ose -actual -indin's are bindin' on t&is Court. ;t. Louis Realty also contends t&at t&e decision is contrary to law and t&at t&e case was decided in a way not in con-ormity wit& t&e rulin's o- t&is Court. (t ar'ues t&at t&e case is not covered by article ,7 w&ic& provides t&at 5every person s&all respect t&e di'nity, personality, privacy and peace o- mind o- &is nei'&bors and ot&er persons5. 5Pryin' into t&e privacy o- anot&er=s residence5 and 5meddlin' wit& or disturbin' t&e private li-e or -amily relations o- anot&er5 and 5si"ilar acts5, 5t&ou'& t&ey may not constitute a criminal o--ense, s&all produce a cause o- action -or dama'es, prevention and ot&er relie-5. T&e dama'es -i2ed by 8ud'e Leuterio are sanctioned by "rticles ,,//, ,,/B and ,,)* o- t&e Civil Code. "rticle ,,)* allows moral dama'es -or acts and actions mentioned in "rticle ,7. "s len't&ily e2plained by 8ustice Gatmaitan, t&e acts and omissions o- t&e -irm -an under "rticle ,7. ;t. Louis Realty=s employee was 'rossly ne'li'ent in mi2in' up t&e "ramil and "rcadio residences in a widely circulated publication like t&e Sunda+ .i"es. To suit its purpose, it never made any written apolo'y and e2planation o- t&e mi24up. (t :ust contented itsel- wit& a cavalier 5recti-ication 5.

Persons, w&o know t&e residence o- 6octor "ramil, were con-used by t&e distorted, lin'erin' impression t&at &e was rentin' &is residence -rom "rcadio or t&at "rcadio &ad leased it -rom &im. !it&er way, &is private li-e was mistakenly and unnecessarily e2posed. 1e su--ered diminution o- income and mental an'uis&. ?1!R!0OR!, t&e :ud'ment o- t&e "ppellate Court is a--irmed. Costs a'ainst t&e petitioner. ;O OR6!R!6. G.R. No. L85&598 A5(,1 15, 1988 'O%E B. LEDE%MA, petitioner, vs. !ON. CO#R" O$ APPEAL%, %5ous+s PACI$ICO DELMO an %ANC!A DELMO @as 5(,:at+ (+s5on +ntsA,respondents. G#"IERRE<, 'R., J.: T&is petition seeks to reverse t&e decision o- t&e respondent Court o- "ppeals w&ic& a-irmed t&e decision o- t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- (loilo, ad:ud'in' t&e petitioner, w&o was t&en t&e President o- t&e ?est 3isayas Colle'e liable -or dama'es under "rticle ,+ o- t&e Civil Code o- t&e P&ilippines -or -ailure to 'raduate a student wit& &onors. T&e -acts are not disputed. "n or'ani9ation named ;tudent Leaders&ip Club was -ormed by some students o- t&e ?est 3isayas Colle'e. T&ey elected t&e late 3iolets 6elmo as t&e treasurer. (n t&at capacity, 6elmo e2tended loans -rom t&e -unds o- t&e club to some o- t&e students ot&e sc&ool. 5t&e petitioner claims t&at t&e said act o- e2tendin' loans was a'ainst sc&ool rules and re'ulations. T&us, t&e petitioner, as President o- t&e ;c&ool, sent a letter to 6elmo in-ormin' &er t&at s&e was bein' dropped -rom t&e members&ip o- t&e club and t&at s&e would not be a candidate -or any award or citation -rom t&e sc&ool. 6elmo asked -or a reconsideration o- t&e decision but t&e petitioner denied it. 6elmo, t&us, appealed to t&e O--ice o- t&e 6irector o- t&e ureau o- Public ;c&ools. T&e 6irector a-ter due investi'ation, rendered a decison on "pril )>, )*77 w&ic& providedE Records o- t&e preliminary investi'ation conducted by one o- t&e le'al o--icers o- t&is O--ice disclosed t&e -ollowin'E T&at 3ioleta 6elmo was t&e treasurer o- t&e ;tudent Leaders&ip Club, an e2clusive student or'ani9ationF t&at pursuant to "rticle (A o- t&e ot&e Constitution and y4Laws o- t&e club, it passed Resolution .o. ,, aut&ori9in' t&e treasurer to disburse -unds o- t&e Club to student -or -inancial aid and ot&er &umanitarian purposesF t&at in

compliance wit& said resolution and as treasurer o- t&e Club, 3ioleta 6elmo e2tended loans to some o--icers and members o- t&e Club upon proper application duly approved by t&e ma:ority o- t&e members o- t&e !2ecutive oardF and t&at upon receivin' t&e report -rom Mr. 8esse 6a'oon, adviser o- t&e -unds o- t&e Club, t&at O--ice conducted an investi'ation on t&e matter and &avin' been convinced o- t&e 'uilt o- 3iolets 6elmo and t&e ot&er o--icers and members o- t&e Club, t&at O--ice rendered t&e order or decision in <uestion. (n :usti-yin' t&at O--ice=s order or decision, it is contended t&at approval by t&at O--ice o- t&e Constitution and y4Laws o- t&e Club is necessary -or its e--ectivity and validity and since it was never submitted to t&at O--ice, t&e Club &ad no valid constitution and y4Laws and t&at as a conse<uence, Resolution .o. , w&ic& was passed based on t&e Constitution and y4Laws4 is wit&out any -orce and e--ect and t&e treasurer, 3ioleta 6elmo, w&o e2tended loans to some o--icers and members o- t&e Club pursuant t&ereto are ille'al (sic%, &ence, s&e and t&e ot&er students involved are deemed 'uilty o- misappropriatin' t&e -unds o- t&e Club. On t&e ot&er &and, Raclito Castaneda, .estor Gole9 and 3ioleta 6elmo, President, ;ecretary and Treasurer o- t&e Club, respectively, testi-ied t&at t&e Club &ad adopted its Constitution and y4Laws in a meetin' &eld last October >, )*7H, and t&at pursuant to "rticle ( o- said Constitution and y4Laws, t&e ma:ority o- t&e members ot&e !2ecutive oard passed Resolution .o. ,, w&ic& resolution became t&e basis -or t&e e2tension on o- loans to some o--icers and members o- t&e Club, t&at t&e Club &onestly believed t&at its Constitution and y4Laws &as been approved by t&e superintendent because t&e adviser o- t&e Club, Mr. 8esse 6a'oon, assured t&e President o- t&e Club t&at &e will cause t&e approval ot&e Constitution and y4Laws by t&e ;uperintendentF t&e o--icers ot&e Club &ave been inducted to o--ice on October *,)*7H by t&e ;uperintendent and t&at t&e Club &ad been likewise allowed to cosponsor t&e !ducation ?eek Celebration. "-ter a care-ul study o- t&e records, t&is O--ice sustains t&e action taken by t&e ;uperintendent in penali9in' t&e adviser o- t&e Club as well as t&e o--icers and members t&ereo- by droppin' t&em -rom members&ip t&erein. 1owever, t&is O--ice is convinced t&at 3iolets M. 6elmo &ad acted in 'ood -ait&, in &er capacity as Club Treasurer, in e2tendin' loans to t&e o--icers and members o- t&e ;tudent partners&ip Club. Resolution .o. , aut&ori9in' t&e Club treasurer to disc&ar'e -inds to students in need o- -inancial assistance and ot&er &umanitarian purposes &ad been approved by t&e Club adviser, Mr. 8esse 6a'oon, wit& t&e notation t&at approval was 'iven in &is capacity as adviser o- t&e Club and e2tension ot&e ;uperintendent=s personality. "side -rom misleadin' t&e o--icers and members o- t&e Club, Mr. 6a'oon, &ad unsatis-actorily e2plained w&y &e -ailed to 'ive t&e Constitution and y4Laws o- t&e Club to t&e ;uperintendent -or approval despite &is assurance to t&e Club president t&at &e would do so. ?it& t&is -indin' one'li'ence on t&e part o- t&e Club adviser, not to mention la2ity in

t&e per-ormance o- &is duties as suc&, t&is O--ice considers as too severe and unwarranted t&at portion o- t&e <uestioned order statin' t&at 3ioleta 6elmo 5s&all not be a candidate -or any award or citation -rom t&is sc&ool or any or'ani9ation in t&is sc&ool.5 3ioleta 6elmo, it is noted, &as been a consistent -ull sc&olar o- t&e sc&ool and s&e alone &as maintained &er sc&olars&ip. T&e decision in <uestion would, t&ere-ore, set at nau'&t all &er sacri-ice and -rustrate &er dreams o- 'raduatin' wit& &onors in t&is year=s commencement e2ercises. (n view o- all t&e -ore'oin', t&is O--ice believes and so &olds and &ereby directs t&at appellant 3ioleta. M. 6elmo, and -or t&at matter all ot&er Club members or o--icers involved in t&is case, be not deprived o- any award, citation or &onor -rom t&e sc&ool, i- t&ey are ot&erwise entitled t&ereto. (Rollo, pp. ,B4>/% On "pril ,+, )*77, t&e petitioner received by mail t&e decision o- t&e 6irector and all t&e records o- t&e case. On t&e same day, petitioner received a tele'ram statin' t&e -ollowin'E 5"(RM"(L R!COR6; 6!LMO C";! M(;;!.T T1"T O00(C!5 T&e 6irector asked -or t&e return only o- t&e records but t&e petitioner alle'edly mistook t&e tele'ram as orderin' &im to also send t&e decision back. On t&e same day, &e returned by mail all t&e records plus t&e decision o- t&e 6irector to t&e ureau o- Public ;c&ools. T&e ne2t day, t&e petitioner received anot&er tele'ram -rom t&e 6irector order &im to -urnis& 6elmo wit& a copy o- t&e decision. T&e petitioner, in turn, sent a ni'&t letter to t&e 6irector in-ormin' t&e latter t&at &e &ad sent t&e decision back and t&at &e &ad not retained a copy t&ereo-.. On May >, )*77, t&e day o- t&e 'raduation, t&e petitioner received anot&er tele'ram -rom t&e 6irector orderin' &im not to deprive 6elmo o- any &onors due &er. "s it was impossible by t&is time to include 6elmo=s name in t&e pro'ram as one o- t&e &onor students, t&e petitioner let &er 'raduate as a plain student instead o- bein' awarded t&e Latin &onor o- Ma'na Cum Laude. To delay t&e matter -urt&er, t&e petitioner on May H, )*77, wrote t&e 6irector -or a reconsideration o- t&e latters5 decision because &e believed t&at 6elmo s&ould not be allowed to 'raduate wit& &onors. T&e 6irector denied t&e petitioner=s re<uest. On 8uly ),, )*77, t&e petitioner -inally instructed t&e Re'istrar o- t&e sc&ool to enter into t&e sc&olastic records o- 6elmo t&e &onor, 5Ma'na Cum Laude.5 On 8uly >/, )*77, 6elmo, t&en a minor, was :oined by &er parents in -la' action -or dama'es a'ainst t&e petitioner. 6urin' t&e pendency o- t&e action, &owever, 6elmo passed away, and t&us, an "mended and ;upplemental Complaint was -iled by &er parents as &er sole and only &eirs.

T&e trial court a-ter &earin' rendered :ud'ment a'ainst t&e petitioner and in -avor ot&e spouses 6elmo. T&e court saidE Let us 'o to speci-ic bad'es o- t&e de-endants (now petitioners% bad -ait&. Per investi'ation o- 3ioleta 6elmo=s appeal to 6irector 3italiano ernardino o- t&e ureau o- Public ;c&ools (!2&ibit L it was t&e de-endant w&o inducted t&e o--icers o- t&e ;tudent Leaders&ip Club on October *, )*7H. (n -act t&e Club was allowed to cosponsor t&e !ducation ?eek Celebration. (!2&. 5L5%. (- t&e de-endant &e not approve o- t&e constitution and by4laws o- t&e Club, w&y did &e induct t&e o--icers into o--ice and allow t&e Club to sponsor t&e !ducation ?eek Celebration5M (t was t&rou'& &is own act t&at t&e students were misled to do as t&ey did. Coupled wit& t&e de-endants tacit reco'nition o- t&e Club was t&e assurance oMr. 8emm 6a'oon, Club "dviser, w&o made t&e students believe t&at &e was actin' as an e2tension o- Mr. Ledesma=s personality. (!2&ibit 5L5%. "not&er bad'e o- t&e de-endan=ts want o- 'ood -ait& is t&e -act t&at, alt&ou'&, &e kaew as early as "pril ,+,)*77 t&at per on o- r ernardino, !2&ibit 5L,5 &e was directed to 'ive &onors to Miss 6elmo, &e kept (d in-ormation to . 1e told t&e Court t&at &e knew t&at t&e letter o- 6irector ernardino directed &im not to deprive Miss 6elmo t&e &onors due &er, but s&e (sic% says t&at &e &as not -inis&ed readin' t&e letter4decision, !2&ibit 5L,5 o- 6irector ernardino /, &im to 'ive &onors to Miss 6elmo. (Tsn, 0eb. H, )*+G, testimony o- Mr. Ledesma, pp. .>>4>H%. (t could not be true t&at &e &as not -inis&ed readin' t&e letter4decision, !2&. 5L,5 because said letter consisted o- only t&ree pa'es, and t&e portion w&ic& directed t&at Miss 6elmo 5be not deprived o- any award, citation or &onor -rom t&e sc&ool, i- ot&erwise entitled t&ereto is -ound at t&e last para'rap& o- t&e same. 1ow did &e know t&e last para'rap& i- &e did not read t&e letter. 6e-endants actuations re'ardin' Miss 6elmo=s cam &ad been one o- bias and pre:udice. ?&en &is action would -avor &im, &e was deliberate and aspect to t&e utter pre:udice and detriment o- Miss 6elmo. T&us, alt&ou'&, as early as "pril ,+, )*77, &e knew o- t&e e2oneration o- Miss 6elino by 6irector ernardino, &e wit&&eld t&e in-ormation -rom Miss 6elmo. T&is is elo<uently dramati9ed by !2&. 5))5 and !2&. 5)>5 On "pril ,*,)*77, 6irector ernardino cabled &im to -urnis& 3ioleta 6elmo copy o- t&e 6ecision, !2&. 5L,5 but instead o- in-ormin' Miss 6elmo about t&e decision, since &e said &e mailed back t&e decision on "pril ,B,)*77, &e sent a ni'&t letter on "pril ,*,)*77, to 6irector ernardino, in-ormin' t&e latter t&at &e &ad returned t&e decision (!2&. 5l>5%, to'et&er wit& t&e record. ?&y a ni'&t letter w&en t&e matter was o- utmost ur'ency to t&e parties in t&e case, because 'raduation day was only -our days a&eadM "n e2amination o- t&e tele'rams sent by t&e de-endant s&ows t&at &e &ad been sendin' ordinary tele'ram and not ni'&t letters. (!2&. 5H5, !2&ibit 5+5%. "t least, i- t&e de-endant could not -urnis& a copy o- t&e

decision, (!2&. 5L5%, to Miss 6elmo, &e s&ould &ave told &er about it or t&at Miss 6elmo=s &onors and citation in t&e commencement be announced or indicated. ut Mr. Ledesma is one w&o cannot admit a mistake. 3ery un'entlemanly t&is is &ome out by &is own testimony despite &is knowled'e t&at &is decision to deprive Miss 6elmo o- &onors due to &er was overturned by 6irector ernardino, &e on &is wron' belie-. To <uote t&e de-endant,) believed t&at s&e did not deserve t&ose &onors(Tsn 0eb. H, )*+G, p. G>,!mpasi9ed supplied%. 6espite t&e tele'ram o- 6irector ernardino w&ic& t&e de-endant received &ours be-ore t&e commencement e2ecutory on May >4G,)*77, &e did not obey 6irector ernardino because &e said in &is testimony t&at &e would be embarrassment . Tan 0eb H,)*+G, P. G7%. !vidently, &e knew only &is embarrassment and not t&at o- r ernardino w&ose order was bein' -la'rantly and wantonly disre'arded by bim "nd certainly, not t&e least o- Miss 6elmo=s embarrassment. 1is acts speak elo<uently o- &o bad -ait& and un:ust o- mindwarped by &is delicate sensitivity -or &avin' been c&allen'ed by Miss 6elmo, a mere student. 222 222 222 0inally t&e de-endant=s be&aviour relative to Miss s case smacks ocontemptuous arro'ance, oppression and abuse o- power. Come to t&ink o- it. 1e re-used to obey t&e directive o- e o and instead, c&ose to -ei'n i'norance o- it.5 (Reward on "ppeal, p. +,4+7%. T&e trial court awarded P,/,///.// to t&e estate o- 3ioleta 6elmo and P)/,///.// to &er parents -or moral dama'esF PH,///.// -or nominal dama'es to 3ioleta=s estateF e2emplary dama'es o- P)/,///.// and P,,///.// attorney=s -ees. On appeal, t&e Court o- "ppeals a--irmed t&e decision. 1ence, t&is petition. T&e issues raised in t&is petition can be reduced to t&e sole <uestion o- w&et&er or not t&e respondent Court o- "ppeals erred in a--irmin' t&e trial court=s -indin' t&at petitioner is liable -or dama'es under "rticle ,+ o- t&e .ew Civil Code. ?e -ind no reason w&y t&e -indin's o- t&e trial and appellate courts s&ould be reversed. (t cannot be disputed t&at 3ioleta 6elmo went t&rou'& a pain-ul ordeal w&ic& was brou'&t about by t&e petitioner=s ne'lect o- duty and callousness. T&us, moral dama'es are but proper. "s we &ave a--irmed in t&e case o- (Prudenciado v. "lliance Transport ;ystem, (nc., )GB ;CR" GG/, GGB%E T&ere is no ar'ument t&at moral dama'es include p&ysical su--erin', mental an'uis&, -ri'&t, serious an2iety, besmirc&ed reputation, wounded -eelin's, moral s&ock, social &umiliation, and similar in:ury. T&ou'& incapable o- pecuniary computation, moral dama'es may be recovered i- t&ey are t&e pro2imate result ode-endant=s wron'ly act or omission.5 (People v. aylon, ),* ;CR" 7, ()*BG%.

