torts 071514

8/9/2019 torts 071514

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torts-071514 1/59

Torts 071514

G.R. No. 122191 October 8, 1998

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OFAPPEALS, MILAGROS P. MORADA a! "ON. RODOLFOA. ORTI#, $ %$& ca'ac$t( a& Pre&$!$) *+!)e o Brac%

89, Re)$oa- Tr$a- Co+rt o +e/o C$t(, respondents.

UISUMBING, J.:

This petition for certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul and set aside the Resolution 1datedSeptember 27, 15 and the !e"ision 2 dated #pril 10, 1$of the Court of #ppeals 0 in C#%&.R. S' (o. )$5)), and the*rders dated #u+ust 2, 14 3 and ebruar- 2, 15 4 thatere issued b- the trial "ourt in Civil Case (o. /%)%1)4. 8

The pertinent ante"edent fa"ts hi"h +ave rise to theinstant petition, as stated in the uestioned !e"ision 9, areas follos

*n 3anuar- 21, 1 defendant S#!# hired plainti6 as a li+ht #ttendant for its airlines based in 3eddah,Saudi #rabia. . . .

*n #pril 27, 10, hile on a la-%over in 3akarta,ndonesia, plainti6 ent to a dis"o dan"e ith fello"re members Thamer #l%&aai and #llah #l%&aai, both Saudi nationals. 8e"ause it as almost

mornin+ hen the- returned to their hotels, the-a+reed to have breakfast to+ether at the room of Thamer. 9hen the- ere in te :sic; room, #llah lefton some prete<t. Shortl- after he did, Thamerattempted to rape plainti6. ortunatel-, a roombo-and several se"urit- personnel heard her "ries forhelp and res"ued her. =ater, the ndonesian poli"e"ame and arrested Thamer and #llah #l%&aai, thelatter as an a""ompli"e.

9hen plainti6 returned to 3eddah a fe da-s later,several S#!# o>"ials interro+ated her about the 3akarta in"ident. The- then reuested her to +o ba"kto 3akarta to help arran+e the release of Thamer and#llah. n 3akarta, S#!# =e+al *>"er Sirah #kkad

and base mana+er 8aharini ne+otiated ith thepoli"e for the immediate release of the detained "remembers but did not su""eed be"ause plainti6 refused to "ooperate. She as afraid that she mi+htbe tri"ked into somethin+ she did not ant be"auseof her inabilit- to understand the lo"al diale"t. Shealso de"lined to si+n a blank paper and a do"umentritten in the lo"al diale"t. ?ventuall-, S#!#alloed plainti6 to return to 3eddah but barred herfrom the 3akarta @i+hts.

'lainti6 learned that, throu+h the inter"ession of the

Saudi #rabian +overnment, the ndonesianauthorities a+reed to deport Thamer and #llah afterto eeks of detention. ?ventuall-, the- ere a+ainput in servi"e b- defendant S#! :sic;. nSeptember 10, defendant S#!# transferredplainti6 to Aanila.

*n 3anuar- 14, 12, Bust hen plainti6 thou+ht thatthe 3akarta in"ident as alread- behind her, hersuperiors reuested her to see Ar. #li Aenie-, Chief =e+al *>"er of S#!#, in 3eddah, Saudi #rabia.9hen she sa him, he brou+ht her to the poli"estation here the poli"e took her passport anduestioned her about the 3akarta in"ident. Ainie-simpl- stood b- as the poli"e put pressure on her tomake a statement droppin+ the "ase a+ainst Thamerand #llah. (ot until she a+reed to do so did the poli"ereturn her passport and alloed her to "at"h theafternoon @i+ht out of 3eddah.

*ne -ear and a half later or on lune 1$, 1), inRi-adh, Saudi #rabia, a fe minutes before the

1

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

departure of her @i+ht to Aanila, plainti6 as notalloed to board the plane and instead ordered totake a later @i+ht to 3eddah to see Ar. Ainie-, theChief =e+al *>"er of S#!#. 9hen she did, a"ertain halid of the S#!# o>"e brou+ht her to a

Saudi "ourt here she as asked to si+n a do"umentritten in #rabi". The- told her that this asne"essar- to "lose the "ase a+ainst Thamer and#llah. #s it turned out, plainti6 si+ned a noti"e to herto appear before the "ourt on 3une 27, 1). 'lainti6 then returned to Aanila.

Shortl- afterards, defendant S#!# summonedplainti6 to report to 3eddah on"e a+ain and seeAinie- on 3une 27, 1) for further investi+ation.'lainti6 did so after re"eivin+ assuran"e fromS#!#Ds Aanila mana+er, #slam Saleemi, that the

investi+ation as routinar- and that it posed nodan+er to her.

n 3eddah, a S#!# le+al o>"er brou+ht plainti6 tothe same Saudi "ourt on 3une 27, 1). (othin+happened then but on 3une 2, 1), a Saudi Bud+einterro+ated plainti6 throu+h an interpreter about the 3akarta in"ident. #fter one hour of interro+ation, the-let her +o. #t the airport, hoever, Bust as her planeas about to take o6, a S#!# o>"er told her thatthe airline had forbidden her to take @i+ht. #t then@i+ht Servi"e *>"e here she as told to +o, the

se"retar- of Ar. Eah-a Saddi"k took aa- herpassport and told her to remain in 3eddah, at the"re uarters, until further orders.

*n 3ul- ), 1) a S#!# le+al o>"er a+ain es"ortedplainti6 to the same "ourt here the Bud+e, to herastonishment and sho"k, rendered a de"ision,translated to her in ?n+lish, senten"in+ her to Fvemonths imprisonment and to 2$ lashes. *nl- thendid she realie that the Saudi "ourt had tried her,

to+ether ith Thamer and #llah, for hat happenedin 3akarta. The "ourt found plainti6 +uilt- of :1;adulter-G :2; +oin+ to a dis"o, dan"in+ and listenin+to the musi" in violation of slami" lasG and :);so"ialiin+ ith the male "re, in "ontravention of

slami" tradition.15

a"in+ "onvi"tion, private respondent sou+ht the help of heremplo-er, petitioner S#!#. nfortunatel-, she as deniedan- assistan"e. She then asked the 'hilippine ?mbass- in 3eddah to help her hile her "ase is on appeal. Aeanhile,to pa- for her upkeep, she orked on the domesti" @i+ht of S#!#, hile Thamer and #llah "ontinued to serve in theinternational@i+hts. 11

8e"ause she as ron+full- "onvi"ted, the 'rin"e of Aakkah

dismissed the "ase a+ainst her and alloed her to leaveSaudi #rabia. Shortl- before her return to Aanila, 12 she asterminated from the servi"e b- S#!#, ithout her bein+informed of the "ause.

*n (ovember 2), 1), Aorada Fled a Complaint 10 fordama+es a+ainst S#!#, and haled #l%8alai :H#l%8alaiH;, its "ountr- mana+er.

*n 3anuar- 1, 14, S#!# Fled an *mnibus Aotion To!ismiss 1

hi"h raised the folloin+ +rounds, to it :1; that

the Complaint states no "ause of a"tion a+ainst SaudiaG :2;that defendant #l%8alai is not a real part- in interestG :);that the "laim or demand set forth in the Complaint hasbeen aived, abandoned or otherise e<tin+uishedG and :4;that the trial "ourt has no Burisdi"tion to tr- the "ase.

*n ebruar- 10, 14, Aorada Fled her *pposition :ToAotion to !ismiss; 1. Saudia Fled a repl- 13 thereto onAar"h ), 14.

2

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

*n 3une 2), 14, Aorada Fled an #mendedComplaint 14 herein #l%8alai as dropped as part-defendant. *n #u+ust 11, 14, Saudia Fled itsAanifestation and Aotion to !ismiss #mended Complaint 18.

The trial "ourt issued an *rder 19 dated #u+ust 2, 14den-in+ the Aotion to !ismiss #mended Complaint Fled b-Saudia.

rom the *rder of respondent 3ud+e 25 den-in+ the Aotion to!ismiss, S#!# Fled on September 20, 14, its Aotion forRe"onsideration 21 of the *rder dated #u+ust 2, 14. talle+ed that the trial "ourt has no Burisdi"tion to hear and tr-the "ase on the basis of #rti"le 21 of the Civil Code, sin"ethe proper la appli"able is the la of the in+dom of Saudi#rabia. *n *"tober 14, 14, Aorada Fled her*pposition 22 :To !efendantDs Aotion for Re"onsideration;.

n the Repl- 20 Fled ith the trial "ourt on *"tober 24, 14,S#!# alle+ed that sin"e its Aotion for Re"onsiderationraised la"k of Burisdi"tion as its "ause of a"tion, the *mnibusAotion Rule does not appl-, even if that +round is raised forthe Frst time on appeal. #dditionall-, S#!# alle+ed thatthe 'hilippines does not have an- substantial interest in theprose"ution of the instant "ase, and hen"e, ithout Burisdi"tion to adBudi"ate the same.

Respondent 3ud+e subseuentl- issued another

*rder2

dated ebruar- 2, 15, den-in+ S#!#Ds Aotionfor Re"onsideration. The pertinent portion of the assailed*rder reads as follos

#"tin+ on the Aotion for Re"onsideration of defendant Saudi #rabian #irlines Fled, thru "ounsel,on September 20, 14, and the *pposition theretoof the plainti6 Fled, thru "ounsel, on *"tober 14,14, as ell as the Repl- thereith of defendantSaudi #rabian #irlines Fled, thru "ounsel, on *"tober24, 14, "onsiderin+ that a perusal of the plainti6s

#mended Complaint, hi"h is one for the re"over- of a"tual, moral and e<emplar- dama+es plusattorne-Ds fees, upon the basis of the appli"able'hilippine la, #rti"le 21 of the (e Civil Code of the'hilippines, is, "learl-, ithin the Burisdi"tion of this

Court as re+ards the subBe"t matter, and there bein+nothin+ ne of substan"e hi"h mi+ht "ause thereversal or modiF"ation of the order sou+ht to bere"onsidered, the motion for re"onsideration of thedefendant, is !?(?!.

S* *R!?R?!. 2

Conseuentl-, on ebruar- 20, 15, S#!# Fled its'etition for Certiorari and 'rohibition ith 'ra-er forssuan"e of 9rit of 'reliminar- nBun"tion andIor Temporar-Restrainin+ *rder 23 ith the Court of #ppeals.

Respondent Court of #ppeals promul+ated a Resolution ith Temporar- Restrainin+ *rder 24

dated ebruar- 2), 15,prohibitin+ the respondent 3ud+e from further "ondu"tin+an- pro"eedin+, unless otherise dire"ted, in the interim.

n another Resolution 28 promul+ated on September 27,15, no assailed, the appellate "ourt denied S#!#Ds'etition for the ssuan"e of a 9rit of 'reliminar- nBun"tiondated ebruar- 1, 15, to it

The 'etition for the ssuan"e of a 9rit of 'reliminar-nBun"tion is hereb- !?(?!, after "onsiderin+ the#nser, ith 'ra-er to !en- 9rit of 'reliminar-nBun"tion :Rollo, p. 1)5; the Repl- and ReBoinder, itappearin+ that herein petitioner is not "learl- entitledthereto :Unciano Paramedical College, et . Al., v.Court of Appeals, et . Al., 100335, April 7, 1993,econd !ivision;.

S* *R!?R?!.

)

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

*n *"tober 20, 15, S#!# Fled ith this Jonorable Courtthe instant 'etition 29 for Revie ith 'ra-er for Temporar-Restrainin+ *rder dated *"tober 1), 15.

