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