T&e ;olicitor4General tries to cover4up t&e petitioner=s deliberate omission to in-orm Miss 6elmo by statin' t&at it was not t&e duty o- t&e petitioner to -urnis& &er a copy ot&e 6irector=s decision. Grantin' t&is to be true, it was nevert&eless t&e petitioner=s duty to en-orce t&e said decision. 1e could &ave done so considerin' t&at &e received t&e decision on "pril ,+, )*77 and even t&ou'& &e sent it back wit& t&e records o- t&e case, &e undoubtedly read t&e w&ole o- it w&ic& consisted o- only t&ree pa'es. Moreover, t&e petitioner s&ould &ave &ad t&e decency to meet wit& Mr. 6elmo, t&e 'irl=s -at&er, and in-orm t&e latter, at t&e very least o- t&e decision. T&is, t&e petitioner likewise -ailed to do, and not wit&out t&e attendant bad -ait& w&ic& t&e appellate court correctly pointed out in its decision, to witE T&ird, assumin' t&at de-endant could not -urnis& Miss 6elmo o- a copy o- t&e decision, &e could &ave used &is discretion and plain common sense by in-ormin' &er about it or &e could &ave directed t&e inclusion o- Miss 6elmo=s &onor in t&e printed commencement pro'ram or announced it durin' t&e commencement e2ercises. 0ourt&, de-endant despite receipt o- t&e tele'ram o- 6irector enardino &ours be-ore t&e commencement e2ercises on May >4G, )*77, disobeyed &is superior by re-usin' to 'ive t&e &onors due Miss 6elmo wit& a lame e2cuse t&at &e would be embarrassed i- &e did so, to t&e pre:udice o- and in complete disre'ard o- Miss 6elmo=s ri'&ts. 0i-t&, de-endant did not even e2tend t&e courtesy o- meetin' Mr. Paci-ico 6elmo, -at&er o- Miss 6elmo, w&o tried several times to see de-endant in &is o--ice t&us Mr. 6elmo su--ered e2treme disappointment and &umiliation. 222 222 222 6e-endant, bein' a public o--icer s&ould &ave acted wit& circumspection and due re'ard to t&e ri'&ts o- Miss 6elmo. (nasmuc& as &e e2ceeded t&e scope o- &is aut&ority by de-iantly disobeyin' t&e law-ul directive o- &is superior, 6irector ernardino, de-endant is liable -or dama'es in &is personal capacity. . . . (Rollo, pp4 H+4HB% ased on t&e undisputed -acts, e2emplary dama'es are also in order. (n t&e same case o- )rudenciado &. *lliance .ransport S+ste", Inc., supra., at p. GH/, we ruledE T&e rationale be&ind e2emplary or corrective dama'es is, as t&e name implies, to provide an e2ample or correction -or t&e public 'ood (Lope9, et al. v. Pan "merican ?orld "irways, )7 ;CR" G>)%. 1owever, we do not deem it appropriate to award t&e spouses 6elmo dama'es in t&e amount o- P)/,///.// in t&eir individual capacity, separately -rom and in addition to w&at t&ey are already entitled to as sole &eirs o- t&e deceased 3ioleta 6elmo. T&us, t&e

decision is modi-ied inso-ar as moral dama'es are awarded to t&e spouses in t&eir own be&al-. ?1!R!0OR!, t&e petition is 6(;M(;;!6 -or lack o- merit. T&e decision o- t&e Court o- "ppeals is "00(RM!6 wit& t&e sli'&t modi-ication as stated in t&e precedin' para'rap&. T&is decision is immediately e2ecutory. ;O OR6!R!6. G.R. No. 9296& 'anua() 9, 1988 $ILOMENO #RBANO, petitioner, vs. !ON. IN"ERMEDIA"E APPELLA"E CO#R" AND PEOPLE O$ "!E P!ILIPPINE%, respondents. T&is is a petition to review t&e decision o- t&e t&en (ntermediate "ppellate Court w&ic& a--irmed t&e decision o- t&e t&en Circuit Criminal Court o- 6a'upan City -indin' petitioner 0ilomeno @rban 'uilty beyond reasonable doubt o- t&e crime o- &omicide. T&e records disclose t&e -ollowin' -acts o- t&e case. "t about BE// o=clock in t&e mornin' o- October ,>, )*B/, petitioner 0ilomeno @rbano went to &is rice-ield at aran'ay "nonan', ;an 0abian, Pan'asinan located at about )// meters -rom t&e tobacco seedbed o- Marcelo 8avier. 1e -ound t&e place w&ere &e stored &is palay -looded wit& water comin' -rom t&e irri'ation canal nearby w&ic& &ad over-lowed. @rbano went to t&e elevated portion o- t&e canal to see w&at &appened and t&ere &e saw Marcelo 8avier and !milio !r-e cuttin' 'rass. 1e asked t&em w&o was responsible -or t&e openin' o- t&e irri'ation canal and 8avier admitted t&at &e was t&e one. @rbano t&en 'ot an'ry and demanded t&at 8avier pay -or &is soaked palay. " <uarrel between t&em ensued. @rbano uns&eat&ed &is bolo (about , -eet lon', includin' t&e &andle, by , inc&es wide% and &acked 8avier &ittin' &im on t&e ri'&t palm o- &is &and, w&ic& was used in parryin' t&e bolo &ack. 8avier w&o was t&en unarmed ran away -rom @rbano but was overtaken by @rbano w&o &acked &im a'ain &ittin' 8avier on t&e le-t le' wit& t&e back portion o- said bolo, causin' a swellin' on said le'. ?&en @rbano tried to &ack and in-lict -urt&er in:ury, &is dau'&ter embraced and prevented &im -rom &ackin' 8avier. (mmediately t&erea-ter, "ntonio !r-e, !milio !r-e, and 0elipe !r-e brou'&t 8avier to &is &ouse about H/ meters away -rom w&ere t&e incident &appened. !milio t&en went to t&e &ouse o- aran'ay Captain Menardo ;oliven but not -indin' &im t&ere, !milio looked -or barrio councilman 0elipe ;olis instead. @pon t&e advice o- ;olis, t&e !r-es to'et&er wit& 8avier went to t&e police station o- ;an 0abian to report t&e incident. "s su''ested by Corporal Torio, 8avier was brou'&t to a p&ysician. T&e 'roup went to 6r. Guillermo Padilla, rural &ealt& p&ysician o- ;an 0abian, w&o did not attend to 8avier but instead su''ested t&at t&ey 'o to 6r. Mario Meneses because Padilla &ad no available medicine.

"-ter 8avier was treated by 6r. Meneses, &e and &is companions returned to 6r. Guillermo Padilla w&o conducted a medico4le'al e2amination. 6r. Padilla issued a medico4le'al certi-icate (!2&ibit 5C5 dated ;eptember ,B, )*B)% w&ic& readsE TO ?1OM (T M"$ CO.C!R.E T&is is to certi-y t&at ( &ave e2amined t&e wound o- Marcelo 8avier, ,/ years o- a'e, married, residin' at aran'ay "nonan', ;an 0abian, Pan'asinan on October ,>, )*B/ and -ound t&e -ollowin'E ) 4(ncised wound , inc&es in len't& at t&e upper portion o- t&e lesser palmar prominence, ri'&t. "s to my observation t&e incapacitation is -rom (+4*% days period. T&is wound was presented to me only -or medico4le'al e2amination, as it was already treated by t&e ot&er doctor. (p. BB, Ori'inal Records% @pon t&e intercession o- Councilman ;olis, @rbano and 8avier a'reed to settle t&eir di--erences. @rbano promised to pay P+//.// -or t&e medical e2penses o- 8avier. 1ence, on October ,+, )*B/, t&e two accompanied by ;olis appeared be-ore t&e ;an 0abian Police to -ormali9e t&eir amicable settlement. Patrolman Torio recorded t&e event in t&e police blotter (!2&ibit "%, to witE 222 222 222 !ntry .r H**N,+ Oct =B/N)/>O1N Re entry .r H*, on pa'e ,H+ bot& parties appeared be-ore t&is ;tation accompanied by br'y. councilman 0elipe ;olis and settled t&eir case amicably, -or t&ey are nei'&bors and close relatives to eac& ot&er. Marcelo 8avier accepted and 'ranted -or'iveness to 0ilomeno @rbano w&o s&oulder (sic% all t&e e2penses in &is medical treatment, and promisin' to &im and to t&is O--ice t&at t&is will never be repeated anymore and not to &arbour any 'rud'e a'ainst eac& ot&er. (p. B+, Ori'inal Records.% @rbano advanced PG//.// to 8avier at t&e police station. On .ovember >, )*B/, t&e additional P>//.// was 'iven to 8avier at @rbano=s &ouse in t&e presence obaran'ay captain ;oliven. "t about )E>/ a.m. on .ovember )G, )*B/, 8avier was rus&ed to t&e .a9aret& General 1ospital in a very serious condition. ?&en admitted to t&e &ospital, 8avier &ad lock:aw and was &avin' convulsions. 6r. !dmundo !2conde w&o personally attended to 8avier -ound t&at t&e latter=s serious condition was caused by tetanus to2in. 1e noticed t&e presence o- a &ealin' wound in 8avier=s palm w&ic& could &ave been in-ected by tetanus.

On .ovember )H, )*B/ at e2actly GE)B p.m., 8avier died in t&e &ospital. T&e medical -indin's o- 6r. !2conde are as -ollowsE 6ate 6ia'nosis ))4)G4B/ "6M(TT!6 due to trismus adm. at 6A T!T".@; )E>/ "M ;till &avin' -re<uent muscle spasm. ?it& di--i4 O>H, G,) culty openin' &is mout&. Restless at times. 0ebrile ))4)H4B/ Re-erred. .ovaldin ) amp. in:. (M. ;udden cessa4tion orespiration and 1R a-ter muscular spasm. /, in&alation administered. "mbo ba' resuscitation and cardiac massa'e done but to no avail.Pronounced dead by 6ra. Cabu'ao at GE)B P.M.PMC done and cadaver brou'&t &ome by relatives. (p. )//, Ori'inal Records% (n an in-ormation dated "pril )/, )*B), 0ilomeno @rbano was c&ar'ed wit& t&e crime o- &omicide be-ore t&e t&en Circuit Criminal Court o- 6a'upan City, T&ird 8udicial 6istrict. @pon arrai'nment, @rbano pleaded 5not 'uilty.5 "-ter trial, t&e trial court -ound @rbano 'uilty as c&ar'ed. 1e was sentenced to su--er an indeterminate prison term o- -rom T?!L3! (),% $!"R; o- prision "a+or, as minimum to ;!3!.T!!. ()+% years, 0O@R (G% MO.T1; and O.! ()% 6"$ o- reclusion te"poral, as ma2imum, to'et&er wit& t&e accessories o- t&e law, to indemni-y t&e &eirs o- t&e victim, Marcelo 8avier, in t&e amount o- P),,///.// wit&out subsidiary imprisonment in case o- insolvency, and to pay t&e costs. 1e was ordered con-ined at t&e .ew ilibid Prison, in Muntinlupa, Ri9al upon -inality o- t&e decision, in view o- t&e nature o- &is penalty. T&e t&en (ntermediate "ppellate Court a--irmed t&e conviction o- @rbano on appeal but raised t&e award o- indemnity to t&e &eirs o- t&e deceased to P>/,///.// wit& costs a'ainst t&e appellant. T&e appellant -iled a motion -or reconsideration andNor new trial. T&e motion -or new trial was based on an a--idavit o- aran'ay Captain Menardo ;oliven ("nne2 5"5% w&ic& statesE T&at in )*B/, ( was t&e barrio captain o- arrio "nonan', ;an 0abian, Pan'asinan, and up to t&e present &avin' been re4elected to suc& position in t&e last baran'ay elections on May )+, )*B,F

T&at sometime in t&e -irst week o- .ovember, )*B/, t&ere was a typ&oon t&at swept Pan'asinan and ot&er places o- Central Lu9on includin' ;an 0abian, a town o- said provinceF T&at durin' t&e typ&oon, t&e sluice or control 'ates o- t&e ued irri'ation dam w&ic& irri'ates t&e rice-ields o- ;an 0abian were closed andNor controlled so muc& so t&at water and its -low to t&e canals and ditc&es were re'ulated and reducedF T&at due to t&e lockin' o- t&e sluice or control 'ates o- t&e dam leadin' to t&e canals and ditc&es w&ic& will brin' water to t&e rice-ields, t&e water in said canals and ditc&es became s&allow w&ic& was suitable -or catc&in' mud-is&esF T&at a-ter t&e storm, ( conducted a personal survey in t&e area a--ected, wit& my secretary Per-ecto 8aravataF T&at on .ovember H, )*B/, w&ile ( was conductin' survey, ( saw t&e late Marcelo 8avier catc&in' -is& in t&e s&allow irri'ation canals wit& some companionsF T&at -ew days t&ere a-ter,or on .ovember lH, l*B/, ( came to know t&at said Marcelo 8avier died o- tetanus. (p. >>, Rollo% T&e motion was denied. 1ence, t&is petition. (n a resolution dated 8uly )7, )*B7, we 'ave due course to t&e petition. T&e case involves t&e application o- "rticle G o- t&e Revised Penal Code w&ic& provides t&at 5Criminal liability s&all be incurredE ()% y any person committin' a -elony (delito% alt&ou'& t&e wron'-ul act done be di--erent -rom t&at w&ic& &e intended ...5 Pursuant to t&is provision 5an accused is criminally responsible -or acts committed by &im in violation o- law and -or all t&e natural and lo'ical conse<uences resultin' t&ere-rom.5 (People v. Cardenas, H7 ;CR" 7>)%. T&e record is clear t&at Marcelo 8avier was &acked by t&e petitioner w&o used a bolo as a result o- w&ic& 8avier su--ered a ,4inc& incised wound on &is ri'&t palmF t&at on .ovember )G, )*B) w&ic& was t&e ,,nd day a-ter t&e incident, 8avier was rus&ed to t&e &ospital in a very serious condition and t&at on t&e -ollowin' day, .ovember )H, )*B), &e died -rom tetanus. @nder t&ese circumstances, t&e lower courts ruled t&at 8avier=s deat& was t&e natural and lo'ical conse<uence o- @rbano=s unlaw-ul act. 1ence, &e was declared responsible -or 8avier=s deat&. T&us, t&e appellate court saidE T&e claim o- appellant t&at t&ere was an e--icient cause w&ic& supervened -rom t&e time t&e deceased was wounded to t&e time o- &is deat&, w&ic& covers a period o- ,> days does not deserve

serious consideration. True, t&at t&e deceased did not die ri'&t away -rom &is wound, but t&e cause o- &is deat& was due to said wound w&ic& was in-licted by t&e appellant. ;aid wound w&ic& was in t&e process o- &ealin' 'ot in-ected wit& tetanus w&ic& ultimately caused &is deat&. 6r. !dmundo !2conde o- t&e .a9aret& General 1ospital testi-ied t&at t&e victim su--ered lock:aw because o- t&e in-ection o- t&e wound wit& tetanus. "nd t&ere is no ot&er way by w&ic& &e could be in-ected wit& tetanus e2cept t&rou'& t&e wound in &is palm (tsn., p. +B, Oct. H, )*B)%. Conse<uently, t&e pro2imate cause o- t&e victim=s deat& was t&e wound w&ic& 'ot in-ected wit& tetanus. "nd t&e settled rule in t&is :urisdiction is t&at an accused is liable -or all t&e conse<uences o- &is unlaw-ul act. ("rticle G, par. ), R.P.C. People v. Red, C" G> O.G. H/+,F People v. Cornel +B P&il. G)B%. "ppellant=s alle'ation t&at t&e pro2imate cause o- t&e victim=s deat& was due to &is own ne'li'ence in 'oin' back to work wit&out &is wound bein' properly &ealed, and lately, t&at &e went to catc& -is& in dirty irri'ation canals in t&e -irst week o- .ovember, )*B/, is an a-tert&ou'&t, and a desperate attempt by appellant to wi''le out ot&e predicament &e -ound &imsel- in. (- t&e wound &ad not yet &ealed, it is impossible to conceive t&at t&e deceased would be reckless enou'& to work wit& a disabled &and. (pp. ,/4,), Rollo% T&e petitioner reiterates &is position t&at t&e pro2imate cause o- t&e deat& o- Marcelo 8avier was due to &is own ne'li'ence, t&at 6r. Mario Meneses -ound no tetanus in t&e in:ury, and t&at 8avier 'ot in-ected wit& tetanus w&en a-ter two weeks &e returned to &is -arm and tended &is tobacco plants wit& &is bare &ands e2posin' t&e wound to &arm-ul elements like tetanus 'erms. T&e evidence on record does not clearly s&ow t&at t&e wound in-licted by @rbano was in-ected wit& tetanus at t&e time o- t&e in-liction o- t&e wound. T&e evidence merely con-irms t&at t&e wound, w&ic& was already &ealin' at t&e time 8avier su--ered t&e symptoms o- t&e -atal ailment, some&ow 'ot in-ected wit& tetanus 1owever, as to w&en t&e wound was in-ected is not clear -rom t&e record. (n Vda. de ;ataclan, et al. &. Medina ()/, P&il. ))B)%, we adopted t&e -ollowin' de-inition o- pro2imate causeE 222 222 222 ... " satis-actory de-inition o- pro2imate cause is -ound in 3olume >B, pa'es 7*H47*7 o- "merican 8urisprudence, cited by plainti--s4 appellants in t&eir brie-. (t is as -ollowsE ... 5t&at cause, w&ic&, in natural and continuous se<uence, unbroken by any e--icient intervenin' cause, produces t&e in:ury, and wit&out w&ic& t&e result would not &ave occurred.5"nd more

compre&ensively, 5t&e pro2imate le'al cause is t&at actin' -irst and producin' t&e in:ury, eit&er immediately or by settin' ot&er events in motion, all constitutin' a natural and continuous c&ain o- events, eac& &avin' a close causal connection wit& its immediate predecessor, t&e -inal event in t&e c&ain immediately e--ectin' t&e in:ury as a natural and probable result o- t&e cause w&ic& -irst acted, under suc& circumstances t&at t&e person responsible -or t&e -irst event s&ould, as an ordinarily prudent and intelli'ent person, &ave reasonable 'round to e2pect at t&e moment o- &is act or de-ault t&at an in:ury to some person mi'&t probably result t&ere-rom.5 (at pp. )BH4)B7% T&e issue, t&ere-ore, &in'es on w&et&er or not t&ere was an e--icient intervenin' cause -rom t&e time 8avier was wounded until &is deat& w&ic& would e2culpate @rbano -rom any liability -or 8avier=s deat&. ?e look into t&e nature o- tetanus4 T&e incu#ation period o5 tetanus, i.e., the ti"e #etween in!ur+ and the appearance o5 un"istaka#le s+"pto"s, ran6es 5ro" < to 74 da+s. owe&er, o&er => percent o5 patients #eco"e s+"pto"atic within 13 da+s. * short incu#ation period indicates se&ere disease, and when s+"pto"s occur within < or ? da+s o5 in!ur+ the "ortalit+ rate approaches 1>> percent. .on4speci-ic premonitory symptoms suc& as restlessness, irritability, and &eadac&e are encountered occasionally, but t&e commonest presentin' complaints are pain and sti--ness in t&e :aw, abdomen, or back and di--iculty swallowin'. "s t&e pro'resses, sti--ness 'ives way to ri'idity, and patients o-ten complain odi--iculty openin' t&eir mout&s. (n -act, trismus in t&e commonest mani-estation o- tetanus and is responsible -or t&e -amiliar descriptive name o- lock:aw. "s more muscles are involved, ri'idity becomes 'enerali9ed, and sustained contractions called risus sardonicus. T&e intensity and se<uence o- muscle involvement is <uite variable. (n a small proportion o- patients, only local si'ns and symptoms develop in t&e re'ion o- t&e in:ury. (n t&e vast ma:ority, &owever, most muscles are involved to some de'ree, and t&e si'ns and symptoms encountered depend upon t&e ma:or muscle 'roups a--ected. -e5le@ spas" usuall+ occur within <3 to A< hours o5 the 5irst s+"pto", an inter&al re5erred to as the onset ti"e. "s in t&e case ot&e incubation period, a s&ort onset time is associated wit& a poor pro'nosis. ;pasms are caused by sudden intensi-ication o- a--erent stimuli arisin' in t&e perip&ery, w&ic& increases ri'idity and causes simultaneous and e2cessive contraction o- muscles and t&eir anta'onists. ;pasms may be bot& pain-ul and dan'erous. "s t&e disease pro'resses, minimal or inapparent stimuli produce more intense and lon'er lastin' spasms wit& increasin' -re<uency.