Joever, durin+ the penden"- of the instant 'etition,

respondent Court of #ppeals rendered the !e"ision05

dated#pril 10, 1$, no also assailed. t ruled that the'hilippines is an appropriate forum "onsiderin+ that the#mended ComplaintDs basis for re"over- of dama+es is#rti"le 21 of the Civil Code, and thus, "learl- ithin the Burisdi"tion of respondent Court. t further heldthat certiorari is not the proper remed- in a denial of aAotion to !ismiss, inasmu"h as the petitioner should havepro"eeded to trial, and in "ase of an adverse rulin+, Fndre"ourse in an appeal.

*n Aa- 7, 1$, S#!# Fled its Supplemental 'etition for

Revie ith 'ra-er for Temporar- Restrainin+ *rder01 dated#pril )0, 1$, +iven due "ourse b- this Court. #fter bothparties submitted their Aemoranda, 02 the instant "ase isno deemed submitted for de"ision.

'etitioner S#!# raised the folloin+ issues

The trial "ourt has no Burisdi"tion to hear and tr- CivilCase (o. /%)%1)4 based on #rti"le 21 of the (e

Civil Code sin"e the proper la appli"able is the laof the in+dom of Saudi #rabia inasmu"h as this "aseinvolves hat is knon in private international la asa H"on@i"ts problemH. *therise, the Republi" of the'hilippines ill sit in Bud+ment of the a"ts done b-another soverei+n state hi"h is abhorred.

=eave of "ourt before Flin+ a supplemental pleadin+is not a Burisdi"tional reuirement. 8esides, thematter as to absen"e of leave of "ourt is no mootand a"ademi" hen this Jonorable Court reuiredthe respondents to "omment on petitionerDs #pril )0,

1$ Supplemental 'etition or Revie 9ith 'ra-eror # Temporar- Restrainin+ *rder 9ithin Ten :10;!a-s rom (oti"e Thereof. urther, the Revised Rulesof Court should be "onstrued ith liberalit- pursuantto Se"tion 2, Rule 1 thereof.

'etitioner re"eived on #pril 22, 1$ the #pril 10,1$ de"ision in C#%&.R. S' (*. )$5)) entitledHSaudi #rabian #irlines v. Jon. Rodolfo #. *rti, et al.Hand Fled its #pril )0, 1$ Supplemental 'etition or

Revie 9ith 'ra-er or # Temporar- Restrainin+*rder on Aa- 7, 1$ at 102 a.m. or ithin the 15%da- re+lementar- period as provided for underSe"tion 1, Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Therefore, the de"ision in C#%&.R. S' (*. )$5)) hasnot -et be"ome Fnal and e<e"utor- and thisJonorable Court "an take "o+nian"e of this "ase. 00

rom the fore+oin+ fa"tual and pro"edural ante"edents, thefolloin+ issues emer+e for our resolution

.

9J?TJ?R R?S'*(!?(T #''?==#T? C*RT ?RR?! (J*=!(& TJ#T TJ? R?&*(#= TR#= C*RT */?K*( CTE J#S 3RS!CT*( T* J?#R #(! TRECL= C#S? (*. /%)%1)4 ?(TT=?! HA=#&R*S '.A*R#!# L. S#! #R#8#( #R=(?SH.

.

4

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

9J?TJ?R R?S'*(!?(T #''?==#T? C*RT?RR?! ( R=(& TJ#T ( TJS C#S?'J=''(? =#9 SJ*=! &*L?R(.

'etitioner S#!# "laims that before us is a "on@i"t of las

that must be settled at the outset. t maintains that privaterespondentDs "laim for alle+ed abuse of ri+hts o""urred inthe in+dom of Saudi #rabia. t alle+es that the e<isten"e of a forei+n element ualiFes the instant "ase for theappli"ation of the la of the in+dom of Saudi #rabia, b-virtue of the le" loci delicti commissi rule. 0

*n the other hand, private respondent "ontends that sin"eher #mended Complaint is based on #rti"les 1 0 and21 03 of the Civil Code, then the instant "ase is properl- amatter of domesti" la. 04

nder the fa"tual ante"edents obtainin+ in this "ase, thereis no dispute that the interpla- of events o""urred in tostates, the 'hilippines and Saudi #rabia.

#s stated b- private respondent in her #mendedComplaint 08 dated 3une 2), 14

2. !efendant S#! #R#8#( #R=(?S or S#!# isa forei+n airlines "orporation doin+ business in the'hilippines. t ma- be served ith summons andother "ourt pro"esses at Travel 9ide #sso"iated Sales

:'hils.;. n"., )rd loor, Cou+ar 8uildin+, 114 LaleroSt., Sal"edo Lilla+e, Aakati, Aetro Aanila.

<<< <<< <<<

$. 'lainti6 learned that, throu+h the inter"ession of the Saudi #rabian +overnment, the ndonesianauthorities a+reed to deport Thamer and #llah afterto eeks of detention. ?ventuall-, the- ere a+ainput in servi"e b- defendant S#!#. #n eptem$er

1990, defendant AU!#A transferred plainti% to&anila.

7. 'n (anuar) 1*, 199+, ust -en plainti% tougt tat te (a/arta incident -as alread) $eind er, er

superiors reauested er to see &R. Ali &enie-),Cief egal 'cer of AU!#A in (edda, audi Ara$ia.9hen she sa him, he brou+ht her to the poli"estation here the poli"e took her passport anduestioned her about the 3akarta in"ident. Ainie-simpl- stood b- as the poli"e put pressure on her tomake a statement droppin+ the "ase a+ainst Thamerand #llah. (ot until she a+reed to do so did the poli"ereturn her passport and alloed her to "at"h theafternoon @i+ht out of 3eddah.

. *ne -ear and a half later or on 3une 1$, 1), in

Ri-adh, Saudi #rabia, a fe minutes before thedeparture of her @i+ht to Aanila, plainti6 as notalloed to board the plane and instead ordered totake a later @i+ht to 3eddah to see Ar. Aenie-, theChief =e+al *>"er of S#!#. 9hen she did, a"ertain halid of the S#!# o>"e brou+ht her to aSaudi "ourt here she as asked to si+h a do"umentritten in #rabi". The- told her that this asne"essar- to "lose the "ase a+ainst Thamer and#llah. #s it turned out, plainti6 si+ned a noti"e to herto appear before the "ourt on 3une 27, 1). Plainti% ten returned to &anila.

. ortl) after-ards, defendant AU!#A summoned plainti% to report to (edda once again and see&inie-) on (une +7, 1993 for furter investigation.Plainti% did so after receiving assurance fromAU!#A2s &anila manger, Aslam aleemi, tat teinvestigation -as routinar) and tat it posed nodanger to er .

5

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

10. n 3eddah, a S#!# le+al o>"er brou+ht plainti6 to the same Saudi "ourt on 3une 27, 1). (othin+happened then but on 3une 2, 1), a Saudi Bud+einterro+ated plainti6 throu+h an interpreter about the 3akarta in"ident. #fter one hour of interro+ation, the-

let her +o. #t the airport, hoever, Bust as her planeas about to take o6, a S#!# o>"er told her thatthe airline had forbidden her to take that @i+ht. #tthe n@i+ht Servi"e *>"e here she as told to +o,the se"retar- of Ar. Eah-a Saddi"k took aa- herpassport and told her to remain in 3eddah, at the"re uarters, until further orders.

11. *n 3ul- ), 1) a S#!# le+al o>"er a+aines"orted plainti6 to the same "ourt here the Bud+e,to her astonishment and sho"k, rendered a de"ision,translated to her in ?n+lish, senten"in+ her to Fve

months imprisonment and to 2$ lashes. *nl- thendid she realie that the Saudi "ourt had tried her,to+ether ith Thamer and #llah, for hat happenedin 3akarta. The "ourt found plainti6 +uilt- of :1;adulter-G :2; +oin+ to a dis"o, dan"in+, and listenin+to the musi" in violation of slami" lasG :);so"ialiin+ ith the male "re, in "ontravention of slami" tradition.

12. ecause AU!#A refused to lend er a and inte case, plainti% sougt te elp of te Pilippines4m$ass) in (edda. The latter helped her pursue an

appeal from the de"ision of the "ourt. To pa- for herupkeep, she orked on the domesti" @i+hts of defendant S#!# hile, ironi"all-, Thamer and #llahfreel- served the international @i+hts. 09

9here the fa"tual ante"edents satisfa"toril- establish thee<isten"e of a forei+n element, e a+ree ith petitioner thatthe problem herein "ould present a H"on@i"tsH "ase.

# fa"tual situation that "uts a"ross territorial lines and isa6e"ted b- the diverse las of to or more states is said to"ontain a Hforei+n elementH. The presen"e of a forei+nelement is inevitable sin"e so"ial and e"onomi" a6airs of individuals and asso"iations are rarel- "onFned to the

+eo+raphi" limits of their birth or "on"eption.5

The forms in hi"h this forei+n element ma- appear areman-. 1 The forei+n element ma- simpl- "onsist in the fa"tthat one of the parties to a "ontra"t is an alien or has aforei+n domi"ile, or that a "ontra"t beteen nationals of oneState involves properties situated in another State. n other"ases, the forei+n element ma- assume a "omple< form. 2

n the instant "ase, the forei+n element "onsisted in the fa"tthat private respondent Aorada is a resident 'hilippinenational, and that petitioner S#!# is a resident forei+n

"orporation. #lso, b- virtue of the emplo-ment of Aoradaith the petitioner Saudia as a @i+ht steardess, events didtranspire durin+ her man- o""asions of travel a"rossnational borders, parti"ularl- from Aanila, 'hilippines to 3eddah, Saudi #rabia, and vi"e versa, that "aused aH"on@i"tsH situation to arise.

9e thus Fnd private respondentDs assertion that the "ase ispurel- domesti", impre"ise. # conicts problem presentsitself here, and the uestion of Burisdi"tion 0

"onfronts the"ourt a 6uo.

#fter a "areful stud- of the private respondentDs #mendedComplaint,

and the Comment thereon, e note that sheaptl- predi"ated her "ause of a"tion on #rti"les 1 and 21 of the (e Civil Code.

*n one hand, #rti"le 1 of the (e Civil Code provides

#rt. 1. ?ver- person must, in the e<er"ise of hisri+hts and in the performan"e of his duties, a"t ith

$

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

Busti"e +ive ever-one his due and observe honest-and +ood faith.

*n the other hand, #rti"le 21 of the (e Civil Code provides

#rt. 21. #n- person ho illfull- "auses loss or inBur-to another in a manner that is "ontrar- to morals,+ood "ustoms or publi" poli"- shall "ompensate thelatter for dama+es.

Thus, in Pilippine ational an/ 8P vs. Court of Appeals, this Court held that

The afore"ited provisions on human relations ereintended to e<pand the "on"ept of torts in this Burisdi"tion b- +rantin+ adeuate le+al remed- for

the untold number of moral ron+s hi"h isimpossible for human foresi+ht to spe"iF"all- providein the statutes.

#lthou+h #rti"le 1 merel- de"lares a prin"iple of la,#rti"le 21 +ives @esh to its provisions. Thus, e a+ree ithprivate respondentDs assertion that violations of #rti"les 1and 21 are a"tionable, ith Budi"iall- enfor"eable remediesin the muni"ipal forum.

8ased on the alle+ations 3 in the #mended Complaint, readin the li+ht of the Rules of Court on Burisdi"tion 4 e Fnd

that the Re+ional Trial Court :RTC; of /ueon Cit- possesses Burisdi"tion over the subBe"t matter of the suit. 8 tsauthorit- to tr- and hear the "ase is provided for underSe"tion 1 of Republi" #"t (o. 7$1, to it

Se". 1. Se"tion 1 of 8atas 'ambansa 8l+. 12,otherise knon as the H3udi"iar- Reor+aniation #"tof 10H, is hereb- amended to read as follos

Se". 1. 3urisdi"tion in Civil Cases. M Re+ional TrialCourts shall e<er"ise e<"lusive Burisdi"tion

<<< <<< <<<

:; n all other "ases in hi"hdemand, e"clusive of interest, damages of -atever /ind, attorne-Ds fees, liti+atione<penses, and "ots or the value of thepropert- in "ontrovers- e<"eeds *ne hundredthousand pesos :'100,000.00; or, in su"hother "ases in Aetro Aanila, here thedemand, e<"lusive of the above%mentioneditems e<"eeds To hundred Thousand pesos:'200,000.00;. :?mphasis ours;

<<< <<< <<<

#nd folloin+ Se"tion 2 :b;, Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court M the venue, /ueon Cit-, is appropriate

Se". 2 Lenue in Courts of irst nstan"e. M N(oRe+ional Trial CourtO

:a; <<< <<< <<<

:b; 'ersonal a"tions. M #ll other a"tions ma- be"ommen"ed and tried here the defendant or an- of

the defendants resides or ma- be found, or herethe plainti6 or an- of the plainti6 resides, at theele"tion of the plainti6.

'ra+mati" "onsiderations, in"ludin+ the "onvenien"e of theparties, also ei+h heavil- in favor of the RTC /ueon Cit-assumin+ Burisdi"tion. 'aramount is the private interest of the liti+ant. ?nfor"eabilit- of a Bud+ment if one is obtained isuite obvious. Relative advanta+es and obsta"les to a fairtrial are euall- important. 'lainti6 ma- not, b- "hoi"e of an

7

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

in"onvenient forum, Hve<H, HharassH, or HoppressH thedefendant, e.g. b- in@i"tin+ upon him needless e<pense ordisturban"e. 8ut unless the balan"e is stron+l- in favor of the defendant, the plainti6s "hoi"e of forum should rarel- bedisturbed. 9

9ei+hin+ the relative "laims of the parties, the "ourt a6uo found it best to hear the "ase in the 'hilippines. Jad itrefused to take "o+nian"e of the "ase, it ould be for"in+plainti6 :private respondent no; to seek remedial a"tionelsehere, i.e. in the in+dom of Saudi #rabia here she nolon+er maintains substantial "onne"tions. That ould have"aused a fundamental unfairness to her.

Aoreover, b- hearin+ the "ase in the 'hilippines nounne"essar- di>"ulties and in"onvenien"e have beenshon b- either of the parties. The "hoi"e of forum of the

plainti6 :no private respondent; should be upheld.

Similarl-, the trial "ourt also possesses Burisdi"tion over thepersons of the parties herein. 8- Flin+ her Complaint and#mended Complaint ith the trial "ourt, private respondenthas voluntar- submitted herself to the Burisdi"tion of the"ourt.

The re"ords sho that petitioner S#!# has Fled severalmotions 5 pra-in+ for the dismissal of AoradaDs #mendedComplaint. S#!# also Fled an #nser n 4" A$undante

Cautelam dated ebruar- 20, 15. 9hat is ver- patent ande<pli"it from the motions Fled, is that S#!# pra-ed forother reliefs under the premises. ndeniabl-, petitionerS#!# has e6e"tivel- submitted to the trial "ourtDs Burisdi"tion b- pra-in+ for the dismissal of the #mendedComplaint on +rounds other than la"k of Burisdi"tion.

#s held b- this Court in Repu$lic vs. :er and Compan),td. 1

9e observe that the motion to dismiss Fled on #pril14, 1$2, aside from disputin+ the loer "ourtDs Burisdi"tion over defendantDs person, pra-ed fordismissal of the "omplaint on the +round thatplainti6Ds "ause of a"tion has pres"ribed. 8-

interposin+ su"h se"ond +round in its motion todismiss, er and Co., =td. availed of an a>rmativedefense on the basis of hi"h it pra-ed the "ourt toresolve "ontrovers- in its favor. or the "ourt tovalidl- de"ide the said plea of defendant er P Co.,=td., it ne"essaril- had to a"uire Burisdi"tion uponthe latterDs person, ho, bein+ the proponent of thea>rmative defense, should be deemed to haveabandoned its spe"ial appearan"e and voluntaril-submitted itself to the Burisdi"tion of the "ourt.

Similarl-, the "ase of !e &idgel) vs. ;erandos, held thatG

9hen the appearan"e is b- motion for the purpose of obBe"tin+ to the Burisdi"tion of the "ourt over theperson, it must be for the sole and separate purposeof obBe"tin+ to the Burisdi"tion of the "ourt. f hismotion is for another purpose than to obBe"t to the Burisdi"tion of the "ourt over his person, he thereb-submits himself to the Burisdi"tion of the "ourt. #spe"ial appearan"e b- motion made for the purposeof obBe"tin+ to the Burisdi"tion of the "ourt over theperson ill be held to be a +eneral appearan"e, if thepart- in said motion should, for e<ample, ask for a

dismissal of the a"tion upon the further +round thatthe "ourt had no Burisdi"tion over the subBe"tmatter. 2

Clearl-, petitioner had submitted to the Burisdi"tion of theRe+ional Trial Court of /ueon Cit-. Thus, e Fnd that thetrial "ourt has Burisdi"tion over the "ase and that its e<er"isethereof, BustiFed.

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

#s to the "hoi"e of appli"able la, e note that "hoi"e%of%la problems seek to anser to important uestions :1;9hat le+al s-stem should "ontrol a +iven situation heresome of the si+niF"ant fa"ts o""urred in to or more statesGand :2; to hat e<tent should the "hosen le+al s-stem

re+ulate the situation.0

Several theories have been propounded in order to identif-the le+al s-stem that should ultimatel- "ontrol. #lthou+hideall-, all "hoi"e%of%la theories should intrinsi"all-advan"e both notions of Busti"e and predi"tabilit-, the- donot ala-s do so. The forum is then fa"ed ith the problemof de"idin+ hi"h of these to important values should bestressed.

8efore a "hoi"e "an be made, it is ne"essar- for us todetermine under hat "ate+or- a "ertain set of fa"ts or

rules fall. This pro"ess is knon as H"hara"teriationH, or theHdo"trine of ualiF"ationH. t is the Hpro"ess of de"idin+hether or not the fa"ts relate to the kind of uestionspe"iFed in a "on@i"ts rule.H The purpose of H"hara"teriationH is to enable the forum to sele"t the properla. 3

*ur startin+ point of anal-sis here is not a le+al relation, buta fa"tual situation, event, or operative fa"t. 4 #n essentialelement of "on@i"t rules is the indi"ation of a HtestH orH"onne"tin+ fa"torH or Hpoint of "onta"tH. Choi"e%of%la rulesinvariabl- "onsist of a fa"tual relationship :su"h as propert-ri+ht, "ontra"t "laim; and a "onne"tin+ fa"tor or point of "onta"t, su"h as the situs of the res, the pla"e of "elebration, the pla"e of performan"e, or the pla"e of ron+doin+. 8

(ote that one or more "ir"umstan"es ma- be present toserve as the possible test for the determination of theappli"able la. 9 These Htest fa"torsH or Hpoints of "onta"tHor H"onne"tin+ fa"torsH "ould be an- of the folloin+

:1; The nationalit- of a person, his domi"ile, hisresiden"e, his pla"e of soBourn, or his ori+inG

:2; the seat of a le+al or Buridi"al person, su"h as a"orporationG

:); the situs of a thin+, that is, the pla"e here athin+ is, or is deemed to be situated. n parti"ular,the le" situs is de"isive hen real ri+hts are involvedG

:4; te place -ere an act as $een done, te locusactus, suc as te place -ere a contract as $eenmade, a marriage cele$rated, a -ill signed or a tort committed. <e le" loci actus is particularl) important in contracts and torts=

:5; the pla"e here an a"t is intended to "ome intoe6e"t, e.+., the pla"e of performan"e of "ontra"tualduties, or the pla"e here a poer of attorne- is tobe e<er"isedG

:$; the intention of the "ontra"tin+ parties as to thela that should +overn their a+reement, the le" lociintentionisG

:7; the pla"e here Budi"ial or administrativepro"eedin+s are instituted or done. The le" fori M thela of the forum M is parti"ularl- important be"ause,

as e have seen earlier, matters of Hpro"edureH not+oin+ to the substan"e of the "laim involved are+overned b- itG and be"ause the le" fori applieshenever the "ontent of the otherise appli"ableforei+n la is e<"luded from appli"ation in a +iven"ase for the reason that it falls under one of thee<"eptions to the appli"ations of forei+n laG and

:; the @a+ of a ship, hi"h in man- "ases is de"isiveof pra"ti"all- all le+al relationships of the ship and of

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

its master or oner as su"h. t also "overs"ontra"tual relationships parti"ularl- "ontra"ts of a6rei+htment. 35 :?mphasis ours.;

#fter a "areful stud- of the pleadin+s on re"ord, in"ludin+

alle+ations in the #mended Complaint deemed admitted forpurposes of the motion to dismiss, e are "onvin"ed thatthere is reasonable basis for private respondentDs assertionthat althou+h she as alread- orkin+ in Aanila, petitionerbrou+ht her to 3eddah on the pretense that she ouldmerel- testif- in an investi+ation of the "har+es she madea+ainst the to S#!# "re members for the atta"k on herperson hile the- ere in 3akarta. #s it turned out, she asthe one made to fa"e trial for ver- serious "har+es, in"ludin+adulter- and violation of slami" las and tradition.

There is likeise lo+i"al basis on re"ord for the "laim that

the Hhandin+ overH or Hturnin+ overH of the person of privaterespondent to 3eddah o>"ials, petitioner ma- have a"tedbe-ond its duties as emplo-er. 'etitionerDs purported a"t"ontributed to and ampliFed or even pro<imatel- "ausedadditional humiliation, miser- and su6erin+ of privaterespondent. 'etitioner thereb- alle+edl- fa"ilitated thearrest, detention and prose"ution of private respondentunder the +uise of petitionerDs authorit- as emplo-er, takin+advanta+e of the trust, "onFden"e and faith she reposedupon it. #s purportedl- found b- the 'rin"e of Aakkah, thealle+ed "onvi"tion and imprisonment of private respondentas ron+ful. 8ut these "apped the inBur- or harm alle+edl-

in@i"ted upon her person and reputation, for hi"hpetitioner "ould be liable as "laimed, to provide"ompensation or redress for the ron+s done, on"e dul-proven.

Considerin+ that the "omplaint in the "ourt a 6uo is oneinvolvin+ torts, the H"onne"tin+ fa"torH or Hpoint of "onta"tH"ould be the pla"e or pla"es here the tortious "ondu"tor le" loci actus o""urred. #nd appl-in+ the torts prin"iple ina "on@i"ts "ase, e Fnd that the 'hilippines "ould be said as

a situs of the tort :the pla"e here the alle+ed tortious"ondu"t took pla"e;. This is be"ause it is in the 'hilippineshere petitioner alle+edl- de"eived private respondent, ailipina residin+ and orkin+ here. #""ordin+ to her, she hadhonestl- believed that petitioner ould, in the e<er"ise of its

ri+hts and in the performan"e of its duties, Ha"t ith Busti"e,+ive her due and observe honest- and +ood faith.H nstead,petitioner failed to prote"t her, she "laimed. That "ertaina"ts or parts of the inBur- alle+edl- o""urred in another"ountr- is of no moment. or in our vie hat is importanthere is the pla"e here the over%all harm or the totalit- of the alle+ed inBur- to the person, reputation, so"ial standin+and human ri+hts of "omplainant, had lod+ed, a""ordin+ tothe plainti6 belo :herein private respondent;. #ll told, it isnot ithout basis to identif- the 'hilippines as the situs of the alle+ed tort.