Respiration may be impaired by laryn'ospasm or tonic contraction o- respiratory muscles w&ic& prevent ade<uate ventilation. 1ypo2ia may t&en lead to irreversible central nervous system dama'e and deat&. Mild tetanus is characteri'ed #+ an incu#ation period o5 at least 13 da+s and an onset ti"e o5 "ore than 4 da+s. Trismus is usually present, but dysp&a'ia is absent and 'enerali9ed spasms are brieand mild. Moderately severe tetanus &as a somew&at s&orter incubation period and onset timeF trismus is marked, dysp&a'ia and 'enerali9ed ri'idity are present, but ventilation remains ade<uate even durin' spasms. T&e criteria -or severe tetanus include a s&ort incubation time, and an onset time o- +, &rs., or less, severe trismus, dysp&a'ia and ri'idity and -re<uent prolon'ed, 'enerali9ed convulsive spasms. (1arrison=s Principle o- (nternal Medicine, )*B> !dition, pp. )//G4)//HF !mp&asis supplied% T&ere-ore, medically speakin', t&e reaction to tetanus -ound inside a man=s body depends on t&e incubation period o- t&e disease. (n t&e case at bar, 8avier su--ered a ,4inc& incised wound on &is ri'&t palm w&en &e parried t&e bolo w&ic& @rbano used in &ackin' &im. T&is incident took place on October ,>, )*B/. "-ter ,, days, or on .ovember )G, )*B/, &e su--ered t&e symptoms o- tetanus, like lock:aw and muscle spasms. T&e -ollowin' day, .ovember )H, )*B/, &e died. (-, t&ere-ore, t&e wound o- 8avier in-licted by t&e appellant was already in-ected by tetanus 'erms at t&e time, it is more medically probable t&at 8avier s&ould &ave been in-ected wit& only a mild cause o- tetanus because t&e symptoms o- tetanus appeared on t&e ,,nd day a5ter t&e &ackin' incident or "ore than 13 da+s a-ter t&e in-liction ot&e wound. T&ere-ore, t&e onset ti"e should ha&e #een "ore than si@ da+s. 8avier, &owever, died on t&e second day -rom t&e onset ti"e. T&e more credible conclusion is t&at at t&e time 8avier=s wound was in-licted by t&e appellant, t&e severe -orm otetanus t&at killed &im was not yet present. Conse<uently, 8avier=s wound could &ave been in-ected wit& tetanus a-ter t&e &ackin' incident. Considerin' t&e circumstance surroundin' 8avier=s deat&, &is wound could &ave been in-ected by tetanus , or > or a -ew but not ,/ to ,, days be-ore &e died. T&e rule is t&at t&e deat& o- t&e victim must be t&e direct, natural, and lo6ical conse$uence o5 the wounds in5licted upon hi" #+ the accused. (People v. Cardenas, supra% "nd since we are dealin' wit& a criminal conviction, t&e proo- t&at t&e accused caused t&e victim=s deat& must convince a rational mind #e+ond reasona#le dou#t. T&e medical -indin's, &owever, lead us to a distinct possibility t&at t&e in-ection o- t&e wound by tetanus was an e--icient intervenin' cause later or between t&e time 8avier was wounded to t&e time o- &is deat&. T&e in-ection was, t&ere-ore, distinct and -orei'n to t&e crime. (People v. Rellin, ++ P&il. )/>B%. 6oubts are present. T&ere is a likeli&ood t&at t&e wound was but t&e re"ote cause and its subse<uent in-ection, -or -ailure to take necessary precautions, wit& tetanus

may &ave been t&e pro@i"ate cause o- 8avier=s deat& wit& w&ic& t&e petitioner &ad not&in' to do. "s we ruled in Manila Electric Co. &. -e"o$uillo, et al. (** P&il. ))B%. 5" prior and remote cause cannot be made t&e be o- an action isuc& remote cause did not&in' more t&an -urnis& t&e condition or 'ive rise to t&e occasion by w&ic& t&e in:ury was made possible, it&ere intervened between suc& prior or remote cause and t&e in:ury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and e--icient cause o- t&e in:ury, even t&ou'& suc& in:ury would not &ave &appened but -or suc& condition or occasion. (- no dan'er e2isted in t&e condition e2cept because o- t&e independent cause, suc& condition was not t&e pro2imate cause. "nd i- an independent ne'li'ent act or de-ective condition sets into operation t&e instances w&ic& result in in:ury because o- t&e prior de-ective condition, suc& subse<uent act or condition is t&e pro2imate cause.5 (GH C.8. pp. *>)4*>,%. (at p. ),H% (t strains t&e :udicial mind to allow a clear a''ressor to 'o scot -ree o- criminal liability. "t t&e very least, t&e records s&ow &e is 'uilty o- in-lictin' sli'&t p&ysical in:uries. 1owever, t&e petitioner=s criminal liability in t&is respect was wiped out by t&e victim=s own act. "-ter t&e &ackin' incident, @rbano and 8avier used t&e -acilities o- baran'ay mediators to e--ect a compromise a'reement w&ere 8avier -or'ave @rbano w&ile @rbano de-rayed t&e medical e2penses o- 8avier. T&is settlement o- minor o--enses is allowed under t&e e2press provisions o- Presidential 6ecree G.R. .o. )H/B, ;ection ,(>%. (;ee also People v. Carunc&o, ),+ ;CR" )7%. ?e must stress, &owever, t&at our discussion o- pro2imate cause and remote cause is limited to t&e criminal aspects o- t&is rat&er unusual case. (t does not necessarily -ollow t&at t&e petitioner is also -ree o- civil liability. T&e well4settled doctrine is t&at a person, w&ile not criminally liable, may still be civilly liable. T&us, in t&e recent case o-)eople &. -o6elio Bi6on + .ria, et al. (G.R. .o. +G/G), 8uly ,*, )*B+%, we saidE 222 222 222 ... ?&ile t&e 'uilt o- t&e accused in a criminal prosecution must be establis&ed beyond reasonable doubt, only a preponderance oevidence is re<uired in a civil action -or dama'es. ("rticle ,*, Civil Code%. T&e :ud'ment o- ac<uittal e2tin'uis&es t&e civil liability ot&e accused only w&en it includes a declaration t&at t&e -acts -rom w&ic& t&e civil liability mi'&t arise did not e2ist. (Padilla v. Court o"ppeals, ),* ;CR" HH*%. T&e reason -or t&e provisions o- article ,* o- t&e Civil Code, w&ic& provides t&at t&e ac<uittal o- t&e accused on t&e 'round t&at &is 'uilt &as not been proved beyond reasonable doubt does not necessarily e2empt &im -rom civil liability -or t&e same act or omission, &as been e2plained by t&e Code Commission as -ollowsE T&e old rule t&at t&e ac<uittal o- t&e accused in a criminal case also releases &im -rom civil liability

is one o- t&e most serious -laws in t&e P&ilippine le'al system. (t &as 'iven use to numberless instances o- miscarria'e o- :ustice, w&ere t&e ac<uittal was due to a reasonable doubt in t&e mind o- t&e court as to t&e 'uilt o- t&e accused. T&e reasonin' -ollowed is t&at inasmuc& as t&e civil responsibility is derived -rom t&e criminal o--ense, w&en t&e latter is not proved, civil liability cannot be demanded. T&is is one o- t&ose causes w&ere con-used t&inkin' leads to un-ortunate and deplorable conse<uences. ;uc& reasonin' -ails to draw a clear line o- demarcation between criminal liability and civil responsibility, and to determine t&e lo'ical result o- t&e distinction. T&e two liabilities are separate and distinct -rom eac& ot&er. One a--ects t&e social order and t&e ot&er, private ri'&ts. One is -or t&e punis&ment or correction ot&e o--ender w&ile t&e ot&er is -or reparation odama'es su--ered by t&e a''rieved party. T&e two responsibilities are so di--erent -rom eac& ot&er t&at article )B)> o- t&e present (;panis&% Civil Code reads t&usE 5T&ere may be a compromise upon t&e civil action arisin' -rom a crimeF but t&e public action -or t&e imposition ot&e le'al penalty s&all not t&ereby be e2tin'uis&ed.5 (t is :ust and proper t&at, -or t&e purposes o- t&e imprisonment o- or -ine upon t&e accused, t&e o--ense s&ould be proved beyond reasonable doubt. ut -or t&e purpose oindemnity t&e complainin' party, w&y s&ould t&e o--ense also be proved beyond reasonable doubtM (s not t&e invasion or violation o- every private ri'&t to be proved only by a preponderance o- evidenceM (s t&e ri'&t o- t&e a''rieved person any less private because t&e wron'-ul act is also punis&able by t&e criminal lawM 50or t&ese reasons, t&e Commission recommends t&e adoption o- t&e re-orm under discussion. (t will correct a serious de-ect in our law. (t will close up an ine2&austible source oin:ustice4a cause -or disillusionment on t&e part ot&e innumerable persons in:ured or wron'ed.5 T&e respondent court increased t&e P),,///.// indemni-ication imposed by t&e trial court to P>/,///.//. 1owever, since t&e indemni-ication was based solely on t&e -indin' o- 'uilt beyond reasonable doubt in t&e &omicide case, t&e civil liability o- t&e

petitioner was not t&orou'&ly e2amined. T&is aspect o- t&e case calls -or -uller development i- t&e &eirs o- t&e victim are so minded. ?1!R!0OR!, t&e instant petition is &ereby GR".T!6. T&e <uestioned decision ot&e t&en (ntermediate "ppellate Court, now Court o- "ppeals, is R!3!R;!6 and ;!T ";(6!. T&e petitioner is "CI@(TT!6 o- t&e crime o- &omicide. Costs de o5icio. ;O OR6!R!6. ABERCA, E" AL. =% =ER, E" AL GR No. 69866 %YLLAB#% ). C(3(L L"?F (.6!P!.6!.T C(3(L "CT(O.F 6"M"G!; 0OR 3(OL"T(O. O0 CO.;T(T@T(O."L R(G1T;F M!M !R; O0 T1! "RM!6 0ORC!; L(" L!. J "rticle >, o- t&e Civil Code w&ic& renders any public o--icer or employee or any private individual liable in dama'es -or violatin' t&e Constitutional ri'&ts and liberties o- anot&er, as enumerated t&erein, does not e2empt t&e respondents -rom responsibility. Only :ud'es are e2cluded -rom liability under t&e said article, provided t&eir acts or omissions do not constitute a violation o- t&e Penal Code or ot&er penal statute. ,. (6.F (6.F (6.F .OT "00!CT!6 $ ;@;P!.;(O. O0 T1! PR(3(L!G! O0 ?R(T O0 1" !"; CORP@;. J T&e suspension o- t&e privile'e o- t&e writ o- ha#eas corpus does not destroy petitionersP ri'&t and cause o- action -or dama'es -or ille'al arrest and detention and ot&er violations o- t&eir constitutional ri'&ts. >. CO.;T(T@T(O."L L"?F 1" !"; CORP@;F ;@;P!.;(O. O0 PR(3(L!G! O0 T1! ?R(T 6O!; .OT 3"L(6"T! (LL!G"L "RR!;T OR 6!T!.T(O.. J T&e suspension does not render valid an ot&erwise ille'al arrest or detention. ?&at is suspended is merely t&e ri'&t o- t&e individual to seek release -rom detention t&rou'& t&e writ o- ha#eas corpus as a speedy means o- obtainin' &is liberty. G. C(3(L L"?F (.6!P!.6!.T C(3(L "CT(O.F 6"M"G!; 0OR 3(OL"T(O. O0 CO.;T(T@T(O."L R(G1T;F 6OCTR(.! O0 R!;PO.6!"T ;@P!R(OR .OT "PPL(C" L! TO ;@P!R(OR O00(C!R; O0 T1! "RM!6 0ORC!; ".6 T1!(R ;@ OR6(."T!;. J T&e doctrine o- respondent superior is inapplicable to t&e case. ?e a'ree. T&e doctrine o- respondent superior &as been 'enerally limited in its application to principal and a'ent or to master and servant (i.e. employer and employee% relations&ip. .o suc& relations&ip e2ists between superior o--icers o- t&e military and t&eir subordinates. H. (6.F (6.F (6.F P!R;O.; R!;PO.;( L!. J "rticle >, speaks o- an o--icer or employee or person 5directly5 or 5indirectly5 responsible -or t&e violation o- t&e constitutional ri'&ts and liberties o- anot&er. T&us, it is not t&e actor alone (i.e. t&e one directly responsible% w&o must answer -or dama'es under "rticle >,F t&e person indirectly responsible &as also to answer -or t&e dama'es or in:ury caused to t&e a''rieved party. 7. (6.F (6.F (6.F (6. J y t&is provision, t&e principle o- accountability o- public o--icials

under t&e Constitution ac<uires added meanin' and assumes a lar'er dimension. .o lon'er may a superior o--icial rela2 &is vi'ilance or abdicate &is duty to supervise &is subordinates, secure in t&e t&ou'&t t&at &e does not &ave to answer -or t&e trans'ressions committed by t&e latter a'ainst t&e constitutionally protected ri'&ts and liberties o- t&e citi9en. Part o- t&e -actors t&at propelled people power in 0ebruary )*B7 was t&e widely &eld perception t&at t&e 'overnment was callous or indi--erent to, i- not actually responsible -or, t&e rampant violations o- &uman ri'&ts. ?&ile it would certainly be too naive to e2pect t&at violators o- &uman ri'&ts would easily be deterred by t&e prospect o- -acin' dama'e suits, it s&ould nonet&eless be made clear in no uncertain terms t&at "rticle >, o- t&e Civil Code makes t&e persons w&o are directly, as well as indirectly, responsible -or t&e trans'ression :oint tort-easors. +. R!M!6("L L"?P MOT(O. TO 6(;M(;;F 0"(L@R! TO ;T"T! " C"@;! O0 "CT(O., " GRO@.6F 6!T!RM(.!6 $ T1! 0"CT; "LL!G!6 (. T1! COMPL"(.T. J " motion to dismiss on t&e 'round t&at t&e complaint states no cause o- action must be based on w&at appears on t&e -ace o- t&e complaint. To determine t&e su--iciency o- t&e cause o- action, only t&e -acts alle'ed in t&e complaint, and no ot&ers, s&ould be considered. 0or t&is purpose, t&e motion to dismiss must &ypot&etically admit t&e trut& o- t&e -acts alle'ed in t&e complaint. B. L!G"L !T1(C;F "TTOR.!$;F "@T1OR(T$ TO "PP!"R 0OR " P"RT$, ";;@M!6. J T&e aut&ority o- an attorney to appear -or and in be&al- o- a party can be assumed, unless <uestioned or c&allen'ed by t&e adverse party or t&e party concerned, w&ic& was never done in t&is case. *. R!M!6("L L"?F COMPL"(.TF 6(;M(;;"L O0 COMPL"(.T ?(T1 R!;P!CT TO P"RT(!; ?1O;! L"?$!R; 6(6 .OT ;(G. T1! MOT(O. 0OR R!CO.;(6!R"T(O. CO.;T(T@T!; GR"3! " @;! O0 6(;CR!T(O.. J (n -ilin' t&e motion to set aside t&e resolution o- .ovember B, )*B>, t&e si'nin' attorneys did so on be&al- o- all t&e plainti--s. T&ey needed no speci-ic aut&ority to do t&at. T&us, it was 'rave abuse on t&e part o- respondent :ud'e to take it upon &imsel- to rule t&at t&e motion to set aside t&e order o- .ovember B, )*H> dismissin' t&e complaint was -iled only by some o- t&e plainti--s, w&en by its very lan'ua'e it was clearly intended to be -iled by and -or t&e bene-it o- all o- t&em. (t is obvious t&at t&e respondent :ud'e took umbra'e under a contrived tec&nicality to declare t&at t&e dismissal o- t&e complaint &ad already become -inal wit& respect to some o- t&e plainti--s w&ose lawyers did not si'n t&e motion -or reconsideration. ;uc& action tainted wit& le'al in-irmity cannot be sanctioned. T!!1".#!!, C.C., concurrin'Ec&anrob)es virtual )aw library ). C(3(L L"?F (.6!P!.6!.T C(3(L "CT(O.F 6"M"G!; 0OR 3(OL"T(O. O0 CO.;T(T@T(O."L R(G1T;F P!R;O.; CO3!R!6. J "ll persons, be t&ey public o--icers or employees, or members o- t&e military or police -orce or private individuals w&o directly or indirectly obstruct, de-eat, violate or in any manner impede or impair t&e constitutional ri'&ts and civil liberties o- anot&er person, stand liable and may be sued in court -or dama'es as provided in "rt. >, o- t&e Civil Code. ,. (6.F (6.F (6.F PR(.C(PL! O0 R!;PO.6!"T ;@P!R(ORF .OT "PPL(C" L! TO O00(C!R; O0 T1! "RM!6 0ORC!; ".6 T1!(R ;@ OR6(."T!;. J T&e case at bar re:ects t&e automatic application o- t&e principle o- respondent superior or command responsibility t&at would &old a superior o--icer :ointly and severally

accountable -or dama'es, includin' moral and e2emplary, wit& &is subordinates w&o committed suc& trans'ressions. >. (6.F (6.F (6.F ;@P!R(OR O00(C!R R!;PO.;( L! 0OR GRO;; .!GL(G!.C! (. " 6(C"T(O. O0 PROP!R ;@P!R3(;(O. O0 ;@ OR6(."T!;. J T&e :ud'ment 'ives t&e caveat t&at a superior o--icer must not abdicate is duty to properly supervise &is subordinates -or &e runs t&e risk o- bein' &eld responsible -or 'ross ne'li'ence and o- bein' &eld under t&e cited provision o- t&e Civil Code as indirectly and solidarily accountable wit& t&e tort-easor. G. (6.F (6.F (6.F (6.F R"T(O."L!. J T&e rationale -or t&is rule o- law was best e2pressed by randeis in t&is wiseE 5(n a 'overnment o- laws, e2istence o- t&e 'overnment will be imperilled i- it -ails to observe t&e law scrupulously. Our 'overnment is t&e potent omnipresent teac&er. 0or 'ood or ill, it teac&es t&e w&ole people by e2ample. Crime is conta'ious. (- t&e 'overnment becomes t&e law breaker, it breeds contempt -or t&e law, it invites every man to become a law unto &imsel-, it invites anarc&y. To declare t&at in t&e administration o- criminal law t&e end :usti-ies t&e means . . . . would brin' terrible retribution.5 DECI%ION T&is petition -or certiorari presents vital issues not &ereto-ore passed upon by t&is Court. (t poses t&e <uestion w&et&er t&e suspension o- t&e privile'e o- t&e writ o- ha#eas corpus bars a civil action -or dama'es -or ille'al searc&es conducted by military personnel and ot&er violations o- ri'&ts and liberties 'uaranteed under t&e Constitution. (- suc& action -or dama'es may be maintained, w&o can be &eld liable -or suc& violationsE only t&e military personnel directly involved andNor t&eir superiors as well. T&is case stems -rom alle'ed ille'al searc&es and sei9ures and ot&er violations o- t&e ri'&ts and liberties o- plainti--s by various intelli'ence suits o- t&e "rmed 0orces o- t&e P&ilippines, known as Task 0orce Makabansa (T0M%, ordered by General 0abian 3er 5to conduct pre4emptive strikes a'ainst known communist4terrorist (CT% under'round &ouses in view o- increasin' reports about CT plans to sow disturbances in Metro Manila.5 Plainti--s alle'e, amon' ot&ers, t&at complyin' wit& said order, elements ot&e T0M raided several places, employin' in most cases de-ectively issued :udicial searc& warrantsF t&at durin' t&ese raids, certain members o- t&e raidin' party con-iscated a number o- purely personal items belon'in' to plainti--sF t&at plainti--s were arrested wit&out proper warrants issued by t&e courtsF t&at -or some period a-ter t&eir arrest, t&ey were denied visits o- relatives and lawyersF t&at plainti--s were interro'ated in violation o- t&eir ri'&ts to silence and counselF t&at military men w&o interro'ated t&em employed t&reats, tortures and ot&er -orms o- violence on t&em in order to obtain incriminatory in-ormation or con-essions and in order to punis& t&emF t&at all violations o- plainti--s constitutional ri'&ts were part o- a concerted and deliberate plan to -orcibly e2tract in-ormation and incriminatory statements -rom plainti--s and to terrori9e, &arass and punis& t&em, said plans bein' previously known to and sanctioned by de-endants. Plainti--s sou'&t actualNcompensatory dama'es amountin' to P>*,/>/.//F moral dama'es in t&e amount o- at least P)H/,///.// eac& or a total o- P>,///,///.//F e2emplary dama'es in t&e amount o- at least P)H/,///.// eac& or a total oP>,///,///.//F and attorneyPs -ees amountin' to not less t&an P,//,///.//.