Aoreover, ith the idespread "riti"ism of the traditionalrule of le" loci delicti commissi, modern theories and ruleson tort liabilit- 31 have been advan"ed to o6er fresh Budi"ialapproa"hes to arrive at Bust results. n keepin+ abreast iththe modern theories on tort liabilit-, e Fnd here ano""asion to appl- the HState of the most si+niF"antrelationshipH rule, hi"h in our vie should be appropriate toappl- no, +iven the fa"tual "onte<t of this "ase.

n appl-in+ said prin"iple to determine the State hi"h hasthe most si+niF"ant relationship, the folloin+ "onta"ts areto be taken into a""ount and evaluated a""ordin+ to their

relative importan"e ith respe"t to the parti"ular issue :a;the pla"e here the inBur- o""urredG :b; the pla"e here the"ondu"t "ausin+ the inBur- o""urredG :"; the domi"ile,residen"e, nationalit-, pla"e of in"orporation and pla"e of business of the parties, and :d; the pla"e here therelationship, if an-, beteen the parties is "entered. 32

#s alread- dis"ussed, there is basis for the "laim that over%all inBur- o""urred and lod+ed in the 'hilippines. There islikeise no uestion that private respondent is a resident

10

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

ilipina national, orkin+ ith petitioner, a resident forei+n"orporation en+a+ed here in the business of international air"arria+e. Thus, the HrelationshipH beteen the parties as"entered here, althou+h it should be stressed that this suit isnot based on mere labor la violations. rom the re"ord, the

"laim that the 'hilippines has the most si+niF"ant "onta"tith the matter in this dispute, 30 raised b- privaterespondent as plainti6 belo a+ainst defendant :hereinpetitioner;, in our vie, has been properl- established.

'res"indin+ from this premise that the 'hilippines is thesitus of the tort "omplained of and the pla"e Hhavin+ themost interest in the problemH, e Fnd, b- a- of re"apitulation, that the 'hilippine la on tort liabilit- shouldhave paramount appli"ation to and "ontrol in the resolutionof the le+al issues arisin+ out of this "ase. urther, e holdthat the respondent Re+ional Trial Court has Burisdi"tion over

the parties and the subBe"t matter of the "omplaintG theappropriate venue is in /ueon Cit-, hi"h "ould properl-appl- 'hilippine la. Aoreover, e Fnd untenablepetitionerDs insisten"e that HNsOin"e private respondentinstituted this suit, she has the burden of pleadin+ andprovin+ the appli"able Saudi la on the matter.H 3 #s aptl-said b- private respondent, she has Hno obli+ation to pleadand prove the la of the in+dom of Saudi #rabia sin"e her"ause of a"tion is based on #rti"les 1 and 21H of the CivilCode of the 'hilippines. n her #mended Complaint andsubseuent pleadin+s, she never alle+ed that Saudi lashould +overn this "ase. 3 #nd as "orre"tl- held b- the

respondent appellate "ourt, H"onsiderin+ that it as thepetitioner ho as invokin+ the appli"abilit- of the la of Saudi #rabia, then the burden as on it NpetitionerO to pleadand to establish hat the la of Saudi #rabia isH. 33

=astl-, no error "ould be imputed to the respondentappellate "ourt in upholdin+ the trial "ourtDs denial of defendantDs :herein petitionerDs; motion to dismiss the "ase.(ot onl- as Burisdi"tion in order and venue properl- laid,but appeal after trial as obviousl- available, and

e<peditious trial itself indi"ated b- the nature of the "ase athand. ndubitabl-, the 'hilippines is the state intimatel-"on"erned ith the ultimate out"ome of the "ase belo, not Bust for the beneFt of all the liti+ants, but also for thevindi"ation of the "ountr-Ds s-stem of la and Busti"e in a

transnational settin+. 9ith these +uidelines in mind, the trial"ourt must pro"eed to tr- and adBud+e the "ase in the li+htof relevant 'hilippine la, ith due "onsideration of theforei+n element or elements involved. (othin+ said herein,of "ourse, should be "onstrued as preBud+in+ the results of the "ase in an- manner hatsoever.

9J?R?*R?, the instant petition for certiorari is hereb-!SASS?!. Civil Case (o. /%)%1)4 entitled HAila+ros '.Aorada vs. Saudi #rabia #irlinesH is hereb- R?A#(!?! toRe+ional Trial Court of /ueon Cit-, 8ran"h for furtherpro"eedin+s.

S* *R!?R?!.

11

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

G.R. No. 81232 A+)+&t 2, 1989

GLOBE MAC6A7 CABLE AND RADIO CORP., a!"ERBERT C. "ENDR7, petitioners, vs. T"E "ONORABLECOURT OF APPEALS a! RESTITUTO M.TOBIAS, respondents.

CORTES, J.:

'rivate respondent Restituto A. Tobias as emplo-ed b-petitioner &lobe Aa"ka- Cable and Radio Corporation:&=*8? A#C#E; in a dual "apa"itas a pur"hasin+ a+entand administrative assistant to the en+ineerin+ operationsmana+er. n 172, &=*8? A#C#E dis"overed F"titiouspur"hases and other fraudulent transa"tions for hi"h it lostseveral thousands of pesos.

#""ordin+ to private respondent it as he ho a"tuall-dis"overed the anomalies and reported them on (ovember

10, 172 to his immediate superior ?duardo T. erraren andto petitioner Jerbert C. Jendr- ho as then the ?<e"utiveLi"e%'resident and &eneral Aana+er of &=*8? A#C#E.

*n (ovember 11, 172, one da- after private respondent

Tobias made the report, petitioner Jendr- "onfronted him b-statin+ that he as the number one suspe"t, and orderedhim to take a one eek for"ed leave, not to "ommuni"ateith the o>"e, to leave his table draers open, and to leavethe o>"e ke-s.

*n (ovember 20, 172, hen private respondent Tobiasreturned to ork after the for"ed leave, petitioner Jendr-ent up to him and "alled him a H"rookH and a Hsindler.H Tobias as then ordered to take a lie dete"tor test. Je asalso instru"ted to submit spe"imen of his handritin+,si+nature, and initials for e<amination b- the poli"e

investi+ators to determine his "ompli"it- in the anomalies.

*n !e"ember $,172, the Aanila poli"e investi+atorssubmitted a laborator- "rime report :?<h. H#H; "learin+private respondent of parti"ipation in the anomalies.

(ot satisFed ith the poli"e report, petitioners hired aprivate investi+ator, retired Col. 3ose &. ernande, ho on!e"ember 10, 172, submitted a report :?<h. H2H; Fndin+ Tobias +uilt-. This report hoever e<pressl- stated thatfurther investi+ation as still to be "ondu"ted.

(evertheless, on !e"ember 12, 172, petitioner Jendr-issued a memorandum suspendin+ Tobias from orkpreparator- to the Flin+ of "riminal "har+es a+ainst him.

*n !e"ember 1,172, =t. !ios"oro L. Ta+le, Aetro Aanila'oli"e Chief !o"ument ?<aminer, after investi+atin+ otherdo"uments pertainin+ to the alle+ed anomaloustransa"tions, submitted a se"ond laborator- "rime report:?<h. H8H; reiteratin+ his previous Fndin+ that the

12

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

handritin+s, si+natures, and initials appearin+ in the"he"ks and other do"uments involved in the fraudulenttransa"tions ere not those of Tobias. The lie dete"tor tests"ondu"ted on Tobias also -ielded ne+ative results.

(otithstandin+ the to poli"e reports e<"ulpatin+ Tobiasfrom the anomalies and the fa"t that the report of theprivate investi+ator, as, b- its on terms, not -et"omplete, petitioners Fled ith the Cit- is"al of Aanila a"omplaint for estafa throu+h falsiF"ation of "ommer"ialdo"uments, later amended to Bust estafa. Subseuentl- Fveother "riminal "omplaints ere Fled a+ainst Tobias, four of hi"h ere for estafa throu+h alsiF"ation of "ommer"ialdo"ument hile the Ffth as for of #rti"le 20 ofD theRevised 'enal Code :!is"overin+ Se"rets Throu+h Seiure of Corresponden"e;.l>-p?1.@t To of these "omplaints erereFled ith the 3ud+e #dvo"ate &eneralDs *>"e, hi"h

hoever, remanded them to the Fs"alDs o>"e. #ll of the si<"riminal "omplaints ere dismissed b- the Fs"al. 'etitionersappealed four of the Fs"alDs resolutions dismissin+ the"riminal "omplaints ith the Se"retar- of 3usti"e, ho,hoever, a>rmed their dismissal.

n the meantime, on 3anuar- 17, 17), Tobias re"eived anoti"e :?<h. HH; from petitioners that his emplo-ment hasbeen terminated e6e"tive !e"ember 1), 172. 9hereupon, Tobias Fled a "omplaint for ille+al dismissal. The laborarbiter dismissed the "omplaint. *n appeal, the (ational=abor Relations Commission :(=RC; reversed the labor

arbiterDs de"ision. Joever, the Se"retar- of =abor, a"tin+on petitionersD appeal from the (=RC rulin+, reinstated thelabor arbiterDs de"ision. Tobias appealed the Se"retar- of =aborDs order ith the *>"e of the 'resident. !urin+ thependen"- of the appeal ith said o>"e, petitioners andprivate respondent Tobias entered into a "ompromisea+reement re+ardin+ the latterDs "omplaint for ille+aldismissal.

nemplo-ed, Tobias sou+ht emplo-ment ith the Republi" Telephone Compan- :R?T?=C*;. Joever, petitionerJendr-, ithout bein+ asked b- R?T?=C*, rote a letter tothe latter statin+ that Tobias as dismissed b- &=*8?A#C#E due to dishonest-.

'rivate respondent Tobias Fled a "ivil "ase for dama+esan"hored on alle+ed unlaful, mali"ious, oppressive, andabusive a"ts of petitioners. 'etitioner Jendr-, "laimin+illness, did not testif- durin+ the hearin+s. The Re+ional TrialCourt :RTC; of Aanila, 8ran"h Q, throu+h 3ud+e Aanuel T.Re-es rendered Bud+ment in favor of private respondent b-orderin+ petitioners to pa- him ei+ht- thousand pesos:'0,000.00; as a"tual dama+es, to hundred thousandpesos :'200,000.00; as moral dama+es, tent- thousandpesos :'20,000.00; as e<emplar- dama+es, thirt- thousandpesos :')0,000.00; as attorne-Ds fees, and "osts. 'etitioners

appealed the RTC de"ision to the Court of #ppeals. *n theother hand, Tobias appealed as to the amount of dama+es.Joever, the Court of #ppeals, an a de"ision dated #u+ust)1, 17 a>rmed the RTC de"ision in toto. 'etitionersDmotion for re"onsideration havin+ been denied, the instantpetition for revie on certiorari as Fled.

The main issue in this "ase is hether or not petitioners areliable for dama+es to private respondent.

'etitioners "ontend that the- "ould not be made liable fordama+es in the laful e<er"ise of their ri+ht to dismissprivate respondent.

*n the other hand, private respondent "ontends thatbe"ause of petitionersD abusive manner in dismissin+ him asell as for the inhuman treatment he +ot from them, the'etitioners must indemnif- him for the dama+e that he hadsu6ered.

*ne of the more notable innovations of the (e Civil Code isthe "odiF"ation of Hsome basi" prin"iples that are to be

1)

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

observed for the ri+htful relationship beteen human bein+sand for the stabilit- of the so"ial order.H NR?'*RT *( TJ?C*!? C*AASS*( *( TJ? 'R*'*S?! CL= C*!? * TJ?'J=''(?S, p. )O. The framers of the Code, seekin+ toremed- the defe"t of the old Code hi"h merel- stated the

e6e"ts of the la, but failed to dra out its spirit,in"orporated "ertain fundamental pre"epts hi"h ereHdesi+ned to indi"ate "ertain norms that sprin+ from thefountain of +ood "ons"ien"eH and hi"h ere also meant toserve as H+uides for human "ondu"t NthatO should run as+olden threads throu+h so"iet-, to the end that la ma-approa"h its supreme ideal, hi"h is the sa- anddominan"e of Busti"eH :#d.; oremost amon+ these prin"iplesis that pronoun"ed in #rti"le 1 hi"h provides

#rt. 1. ?ver- person must, in the e<er"ise of hisri+hts and in the performan"e of his duties, a"t ith

Busti"e, +ive ever-one his due, and observe honest-and +ood faith.

This arti"le, knon to "ontain hat is "ommonl- referred toas the prin"iple of abuse of ri+hts, sets "ertain standardshi"h must be observed not onl- in the e<er"ise of oneDsri+hts but also in the performan"e of oneDs duties. Thesestandards are the folloin+ to a"t ith Busti"eG to +iveever-one his dueG and to observe honest- and +ood faith. The la, therefore, re"o+nies a primordial limitation on allri+htsG that in their e<er"ise, the norms of human "ondu"tset forth in #rti"le 1 must be observed. # ri+ht, thou+h b-

itself le+al be"ause re"o+nied or +ranted b- la as su"h,ma- nevertheless be"ome the sour"e of some ille+alit-.9hen a ri+ht is e<er"ised in a manner hi"h does not"onform ith the norms enshrined in #rti"le 1 and resultsin dama+e to another, a le+al ron+ is thereb- "ommittedfor hi"h the ron+doer must be held responsible. 8ut hile#rti"le 1 la-s don a rule of "ondu"t for the +overnment of human relations and for the maintenan"e of so"ial order, itdoes not provide a remed- for its violation. &enerall-, an

a"tion for dama+es under either #rti"le 20 or #rti"le 21ould be proper.

#rti"le 20, hi"h pertains to dama+e arisin+ from a violationof la, provides that

#rt. 20. ?ver- person ho "ontrar- to la, ilfull- orne+li+entl- "auses dama+e to another, shallindemnif- the latter for the same.

Joever, in the "ase at bar, petitioners "laim that the- didnot violate an- provision of la sin"e the- ere merel-e<er"isin+ their le+al ri+ht to dismiss private respondent. This does not, hoever, leave private respondent ith norelief be"ause #rti"le 21 of the Civil Code provides that

#rt. 21. #n- person ho ilfull- "auses loss or inBur-to another in a manner that is "ontrar- to morals,+ood "ustoms or publi" poli"- shall "ompensate thelatter for the dama+e.

This arti"le, adopted to remed- the H"ountless +aps in thestatutes, hi"h leave so man- vi"tims of moral ron+shelpless, even thou+h the- have a"tuall- su6ered materialand moral inBur-H N#d.O should Hvou"hsafe adeuate le+alremed- for that untold number of moral ron+s hi"h it isimpossible for human foresi+ht to provide for spe"iF"all- inthe statutesH N#d. it p. 40G ee also '(8 v. C#, &.R. (o. =%

27155, Aa- 1,17, ) SCR# 2)7, 247O.

n determinin+ hether or not the prin"iple of abuse of ri+hts ma- be invoked, there is no ri+id test hi"h "an beapplied. 9hile the Court has not hesitated to appl- #rti"le1 hether the le+al and fa"tual "ir"umstan"es "alled for itsappli"ation Nee for e.+., Lela-o v. Shell Co. of the 'hil., =td.,100 'hil. 1$ :15$;G '(8 v. C#, supra=&rand nionSupermarket, n". v. ?spino, 3r., &.R. (o. =%4250, !e"ember2, 17, 4 SCR# 5)G '#= v. C#, &.R. (o. =%4$55, 3ul-

14

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

)1,11,10$ SCR# )1G nited &eneral ndustries, n", v.'aler &.R. (o. =%)0205, Aar"h 15,12,112 SCR# 404G Rubiov. C#, &.R. (o. 5011, #u+ust 21, 17, 15) SCR# 1)O theuestion of hether or not the prin"iple of abuse of ri+htshas been violated resultin+ in dama+es under #rti"le 20 or

#rti"le 21 or other appli"able provision of la, depends onthe "ir"umstan"es of ea"h "ase. #nd in the instant "ase, theCourt, after e<aminin+ the re"ord and "onsiderin+ "ertainsi+niF"ant "ir"umstan"es, Fnds that all petitioners haveindeed abused the ri+ht that the- invoke, "ausin+ dama+eto private respondent and for hi"h the latter must no beindemniFed.

The trial "ourt made a Fndin+ that notithstandin+ the fa"tthat it as private respondent Tobias ho reported thepossible e<isten"e of anomalous transa"tions, petitionerJendr- Hshoed belli+eren"e and told plainti6 :private

respondent herein; that he as the number one suspe"t andto take a one eek va"ation leave, not to "ommuni"ate iththe o>"e, to leave his table draers open, and to leave hiske-s to said defendant :petitioner Jendr-;H NRTC !e"ision, p.2G Rollo, p. 2)2O. This, petitioners do not dispute. 8utre+ardless of hether or not it as private respondent Tobias ho reported the anomalies to petitioners, the latterDsrea"tion toards the former upon un"overin+ the anomaliesas less than "ivil. #n emplo-er ho harbors suspi"ions thatan emplo-ee has "ommitted dishonest- mi+ht be BustiFed intakin+ the appropriate a"tion su"h as orderin+ aninvesti+ation and dire"tin+ the emplo-ee to +o on a leave.

irmness and the resolve to un"over the truth ould also bee<pe"ted from su"h emplo-er. 8ut the hi+h%handedtreatment a""orded Tobias b- petitioners as "ertainl-un"alled for. #nd this reprehensible attitude of petitionersas to "ontinue hen private respondent returned to orkon (ovember 20, 172 after his one eek for"ed leave.pon reportin+ for ork, Tobias as "onfronted b- Jendr-ho said. HTobb-, -ou are the "rook and sindler in this"ompan-.H Considerin+ that the Frst report made b- thepoli"e investi+ators as submitted onl- on !e"ember 10,

172 NSee ?<h. #O the statement made b- petitioner Jendr-as baseless. The imputation of +uilt ithout basis and thepattern of harassment durin+ the investi+ations of Tobiastrans+ress the standards of human "ondu"t set forth in#rti"le 1 of the Civil Code. The Court has alread- ruled that

the ri+ht of the emplo-er to dismiss an emplo-ee should notbe "onfused ith the manner in hi"h the ri+ht is e<er"isedand the e6e"ts @oin+ therefrom. f the dismissal is doneabusivel-, then the emplo-er is liable for dama+es to theemplo-ee N/uisaba v. Sta. nes%Aelale Leneer and 'l-oodn"., &.R. (o. =%)0, #u+ust )0, 174, 5 SCR# 771G eealso 'hilippine ReFnin+ Co., n". v. &ar"ia, &.R. (o. =%2171,September 27,1$$, 1 SCR# 107O nder the "ir"umstan"esof the instant "ase, the petitioners "learl- failed to e<er"isein a le+itimate manner their ri+ht to dismiss Tobias, +ivin+the latter the ri+ht to re"over dama+es under #rti"le 1 inrelation to #rti"le 21 of the Civil Code.

8ut petitioners ere not "ontent ith Bust dismissin+ Tobias.Several other tortious a"ts ere "ommitted b- petitionersa+ainst Tobias after the latterDs termination from ork. Toards the latter part of 3anuar-, 17), after the Flin+ of the Frst of si< "riminal "omplaints a+ainst Tobias, the lattertalked to Jendr- to protest the a"tions taken a+ainst him. nresponse, Jendr- "ut short TobiasD protestations b- tellin+him to Bust "onfess or else the "ompan- ould Fle a hundredmore "ases a+ainst him until he landed in Bail. Jendr- addedthat, HEou ilipinos "annot be trusted.H The threat unmaskedpetitionerDs bad faith in the various a"tions taken a+ainst

Tobias. *n the other hand, the s"ornful remark aboutilipinos as ell as Jendr-Ds earlier statements about Tobiasbein+ a H"rookH and HsindlerH are "lear violations of DTobiasDpersonal di+nit- NSee #rti"le 2$, Civil CodeO.

The ne<t tortious a"t "ommitted b- petitioners as theritin+ of a letter to R?T?=C* sometime in *"tober 174,statin+ that Tobias had been dismissed b- &=*8? A#C#Edue to dishonest-. 8e"ause of the letter, Tobias failed to +ainemplo-ment ith R?T?=C* and as a result of hi"h, Tobias

15

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

remained unemplo-ed for a lon+er period of time. or thisfurther dama+e su6ered b- Tobias, petitioners must likeisebe held liable for dama+es "onsistent ith #rti"le 217$ of the Civil Code. 'etitioners, hoever, "ontend that the- havea Hmoral, if not le+al, dut- to forearn other emplo-ers of

the kind of emplo-ee the plainti6 :private respondentherein; as.H N'etition, p. 14G Rollo, p. 15O. 'etitioners further"laim that Hit is the a""epted moral and so"ietal obli+ation of ever- man to advise or arn his fellomen of an- threat ordan+er to the latterDs life, honor or propert-. #nd thisin"ludes arnin+ oneDs brethren of the possible dan+ersinvolved in dealin+ ith, or a""eptin+ into "onFden"e, a manhose honest- and inte+rit- is suspe"tH N#d.O. Thesear+uments, rather than Bustif- petitionersD a"t, reveal aseemin+ obsession to prevent Tobias from +ettin+ a Bob,even after almost to -ears from the time Tobias asdismissed.

inall-, there is the matter of the Flin+ b- petitioners of si<"riminal "omplaints a+ainst Tobias. 'etitioners "ontend thatthere is no "ase a+ainst them for mali"ious prose"ution andthat the- "annot be Hpenalied for e<er"isin+ their ri+ht andprero+ative of seekin+ Busti"e b- Flin+ "riminal "omplaintsa+ainst an emplo-ee ho as their prin"ipal suspe"t in the"ommission of for+eries and in the perpetration of anomalous transa"tions hi"h defrauded them of substantial sums of mone-H N'etition, p. 10, Rollo, p. 11O.

9hile sound prin"iples of Busti"e and publi" poli"- di"tate

that persons shall have free resort to the "ourts for redressof ron+s and vindi"ation of their ri+hts N8uenaventura v.Sto. !omin+o, 10) 'hil. 2) :15;O, the ri+ht to institute"riminal prose"utions "an not be e<er"ised mali"iousl- andin bad faith NLentura v. 8ernabe, &.R. (o. =%2$7$0, #pril )0,171, ) SCR# 571.O Jen"e, in Butu/ . &anila 4lectric Co.,&.R. (o. =%1)01$, Aa- )1, 1$1, 2 SCR# ))7, the Court heldthat the ri+ht to Fle "riminal "omplaints should not be usedas a eapon to for"e an alle+ed debtor to pa- anindebtedness. To do so ould be a "lear perversion of the

fun"tion of the "riminal pro"esses and of the "ourts of Busti"e. #nd in Da-pia C#, &.R. (o. =%20047, 3une )0, 1$7.20 SCR# 5)$ the Court upheld the Bud+ment a+ainst thepetitioner for a"tual and moral dama+es and attorne-Ds feesafter makin+ a Fndin+ that petitioner, ith persisten"e, Fled

at least si< "riminal "omplaints a+ainst respondent, all of hi"h ere dismissed.