de-endants -iled a comment on said ampli-icatory motion -or reconsideration. " motion to dismiss was -iled by de-endants, t&rou'& t&eir counsel, t&en ;olicitor4 General !stelito Mendo9a, alle'in' t&at ()% plainti--s may not cause a :udicial in<uiry into t&e circumstances o- t&eir detention in t&e 'uise o- a dama'e suit because, as to t&em, t&e privile'e o- t&e writ o- ha#eas corpus is suspendedF (,% assumin' t&at t&e courts can entertain t&e present action, de-endants are immune -rom liability -or acts done in t&e per-ormance o- t&eir o--icial dutiesF and (>% t&e complaint states no cause o- action a'ainst t&e de-endants. Opposition to said motion to dismiss was -iled by plainti--s Marco Palo, 6anilo de la 0uente, en:amin ;es'undo, .el !taba', "l-redo Mansos and Rolando ;alutin on 8uly B, )*B>, and by plainti--s !dwin Lope9, Manuel Mario Gu9man, "lan 8asmine9, .estor odino, Carlos Palma, "rturo Tabara, 8osep& Olayer, Rodol-o enosa, elen 6ia9 0lores, Ro'elio "berca, "le2 Marcelino and !li9abet& Marcelino on 8uly ,), )*B>. On .ovember +, )*B>, a Consolidated Reply was -iled by de-endantsP counsel.c&anrobles virtual lawlibrary T&en, on .ovember B, )*B>, t&e Re'ional Trial Court, .ational Capital Re'ion, ranc& *H, 8ud'e ?illelmo C. 0ortun, Presidin', ) issued a resolution 'rantin' t&e motion to dismiss. ( sustained, lock, stock and barrel, t&e de-endantsP contention ()% t&e plainti--s may not cause a :udicial in<uiry into t&e circumstances o- t&eir detention in t&e 'uise o- a dama'e suit because, as to t&em, t&e privile'e o- t&e writ o- ha#eas corpus is suspendedF (,% t&at assumin' t&at t&e court can entertain t&e present action, de-endants are immune -rom liability -or acts done in t&e per-ormance o- t&eir o--icial dutiesF and (>% t&at t&e complaint states no cause o- action a'ainst de-endants, since t&ere is no alle'ation t&at t&e de-endants named in t&e complaint con-iscated plainti--sP purely personal properties in violation o- t&eir constitutional ri'&ts, and wit& t&e possible e2ception o- Ma:or Rodol-o "'uinaldo and ;er'eant ienvenido alabo, committed acts o- torture and maltreatment, or t&at t&e de-endants &ad t&e duty to e2ercise direct supervision and control o- t&eir subordinates or t&at t&ey &ad vicarious liability as employers under "rticle ,)B/ o- t&e Civil Code. T&e lower court stated, 5"-ter a care-ul study o- de-endantsP ar'uments, t&e court -inds t&e same to be meritorious and must, t&ere-ore, be 'ranted. On t&e ot&er &and, plainti--sP ar'uments in t&eir opposition are lackin' in merit.5cralaw virtua)aw library " motion to set aside t&e order dismissin' t&e complaint and a supplemental motion -or reconsideration was -iled by t&e plainti--s on .ovember )B, )*B>, and .ovember ,G, )*B>, respectively. On 6ecember *, )*B>, t&e de-endants -iled a comment on t&e a-oresaid motion o- plainti--s, -urnis&in' a copy t&ereo- to t&e attorneys o- all t&e plainti--s, namely, "ttys. 8ose ?. 6iokno, Procopio eltran, Rene ;armiento, !-ren Mercado, "u'usto ;anc&e9, "ntonio L. Rosales, Pedro . !lla, 8r., "rno 3. ;anidad, "le2ander Padilla, 8oker "rroyo, Rene ;a'uisa', Ramon !s'uerra and 0elicitas "<uino. On 6ecember )H, )*B>, 8ud'e 0ortun issued an order voluntarily in&ibitin' &imsel-rom -urt&er proceedin' in t&e case and leavin' t&e resolution o- t&e motion to set aside t&e order o- dismissal to 8ud'e Lisin', 5to preclude any suspicion t&at &e (8ud'e 0ortun% cannot resolve Ct&eD a-oresaid pendin' motion wit& t&e cold neutrality o- an impartial :ud'e and to put an end to plainti--s assertion t&at t&e undersi'ned &as no aut&ority or :urisdiction to resolve said pendin' motion.5 T&is order prompted plainti--s to -ile an ampli-icatory motion -or reconsideration si'ned in t&e name o- t&e 0ree Le'al "ssistance Group (0L"GD o- Mabini Le'al "id Committee, by "ttys. 8oker P. "rroyo, 0elicitas "<uino and "rno ;anidad on "pril ),, )*BG. On May ,, )*BG, t&e (n an order dated May )), )*BG, t&e trial court, 8ud'e !steban Lisin', Presidin', wit&out actin' on t&e motion to set aside order o- .ovember B, )*B>, issued an order, as -ollowsE:'cEc&anrobles.com.p& 5(t appearin' -rom t&e records t&at, indeed, t&e -ollowin' plainti--s, Ro'elio "berca, 6anilo de la 0uente and Marco Palo, represented by counsel, "tty. 8ose ?. 6iokno, "lan 8asmine9, represented by counsel, "tty. "u'usto ;anc&e9, ;pouses "le2 Marcelino and !li9abet& Protacio4Marcelino, represented by counsel, "tty. Procopio eltran, "l-redo Mansos, represented by counsel, "tty. Rene ;armiento, and Rolando ;alutin, represented by counsel, "tty. !-ren Mercado, -ailed to -ile a motion to reconsider t&e Order o- .ovember B, )*B>, dismissin' t&e complaint, nor interposed an appeal t&ere-rom wit&in t&e re'lementary period, as prayed -or by t&e de-endants, said Order is now -inal a'ainst said plainti--s.5cralaw virtua)aw library "ssailin' t&e said order o- May )), )*BG, t&e plainti--s -iled a motion -or reconsideration on May ,B, )*BG, alle'in' t&at it was not true t&at plainti--s Ro'elio "berca, 6anilo de la 0uente, Marco Palo, "lan 8asmine9, "le2 Marcelino, !li9abet& Protacio4Marcelino, "l-redo Mansos and Rolando ;alutin -ailed to -ile a motion to reconsider t&e order o- .ovember B, )*B> dismissin' t&e complaint, wit&in t&e re'lementary period. Plainti--s claimed t&at t&e motion to set aside t&e order o.ovember B, )*B> and t&e ampli-icatory motion -or reconsideration was -iled -or all t&e plainti--s, alt&ou'& si'ned by only some o- t&e lawyers.c&anrobles lawlibrary E rednad (n its resolution o- ;eptember ,), )*BG, t&e respondent court dealt wit& bot& motions ()% to reconsider its order o- May )), )*BG declarin' t&at wit& respect to certain plainti--s, t&e resolution o- .ovember B, )*B> &ad already become -inal, and (,% to set aside its resolution o- .ovember B, )*B> 'rantin' t&e de-endantsP motion to dismiss. (n t&e dispositive portion o- t&e order o- ;eptember ,), )*BG, t&e respondent court resolvedEc&anrob)es virtual )aw library ()% T&at t&e motion to set aside t&e order o- -inality, dated May )), )*BG, o- t&e Resolution o- dismissal o- t&e complaint o- plainti--s Ro'elio "berca, 6anilo de la 0uente, Marco Palo, "lan 8asmine9, "le2 Marcelino, !li9abet& Protacio4Marcelino, "l-redo Mansos and Rolando ;alutin is denied -or lack o- meritF (,% 0or lack o- cause o- action as a'ainst t&e -ollowin' de-endants, to witEc&anrob)es virtual )aw library ). Gen 0abian 3er ,. Col. 0idel ;in'son >. Col. Rolando "badilla G. Lt. Col. Conrado Lantoria, 8r. H. Col. Galileo #intanar 7. Col. Pan-ilo Lacson

+. Capt. 6anilo Pi9aro B. )Lt Pedro Tan'o

(*% T&e ri'&t to be secure in onePs person, &ouse, papers, and e--ects a'ainst unreasonable searc&es and sei9uresF ()/% T&e liberty o- abode and o- c&an'in' t&e sameF

*. Lt. Romeo Ricardo ())% T&e privacy o- communication and correspondenceF )/. Lt. Raul acalso t&e motion to set aside and reconsider t&e Resolution o- dismissal o- t&e present action or complaint, dated .ovember B, )*B>, is also deniedF but in so -ar as it a--ects and re-ers to de-endants, to witEc&anrob)es virtual )aw library ). Ma:or Rodol-o "'uinaldo, and ()G% T&e ri'&t to be -ree -rom involuntary servitude in any -ormF ,. Master ;'t. ienvenido alaba, ()H% T&e ri'&t o- t&e accused a'ainst e2cessive bailF t&e motion to reconsider and set aside t&e Resolution o- dismissal dated .ovember >, )*B> is 'ranted and t&e Resolution o- dismissal is, in t&is respect, reconsidered and modi-ied.5cralaw virtua)aw library 1ence, petitioners -iled t&e instant petition -or certiorari on Marc& )H, )*BH seekin' to annul and set aside t&e respondent courtPs resolution o- .ovember B, )*B>, its order o- May )), )*BG, and its resolution dated ;eptember ,), )*BG. Respondents were re<uired to comment on t&e petition, w&ic& it did on .ovember *, )*BH. " reply was -iled by petitioners on "u'ust ,7, )*B7. ?e -ind t&e petition meritorious and decide to 'ive it due course. "t t&e &eart o- petitionersP complaint is "rticle >, o- t&e Civil Code w&ic& providesEc&anrob)es virtual )aw library "RT(CL! >,. "ny public o--icer or employee, or any private individual w&o directly or indirectly obstructs, de-eats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any o- t&e -ollowin' ri'&ts and liberties o- anot&er person s&all be liable to t&e latter -or dama'esEc&anrob)es virtual )aw library ()% 0reedom o- reli'ionF (,% 0reedom o- speec&F (>% 0reedom to write -or t&e press or to maintain a periodical publicationF (G% 0reedom -rom arbitrary or ille'al detentionF (H% 0reedom o- su--ra'eF (7% T&e ri'&t a'ainst deprivation o- property wit&out due process o- lawF (+% T&e ri'&t to a :ust compensation w&en private property is taken -or public useF (B% T&e ri'&t to t&e e<ual protection o- t&e lawsF (t is obvious t&at t&e purpose o- t&e above codal provision is to provide a sanction to t&e deeply c&eris&ed ri'&ts and -reedoms ens&rined in t&e Constitution. (ts messa'e is clearF no man may seek to violate t&ose sacred ri'&ts wit& impunity. (n times o'reat up&eaval or o- social and political stress, w&en t&e temptation is stron'est to yield J borrowin' t&e words o- C&ie- 8ustice Claudio Tee&ankee J to t&e law o-orce rat&er t&an t&e -orce o- law, it is necessary to remind ourselves t&at certain T&e indemnity s&all include moral dama'es. !2emplary dama'es may also be ad:udicated. T&e responsibility &erein set -ort& is not demandable -rom a :ud'e unless &is act or omission constitutes a violation o- t&e Penal Code or ot&er penal statute. ()7% T&e ri'&t o- t&e accused to be &eard by &imsel- and counsel, to be in-ormed ot&e nature and cause o- t&e accusation a'ainst &im, to &ave a speedy and public trial, to meet t&e witnesses -ace to -ace, and to &ave compulsory process to secure t&e attendance o- witness in &is be&al-F ()+% 0reedom -rom bein' compelled to be a witness a'ainst onePs sel-, or -rom bein' -orced to con-ess 'uilt, or -rom bein' induced by a promise o- immunity or reward to make suc& con-ession, e2cept w&en t&e person con-essin' becomes a ;tate witnessF ()B% 0reedom -rom e2cessive -ines, or cruel and unusual punis&ment, unless t&e same is imposed or in-licted in accordance wit& a statute w&ic& &as not been :udicially declared unconstitutionalF and ()*% 0reedom o- access to t&e courts.c&anrobles virtualawlibrary c&anrobles.comEc&anrobles.com.p& (n any o- t&e cases re-erred to in t&is article, w&et&er or not t&e de-endantPs act or omission constitutes a criminal o--ense, t&e a''rieved party &as a ri'&t to commence an entirely separate end distinct civil action -or dama'es, and -or ot&er relie-. ;uc& civil action s&all proceed independently o- any criminal prosecution (i- t&e latter be instituted%, and may be proved by a preponderance o- evidence. (),% T&e ri'&t to become a member o- associations or societies -or purposes not contrary to lawF ()>% T&e ri'&t to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition t&e Government -or redress o- 'rievancesF

basic ri'&ts and liberties are immutable and cannot be sacri-iced to t&e transient needs or imperious demands o- t&e rulin' power. T&e rule o- law must prevail, or else liberty will peris&. Our commitment to democratic principles and to t&e rule o- law compels us to re:ect t&e view w&ic& reduces law to not&in' but t&e e2pression o- t&e will o- t&e predominant power in t&e community. 56emocracy cannot be a rei'n opro'ress, o- liberty, o- :ustice, unless t&e law is respected by &im w&o makes it and by &im -or w&om it is made. .ow t&is respect implies a ma2imum o- -ait&, a minimum oidealism. On 'oin' to t&e bottom o- t&e matter, we discover t&at li-e demands o- us a certain residuum o- sentiment w&ic& is not derived -rom reason, but w&ic& reason nevert&eless controls.5 , ;eekin' to :usti-y t&e dismissal o- plainti--sP complaint, t&e respondents postulate t&e view t&at as public o--icers t&ey are covered by t&e mantle o- state immunity -rom suit -or acts done in t&e per-ormance o- o--icial duties or -unctions. (n support o- said contention, respondents maintain t&at J 5Respondents are members o- t&e "rmed 0orces o- t&e P&ilippines. T&eir primary duty is to sa-e'uard public sa-ety and order. T&e Constitution no less provides t&at t&e President may call t&em 5to prevent or supress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection or rebellion, or imminent dan'er t&ereo-.5 (Constitution, "rticle 3((, ;ection *%. On 8anuary )+, )*B), t&e President issued Proclamation .o. ,/GH li-tin' martial law but providin' -or t&e continued suspension o- t&e privile'e o- t&e writ o- ha#eas corpus in view o- t&e remainin' dan'ers to t&e security o- t&e nation. T&e proclamation also provided 5t&at t&e call to t&e "rmed 0orces o- t&e P&ilippines to prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion and subversion s&all continue to be in -orce and e--ect.5cralaw virtua)aw library Petitioners alle'e in t&eir complaint t&at t&eir causes o- action proceed -rom respondent General 3erPs order to Task 0orce Makabansa to launc& preemptive strikes a'ainst communist terrorist under'round &ouses in Metro Manila. Petitioners claim t&at t&is order and its subse<uent implementation by elements o- t&e task -orce resulted in t&e violation o- t&eir constitutional ri'&ts a'ainst unlaw-ul searc&es, sei9ures and arrest, ri'&ts to counsel and to silence, and t&e ri'&t to property and t&at, t&ere-ore, respondents 3er and t&e named members o- t&e task -orce s&ould be &eld liable -or dama'es. ut, by launc&in' a preemptive strike a'ainst communist terrorists, respondent members o- t&e armed -orces merely per-ormed t&eir o--icial and constitutional duties. To allow petitioners to recover -rom respondents by way o- dama'es -or acts per-ormed in t&e e2ercise o- suc& duties run contrary to t&e policy considerations to s&ield respondents as public o--icers -rom undue inter-erence wit& t&eir duties and -rom potentially disablin' t&reats o- liability ("arlon v. 0it9'erald, )/, ;. Ct. ,+>)F 0orbes v. C&uoco Tiaco, )7 P&il. H>G%, and upon t&e necessity o- protectin' t&e per-ormance o- 'overnmental and public -unctions -rom bein' &arassed unduly or constantly interrupted by private suits (McCallan v. ;tate, >H Cal. "pp. 7/HF Metran v. Paredes, +* P&il. B)*%.c&anrobles virtual lawlibrary @ @ @

T&e immunity o- public o--icers -rom liability arisin' -rom t&e per-ormance o- t&eir duties is now a settled :urisprudence ("l9ua v. 8o&nson, ,) P&il. >/BF Lulueta v. .icolas, )/, P&il. *GGF ;paldin' v. 3ilas, )7) @; GB>F G/ L. !d. +>B, )7 ;. Ct. 7>)F arr v. Mateo, >7/F ut9 v. !conomon, G>B @; G+BF H+ L. !d. ,d B*H, *B ;. Ct. ,B*GF ;c&euer v. R&odes, G)7 @; ,>,F 0orbes v. C&uoco Tiaco, supraF Miller v. de Leune, 7/, 0. ,d )*BF ;ami v. @;, 7)+ 0. ,d +HH%. Respondents4de-endants w&o merely obeyed t&e law-ul orders o- t&e President and &is call -or t&e suppression o- t&e rebellion involvin' petitioners en:oy suc& immunity -rom suit.5 > ?e -ind respondentsP invocation o- t&e doctrine o- state immunity -rom suit totally misplaced. T&e cases invoked by respondents actually involved acts done by o--icers in t&e per-ormance o- o--icial duties wit&in t&e ambit o- t&eir powers. "s &eld in 0orbes, etc. v. C&uoco Tiaco and Cross-ieldE G 5.o one can be &eld le'ally responsible in dama'es or ot&erwise -or doin' in a le'al manner w&at &e &ad aut&ority, under t&e law, to do. T&ere-ore, i- t&e Governor4 General &ad aut&ority, under t&e law to deport or e2pel t&e de-endants, and circumstances :usti-yin' t&e deportation and t&e met&od o- carryin' it out are le-t to &im, t&en &e cannot be &eld liable in dama'es -or t&e e2ercise o- t&is power. Moreover, i- t&e courts are wit&out aut&ority to inter-ere in any manner, -or t&e purpose o- controllin' or inter-errin' wit& t&e e2ercise o- t&e political powers vested in t&e c&ie- e2ecutive aut&ority o- t&e Government, t&en it must -ollow t&at t&e courts cannot intervene -or t&e purpose o- declarin' t&at &e is liable in dama'es -or t&e e2ercise o- t&is aut&ority.5cralaw virtua)aw library (t may be t&at t&e respondents, as members o- t&e "rmed 0orces o- t&e P&ilippines, were merely respondin' to t&eir duty, as t&ey claim, 5to prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion and subversion5 in accordance wit& Proclamation .o. ,/HG o- President Marcos, despite t&e li-tin' o- martial law on 8anuary ,+, )*B), and in pursuance o- suc& ob:ective, to launc& pre4emptive strikes a'ainst alle'ed communist terrorist under'round &ouses. ut t&is cannot be construed as a blanket license or a rovin' commission untramelled by any constitutional restraint, to disre'ard or trans'ress upon t&e ri'&ts and liberties o- t&e individual citi9en ens&rined in and protected by t&e Constitution. T&e Constitution remains t&e supreme law o- t&e land to w&ic& all o--icials, &i'& or low, civilian or military, owe obedience and alle'iance at all times. "rticle >, o- t&e Civil Code w&ic& renders any public o--icer or employee or any private individual liable in dama'es -or violatin' t&e Constitutional ri'&ts and liberties o- anot&er, as enumerated t&erein, does not e2empt t&e respondents -rom responsibility. Only :ud'es are e2cluded -rom liability under t&e said article, provided t&eir acts or omissions do not constitute a violation o- t&e Penal Code or ot&er penal statute. T&is is not to say t&at military aut&orities are restrained -rom pursuin' t&eir assi'ned task or carryin' out t&eir mission wit& vi'or. ?e &ave no <uarrel wit& t&eir duty to protect t&e Republic -rom its enemies, w&et&er o- t&e le-t or o- t&e ri'&t, or -rom wit&in or wit&out, seekin' to destroy or subvert our democratic institutions and imperil t&eir very e2istence. ?&at we are merely tryin' to say is t&at in carryin' out t&is task and mission, constitutional and le'al sa-e'uards must be observed, ot&erwise, t&e very

-abric o- our -ait& will start to unravel. (n t&e battle o- competin' ideolo'ies, t&e stru''le -or t&e mind is :ust as vital as t&e stru''le o- arms. T&e linc&pin in t&at psyc&olo'ical stru''le is -ait& in t&e rule o- law. Once t&at -ait& is lost or compromised, t&e stru''le may well be abandoned. ?e do not -ind merit in respondentsP su''estion t&at plainti--sP cause o- action is barred by t&e suspension o- t&e privile'e o- t&e writ o- ha#eas corpus. Respondents contend t&at 5Petitioners cannot circumvent t&e suspension o- t&e privile'e o- t&e writ by resortin' to a dama'e suit aimed at t&e same purpose 4 a :udicial in<uiry into t&e alle'ed ille'ality o- t&eir detention. ?&ile t&e main relie- t&ey ask by t&e present action is indemni-ication -or alle'ed dama'es t&ey su--ered, t&eir causes o- action are ine2tricably based on t&e same claim o- violations o- t&eir constitutional ri'&ts t&at t&ey invoked in t&e ha#eas corpus case as 'rounds -or release -rom detention. ?ere t&e petitioners allowed t&e present suit, t&e :udicial in<uiry barred by t&e suspension o- t&e privile'e o- t&e writ will take place. T&e net result is t&at w&at t&e courts cannot do, i.e. override t&e suspension ordered by t&e President, petitioners will be able to do by t&e mere e2pedient o- alterin' t&e title o- t&eir action.5cralaw virtua)aw library ?e do not a'ree. ?e -ind merit in petitionersP contention t&at t&e suspension o- t&e privile'e o- t&e writ o- ha#eas corpus does not destroy petitionersP ri'&t and cause oaction -or dama'es -or ille'al arrest and detention and ot&er violations o- t&eir constitutional ri'&ts. T&e suspension does not render valid an ot&erwise ille'al arrest or detention. ?&at is suspended is merely t&e ri'&t o- t&e individual to seek release -rom detention t&rou'& t&e writ o- ha#eas corpus as a speedy means o- obtainin' &is liberty.c&anrobles.comEcralawEred Moreover, as pointed out by petitioners, t&eir ri'&t and cause o- action -or dama'es are e2plicitly reco'ni9ed in P.6. .o. )+HH w&ic& amended "rticle ))G7 o- t&e Civil Code by addin' t&e -ollowin' to its te2tE:'cEc&anrobles.com.p& 51owever, w&en t&e action (-or in:ury to t&e ri'&ts o- t&e plainti-- or -or a <uasi4delict% arises -rom or out o- any act, activity or conduct o- any public o--icer involvin' t&e e2ercise o- powers or aut&ority arisin' -rom Martial Law includin' t&e arrest, detention andNor trial o- t&e plainti--, t&e same must be brou'&t wit&in one ()% year.5cralaw virtua)aw library Petitioners &ave a point in contendin' t&at even assumin' t&at t&e suspension o- t&e privile'e o- t&e writ o- ha#eas corpus suspends petitionersP ri'&t o- action -or dama'es -or ille'al arrest and detention, it does not and cannot suspend t&eir ri'&ts and causes o- action -or in:uries su--ered because o- respondentsP con-iscation ot&eir private belon'in's, t&e violation o- t&eir ri'&t to remain silent and to counsel and t&eir ri'&t to protection a'ainst unreasonable searc&es and sei9ures and a'ainst torture and ot&er cruel and in&uman treatment. 1owever, we -ind it unnecessary to address t&e constitutional issue pressed upon us. On Marc& ,H, )*B7, President Cora9on C. "<uino issued Proclamation .o. ,, revokin' Proclamation .os. ,/GH and ,/GH4" and li-tin' t&e suspension o- t&e privile'e o- t&e writ o- ha#eas corpus. T&e <uestion t&ere-ore &as become moot and academic. T&is brin's us to t&e crucial issue raised in t&is petition. May a superior o--icer under t&e notion o- respondent superior be answerable -or dama'es, :ointly and severally

wit& &is subordinates, to t&e person w&ose constitutional ri'&ts and liberties &ave been violatedM Respondents contend t&at t&e doctrine o- respondent superior is inapplicable to t&e case. ?e a'ree. T&e doctrine o- respondent superior &as been 'enerally limited in its application to principal and a'ent or to master and servant (i.e. employer and employee% relations&ip. .o suc& relations&ip e2ists between superior o--icers o- t&e military and t&eir subordinates. e t&at as it may, &owever, t&e decisive -actor in t&is case, in our view, is t&e lan'ua'e o- "rticle >,. T&e law speaks o- an o--icer or employee or person 5directly5 or 5indirectly5 responsible -or t&e violation o- t&e constitutional ri'&ts and liberties oanot&er. T&us, it is not t&e actor alone (i.e. t&e one directly responsible% w&o must answer -or dama'es under "rticle >,F t&e person indirectly responsible &as also to answer -or t&e dama'es or in:ury caused to t&e a''rieved party. y t&is provision, t&e principle o- accountability o- public o--icials under t&e Constitution H ac<uires added meanin' and assumes a lar'er dimension. .o lon'er may a superior o--icial rela2 &is vi'ilance or abdicate &is duty to supervise &is subordinates, secure in t&e t&ou'&t t&at &e does not &ave to answer -or t&e trans'ressions committed by t&e latter a'ainst t&e constitutionally protected ri'&ts and liberties o- t&e citi9en. Part o- t&e -actors t&at propelled people power in 0ebruary )*B7 was t&e widely &eld perception t&at t&e 'overnment was callous or indi--erent to, i- not actually responsible -or, t&e rampant violations o- &uman ri'&ts. ?&ile it would certainly be too naive to e2pect t&at violators o- &uman ri'&ts would easily be deterred by t&e prospect o- -acin' dama'e suits, it s&ould nonet&eless be made clear in no uncertain terms t&at "rticle >, o- t&e Civil Code makes t&e persons w&o are directly, as well as indirectly, responsible -or t&e trans'ression :oint tort-easors. (n t&e case at bar, t&e trial court dropped de-endants General 0abian 3er, Col. 0idel ;in'son, Col. Rolando "badilla, Col. Gerardo Lantoria, 8r., Col. Galileo #intanar, Col. Pan-ilo Lacson, Capt. 6anilo Pi9arro, )st Lt. Pedro Tan'o, Lt. Romeo Ricardo and Lt. Ricardo acalso -rom t&e complaint on t&e assumption t&at under t&e law, t&ey cannot be &eld responsible -or t&e wron'-ul acts o- t&eir subordinates. Only Ma:or Rodol-o "'uinaldo and Master ;'t. ienvenido alaba were kept as de-endants on t&e 'round t&at t&ey alone 5&ave been speci-ically mentioned and identi-ied to &ave alle'edly caused in:uries on t&e persons o- some o- t&e plainti--s, w&ic& acts oalle'ed p&ysical violence constitute a delict or wron' t&at 'ave rise to a cause oaction.5 ut suc& -indin' is not supported by t&e record, nor is it in accord wit& law and :urisprudence. 0irstly, it is wron' to limit t&e plainti--sP action -or dama'es to 5acts o- alle'ed p&ysical violence5 w&ic& constituted delict or wron'. "rticle >, clearly speci-ies as actionable t&e act o- violatin' or in any manner impedin' or impairin' any o- t&e constitutional ri'&ts and liberties enumerated t&erein, amon' ot&ers J ). 0reedom -rom arbitrary arrest or ille'al detentionF ,. T&e ri'&t a'ainst deprivation o- property wit&out due process o- lawF >. T&e ri'&t to be secure in onePs person, &ouse, papers and e--ects a'ainst unreasonable searc&es and sei9uresF

G. T&e privacy o- communication and correspondenceF H. 0reedom -rom bein' compelled to be a witness a'ainst onePs sel-, or -rom bein' -orced to con-ess 'uilt, or -rom bein' induced by a promise o- immunity or reward to make a con-ession, e2cept w&en t&e person con-essin' becomes a state witness.c&anrobles law library T&e complaint in t&is liti'ation alle'es -acts s&owin' wit& abundant clarity and details, &ow plainti--sP constitutional ri'&ts and liberties mentioned in "rticle >, o- t&e Civil Code were violated and impaired by de-endants. T&e complaint speaks o-, amon' ot&ers, searc&es made wit&out searc& warrants or based on irre'ularly issued or substantially de-ective warrantsF sei9ures and con-iscation, wit&out proper receipts, ocas& and personal e--ects belon'in' to plainti--s and ot&er items o- property w&ic& were not subversive and ille'al nor covered by t&e searc& warrantsF arrest and detention o- plainti--s wit&out warrant or under irre'ular, improper and ille'al circumstancesF detention o- plainti--s at several undisclosed places o- 5sa-e&ouses5 w&ere t&ey were kept incommunicado and sub:ected to p&ysical and psyc&olo'ical torture and ot&er in&uman, de'radin' and brutal treatment -or t&e purpose oe2tractin' incriminatory statements. T&e complaint contains a detailed recital oabuses perpetrated upon t&e plainti--s violative o- t&eir constitutional ri'&ts. ;econdly, neit&er can it be said t&at only t&ose s&own to &ave participated 5directly5 s&ould be &eld liable. "rticle >, o- t&e Civil Code encompasses wit&in t&e ambit o- its provisions t&ose directly, as well as indirectly, responsible -or its violation. T&e responsibility o- t&e de-endants, w&et&er direct or indirect, is amply set -ort& in t&e complaint. (t is well establis&ed in our law and :urisprudence t&at a motion to dismiss on t&e 'round t&at t&e complaint states no cause o- action must be based on w&at appears on t&e -ace o- t&e complaint. 7 To determine t&e su--iciency o- t&e cause o- action, only t&e -acts alle'ed in t&e complaint, and no ot&ers, s&ould be considered. + 0or t&is purpose, t&e motion to dismiss must &ypot&etically admit t&e trut& o- t&e -acts alle'ed in t&e complaint. B "pplyin' t&is test, it is di--icult to :usti-y t&e trial courtPs rulin', dismissin' -or lack ocause o- action t&e complaint a'ainst all de-endants, e2cept Ma:or Rodol-o "'uinaldo and Master ;'t. ienvenido alaba. T&e complaint contained alle'ations a'ainst all t&e de-endants w&ic&, i- admitted &ypot&etically, would be su--icient to establis& a cause or causes o- action a'ainst all o- t&em under "rticle >, o- t&e Civil Code. T&is brin's us to t&e last issue. ?as t&e trial court correct in dismissin' t&e complaint wit& respect to plainti--s Ro'elio "berca, 6anilo de la 0uente, Marco Palo, "lan 8a9mine9, "le2 Marcelino, !li9abet& Protacio4Marcelino, "l-redo Mansos and Rolando ;alutin, on t&e basis o- t&e alle'ed -ailure o- said plainti--s to -ile a motion -or reconsideration o- t&e courtPs resolution o- .ovember B, )*B>, 'rantin' t&e respondentPs motion to dismissM (t is undisputed t&at a timely motion to set aside said order o- .ovember B, )*B> was -iled by 5plainti--s, t&rou'& counsel.5 True, t&e motion was si'ned only by "tty. 8oker P. "rroyo, counsel -or en:amin ;es'undoF "tty. "ntonio Rosales, counsel -or !dwin Lope9 and Manuel Martin Gu9manF "tty. Pedro . !lla, 8r., counsel -or .estor odino and Carlos PalmaF "tty. "rno 3. ;anidad, counsel -or "rturo TabaraF "tty. 0elicitas ;.

"<uino, counsel -or 8osep& OlayerF and "tty. "le2ander Padilla, counsel -or Rodol-o enosa. ut t&e body o- t&e motion itsel- clearly indicated t&at t&e motion was -iled on be&alo- all t&e plainti--s. "nd t&is must &ave been also t&e understandin' o- de-endantsP counsel &imsel- -or w&en &e -iled &is comment on t&e motion, &e -urnis&ed copies t&ereo-, not :ust to t&e lawyers w&o si'ned t&e motion, but to all t&e lawyers oplainti--s, to witE "ttys. 8ose ?. 6iokno, Procopio eltran, Rene ;armiento, !-ren Mercado, "u'usto ;anc&e9, "ntonio Rosales, Pedro !lla, 8r., "rno ;anidad, "le2ander Padilla, 8oker "rroyo, Rene ;a'uisa', Ramon !s'uerra and 0elicitas ;. "<uino. (n -ilin' t&e motion to set aside t&e resolution o- .ovember B, )*B>, t&e si'nin' attorneys did so on be&al- o- all t&e plainti--s. T&ey needed no speci-ic aut&ority to do t&at. T&e aut&ority o- an attorney to appear -or and in be&al- o- a party can be assumed, unless <uestioned or c&allen'ed by t&e adverse party or t&e party concerned, w&ic& was never done in t&is case. T&us, it was 'rave abuse on t&e part o- respondent :ud'e to take it upon &imsel- to rule t&at t&e motion to set aside t&e order o- .ovember B, )*H> dismissin' t&e complaint was -iled only by some o- t&e plainti--s, w&en by its very lan'ua'e it was clearly intended to be -iled by and -or t&e bene-it o- all o- t&em. (t is obvious t&at t&e respondent :ud'e took umbra'e under a contrived tec&nicality to declare t&at t&e dismissal o- t&e complaint &ad already become -inal wit& respect to some o- t&e plainti--s w&ose lawyers did not si'n t&e motion -or reconsideration. ;uc& action tainted wit& le'al in-irmity cannot be sanctioned.c&anrobles virtual lawlibrary "ccordin'ly, we 'rant t&e petition and annul and set aside t&e resolution o- t&e respondent court, dated .ovember B, )*B>, its order dated May )), )*BG and its resolution dated ;eptember ,), )*BG. Let t&e case be remanded to t&e respondent court -or -urt&er proceedin's. ?it& Costs a'ainst private respondents. ;O OR6!R!6. %+5a(at+ O5,n,ons T!!1".#!!, C.C., concurrin'Ec&anrob)es virtual )aw library T&e CourtPs :ud'ment at bar makes clear t&at all persons, be t&ey public o--icers or employees, or members o- t&e military or police -orce or private individuals w&o directly or indirectly obstruct, de-eat, violate or in any manner impede or impair t&e constitutional ri'&ts and civil liberties o- anot&er person, stand liable and may be sued in court -or dama'es as provided in "rt. >, o- t&e Civil Code. T&e case at bar speci-ically up&olds and reinstates t&e civil action -or dama'es -iled in t&e court below by petitioners4plainti--s -or ille'al searc&es conducted by military personnel and ot&er violations o- t&eir constitutional ri'&ts and liberties. "t t&e same time it re:ects t&e automatic application o- t&e principle o- respondent superior or command responsibility t&at would &old a superior o--icer :ointly and severally accountable -or dama'es, includin' moral and e2emplary, wit& &is subordinates w&o committed suc& trans'ressions. 1owever, t&e :ud'ment 'ives t&e caveat t&at a superior o--icer must not abdicate is duty to properly supervise &is subordinates -or &e

runs t&e risk o- bein' &eld responsible -or 'ross ne'li'ence and o- bein' &eld under t&e cited provision o- t&e Civil Code as indirectly and solidarily accountable wit& t&e tort-easor.c&anrobles.com E virtual law library T&e rationale -or t&is rule o- law was best e2pressed by randeis in t&is wiseE 5(n a 'overnment o- laws, e2istence o- t&e 'overnment will be imperilled i- it -ails to observe t&e law scrupulously. Our 'overnment is t&e potent omnipresent teac&er. 0or 'ood or ill, it teac&es t&e w&ole people by e2ample. Crime is conta'ious. (- t&e 'overnment becomes t&e law breaker, it breeds contempt -or t&e law, it invites every man to become a law unto &imsel-, it invites anarc&y. To declare t&at in t&e administration ocriminal law t&e end :usti-ies t&e means . . . . would brin' terrible retribution.5 ) "s t&e writer stressed in 1ildawa v. !nrile , w&ic& was an action to en:oin t&e operations o- t&e dreaded secret mars&als durin' t&e past re'ime, 5(n a democratic state, you donPt stop to t&e level o- criminals. (- we stoop to w&at t&ey do, t&en wePre no better t&an t&ey . . . t&ere would be no di--erence..5 . . T&e ;upreme Court stands as t&e 'uarantor o- t&e Constitutional and &uman ri'&ts o- all persons wit&in its :urisdiction and cannot abdicate its basic role under t&e Constitution t&at t&ese ri'&ts be respected and en-orced. T&e spirit and letter o- t&e Constitution ne'ates as contrary to t&e basic precepts o- &uman ri'&ts and -reedom t&at a personPs li-e be snu--ed out wit&out due process in a split second even i- &e is cau'&t in -la'rante delicto J unless it was called -or as an act o- sel-4de-ense by t&e law a'ents usin' reasonable means to prevent or repel an unlaw-ul a''ression on t&e part o- t&e deceased.5cralaw virtua)aw library .eedless to say, t&e criminal acts o- t&e 5;parrow @nits5 or deat& s<uads o- t&e .P" w&ic& &ave in-iltrated t&e cities and suburbs and per-ormed t&eir despicable killin's oinnocent civilians and military and police o--icers constitute an e<ually perverse violation o- t&e sanctity o- &uman li-e and must be severely condemned by all w&o ad&ere to t&e Rule o- Law. (t need only be pointed out t&at one o- t&e -irst acts o- t&e present 'overnment under President Cora9on C. "<uino a-ter &er assumption o- o--ice in 0ebruary, )*B7 was to -ile our 'overnmentPs rati-ication and access to all &uman ri'&ts instruments adopted under t&e auspices o- t&e @nited .ations, declarin' t&ereby t&e 'overnmentPs commitment to observe t&e precepts o- t&e @nited .ations C&arter and t&e @niversal 6eclaration o- 1uman Ri'&ts. More t&an t&is, pursuant to our Constitution w&ic& t&e people decisively rati-ied on 0ebruary ,, )*B+, t&e independent o--ice o- t&e Commission on 1uman Ri'&ts &as been created and or'ani9ed wit& ample powers to investi'ate &uman ri'&ts violations and take remedial measures a'ainst all suc& violations by t&e military as well as by t&e civilian 'roups.c&anrobles.comEcralawEred