To "onstitute mali"ious prose"ution, there must be proof thatthe prose"ution as prompted b- a desi+n to ve< andhumiliate a person and that it as initiated deliberatel- b-the defendant knoin+ that the "har+es ere false and+roundless NAanila &as Corporation v. C#, &.R. (o. =%4410,*"tober )0,10, 100 SCR# $02O. Con"ededl-, the Flin+ of asuit b- itself, does not render a person liable for mali"iousprose"ution Nnhelder Corporation v. C#, &.R. (o. 52)5,Aa- )01)122 SCR# 57$O. The mere dismissal b- the Fs"al

of the "riminal "omplaint is not a +round for an aard of dama+es for mali"ious prose"ution if there is no "ompetenteviden"e to sho that the "omplainant had a"ted in badfaith NSison v. !avid, &.R. (o. =%112$, 3anuar- 2,1$1, 1SCR# $0O.

n the instant "ase, hoever, the trial "ourt made a Fndin+that petitioners a"ted in bad faith in Flin+ the "riminal"omplaints a+ainst Tobias, observin+ that

< < <

!efendants :petitioners herein; Fled ith the is"alDs*>"e of Aanila a total of si< :$; "riminal "ases, Fve:5; of hi"h ere for estafa thru falsiF"ation of "ommer"ial do"ument and one for violation of #rt.20 of the Revised 'enal Code Hdis"overin+ se"retsthru seiure of "orresponden"e,H and all eredismissed for insu>"ien"- or la"k of eviden"e.H Thedismissal of four :4; of the "ases as appealed to theAinistr- of 3usti"e, but said Ainistr- invariabl-sustained the dismissal of the "ases. #s above

1$

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

adverted to, to of these "ases ere reFled ith the 3ud+e #dvo"ate &eneralDs *>"e of the #rmed or"esof the 'hilippines to railroad plainti6s arrest anddetention in the militar- sto"kade, but this asfrustrated b- a presidential de"ree transferrin+

"riminal "ases involvin+ "ivilians to the "ivil "ourts.

< < <

To be sure, hen despite the to :2; poli"e reportsembod-in+ the Fndin+s of =t. !ios"oro Ta+le, Chief !o"ument ?<aminer of the Aanila 'oli"e !epartment,"learin+ plainti6 of parti"ipation or involvement inthe fraudulent transa"tions "omplained of, despitethe ne+ative results of the lie dete"tor tests hi"hdefendants "ompelled plainti6 to under+o, andalthou+h the poli"e investi+ation as Hstill under

follo%up and a supplementar- report ill besubmitted after all the eviden"e has been +athered,Hdefendants hastil- Fled si< :$; "riminal "ases iththe "itis"alDs *>"e of Aanila, Fve :5; for estafathru falsiF"ation of "ommer"ial do"ument and one:1; for violation of #rt. 20 of the Revised 'enal Code,so mu"h so that as as to be e<pe"ted, all si< :$;"ases ere dismissed, ith one of the investi+atin+Fs"als, #sst. is"al de &uia, "ommentin+ in one "asethat, Hndeed, the haphaard a- this "ase asinvesti+ated is evident. ?vident likeise is the @urr-and haste in the Flin+ of this "ase a+ainst respondent

Tobias,H there "an be no mistakin+ that defendantsould not but be motivated b- mali"ious andunlaful intent to harass, oppress, and "ausedama+e to plainti6.

< < <

NRTC !e"ision, pp. 5%$G Rollo, pp. 2)5%2)$O.

n addition to the observations made b- the trial "ourt, theCourt Fnds it si+niF"ant that the "riminal "omplaints ereFled durin+ the penden"- of the ille+al dismissal "ase Fledb- Tobias a+ainst petitioners. This e<plains the haste inhi"h the "omplaints ere Fled, hi"h the trial "ourt earlier

noted. 8ut petitioners, to prove their +ood faith, point to thefa"t that onl- si< "omplaints ere Fled a+ainst Tobias henthe- "ould have alle+edl- Fled one hundred "ases,"onsiderin+ the number of anomalous transa"tions"ommitted a+ainst &=*8? A#C#E. Joever, petitionersD+ood faith is belied b- the threat made b- Jendr- after theFlin+ of the Frst "omplaint that one hundred more "asesould be Fled a+ainst Tobias. n e6e"t, the possible Flin+ of one hundred more "ases as made to han+ like the sord of !amo"les over the head of Tobias. n Fne, "onsiderin+ thehaste in hi"h the "riminal "omplaints ere Fled, the fa"tthat the- ere Fled durin+ the penden"- of the ille+al

dismissal "ase a+ainst petitioners, the threat made b-Jendr-, the fa"t that the "ases ere Fled notithstandin+the to poli"e reports e<"ulpatin+ Tobias from involvementin the anomalies "ommitted a+ainst &=*8? A#C#E,"oupled b- the eventual dismissal of all the "ases, the Courtis led into no other "on"lusion than that petitioners eremotivated b- mali"ious intent in Flin+ the si< "riminal"omplaints a+ainst Tobias.

'etitioners ne<t "ontend that the aard of dama+es ase<"essive. n the "omplaint Fled a+ainst petitioners, Tobiaspra-ed for the folloin+ one hundred thousand pesos

:'100,000.00; as a"tual dama+esG Fft- thousand pesos:'50,000.00; as e<emplar- dama+esG ei+ht hundredthousand pesos :'00,000.00; as moral dama+esG Fft-thousand pesos :'50,000.00; as attorne-Ds feesG and "osts. The trial "ourt, after makin+ a "omputation of the dama+esin"urred b- Tobias Nee RTC !e"ision, pp. 7%G Rollo, pp. 154%1551, aarded him the folloin+ ei+ht- thousand pesos:'0,000.00; as a"tual dama+esG to hundred thousandpesos :'200,000.00; as moral dama+esG tent- thousandpesos :'20,000.00; as e<emplar- dama+esG thirt- thousand

17

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

pesos :')0,000.00; as attorne-Ds feesG and, "osts. t must beunders"ored that petitioners have been +uilt- of "ommittin+several a"tionable tortious a"ts, i.e., the abusive manner inhi"h the- dismissed Tobias from ork in"ludin+ thebaseless imputation of +uilt and the harassment durin+ theinvesti+ationsG the defamator- lan+ua+e heaped on Tobiasas ell as the s"ornful remark on ilipinosG the poison lettersent to R?T?=C* hi"h resulted in TobiasD loss of possibleemplo-mentG and, the mali"ious Flin+ of the "riminal"omplaints. Considerin+ the e<tent of the dama+e rou+hton Tobias, the Court Fnds that, "ontrar- to petitionersD"ontention, the amount of dama+es aarded to Tobias asreasonable under the "ir"umstan"es.

Eet, petitioners still insist that the aard of dama+es asimproper, invokin+ the prin"iple of damnum absueinuria. tis ar+ued that HNtOhe onl- probable a"tual dama+e that

plainti6 :private respondent herein; "ould have su6ered asa dire"t result of his havin+ been dismissed from hisemplo-ment, hi"h as a valid and le+al a"t of thedefendants%appellants :petitioners herein;.l>-p?1.@t HN'etition, p. 17G Rollo, p. 1O.

#""ordin+ to the prin"iple of damnum a$s6ue inuria,dama+e or loss hi"h does not "onstitute a violation of ale+al ri+ht or amount to a le+al ron+ is not a"tionableN?s"ano v. C#, &.R. (o. =%47207, September 25, 10, 100SCR# 17G See also &il"hrist v. Cudd- 2 'hil, 542 :115;G The 8oard of =iuidators v. ala, &.R. (o. =%105, #u+ust

14, 1$7, 20 SCR# 7O. This prin"iple Fnds no appli"ationin this "ase. t bears repeatin+ that even +rantin+ thatpetitioners mi+ht have had the ri+ht to dismiss Tobias fromork, the abusive manner in hi"h that ri+ht as e<er"isedamounted to a le+al ron+ for hi"h petitioners must nobe held liable. Aoreover, the dama+e in"urred b- Tobias asnot onl- in "onne"tion ith the abusive manner in hi"h heas dismissed but as also the result of several other uasi%deli"tual a"ts "ommitted b- petitioners.

'etitioners ne<t uestion the aard of moral dama+es.Joever, the Court has alread- ruled in Eassmer v. eleF ,&.R. (o. =%200, !e"ember 2$, 1$4, 12 SCR# $4, $5),that NpOer e<press provision of #rti"le 221 :10; of the (eCivil Code, moral dama+es are re"overable in the "asesmentioned in #rti"le 21 of said Code.H Jen"e, the Court of #ppeals "ommitted no error in aardin+ moral dama+es to Tobias.

=astl-, the aard of e<emplar- dama+es is impu+ned b-petitioners. #lthou+h #rti"le 22)1 of the Civil Code providesthat HNiOn uasi%deli"ts, e<emplar- dama+es ma- be +rantedif the defendant a"ted ith +ross ne+li+en"e,H the Court,in Gulueta v. Pan American Eorld Air-a)s, #nc., &.R. (o. =%25, 3anuar- , 17), 4 SCR# 1, ruled that if +rossne+li+en"e arrants the aard of e<emplar- dama+es, ithmore reason is its imposition BustiFed hen the a"t

performed is deliberate, mali"ious and tainted ith badfaith. #s in the Gulueta"ase, the nature of the ron+ful a"tsshon to have been "ommitted b- petitioners a+ainst Tobiasis su>"ient basis for the aard of e<emplar- dama+es tothe latter.

9J?R?*R?, the petition is hereb- !?(?! and the de"isionof the Court of #ppeals in C#%&.R. CL (o. 0055 is#RA?!.

S* *R!?R?!.

1

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

G.R. No. 1525 Febr+ar( 1, 2551

SERGIO AMONO7, petitioner, vs. S'o+&e& *OSEGUTIERRE# a! ANGELA FORNIDA, respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.

!amnum a$s6ue inuria. nder this prin"iple, the le+itimatee<er"ise of a personDs ri+hts, even if it "auses loss toanother, does not automati"all- result in an a"tionableinBur-. The la does not pres"ribe a remed- for the loss. Thisprin"iple does not, hoever, appl- hen there is an abuse of a personDs ri+ht, or hen the e<er"ise of this ri+ht issuspended or e<tin+uished pursuant to a "ourt order.ndeed, in the availment of oneDs ri+hts, one must a"t ith Busti"e, +ive their due, and observe honest- and +ood faith

T%e Ca&e

8efore us is a 'etition for Revie under Rule 45 of the Rulesof Court, assailin+ the #pril 21, 1 !e"ision1 of the Courtof #ppeals :C#; in C#%&R CL (o. 41451, hi"h set aside the Bud+ment2 of the Re+ional Trial Court :RTC; of Tana-, Rial. The RTC had earlier dismissed the Complaint for dama+esFled b- herein respondents a+ainst petitioner. The

dispositive portion of the "hallen+ed C# !e"ision reads asfollos

H9J?R?*R?, the appealed !e"ision is S?T #S!?,and in its stead Bud+ment is rendered orderin+ the

defendant%appellee Ser+io #mono- to pa- theplainti6s%appellants bruno and 8ernadina &utierreas a"tual dama+es the sum of NtOo NhOundred NfOift-NtOhousand NpOesos :'250,000.00;.H)

=ikeise assailed is the *"tober 1, 1 C#Resolution,4 hi"h denied the Aotion for Re"onsideration.