G.R. No. L8&*&86 August 29, 1995 PA#LINO PAD#A an L#CENA BEBIN PAD#A, plainti--s4appellants, vs. GREGORIO N. ROBLE% an BAY "A/I CAB, de-endants4appellees. *l#erto -. de Co+a 5or plainti55sDappellants. CA%"RO, J.: Resolvin' t&is appeal by t&e spouses Paulino and Lucena ebin Padua, we set aside t&e order dated October ,H, )*+, o- t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- Lambales dismissin' t&eir complaint, in civil case )/+*4O, and remand t&is case -or -urt&er proceedin's. (n t&e early mornin' o- .ew $ear=s 6ay o- )*7* a ta2icab (bearin' )*7B plate no. TA4 *>*H and driven by Romeo .. Pun9alan but operated by t&e ay Ta2i Cab owned by Gre'orio .. Robles% struck ten4year old .ormandy Padua on t&e national road in barrio arretto, Olon'apo City. T&e impact &urled .ormandy about -orty meters away -rom t&e point w&ere t&e ta2icab struck &im, as a result o- w&ic& &e died. ;ubse<uently, .ormandy=s parents (Paulino and Lucena ebin Padua%, by complaint -iled wit& t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- Lambales (civil case G,+4O%, sou'&t dama'es -rom Pun9alan and t&e ay Ta2i CabF likewise, t&e city 0iscal o- Olon'apo, by in-ormation -iled wit& t&e same court (criminal case ))HB4O%, c&ar'ed Pun9alan wit& &omicide t&rou'& reckless imprudence. On October ,+, )*7* t&e court a $uo, in civil case G,+4O, ad:ud'ed -or t&e Paduas as -ollowsE ?1!R!0OR!, :ud'ment is &ereby rendered orderin' t&e de-endant Romeo Pun9alan to pay t&e plainti--s t&e sums oP),,///.// as actual dama'es, PH,///.// as moral and e2emplary dama'es, and P)/,///.// as attorney=s -eesF and dis"issin6 the co"plaint inso5ar as the ;a+ .a@ica# Co"pan+ is concerned. ?it& costs a'ainst t&e de-endant Romeo Pun9alan. (!mp&asis supplied% "lmost a year later, on October H, )*+/, t&e court a $uo, in criminal case ))HB4O, convicted Pun9alan, as -ollowsE ?1!R!0OR!, t&e Court -inds t&e accused Romeo Pun9alan y .arciso 'uilty beyond reasonable doubt o- t&e crime o- &omicide t&rou'& reckless imprudence, as de-ined and penali9ed under "rticle >7H o- t&e Revised Penal Code, attended by t&e miti'atin' circumstance o- voluntary surrender, and &ereby sentences &im to su--er t&e indeterminate penalty o- T?O (,% $!"R;, 0O@R (G% MO.T1; and O.! ()% 6"$ o- prision correccional, as minimum, to ;(A (7% $!"R; and O.! ()% 6"$ o- prision "a+or, as ma2imum,

and to pay t&e cost. .he ci&il lia#ilit+ o5 the accused has alread+ #een deter"ined and assessed in Ci&il Case Eo. 3<AD/, entitled )aulino )adua, et al. &s. -o"eo )un'alan, et al.= (!mp&asis supplied% "-ter t&e :ud'ment in civil case G,+4O became -inal, t&e Paduas sou'&t e2ecution t&ereo-. T&is proved -utileF t&e correspondin' court o--icer returned t&e writ oe2ecution unsatis-ied. @nable to collect t&e amount o- P,+,/// awarded in t&eir -avor, t&e Paduas instituted action in t&e same court a'ainst Gre'orio .. Robles to en-orce t&e latter=s subsidiary responsibility under t&e provisions o- article )/> o- t&e Revised Penal Code. Robles -iled a motion to dismiss based on ()% bar o- t&e cause o- action by a prior :ud'ment and (,% -ailure o- t&e complaint to state a cause o- action. T&erea-ter, t&e court a $uo, in an order dated October ,H, )*+,, 'ranted Robles= motion to dismiss on t&e 'round t&at t&e Paduas= complaint states no cause o- action. T&is order t&e Paduas <uestioned in t&e Court o- "ppeals w&ic&, by resolution dated Marc& H, )*+H, certi-ied t&e case to t&is Court -or t&e reason t&at t&e appeal involves only <uestions o- law. T&e Paduas predicate t&eir appeal on ei'&teen errors alle'edly committed by t&e court a $uo. T&ese assi'ned errors, &owever, raise only one substantial issueE w&et&er t&e :ud'ment dated October H, )*+/ in criminal case ))HB4O includes a determination and ad:udication o- Pun9alan=s civil liability arisin' -rom &is criminal act upon w&ic& Robles= subsidiary civil responsibility may be based. T&e su--iciency and e--icacy o- a :ud'ment must be tested by its substance rat&er t&an its -orm. (n construin' a :ud'ment, its le'al e--ects includin' suc& e--ects t&at necessarily -ollow because o- le'al implications, rat&er t&an t&e lan'ua'e used 'overn. "lso, its meanin', operation, and conse<uences must be ascertained like any ot&er written instrument. T&us, a :ud'ment rests on t&e intention o- t&e court as 'at&ered -rom every part t&ereo-, includin' t&e situation to w&ic& it applies and t&e attendant circumstances. (t would appear t&at a plain readin', on its -ace, o- t&e :ud'ment in criminal case ))HB4O, particularly its decretal portion, easily results in t&e same conclusion reac&ed by t&e court a $uoE t&at t&e said :ud'ment no civil liability arisin' -rom t&e o--ense c&ar'ed a'ainst Pun9alan. 1owever, a care-ul study o- t&e :ud'ment in <uestion, t&e situation to w&ic& it applies, and t&e attendant circumstances, would yield t&e conclusion t&at t&e court a $uo, on t&e contrary, reco'ni9ed t&e en-orceable ri'&t ot&e Paduas to t&e civil liability arisin' -rom t&e o--ense committed by Pun9alan and awarded t&e correspondin' indemnity t&ere-or. Civil liability coe2ists wit& criminal responsibility. (n ne'li'ence cases t&e o--ended party (or &is &eirs% &as t&e option between an action -or en-orcement o- civil liability based on culpa cri"inal under article )// o- t&e Revised Penal Code and an action -or recovery o- dama'es based on culpa a$uiliana under article ,)++ o- t&e Civil Code. T&e action -or en-orcement o- civil liability based on culpa cri"inal section ) o-

Rule ))) o- t&e Rules o- Court deems simultaneously instituted wit& t&e criminal action, unless e2pressly waived or reserved -or a separate application by t&e o--ended party. "rticle ,)++ o- t&e Civil Code, &owever, precludes recovery odama'es twice -or t&e same ne'li'ent act or omission. (n t&e case at bar, t&e Court -inds it immaterial t&at t&e Paduas c&ose, in t&e -irst instance, an action -or recovery o- dama'es based on culpa a$uiliana under articles ,)+7, ,)++, and ,)B/ o- t&e Civil Code, w&ic& action proved ine--ectual. T&e Court also takes note o- t&e absence o- any inconsistency between t&e a-orementioned action priorly availed o- by t&e Paduas and t&eir subse<uent application -or en-orcement o- civil liability arisin' -rom t&e o--ense committed by Pun9alan and conse<uently, -or e2action o- Robles= subsidiary responsibility. "llowance o- t&e latter application involves no violation o- t&e proscription a'ainst double recovery odama'es -or t&e same ne'li'ent act or omission. 0or, as &ereinbe-ore stated, t&e correspondin' o--icer o- t&e court a <uo returned unsatis-ied t&e writ o- e2ecution issued a'ainst Pun9alan to satis-y t&e amount o- indemnity awarded to t&e Paduas in civil case G,+4O. "rticle ,)++ o- t&e Civil Code -orbids actual double recovery odama'es -or t&e same ne'li'ent act or omission. 0inally, t&e Court notes t&at t&e same :ud'e > tried, &eard, and determined bot& civil case G,+4O and criminal case ))H4O. #nowled'e o- an -amiliarity wit& all t&e -acts and circumstances relevant and relative to t&e civil liability o- Pun9alan may t&us be readily attributed to t&e :ud'e w&en &e rendered :ud'ment in t&e criminal action. (n view o- t&e above considerations, it cannot reasonably be contended t&at t&e court a $uo intended, in its :ud'ment in criminal case ))HB4O, to omit reco'nition ot&e ri'&t o- t&e Paduas to t&e civil liability arisin' -rom t&e o--ense o- w&ic& Pun9alan was ad:ud'ed 'uilty and t&e corollary award o- t&e correspondin' indemnity t&ere-or. ;urely, it cannot be said t&at t&e court intended t&e statement in t&e decretal portion o- t&e :ud'ment in criminal case ))HB4O re-errin' to t&e determination and assessment o- Pun9alan=s civil liability in civil case G,+4O to be pure :ar'on or 5'obbledy'ook5 and to be absolutely o- no meanin' and e--ect w&atever. T&e substance o- suc& statement, taken in t&e li'&t o- t&e situation to w&ic& it applies and t&e attendant circumstances, makes unmistakably clear t&e intention o- t&e court to accord a--irmation to t&e Paduas= ri'&t to t&e civil liability arisin' -rom t&e :ud'ment a'ainst Pun9alan in criminal case ))HB4O. (ndeed, by includin' suc& statement in t&e decretal portion o- t&e said :ud'ment, t&e court intended to adopt t&e same ad:udication and award it made in civil case G,+4O as Pun9alan=s civil liability in criminal case ))HB4O. T&ere is indeed muc& to be desired in t&e -ormulation by 8ud'e "mores o- t&at part ot&e decretal portion o- t&e :ud'ment in criminal case ))HB4O re-errin' to t&e civil liability o- Pun9alan resultin' -rom &is criminal conviction. T&e :ud'e could &ave been -ort&ri'&t and direct instead o- circuitous and ambi'uous. ut, as we &ave e2plained, t&e statement on t&e civil liability o- Pun9alan must surely &ave a meanin' and even it&e statement were reasonably susceptible o- two or more interpretations, t&at w&ic& ac&ieves moral :ustice s&ould be adopted, esc&ewin' t&e ot&er interpretations w&ic& in e--ect would ne'ate moral :ustice. (t is not amiss at t&is :uncture to emp&asi9e to all ma'istrates in all levels o- t&e :udicial &ierarc&y t&at e2treme de'ree o- care s&ould be e2ercise in t&e -ormulation o-

t&e dispositive portion o- a decision, because it is t&is portion t&at is to be e2ecuted once t&e decision becomes -inal. T&e ad:udication o- t&e ri'&ts and obli'ations o- t&e parties, and t&e dispositions made as well as t&e directions and instructions 'iven by t&e court in t&e premises in con-ormity wit& t&e body o- t&e decision, must all be spelled out clearly, distinctly and une<uivocally, leavin' absolutely no room -or dispute, debate or interpretation. ?e t&ere-ore &old t&at t&e Paduas= complaint in civil case )/+*4O states a cause oaction a'ainst Robles w&ose concommitant subsidiary responsibility, per t&e :ud'ment in criminal case ))HB4O, subsists. "CCOR6(.GL$, t&e order a $uo dated October ,H, )*+, dismissin' t&e complaint in civil case )/+*4O is set aside, and t&is case is &ereby remanded to t&e court a $uo -or -urt&er proceedin's con-ormably wit& t&is decision and wit& law. .o pronouncement as to costs. %+5a(at+ O5,n,ons $ERNANDO, J., concurrin'E T&e clarity and lucidity wit& w&ic& 8ustice Castro spelled out t&e decisive issue and &ow to resolve it to ac&ieve t&e desirable 'oal o- moral :ustice in ad:udication compels concurrence. ( do so. ?&at is more, t&ere is to my mind a distinct advance in t&e :uridical -rontiers in t&e mode in w&ic& t&e novel <uestion raised was settled. (- t&e trend mani-est in t&e view taken by t&e Court would t&erea-ter be -ollowed, t&en t&e protective ramparts t&e law t&rows 'round victims o- ve&icular accidents, un-ortunately o- rat&er -re<uent occurrence &ere, will be -urt&er stren't&ened. T&at dissipates w&atever doubts ( may &ave ori'inally -elt in view o- certain traditional procedural concepts about t&e correctness o- t&e decision reac&ed. (t is true t&is is one o- t&ose &ard cases w&ic&, i- an old law is to be believed, may result in bad law. (t need not be so, o- course, as pointed out wit& 'reat persuasiveness in t&e )*+) inau'ural lecture at O2-ord 'iven by Pro-essor Ronald 6workin, t&e successor in t&e c&air o- :urisprudence to one o- t&e most eminent men in t&e -ield 1.L.". 1art. 1 T&e more accurate way o- viewin' t&e matter is t&at w&enever t&ere is an apparent 'ap in t&e law and settled principles o- ad:udication may not clearly indicate t&e answer, t&en a :ud'e may rely eit&er on an ar'ument o- policy or an ar'ument o- principle, t&e -ormer &avin' kins&ip wit& t&e sociolo'ical sc&ool o- :urisprudence and t&e latter wit& t&e analytical. "s ( &ope ( may be able to indicate in t&is brie- concurrence, t&e decision reac&ed by us is in consonance wit& eit&er approac&. ?it& t&e natural law t&inkin' mani-est in t&e opinion o- t&e Court, witness its stress on moral :ustice, ( am com-orted by t&e re-lection t&at t&e procedural barrier is not insurmountable, t&e decision reac&ed derivin' support -rom t&e viewpoint o- law as lo'ic, :ustice, or social control. ). 6workin identi-ies a matter o- principle -rom t&e standpoint o- a ri'&t eit&er 'ranted or reco'ni9ed by law. "s was so clearly pointed out in t&e opinion o- 8ustice CastroE 5(t would appear t&at a plain readin', on its -ace, o- t&e :ud'ment in criminal case ))HB4O, particularly its decretal portion, easily results in t&e same conclusion reac&ed by t&e court a $uoE t&at t&e said :ud'ment assessed no civil liability arisin' -rom t&e o--ense c&ar'ed a'ainst Pun9alan. 1owever, a care-ul study o- t&e :ud'ment in

<uestion, t&e situation to w&ic& it applies, and t&e attendant circumstances, would yield t&e conclusion t&at t&e court a $uo, on t&e contrary, reco'ni9ed t&e en-orceable ri'&t o- t&e Paduas to t&e civil liability arisin' -rom t&e o--ense committed by Pun9alan and awarded t&e correspondin' indemnity t&ere-or.5 2 T&ere is muc& to be said t&ere-or -or t&e view e2pressed t&erein t&at 5it cannot reasonably be contended t&at t&e court a $uo intended, in its :ud'ment in criminal case ))HB4O, to omit reco'nition o- t&e ri'&t o- t&e Paduas to t&e civil liability arisin' -rom t&e o--ense o- w&ic& Pun9alan was ad:ud'ed 'uilty and t&e corollary award o- t&e correspondin' indemnity t&ere-or. ;urely, it cannot be said t&at t&e court intended t&e statement in t&e decretal portion o- t&e :ud'ment in criminal case ))HB4O re-errin' to t&e determination and assessment o- Pun9alan=s civil liability in civil case G,+4O to be pure :ar'on or ='obbledy'ook= and to be absolutely o- no meanin' and e--ect w&atsoever. T&e substance o- suc& statement, taken in t&e li'&t o- t&e situation to w&ic& it applies and t&e attendant circumstances, makes unmistakably clear t&e intention o- t&e court to accord a--irmation to t&e Padua=s ri'&t to t&e civil liability arisin' -rom t&e :ud'ment a'ainst Pun9alan in criminal case ))HB4O.5 7 ?&atever mis'ivin's t&ere-ore may be -elt because in t&e civil case .o. G,+4O t&e complaint a'ainst ay Ta2i Cab Co. is dismissed, do not su--ice, to my mind, to render nu'atory t&e admitted subsidiary liability arisin' -rom a decision in criminal case .o. ))HB4O w&ic& is necessarily attendant upon t&e conviction o- t&e driver, Romeo .. Pun9alan. ;uc& a di--iculty could &ave been avoided &ad 'reater care been e2ercised by t&e lower court, but precisely recourse may be &ad to our corrective powers to avoid a ri'&t 'ranted in law -rom bein' rendered illusory in -act. ,. T&ere is t&us t&e stron'est policy consideration t&at buttresses t&e conclusion reac&ed by us. (t would conduce to less respect -or t&e law as an a'ency o- social control i- t&ere be reco'nition in t&e codes o- t&e ri'&t o- ne2t kin to dama'es arisin' -rom t&e tra'ic occurrence o- youn' lives bein' snu--ed out due to reckless drivin' on t&e part o- w&at &ad been accurately described as dealers o- deat& on t&e road and t&en by lack o- care on t&e part o- a :ud'e assure t&at it is not&in' more t&an a barren -orm o- words. T&is is w&at 6ean Pound re-erred to as law in books as distin'uis&ed -rom law in action. To recall an e2pression -rom 8ustice 8ackson, it is comparable to a muni-icent be<uest in a pauper=s will. (t is less t&an realistic to assert t&at anyway t&e 'uilty driver can be made to pay. T&e obvious answer isE= ?it& w&atM5 T&is is not to deny t&at a previous :ud'ment t&at certainly lends itsel- to ambi'uity considerin' t&e -acts disclosed and -ound by t&e trial court does interpose :uristic di--iculty to t&e imposition o- liability on t&e o--endin' ta2icab company. T&ere can be no blinkin' t&e -act t&ou'& t&at i- it did not place suc& ve&icles on t&e road driven in suc& a reckless and culpable manner resultin' in a ten4year old boy bein' &urled about -orty meters away -rom t&e point o- impact, t&is tra'edy could &ave been avoided. To say now t&at doubts en'endered by t&e previous rulin' in t&e culpa a<uiliana suit could nulli-y w&at t&e law decrees as to t&e subsidiary liability o- t&e employer in t&e criminal case -indin' t&e accused 'uilty would be -rau'&t wit& pernicious conse<uences. T&e party :ust as muc& responsible -or t&e mis&ap, wit& &is operation o- t&e transportation service, would be absolved -rom liability. (t need not be so, but certainly -or entrepreneurs more enterprisin' t&an care-ul, not e2cessively concerned wit& t&e sa-ety o- t&e travelin' public, it could be a 'reen li'&t -or less vi'ilance over t&e conduct o- t&eir drivers. T&e resultin' in:ury to public sa-ety is not &ard to ima'ine. Moreover, -rom t&e standpoint o- t&e -eelin's o- t&e bereaved parents, and t&is is :ust as important a policy consideration, ( -eel t&at no avenue