T%e Fact&

The appellate "ourt narrated the fa"tual ante"edents of this"ase as follos

HThis "ase had its roots in Spe"ial 'ro"eedin+s (o.)10) of 8ran"h of the C of 'asi+, Rial, for thesettlement of the estate of the de"eased 3ulioCantolos, involvin+ si<:$; par"els of land situated in Tana- Rial. #mono- as the "ounsel of thereinran"is"a Catolos, #+nes Catolos, #sun"ion 'asambaand #lfonso ormida. *n 12 3anuar- 1$5, the 'roBe"tof 'artition submitted as approved and <<< to :2;of the said lots ere adBudi"ated to #sun"ion'asamba and #lfonso ormilda. The #ttorne-Ds fees

"har+ed b- #mono- as '27,$00.00 and on 20 3anuar- 1$5 #sun"ion 'asamba and #lfonso ormidae<e"uted a deed of real estate mort+a+e on the saidto :2; lots adBudi"ated to them, in favor of #mono-to se"ure the pa-ment of his attorne-Ds fees. 8ut itas onl- on $ #u+ust 1$ after the ta<es had beenpaid, the "laims settled and the propertiesadBudi"ated, that the estate as de"lared "losed andterminated.

1

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

H#sun"ion 'asamba died on 24 ebruar- 1$ hile#lfonso ornilda passsed aa- on 2 3ul- 1$. #mon+the heirs of the latter as his dau+hter, plainti6%appellant #n+ela &utierre.

H8e"ause his #ttorne-Ds fess thus se"ured b- the tolots ere not paid, on 21 3anuar- 170 #mono- Fledfor their fore"losure in Civil Code4 (o. 1272$entitled ergio Amono) vs. Deirs of AsuncionPasam$a and Deirs of Alfonso ;ornilda before the Cof 'asi+, Rial, and this as assi+ned to 8ran"h L. The heirs opposed, "ontendin+ that the attorne-Dsfees "har+ed NereO un"ons"ionable and that theattorne-Ds fees "har+ed NereO un"ons"ionable andthat the a+reed sum as onl- '11,$5.2. 8ut on 2September 172 Bud+ment as rendered in favor of #mono- reuirin+ the heirs to pa- ithin 0 da-s the

'27,$00.00 se"ured b- the mort+a+e, '11,0.00 asvalue of the harvests, and ',$45.00 as anotherround of attorne-Ds fees. ailin+ in that, the to :2;lots ould be sold at publi" au"tion.

HThe- failed to pa-. *n $ ebruar- 17), the said lotsere fore"losed and on 2) Aar"h 17) the au"tionsale as held here #mono- as the hi+hest bidderat '2),7$0.00. *n 2 Aa- 17) his bid as Budi"iall-"onFrmed. # deF"ien"- as "laimed and to satisf- itanother e<e"ution sale as "ondu"ted, and a+ain thehi+hest bidder as #mono- at '12,1)7.50.

Hn"luded in those sold as the lot on hi"h the&utierre spouses had their house.

HAore than a -ear after the !e"ision in Civil Code (o.1272$ as rendered, the said de"edentDs heirs Fledon 1 !e"ember 17) before the C of 'asi+, Ri<alN,OCivil "ase (o. 17)1 entitled &aria Penano, et al vs.ergio Amono), et al, a suit for the annulmentthereof. The "ase as dismissed b- the C on 7

(ovember 177, and this as a>rmed b- the Courtof #ppeals on 22 3ul- 11.

HThereafter, the C on 25 3ul- 15 issued a 9rit of 'ossession and pursuant to hi"h a noti"e to va"ate

as made on 2$ #u+ust 15. *n #mono-Ds motionof 24 #pril 1$, the *rders of 25 #pril 1$ and $Aa- 1$ ere issued for the demolition of stru"tures in the said lots, in"ludin+ the house of the&utierre spouses.

H*n 27 September 15 the petition entitled !avid;ornilda, et al vs ranc 1H* R<C #vt Pasig, !eput) eri% (oa6uin Antonil and Att). ergio Amono), &.R.(o. =%72)0$, as Fled before the Supreme Court.#mon+ the petitioners as the plainti6%appellant#n+ela &utierre. *n a tin musi)un 8 Aahi+pit na

Ausi-on 'ara 'apana+utin au+na- n+'a+lalapastan+an; ith full titles as fan"iful andelon+ated as theirPetis)ung :'etis-un+ Aakapa+suri Ta+la- and 'a+pi+il n+ tos;, a temporar- restrainin+order as +ranted on 2 3une 1$ enBoinin+ thedemolition of the petitionersD houses.

HThen on 5 *"tober 1 a !e"ision as rendered inthe said &.R. (o. =%72)0$ disposin+ that

H9J?R?*R?, Certiorari is +rantedG the *rderof respondent Trial Court, dated 25 3ul- 15,+rantin+ a 9rit of 'ossession, as ell as its*rderd, dated 25 #pril 1$ and 1$ Aa- 1$,dire"tin+ and authoriin+ respondent Sheri6 to demolish the houses of petitioners #n+elaand =eo"adia ornilda are hereb- orderedreturned to petitioners unless some of themhave been "onve-ed to inno"ent thirdpersons.H5

20

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

8ut b- the time the Supreme Court promul+ated theabovementioned !e"ision, respondentsD house had alread-been destro-ed, supposedl- in a""ordan"e ith a 9rit of !emolition ordered b- the loer "ourt.

Thus, a Complaint for dama+es in "onne"tion ith thedestru"tion of their house as Fled b- respondents a+ainstpetitioner before the RTC on !e"ember 15, 1.

n its 3anuar- 27, 1) !e"ision, the RTC dismissedrespondentsD suit. *n appeal, the C# set aside the loer"ourtDs rulin+ and ordered petitioner to pa- respondents'250,000 as a"tual dama+es. 'etitioner then Fled a Aotionfor Re"onsideration, hi"h as also denied.

T%e I&&+e

n his Aemorandum,7 petitioner submits this lone issue forour "onsideration

H9hether or not the Court of #ppeals as "orre"t as"orre"t in de"idin+ that the petition NasO liable tothe respondents for dama+es.H

T%e Co+rt& R+-$)

The 'etition has no merit.

Ma$ I&&+e

Petitioner's Liability

9ell%settled is the ma<im that dama+e resultin+ from thele+itimate e<er"ise of a personDs ri+hts is a loss ithoutinBur-% damnum a$s6ue inuria I for hi"h the la +ives noremed-. n other ords, one ho merel- e<er"ises oneDsri+hts does no a"tionable inBur- and "annot be held liable fordama+es.

'etitioner invokes this le+al pre"ept in ar+uin+ that he is notliable for the demolition of respondentsD house. Jemaintains that he as merel- a"tin+ in a""ordan"e ith the9rit of !emolition ordered b- the RTC.

9e reBe"t this submission. !amnum a$s6ue inuria Fnds noappli"ation to this "ase.

True, petitioner "ommen"ed the demolition of respondentsDhouse on Aa- )0, 1$ under the authorit- of a 9rit of !emolition issued b- the RTC. 8ut the re"ords sho that a Temporar- Restrainin+ *rder :TR*;, enBoinin+ the demolitionof respondentsD house, as issued b- the Supreme Court on 3une 2, 1$. The C# also found, based on the CertiF"ate of Servi"e of the Supreme Court pro"ess server, that a "op- of the TR* as served on petitioner himself on 3une 4, 1$.

'etitioner, hoeverm, did not heed the TR* of this Court.9e a+ree ith the C# that he unlafull- pursued thedemolition of respondentsD house ell until the middle of 17. This is "lear from Respondent #n+ela &utierreDstestimon-. The appellate "ourt uoted the folloin+pertinent portion thereof10

H/. *n Aa- )0, 1$, ere the- able to destro--our house

H#. (ot all, a "ertain portion onl-

<<< <<< <<<

H/. 9as -our house "ompletel- demolished

H#. (o, sir.

<<< <<< <<<

H/. ntil henN,O Ars. 9itness

21

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

H#. ntil 17.

H/. #bout hat month of 17

H#. Aiddle of the -ear.

H/. Can -ou tell the Jonorable Court ho"ompleted the demolition

#. The men of is"al #mono-.H11

The fore+oin+ disproves the "laim of petitioner that thedemolition, hi"h alle+edl- "ommen"ed onl- on Aa- )0,1$, as "ompleted the folloin+ da-. t likeise belies hisalle+ation that the demolitions had alread- "eased hen here"eived noti"e of the TR*.

#lthou+h the a"ts of petitioner ma- have been le+all- BustiFed at the outsset, their "ontinuation after the issuan"eof the TR* amounted to an insidious abuse of his ri+ht.ndubitabl-, his a"tions ere tainted ith bad faith. Jad henot insisted on "ompletin+ the demolition, respondentsould not have su6ered the loss that en+endered the suitbefore the RTC. Leril-, his a"ts "onstituted not onl) an a$useof a rigt, $ut an invalid e"ercise of a rigt tat ad $eensuspended hen he re"eived thae TR* from this Court on 3une 4, 1$. 8- then he as no lon+er entitled to pro"eedith the demolition.

# "ommentator on this topi" e<plains

HThe e<er"ise of a ri+ht ends hen the ri+htdisappears, and it disappears hen it is abused,espe"iall- to the preBudi"e of others. The mask of ari+ht ithout the spirit of Bust"ie hi"h +ives it life, isrepu+nant to the modern "on"ept of so"ial la. t"annot be said that a person e<er"ises a ri+ht henhe unne"essaril- preBudi"es another <<<. *ver and

above the spe"iF" pre"epts of postive la are thesupreme norms of Busti"e <<<G and he ho violatesthem violates the la. or this reason it is notpermissible to abuse our ri+hts to preBudi"e others.H12

=ikeise, in Al$enson 4nterprises Corp. v. CA,1)

the Courtdis"ussed the "on"ept of abuse of ri+hts as follos

H#rtil"e 1, knon to "ontain hat is "ommonl-referred to as the prin"iple of abuse of ri+hts, sets"ertain standards hi"h ma- be observed not onl- inthe e<er"ise of oneDs ri+hts but also in theperforman"e of oneDs duties.These standards are thefolloin+ to a"t ith Busti"eG to +ive ever-one hisdueG re"o+nies the primordial limitation on all ri+htsthat in their e<er"ise, the norms of human "ondu"tset forth in #rti"le 1 and results in dama+e to

another, a le+al ron+ is thereb- "ommitted forhi"h the ron+doer must be held responsible <<<.H

Clearl- then, the demolition of respondentsD house b-petitioner, despite his re"eipt of the TR*, as not onl- anabuse but also an unlaful e<er"ise of su"h ri+ht. n insistin+on his alle+ed ri+ht, he antonl- violated this CourtDs *rderand ittin+l- "aused the destru"tion of respondentsGhouse.1>-pi1.nJt

*bviousl-, petitioner "annot invoke damnum a$s6ueinuria, a prin"iple premised on the valid e<er"ise of ari+ht.14 #n-thin+ less or be-ond su"h e<er"ise ill not +iverise to the le+al prote"tion that the prin"iple a""ords. #ndhen dama+e or preBudi"e to another is o""asioned thereb-,liabilit- "annot be obs"ured, mu"h less abated.

n the ultimate anal-sis, petitionerDs liabilit- is premised onthe obli+ation to repair or to make hole the dama+e"aused to another b- reason of oneDs a"t or omission,hether done intentionall- or ne+li+entl- and hether ornot punishable b- la.15

22

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

:"EREFORE, the 'etition is DENIED and the appealed!e"ision AFFIRMED. Costs a+ainst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 93123 A+)+&t 15, 1992

ESTERIA F. GARCIANO, petitioner, vs. T"E "ON. COURTOF APPEALS, EMERITO LABA*O, LUNISITA MARODA,LALIANA DIONES, CANONISA PANINSORO, DIONISIOROSAL, REMEDIOS GALUSO, FLORDELUNAPETALCORIN, MELC"I#EDEC" LOON, NORBERTAMARODA a! *OSEP" :IERT#, respondents.