s&ould be le-t une2plored to miti'ate t&e &ars&ness o- -ate. To parap&rase 8ustice Malcolm, t&ere is not enou'& money in t&e entire world to compensate t&e parents -or t&e loss o- t&eir c&ild. & To repeat, t&e decision reac&ed &as my -ull concurrence. BARREDO, J., concurrin'E On strictly le'al considerations, it would seem possible to dismiss t&e petition -or review in t&is case. ut t&ere are certain considerations o- e<uity and substantial :ustice obviously underlyin' t&e cause o- petitioners w&ic& ( -ind di--icult to i'nore. (t would be un-air and un:ust to deprive said petitioners o- t&eir ri'&t to dama'es -or t&e deat& o- t&eir c&ild un<uestionably caused by t&e -ault o- respondent=s employee merely because t&e dispositive portion o- t&e decision o- 8ud'e "mores in t&e criminal case appears to be rat&er e<uivocal on its -ace as to respondent=s liability t&ere-or, albeit under t&e incontrovertible -acts e2tant in t&e record suc& liability is indisputable in law and t&e lan'ua'e o- 8ud'e "mores= :ud'ment does not anyway e2onerate eit&er respondent=s driver or private respondent, and w&at is more, does not e2clude t&e idea t&at, as e2plained in t&e able main opinion o- Mr. 8ustice Castro, t&e :ud'e intended to merely adopt and incorporate in said :ud'ment t&e assessment o- amount o- dama'es w&ic& said :ud'e &imsel- &ad already made in t&e civil case &e &ad previously decided. (t is on t&ese -undamental considerations t&at ( base my concurrence in t&e :ud'ment in t&is case. "s ( &ave already indicated, -rom t&e standpoint o- strict ad:ective law, t&e petition s&ould be dismissed because in trut&, t&ere is yet no s&owin' t&at any attempt &as been made by petitioners to &ave t&e :ud'ment in t&e criminal cases, assumin' it includes an imposition o- civil liability upon t&e accused driver, Romeo .. Pun9alan, e2ecuted. ?&at appears in t&e record is t&at it was t&e writ o- e2ecution issued a'ainst said Pun9alan in t&e previous civil case t&at was returned unsatis-ied. Ocourse, t&is point is &i'&ly tec&nical, because all t&at &as to be done is -or petitioners to &ave anot&er e2ecution in t&e criminal case, w&ic& it can even now be -orseen will &ave e2actly t&e same result. ( am t&ere-ore a'reeable as a matter o- e<uity t&at t&e Court &old t&at -or all le'al intents and purposes, ?e may consider t&e return oinsolvency o- Pun9alan in t&e civil case as in e--ect t&e return in t&e criminal case, since e<uity considers as done w&at ou'&t to &ave been done w&en ot&erwise in:ustice would result. "nd so, t&e paramount <uestion arises, was t&ere any civil liability to impose in t&e criminal :ud'ment o- 8ud'e "moresM "s related in t&e main opinion, t&e :ud'ment o- October ,+, )*7* in t&e civil case ordered Pun9alan 5to pay plainti--s (&erein petitioners% t&e sums o- P),,///.// as actual dama'es PH,///.// as moral and e2emplary dama'es, and P)/,///.// as attorney=s -ees,5 alt&ou'& absolvin' at t&e same time t&e &erein private respondent, and t&en, on October H, )*+/, t&e :ud'ment in t&e criminal case was as -ollowsE ?1!R!0OR!, t&e Court -inds t&e accused Romeo Pun9alan y .arciso 'uilty beyond reasonable doubt o- t&e crime o- &omicide t&rou'& reckless imprudence, as de-ined and penali9ed under "rticle >7H o- t&e Revised Penal Code, attended by t&e miti'atin' circumstance o- voluntary surrender, and &ereby sentences &im to su--er t&e indeterminate penalty o- T?O (,% $!"R;, 0O@R (G% MO.T1; and O.! ()% 6"$ o- prision correccional, as minimum, to ;(A (7% $!"R; and O.! ()% 6"$ o- prision mayor, as ma2imum,

and to pay t&e costs. .he ci&il lia#ilit+ o5 the accused has alread+ #een deter"ined and assessed in Ci&il Case Eo. 3<AD/, entitled F)aulino )adua, et al. &s. -o"eo )un'alan, et al. (!mp&asis supplied% ;uccintly, t&e decisive issue presented to @s now is w&et&er t&is :ud'ment :ust transcribed imposes upon Pun9alan a civil liability by adoption by re-erence o- t&e civil liability already a :ud'ed in t&e civil case or it e2onerates &im -rom any civil liability arisin' -rom t&e o--ense o- w&ic& &e &as been -ound 'uilty inasmuc& as &e was already -ound civilly liable in t&e civil case. (t must be admitted in candor t&at bot& constructions are literally tenable, wit& t&e particularity, &owever, t&at t&e -irst interpretation, i- adopted could not involve t&e assumption t&at t&e :ud'e committed a 'rievous and palpable error o- law w&ereas t&e second would necessarily mean t&at &e did. (t is by now settled beyond all cavil as to dispense wit& t&e citation o- :urisprudence, t&at a ne'li'ent act suc& as t&at committed by Pun9alan 'ives rise to at least two separate and independent kinds o- liabilities, ()% t&e civil liability arisin' -rom crime or culpa cri"inal and (,% t&e liability arisin' -rom civil ne'li'ence or t&e so4 called culpa a$uiliana. T&ese two concepts o- -ault are so distinct -rom eac& ot&er t&at e2oneration -rom one does not result in e2oneration -rom t&e ot&er. "d:ectively and substantively, t&ey can be prosecuted separately and independently o- eac& ot&er, alt&ou'& "rticle ,)++ o- t&e Civil Code precludes recovery o- dama'es twice -or t&e same ne'li'ent act or omission, w&ic& means t&at s&ould t&ere be varyin' amounts awarded in two separate cases, t&e plainti-- may recover, in e--ect, only t&e bi''er amount. T&at is to say, i- t&e plainti-- &as already been ordered paid an amount in one case and in t&e ot&er case t&e amount ad:ud'ed is bi''er, &e s&all be entitled in t&e second case only to t&e e2cess over t&e one -i2ed in t&e -irst case, but i- &e &as already been paid a bi''er amount in t&e -irst case, &e may not recover anymore in t&e second case. T&us, in t&e case at bar, inasmuc& as Pun9alan &ad already been sentenced to pay t&e &erein petitioners t&e amounts above4stated, in t&e subse<uent criminal case, &e could not be ad:ud'ed to pay a &i'&er amount. .ow, under "rticle )// o- t&e Revised Penal Code, a person criminally liable is also civilly liable, &ence, t&e :ud'ment in t&e criminal case is supposed to include t&e imposition o- civil liability, unless t&e basis t&ere-or &as been s&own not to e2ist, w&ic& is not t&e case &ere. "nd since t&e :ud'ment in <uestion says t&at 5t&e civil liability o- t&e accused &as already been determined and assessed in Civil Case .o. G,+4O entitled )aulino )adua et al. &s. -o"eo )un'alan et al.,5 it is but lo'ical to conclude t&at t&e meanin' o- suc& statement is t&at t&e same amounts o- dama'es -i2ed in t&e previous case were bein' awarded to t&e o--ended party in t&e criminal case. Ot&erwise, ?e would &ave to indul'e in t&e assumption t&at 8ud'e "mores committed t&e 'rievous and palpable error o- law o- e2oneratin' Pun9alan o- all civil liabilities in t&e criminal case :ust because &e &ad already been sentenced to pay dama'es in t&e civil case. ( am not ready to accept suc& assumption. T&e law and :urisprudence on t&e matter are so clear and well4settled t&at ( re-use to believe t&at a :ud'e o- t&e e2perience o- 8ud'e "mores would not be co'ni9ant t&ereo-. esides, 8ud'e "mores knew or ou'&t to &ave known t&at &avin' absolved &erein respondent in t&e civil case, t&e only possible recourse &as le-t to petitioners to recover -rom said respondent dama'es -or t&e deat& o- t&eir c&ild caused by t&e indisputable ne'li'ence o- &is employee Pun9alan is in t&e -orm o- t&e subsidiary liability o- t&e

employer under t&e Penal Code. (ndeed, ( cannot believe t&at 8ud'e "mores intended to allow respondent to escape liability alto'et&er, it bein' evident under t&e circumstances w&ic& &e &imsel- &as -ound in bot& cases, civil and criminal, t&at Pun9alan, t&eir employee, &ad cause t&e deat& o- t&e ten4year4old c&ild o- petitioners t&ru reckless imprudence and t&at in suc& a situation in t&e law e2acts liability -rom bot& t&e employee and t&e employer. ?&at is more, ( consider it but e<uitable to &old t&at t&e rat&er e<uivocal p&raseolo'y o- t&e decision o- 8ud'e "mores s&ould be read in t&e sense it was understood by t&e petitioners, w&o in t&e -ait& and reliance t&at t&e law &ad been complied wit& by 8ud'e "mores and t&at &e &ad accordin'ly awarded t&em in t&e criminal case t&e civil liability t&at by law 'oes wit& it, did not anymore move -or clari-ication or reconsideration nor appeal -rom said decision. My understandin' is t&at t&e -ilin' o- t&e sub:ect civil action by petitioners proceeded -rom t&at assumption, namely, t&at Pun9alan &as been -ound civilly liable -or t&e same amounts ad:ud'ed in t&e civil case and, t&ere-ore, respondent is subsidiarily liable t&ere-or in t&e -ace o- Pun9alan=s insolvency. "ccordin'ly, ( concur in t&at t&e order o- dismissal o- respondent :ud'e s&ould be set aside and t&at petitioners= action s&ould be tried on t&e merits. %+5a(at+ O5,n,ons $ERNANDO, J., concurrin'E T&e clarity and lucidity wit& w&ic& 8ustice Castro spelled out t&e decisive issue and &ow to resolve it to ac&ieve t&e desirable 'oal o- moral :ustice in ad:udication compels concurrence. ( do so. ?&at is more, t&ere is to my mind a distinct advance in t&e :uridical -rontiers in t&e mode in w&ic& t&e novel <uestion raised was settled. (- t&e trend mani-est in t&e view taken by t&e Court would t&erea-ter be -ollowed, t&en t&e protective ramparts t&e law t&rows 'round victims o- ve&icular accidents, un-ortunately o- rat&er -re<uent occurrence &ere, will be -urt&er stren't&ened. T&at dissipates w&atever doubts ( may &ave ori'inally -elt in view o- certain traditional procedural concepts about t&e correctness o- t&e decision reac&ed. (t is true t&is is one o- t&ose &ard cases w&ic&, i- an old law is to be believed, may result in bad law. (t need not be so, o- course, as pointed out wit& 'reat persuasiveness in t&e )*+) inau'ural lecture at O2-ord 'iven by Pro-essor Ronald 6workin, t&e successor in t&e c&air o- :urisprudence to one o- t&e most eminent men in t&e -ield 1.L.". 1art. 1 T&e more accurate way o- viewin' t&e matter is t&at w&enever t&ere is an apparent 'ap in t&e law and settled principles o- ad:udication may not clearly indicate t&e answer, t&en a :ud'e may rely eit&er on an ar'ument o- policy or an ar'ument o- principle, t&e -ormer &avin' kins&ip wit& t&e sociolo'ical sc&ool o- :urisprudence and t&e latter wit& t&e analytical. "s ( &ope ( may be able to indicate in t&is brie- concurrence, t&e decision reac&ed by us is in consonance wit& eit&er approac&. ?it& t&e natural law t&inkin' mani-est in t&e opinion o- t&e Court, witness its stress on moral :ustice, ( am com-orted by t&e re-lection t&at t&e procedural barrier is not insurmountable, t&e decision reac&ed derivin' support -rom t&e viewpoint o- law as lo'ic, :ustice, or social control. ). 6workin identi-ies a matter o- principle -rom t&e standpoint o- a ri'&t eit&er 'ranted or reco'ni9ed by law. "s was so clearly pointed out in t&e opinion o- 8ustice CastroE 5(t would appear t&at a plain readin', on its -ace, o- t&e :ud'ment in criminal case

))HB4O, particularly its decretal portion, easily results in t&e same conclusion reac&ed by t&e court a $uoE t&at t&e said :ud'ment assessed no civil liability arisin' -rom t&e o--ense c&ar'ed a'ainst Pun9alan. 1owever, a care-ul study o- t&e :ud'ment in <uestion, t&e situation to w&ic& it applies, and t&e attendant circumstances, would yield t&e conclusion t&at t&e court a $uo, on t&e contrary, reco'ni9ed t&e en-orceable ri'&t o- t&e Paduas to t&e civil liability arisin' -rom t&e o--ense committed by Pun9alan and awarded t&e correspondin' indemnity t&ere-or.5 2 T&ere is muc& to be said t&ere-or -or t&e view e2pressed t&erein t&at 5it cannot reasonably be contended t&at t&e court a $uo intended, in its :ud'ment in criminal case ))HB4O, to omit reco'nition o- t&e ri'&t o- t&e Paduas to t&e civil liability arisin' -rom t&e o--ense o- w&ic& Pun9alan was ad:ud'ed 'uilty and t&e corollary award o- t&e correspondin' indemnity t&ere-or. ;urely, it cannot be said t&at t&e court intended t&e statement in t&e decretal portion o- t&e :ud'ment in criminal case ))HB4O re-errin' to t&e determination and assessment o- Pun9alan=s civil liability in civil case G,+4O to be pure :ar'on or ='obbledy'ook= and to be absolutely o- no meanin' and e--ect w&atsoever. T&e substance o- suc& statement, taken in t&e li'&t o- t&e situation to w&ic& it applies and t&e attendant circumstances, makes unmistakably clear t&e intention o- t&e court to accord a--irmation to t&e Padua=s ri'&t to t&e civil liability arisin' -rom t&e :ud'ment a'ainst Pun9alan in criminal case ))HB4O.5 7 ?&atever mis'ivin's t&ere-ore may be -elt because in t&e civil case .o. G,+4O t&e complaint a'ainst ay Ta2i Cab Co. is dismissed, do not su--ice, to my mind, to render nu'atory t&e admitted subsidiary liability arisin' -rom a decision in criminal case .o. ))HB4O w&ic& is necessarily attendant upon t&e conviction o- t&e driver, Romeo .. Pun9alan. ;uc& a di--iculty could &ave been avoided &ad 'reater care been e2ercised by t&e lower court, but precisely recourse may be &ad to our corrective powers to avoid a ri'&t 'ranted in law -rom bein' rendered illusory in -act. ,. T&ere is t&us t&e stron'est policy consideration t&at buttresses t&e conclusion reac&ed by us. (t would conduce to less respect -or t&e law as an a'ency o- social control i- t&ere be reco'nition in t&e codes o- t&e ri'&t o- ne2t kin to dama'es arisin' -rom t&e tra'ic occurrence o- youn' lives bein' snu--ed out due to reckless drivin' on t&e part o- w&at &ad been accurately described as dealers o- deat& on t&e road and t&en by lack o- care on t&e part o- a :ud'e assure t&at it is not&in' more t&an a barren -orm o- words. T&is is w&at 6ean Pound re-erred to as law in books as distin'uis&ed -rom law in action. To recall an e2pression -rom 8ustice 8ackson, it is comparable to a muni-icent be<uest in a pauper=s will. (t is less t&an realistic to assert t&at anyway t&e 'uilty driver can be made to pay. T&e obvious answer isE= ?it& w&atM5 T&is is not to deny t&at a previous :ud'ment t&at certainly lends itsel- to ambi'uity considerin' t&e -acts disclosed and -ound by t&e trial court does interpose :uristic di--iculty to t&e imposition o- liability on t&e o--endin' ta2icab company. T&ere can be no blinkin' t&e -act t&ou'& t&at i- it did not place suc& ve&icles on t&e road driven in suc& a reckless and culpable manner resultin' in a ten4year old boy bein' &urled about -orty meters away -rom t&e point o- impact, t&is tra'edy could &ave been avoided. To say now t&at doubts en'endered by t&e previous rulin' in t&e culpa a<uiliana suit could nulli-y w&at t&e law decrees as to t&e subsidiary liability o- t&e employer in t&e criminal case -indin' t&e accused 'uilty would be -rau'&t wit& pernicious conse<uences. T&e party :ust as muc& responsible -or t&e mis&ap, wit& &is operation o- t&e transportation service, would be absolved -rom liability. (t need not be so, but certainly -or entrepreneurs more enterprisin' t&an care-ul, not e2cessively concerned wit& t&e sa-ety o- t&e travelin' public, it could be a 'reen li'&t -or less

vi'ilance over t&e conduct o- t&eir drivers. T&e resultin' in:ury to public sa-ety is not &ard to ima'ine. Moreover, -rom t&e standpoint o- t&e -eelin's o- t&e bereaved parents, and t&is is :ust as important a policy consideration, ( -eel t&at no avenue s&ould be le-t une2plored to miti'ate t&e &ars&ness o- -ate. To parap&rase 8ustice Malcolm, t&ere is not enou'& money in t&e entire world to compensate t&e parents -or t&e loss o- t&eir c&ild. & To repeat, t&e decision reac&ed &as my -ull concurrence. BARREDO, J., concurrin'E On strictly le'al considerations, it would seem possible to dismiss t&e petition -or review in t&is case. ut t&ere are certain considerations o- e<uity and substantial :ustice obviously underlyin' t&e cause o- petitioners w&ic& ( -ind di--icult to i'nore. (t would be un-air and un:ust to deprive said petitioners o- t&eir ri'&t to dama'es -or t&e deat& o- t&eir c&ild un<uestionably caused by t&e -ault o- respondent=s employee merely because t&e dispositive portion o- t&e decision o- 8ud'e "mores in t&e criminal case appears to be rat&er e<uivocal on its -ace as to respondent=s liability t&ere-or, albeit under t&e incontrovertible -acts e2tant in t&e record suc& liability is indisputable in law and t&e lan'ua'e o- 8ud'e "mores= :ud'ment does not anyway e2onerate eit&er respondent=s driver or private respondent, and w&at is more, does not e2clude t&e idea t&at, as e2plained in t&e able main opinion o- Mr. 8ustice Castro, t&e :ud'e intended to merely adopt and incorporate in said :ud'ment t&e assessment o- amount o- dama'es w&ic& said :ud'e &imsel- &ad already made in t&e civil case &e &ad previously decided. (t is on t&ese -undamental considerations t&at ( base my concurrence in t&e :ud'ment in t&is case. "s ( &ave already indicated, -rom t&e standpoint o- strict ad:ective law, t&e petition s&ould be dismissed because in trut&, t&ere is yet no s&owin' t&at any attempt &as been made by petitioners to &ave t&e :ud'ment in t&e criminal cases, assumin' it includes an imposition o- civil liability upon t&e accused driver, Romeo .. Pun9alan, e2ecuted. ?&at appears in t&e record is t&at it was t&e writ o- e2ecution issued a'ainst said Pun9alan in t&e previous civil case t&at was returned unsatis-ied. Ocourse, t&is point is &i'&ly tec&nical, because all t&at &as to be done is -or petitioners to &ave anot&er e2ecution in t&e criminal case, w&ic& it can even now be -orseen will &ave e2actly t&e same result. ( am t&ere-ore a'reeable as a matter o- e<uity t&at t&e Court &old t&at -or all le'al intents and purposes, ?e may consider t&e return oinsolvency o- Pun9alan in t&e civil case as in e--ect t&e return in t&e criminal case, since e<uity considers as done w&at ou'&t to &ave been done w&en ot&erwise in:ustice would result. "nd so, t&e paramount <uestion arises, was t&ere any civil liability to impose in t&e criminal :ud'ment o- 8ud'e "moresM "s related in t&e main opinion, t&e :ud'ment o- October ,+, )*7* in t&e civil case ordered Pun9alan 5to pay plainti--s (&erein petitioners% t&e sums o- P),,///.// as actual dama'es PH,///.// as moral and e2emplary dama'es, and P)/,///.// as attorney=s -ees,5 alt&ou'& absolvin' at t&e same time t&e &erein private respondent, and t&en, on October H, )*+/, t&e :ud'ment in t&e criminal case was as -ollowsE ?1!R!0OR!, t&e Court -inds t&e accused Romeo Pun9alan y .arciso 'uilty beyond reasonable doubt o- t&e crime o- &omicide t&rou'& reckless imprudence, as de-ined and penali9ed under "rticle >7H o- t&e Revised Penal Code, attended by t&e miti'atin' circumstance o- voluntary surrender, and &ereby sentences &im to

su--er t&e indeterminate penalty o- T?O (,% $!"R;, 0O@R (G% MO.T1; and O.! ()% 6"$ o- prision correccional, as minimum, to ;(A (7% $!"R; and O.! ()% 6"$ o- prision mayor, as ma2imum, and to pay t&e costs. .he ci&il lia#ilit+ o5 the accused has alread+ #een deter"ined and assessed in Ci&il Case Eo. 3<AD/, entitled F)aulino )adua, et al. &s. -o"eo )un'alan, et al. (!mp&asis supplied% ;uccintly, t&e decisive issue presented to @s now is w&et&er t&is :ud'ment :ust transcribed imposes upon Pun9alan a civil liability by adoption by re-erence o- t&e civil liability already a :ud'ed in t&e civil case or it e2onerates &im -rom any civil liability arisin' -rom t&e o--ense o- w&ic& &e &as been -ound 'uilty inasmuc& as &e was already -ound civilly liable in t&e civil case. (t must be admitted in candor t&at bot& constructions are literally tenable, wit& t&e particularity, &owever, t&at t&e -irst interpretation, i- adopted could not involve t&e assumption t&at t&e :ud'e committed a 'rievous and palpable error o- law w&ereas t&e second would necessarily mean t&at &e did. (t is by now settled beyond all cavil as to dispense wit& t&e citation o- :urisprudence, t&at a ne'li'ent act suc& as t&at committed by Pun9alan 'ives rise to at least two separate and independent kinds o- liabilities, ()% t&e civil liability arisin' -rom crime or culpa cri"inal and (,% t&e liability arisin' -rom civil ne'li'ence or t&e so4 called culpa a$uiliana. T&ese two concepts o- -ault are so distinct -rom eac& ot&er t&at e2oneration -rom one does not result in e2oneration -rom t&e ot&er. "d:ectively and substantively, t&ey can be prosecuted separately and independently o- eac& ot&er, alt&ou'& "rticle ,)++ o- t&e Civil Code precludes recovery o- dama'es twice -or t&e same ne'li'ent act or omission, w&ic& means t&at s&ould t&ere be varyin' amounts awarded in two separate cases, t&e plainti-- may recover, in e--ect, only t&e bi''er amount. T&at is to say, i- t&e plainti-- &as already been ordered paid an amount in one case and in t&e ot&er case t&e amount ad:ud'ed is bi''er, &e s&all be entitled in t&e second case only to t&e e2cess over t&e one -i2ed in t&e -irst case, but i- &e &as already been paid a bi''er amount in t&e -irst case, &e may not recover anymore in t&e second case. T&us, in t&e case at bar, inasmuc& as Pun9alan &ad already been sentenced to pay t&e &erein petitioners t&e amounts above4stated, in t&e subse<uent criminal case, &e could not be ad:ud'ed to pay a &i'&er amount. .ow, under "rticle )// o- t&e Revised Penal Code, a person criminally liable is also civilly liable, &ence, t&e :ud'ment in t&e criminal case is supposed to include t&e imposition o- civil liability, unless t&e basis t&ere-or &as been s&own not to e2ist, w&ic& is not t&e case &ere. "nd since t&e :ud'ment in <uestion says t&at 5t&e civil liability o- t&e accused &as already been determined and assessed in Civil Case .o. G,+4O entitled )aulino )adua et al. &s. -o"eo )un'alan et al.,5 it is but lo'ical to conclude t&at t&e meanin' o- suc& statement is t&at t&e same amounts o- dama'es -i2ed in t&e previous case were bein' awarded to t&e o--ended party in t&e criminal case. Ot&erwise, ?e would &ave to indul'e in t&e assumption t&at 8ud'e "mores committed t&e 'rievous and palpable error o- law o- e2oneratin' Pun9alan o- all civil liabilities in t&e criminal case :ust because &e &ad already been sentenced to pay dama'es in t&e civil case. ( am not ready to accept suc& assumption. T&e law and :urisprudence on t&e matter are so clear and well4settled t&at ( re-use to believe t&at a :ud'e o- t&e e2perience o- 8ud'e "mores would not be co'ni9ant t&ereo-. esides, 8ud'e "mores knew or ou'&t to &ave known t&at &avin' absolved &erein respondent

in t&e civil case, t&e only possible recourse &as le-t to petitioners to recover -rom said respondent dama'es -or t&e deat& o- t&eir c&ild caused by t&e indisputable ne'li'ence o- &is employee Pun9alan is in t&e -orm o- t&e subsidiary liability o- t&e employer under t&e Penal Code. (ndeed, ( cannot believe t&at 8ud'e "mores intended to allow respondent to escape liability alto'et&er, it bein' evident under t&e circumstances w&ic& &e &imsel- &as -ound in bot& cases, civil and criminal, t&at Pun9alan, t&eir employee, &ad cause t&e deat& o- t&e ten4year4old c&ild o- petitioners t&ru reckless imprudence and t&at in suc& a situation in t&e law e2acts liability -rom bot& t&e employee and t&e employer. ?&at is more, ( consider it but e<uitable to &old t&at t&e rat&er e<uivocal p&raseolo'y o- t&e decision o- 8ud'e "mores s&ould be read in t&e sense it was understood by t&e petitioners, w&o in t&e -ait& and reliance t&at t&e law &ad been complied wit& by 8ud'e "mores and t&at &e &ad accordin'ly awarded t&em in t&e criminal case t&e civil liability t&at by law 'oes wit& it, did not anymore move -or clari-ication or reconsideration nor appeal -rom said decision. My understandin' is t&at t&e -ilin' o- t&e sub:ect civil action by petitioners proceeded -rom t&at assumption, namely, t&at Pun9alan &as been -ound civilly liable -or t&e same amounts ad:ud'ed in t&e civil case and, t&ere-ore, respondent is subsidiarily liable t&ere-or in t&e -ace o- Pun9alan=s insolvency. "ccordin'ly, ( concur in t&at t&e order o- dismissal o- respondent :ud'e s&ould be set aside and t&at petitioners= action s&ould be tried on t&e merits. G.R. No. L81&57& $+6(ua() 28, 1962

respondent $co, as de-endant in said case, -iled a motion to dismiss t&e complaint upon t&e 'round t&at it stated no cause o- action, but t&e same was denied on 8uly + o- t&e same year. 10wph11.2t On ;eptember ,, )*HB, petitioner, in turn, -iled a motion in Criminal Case .o. >G/H to suspend proceedin's t&erein, on t&e 'round t&at t&e determination o- t&e issue involved in Civil Case .o. )GG7 o- t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- Pampan'a was a pre:udicial <uestion. Respondent :ud'e denied t&e motion on ;eptember ,/, )*HB as well as petitioner=s motion -or reconsideration, and ordered &is arrai'nment. "-ter enterin' a plea o- not 'uilty, petitioner -iled t&e present action. ?e &ave &ereto-ore de-ined a pre:udicial <uestion as t&at w&ic& arises in a case, t&e resolution o- w&ic& is a lo'ical antecedent o- t&e issue involved t&erein, and t&e co'ni9ance o- w&ic& pertains to anot&er tribunal (People vs. "ra'on, G.R. .o. L4 H*>/, 0ebruary )+, )*HG%. T&e pre:udicial <uestion J we -urt&er said J must be determinative o- t&e case be-ore t&e court, and :urisdiction to try t&e same must be lod'ed in anot&er court (People vs. "ra'on, supra%. T&ese re<uisites are present in t&e case at bar. ;&ould t&e <uestion -or annulment o- t&e second marria'e pendin' in t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- Pampan'a prosper on t&e 'round t&at, accordin' to t&e evidence, petitioner=s consent t&ereto was obtained by means o- duress, -orce and intimidation, it is obvious t&at &is act was involuntary and can not be t&e basis o- &is conviction -or t&e crime o- bi'amy wit& w&ic& &e was c&ar'ed in t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- ulacan. T&us, t&e issue involved in t&e action -or t&e annulment o- t&e second marria'e is determinative o- petitioner=s 'uilt or innocence o- t&e crime obi'amy. On t&e ot&er &and, t&ere can be no <uestion t&at t&e annulment opetitioner=s marria'e wit& respondent $co on t&e 'rounds relied upon in t&e complaint -iled in t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- Pampan'a is wit&in t&e :urisdiction o- said court. (n t&e "ra'on case already mentioned (supra% we &eld t&at i- t&e de-endant in a case -or bi'amy claims t&at t&e -irst marria'e is void and t&e ri'&t to decide suc& validity is vested in anot&er court, t&e civil action -or annulment must -irst be decided be-ore t&e action -or bi'amy can proceed. T&ere is no reason not to apply t&e same rule w&en t&e contention o- t&e accused is t&at t&e second marria'e is void on t&e 'round t&at &e entered into it because o- duress, -orce and intimidation. ?1!R!0OR!, t&e writ prayed -or in t&e petition is &ereby 'ranted. ?it&out costs.

MERARDO L. <APAN"A, petitioner, vs. "!E !ON. AG#%"IN P. MON"E%A, E"C., E" AL., respondents. )edro M. Santos and Cor6e C. Salon6a 5or petitioner. /55ice o5 the Solicitor General, -o"ulo B. Chua and 8ewe+ G. Soriano 5or respondents. DI<ON, J.: T&is is a petition -or pro&ibition -iled by Merardo L. Lapanta a'ainst t&e 1on. "'ustin P. Montesa, 8ud'e o- t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- ulacan, 0ernando ". Cru9, Provincial 0iscal o- ulacan, and Olimpia ". $co, to en:oin t&e -ormer -rom proceedin' wit& t&e trial o- Criminal Case .o. >G/H pendin' t&e -inal determination oCivil Case .o. )GG7 o- t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- Pampan'a. @pon complaint -iled by respondent Olimpia ". $co on May ,/, )*HB, an in-ormation -or i'amy was -iled by respondent Provincial 0iscal a'ainst petitioner in t&e Court o0irst (nstance o- ulacan (Criminal Case .o. >G/H%, alle'in' t&at t&e latter, &avin' previously married one !strella Guarin, and wit&out said marria'e &avin' been dissolved, contracted a second marria'e wit& said complainant. On 8une )7, )*HB, petitioner -iled in t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- Pampan'a Civil Case .o. )GG7 a'ainst respondent Olimpia ". $co -or t&e annulment o- t&eir marria'e on t&e 'round o- duress, -orce and intimidation. On t&e >/t& o- t&e same mont&

G.R. No. L822599

$+6(ua() 27, 1968

anot&er respondent. T&is Court admitted suc& amended petition in a resolution o"pril >, )*7G. T&en came t&e answer to t&e amended petition on May )G o- t&at year w&ere t&e statement o- -acts as above detailed was admitted, wit& t&e <uali-ications t&at t&e bi'amy c&ar'e was -iled upon t&e complaint o- t&e -irst spouse !lvira Makatan'ay. (t alle'ed as one o- its special and a--irmative de-enses t&at t&e mere -act t&at 5t&ere are actions to annul t&e marria'es entered into by t&e accused in a bi'amy case does not mean t&at =pre:udicial <uestions are automatically raised in said civil actions as to warrant t&e suspension o- t&e criminal case -or bi'amy.5 ) T&e answer stressed t&at even on t&e assumption t&at t&e -irst marria'e was null and void on t&e 'round alle'ed by petitioner, t&e -act would not be material to t&e outcome o- t&e criminal case. (t continued, re-errin' to 3iada, t&at 5parties to t&e marria'e s&ould not be permitted to :ud'e -or t&emselves its nullity, -or t&is must be submitted to t&e :ud'ment o- competent courts and only w&en t&e nullity o- a marria'e is so declared can it be &eld as void, and so lon' as t&ere is no suc& declaration t&e presumption is t&at t&e marria'e e2ists. T&ere-ore, accordin' to 3iada, &e w&o contracts a second marria'e be-ore t&e :udicial declaration o- nullity o- t&e -irst marria'e incurs t&e penalty provided -or in t&is "rticle. . . .5 , T&is de-ense is in accordance wit& t&e principle implicit in aut&oritative decisions o- t&is Court. (n Merced &. 8ie', > w&at was in issue was t&e validity o- t&e second marria'e, 5w&ic& must be determined be-ore &and in t&e civil action be-ore t&e criminal action can proceed.5 "ccordin' to t&e opinion o- 8ustice LabradorE 5?e &ave a situation w&ere t&e issue o- t&e validity o- t&e second marria'e can be determined or must -irst be determined in t&e civil action be-ore t&e criminal action -or bi'amy can be prosecuted. T&e <uestion o- t&e validity o- t&e second marria'e is, t&ere-ore, a pre:udicial <uestion because determination o- t&e validity o- t&e second marria'e is determinable in t&e civil action and must precede t&e criminal action -or bi'amy.5 (t was t&e conclusion o- t&is Court t&en t&at -or petitioner Merced to be -ound 'uilty o- bi'amy, t&e second marria'e w&ic& &e contracted 5must -irst be declared valid.5 (ts validity &avin' been <uestioned in t&e civil action, t&ere must be a decision in suc& a case 5be-ore t&e prosecution -or bi'amy can proceed.5 To t&e same e--ect is t&e doctrine announced in (apanta &. Mendo'a. G "s e2plained in t&e opinion o- 8ustice 6i9onE 5?e &ave &ereto-ore de-ined a pre:udicial <uestion as t&at w&ic& arises in a case, t&e resolution o- w&ic& is a lo'ical antecedent o- t&e issue involved t&erein, and t&e co'ni9ance o- w&ic& pertains to anot&er tribunal. . . . T&e pre:udicial <uestion J we -urt&er said J must be determinative ot&e case be-ore t&e court, and :urisdiction to try t&e same must be lod'ed in anot&er court. . . . T&ese re<uisites are present in t&e case at bar. ;&ould t&e <uestion -or annulment o- t&e second marria'e pendin' in t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance oPampan'a prosper on t&e 'round t&at, accordin' to t&e evidence, petitioner=s consent t&ereto was obtained by means o- duress, -orce and intimidation, it is obvious t&at &is act was involuntary and can not be t&e basis o- &is conviction -or t&e crime obi'amy wit& w&ic& &e was c&ar'ed in t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- ulacan. T&us t&e issue involved in t&e action -or t&e annulment o- t&e second marria'e is determinative o- petitioner=s 'uilt or innocence o- t&e crime o- bi'amy. . . .5

ROLANDO LANDIC!O, petitioner, vs. !ON. LOREN<O RELO=A, ,n .,s -a5a-,t) as 'u g+ o0 t.+ Cou(t o0 $,(st Instan-+ o0 Batangas, B(an-. I, an PEOPLE O$ "!E P!ILIPPINE%, respondents. Cose %. 8iokno 5or petitioner. /55ice o5 the Solicitor General 5or respondents. $ERNANDO, J.: (n t&is petition -or certiorari and pro&ibition wit& preliminary in:unction, t&e <uestion be-ore t&e Court is w&et&er or not t&e e2istence o- a civil suit -or t&e annulment o- marria'e at t&e instance o- t&e second wi-e a'ainst petitioner, wit& t&e latter in turn -ilin' a t&ird party complaint a'ainst t&e -irst spouse -or t&e annulment ot&e -irst marria'e, constitutes a pre:udicial <uestion in a pendin' suit -or bi'amy a'ainst &im. Respondent, 8ud'e Relova answered in t&e ne'ative. ?e sustain &im. T&e pertinent -acts as set -ort& in t&e petition -ollow. On 0ebruary ,+, )*7>, petitioner was c&ar'ed be-ore t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- atan'as, ranc& (, presided over by respondent 8ud'e, wit& t&e o--ense, o- bi'amy. (t was alle'ed in t&e in-ormation t&at petitioner 5bein' t&en law-ully married to !lvira Makatan'ay, w&ic& marria'e &as not been le'ally dissolved, did t&en and t&ere wil-ully, unlaw-ully and -eloniously contract a second marria'e wit& 0e Lourdes Pasia.5 On Marc& )H, )*7>, an action was -iled be-ore t&e Court o- 0irst (nstance o- atan'as, likewise presided plainti-- respondent 8ud'e 0e Lourdes Pasia, seekin' to declare &er marria'e to petitioner as null and void a# initio because o- t&e alle'ed use o- -orce, t&reats and intimidation alle'edly employed by petitioner and because o- its alle'edly bi'amous c&aracter. On 8une )H, )*7>, petitioner as de-endant in said case, -iled a t&ird4party complaint, a'ainst t&e t&ird4party de-endant !lvira Makatan'ay, t&e -irst spouse, prayin' t&at &is marria'e wit& t&e said t&ird4party de-endant be declared null and void, on t&e 'round t&at by means o- t&reats, -orce and intimidation, s&e compelled &im to appear and contract marria'e wit& &er be-ore t&e 8ustice o- t&e Peace oMakati, Ri9al. T&erea-ter, on October +, )*7>, petitioner moved to suspend t&e &earin' o- t&e criminal case pendin' t&e decision on t&e <uestion o- t&e validity o- t&e two marria'es involved in t&e pendin' civil suit. Respondent 8ud'e on .ovember )*, )*7> denied t&e motion -or lack o- merit. T&en came a motion -or reconsideration to set aside t&e above order, w&ic& was likewise denied on Marc& ,, )*7G. 1ence t&is petition, -iled on Marc& )>, )*7G. (n a resolution o- t&is Court o- Marc& )+, )*7G, respondent 8ud'e was re<uired to answer wit&in ten ()/% days, wit& a preliminary in:unction bein' issued to restrain &im -rom -urt&er proceedin' wit& t&e prosecution o- t&e bi'amy case. (n t&e meanw&ile, be-ore t&e answer was -iled t&ere was an amended petition -or certiorari, t&e amendment consistin' solely in t&e inclusion o- t&e People o- t&e P&ilippines as

T&e situation in t&is case is markedly di--erent. "t t&e time t&e petitioner was indicted -or bi'amy on 0ebruary ,+, )*7>, t&e -act t&at two marria'e ceremonies &ad been contracted appeared to be indisputable. T&en on Marc& )H, )*7>, it was t&e second spouse, not petitioner w&o -iled an action -or nullity on t&e 'round o- -orce, t&reats and intimidation. (t was sometime later, on 8une )H, )*7>, to be precise, w&en petitioner, as de-endant in t&e civil action, -iled a t&ird4party complaint a'ainst t&e -irst spouse alle'in' t&at &is marria'e wit& &er s&ould be declared null and void on t&e 'round o- -orce, t&reats and intimidation. "s was correctly stressed in t&e answer orespondent 8ud'e relyin' on 3iada, parties to a marria'e s&ould not be permitted to :ud'e -or t&emselves its nullity, only competent courts &avin' suc& aut&ority. Prior to suc& declaration o- nullity, t&e validity o- t&e -irst marria'e is beyond <uestion. " party w&o contracts a second marria'e t&en assumes t&e risk o- bein' prosecuted -or bi'amy. ;uc& was t&e situation o- petitioner. T&ere is no occasion to indul'e in t&e probability t&at t&e t&ird4party complaint a'ainst t&e -irst wi-e brou'&t almost -ive mont&s a-ter t&e prosecution -or bi'amy was started could &ave been inspired by t&e t&ou'&t t&at &e could t&us 'ive color to a de-ense based on an alle'ed pre:udicial <uestion. T&e above :udicial decisions as well as t&e opinion o- 3iada preclude a -indin' t&at respondent 8ud'e abused, muc& less 'ravely abused, &is discretion in -ailin' to suspend t&e &earin' as sou'&t by petitioner. ?1!R!0OR!, t&e petition -or certiorari is denied and t&e writ o- preliminary in:unction issued dissolved. ?it& costs.10wph11.2t