GRI;O<AUINO, J.:

This is a petition for revie of the de"ision of the Court of #ppeals dismissin+ the "omplaint for dama+es Fled b- thepetitioner a+ainst the private respondents.

The petitioner as hired to tea"h durin+ the 11%2 s"hool-ear in the mma"ulate Con"ep"ion nstitute in the sland of Camotes. *n 3anuar- 1), 12, or before the s"hool -earended, she applied for an indeFnite leave of absen"ebe"ause her dau+hter as takin+ her to #ustria here herdau+hter as emplo-ed :?<h. 8;. The appli"ation asre"ommended for approval b- the s"hool prin"ipal, ?merito*. =abaBo, and approved b- the 'resident of the s"hoolDs8oard of !ire"tors :?<h. 8%1;.

*n 3une 1, 12, ?merito =abaBo addressed a letter to thepetitioner throu+h her husband, Sotero &ar"iano :for sheas still abroad;, informin+ her of the de"ision of r. 3oseph9iert, the s"hoolDs founder, "on"urred in b- the presidentof the 'arent%Tea"hers #sso"iation and the s"hool fa"ult-, toterminate her servi"es as a member of the tea"hin+ sta6

2)

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

be"ause of :1; the absen"e of an- ritten "ontra"t of emplo-ment beteen her and the s"hool due to her refusalto si+n oneG and :2; the di>"ult- of +ettin+ a substitute forher on a temporar- basis as no one ould a""ept theposition ithout a ritten "ontra"t :?<hs. C and 1;. pon herreturn from #ustria in the later part of 3une, 12, shere"eived the letter informin+ her that her servi"es at themma"ulate Con"ep"ion nstitute had been terminated. Shemade inuiries from the s"hool about the matter and, on 3ul- 7, 12, the members of the 8oard of !ire"tors of thes"hool, ith the e<"eption of r. 3oseph 9iert, si+ned aletter notif-in+ her that she as Hreinstated to report and do-our usual duties as Classroom Tea"her . . . e6e"tive 3ul- 5,12,H and that Han- letter or noti"e of termination re"eivedb- -ou before this date has no san"tion or authorit- b- the8oard of !ire"tors of this nstitution, therefore it is de"larednull and void . . .H :?<hs. ! and 2;.

*n 3ul- , 12, the president, vi"e president, se"retar-, andthree members of the 8oard of !ire"tors, out of amembership of nine :;, resi+ned their positions from the8oard Hfor the reason that the C a"ult-, has rea"ted a"idl-to the 8oardDs deliberations for the reinstatement of Ars.?steria . &ar"iano, thereb- uestionin+ the inte+ritof the8oardDs de"isionH :?<h. ?;.

*n September ), 12, petitioner Fled a "omplaint fordama+es in the Re+ional Trial Court, Cebu, 8ran"h Q,a+ainst r. 9iert, ?merito =abaBo, and some members of

the fa"ult- of the s"hool for dis"rimination and unBust andille+al dismissal.

#fter trial, the loer "ourt rendered a de"ision on #u+ust )0,15, orderin+ the defendants Bointl- and severall- to pa-her '200,000 as moral dama+es, '50,000 e<emplar-dama+es, ')2,400 as lost earnin+s for nine -ears, and'10,000 as liti+ation e<penses and attorne-Ds fees.

The defendants :no private respondents; appealed to theCourt of #ppeals :C#%&.R. CL (o. 10$2;, hi"h on #u+ust)0, 10 reversed the trial "ourtDs de"ision thus

9J?R?*R?, the de"ision appealed from is reversed,

the "omplaint is dismissed, and defendants%appellants are absolved from an- liabilit- to plainti6%appellee. 9ith "osts a+ainst plainti6%appellee. :p.1), Rollo.;

The plainti6%appellee :no petitioner; Fled a motion forre"onsideration hi"h the Court of #ppeals denied on*"tober 2$, 10. Jen"e, this petition for revie hereinthe lone error assi+ned b- petitioner reads

Respondent Court of #ppeals +ravel- erred inabsolvin+ the private respondents from liabilit- b-

faultin+ the petitioner for her failure to report ba"k toher ork. :p. $, Rollo.;

#fter a "areful perusal of the petition and the respondentsD"omments, the Court resolved to den- the petition for la"kof merit.

The board of dire"tors of the mma"ulate Con"ep"ionnstitute, hi"h alone possesses the authorit- to hire andFre tea"hers and other emplo-ees of the s"hool, did notdismiss the petitioner. t in fa"t dire"ted her to report for

ork. 9hile the private respondents sent her a letter of termination throu+h her husband, the- admittedl- had noauthorit- to do so. #s the Court of #ppeals aptl- observed

9e a+ree ith defendants%appellants, hoever, thatthe- should not have been held liable to plainti6%appellee for dama+es. !efendants%appellants had noauthorit- to dismiss plainti6%appellee and the latteras aare of this. Jen"e, the letter of terminationsent to her throu+h her husband :?<hs. C and 1; b-

24

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

defendants%appellants had no le+al e6e"thatsoever. t did not e6e"tivel- prevent her fromreportin+ for ork. 9hat is more, it as subseuentl-repudiated b- the 8oard of !ire"tors hi"h dire"tedher to report for ork. :?<hs. ! and 2; There as,therefore, no reason h- she did not "ontinue ithher tea"hin+ in the s"hool. (o eviden"e had beenpresented to sho that defendants%appellantsprevented her from reportin+ for ork. The fa"t thatdefendants%appellants had Ha"idl-H re"eived thea"tion of the 8oard of !ire"tors repudiatin+ theirde"ision to terminate plainti6%appellee is not proof that defendants%appellants had e6e"tivel- andph-si"all- prevented plainti6%appellee from resumin+her post. t as nothin+ more than a rea"tion to hatdefendants%appellants per"eived as an a6ront totheir "olle"tive presti+e. t ould appear, therefore,that plainti6%appellee voluntaril- desisted from hertea"hin+ Bob in the s"hool and has no ri+ht to re"overdama+es from defendants%appellants. :p. 1), Rollo.;

=iabilit- for dama+es under #rti"les 1, 20 and 21 of theCivil Code arises onl- from unlaful, illful or ne+li+ent a"tsthat are "ontrar- to la, or morals, +ood "ustoms or publi"poli"-.

#rt. 1. ?ver- person must, in the e<er"ise of hisri+hts and in the performan"e of his duties, a"t ith Busti"e, +ive ever-one his due, and observe honest-

and +ood faith.

#rt. 20. ?ver- person ho, "ontrar- to la, illfull- orne+li+entl- "auses dama+e to another, shallindemnif- the latter for the same.

#rt. 21. #n- person ho illfull- "auses loss or inBur-to another in a manner that is "ontrar- to morals,+ood "ustoms or publi" poli"- shall "ompensate thelatter for the dama+e.

The Court of #ppeals as "orre"t in Fndin+ that petitionerDsdis"ontinuan"e from tea"hin+ as her on "hoi"e. 9hile therespondents admittedl- anted her servi"e terminated, the-a"tuall- did nothin+ to ph-si"all- prevent her fromreassumin+ her post, as ordered b- the s"hoolDs 8oard of !ire"tors. That the s"hool prin"ipal and r. 9iert disa+reedith the 8oardDs de"ision to retain her, and some tea"hersalle+edl- threatened to resi+n en masse, even if true, didnot make them liable to her for dama+es. The- ere simpl-e<er"isin+ their ri+ht of free spee"h or their ri+ht to dissentfrom the 8oardDs de"ision. Their a"ts ere not "ontrar- tola, morals, +ood "ustoms or publi" poli"-. The- did notHille+all- dismissH her for the 8oardDs de"ision to retain herprevailed. She as ordered to report for ork on 3ul- 5,12, but she did not "ompl- ith that order. Conseuentl-,hatever loss she ma- have in"urred in the form of lostearnin+s as self%in@i"ted. olenti non Kt inuria.

9ith respe"t to petitionerDs "laim for moral dama+es, theri+ht to re"over them under #rti"le 21 is based on euit-,and he ho "omes to "ourt to demand euit-, must "omeith "lean hands. #rti"le 21 should be "onstrued as +rantin+the ri+ht to re"over dama+es to inBured persons ho are notthemselves at fault :Aabutas vs. Calapan ?le"tri" Co. NC#O50 *& 52, "ited in 'adilla, Civil Code #nnotated, Lol. 1,175 ?d., p. 7;. Aoral dama+es are re"overable onl- if the"ase falls under #rti"le 221 in relation to #rti"le 21:lordelis vs. Aar, 114 SCR# 41;. n the "ase at bar,petitioners is not ithout fault. irstl-, she ent on an

indeFnite leave of absen"e and failed to report ba"k in timefor the re+ular openin+ of "lasses. Se"ondl-, for reasonsknon to herself alone, she refused to si+n a ritten"ontra"t of emplo-ment. =astl-, she i+nored the 8oard of !ire"torsD order for her to report for dut- on 3ul- 5, 12.

The trial "ourtDs aard of e<emplar- dama+es to her as not BustiFed for she is not entitled to moral, temperate or"ompensator- dama+es. :#rt. 22)4, Civil Code;.

25

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

n sum, the Court of #ppeals "orre"tl- set aside thedama+es aarded b- the trial "ourt to the petitioner forthe- did not have an- le+al or fa"tual basis.

9J?R?*R?, the petition is !SASS?! for la"k of merit and

the de"ision of the Court of #ppeals is #RA?!.

S* *R!?R?!

G.R. No. L<25589 Dece=ber 23, 193

BEATRI# P. :ASSMER, plainti6%appellee, vs. FRANCISCO>. ?ELE#, defendant%appellant.

BENG#ON, *.P., J.:

The fa"ts that "ulminated in this "ase started ith dreamsand hopes, folloed b- appropriate plannin+ and seriousendeavors, but terminated in frustration and, hat is orse,"omplete publi" humiliation.

ran"is"o Q. Lele and 8eatri '. 9assmer, folloin+ theirmutual promise of love, de"ided to +et married and setSeptember 4, 154 as the bi+ da-. *n September 2, 154Lele left this note for his bride%to%be

2$

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

!ear 8et M

9ill have to postpone eddin+ M A- mother opposesit. #m leavin+ on the Convair toda-.

'lease do not ask too man- people about the reasonh- M That ould onl- "reate a s"andal.

'auin+

8ut the ne<t da-, September ), he sent her the folloin+tele+ram

(*TJ(& CJ#(&?! R?ST #SSR?! R?TR((&L?RE S**( #'*=*&K? A#A# '#'# =*L? .

'#(&

Thereafter Lele did not appear nor as he heard froma+ain.

Sued b- 8eatri for dama+es, Lele Fled no anser and asde"lared in default. 'lainti6 addu"ed eviden"e before the"lerk of "ourt as "ommissioner, and on #pril 2, 155, Bud+ment as rendered orderin+ defendant to pa- plainti6 '2,000.00 as a"tual dama+esG '25,000.00 as moral ande<emplar- dama+esG '2,500.00 as attorne-Ds feesG and the"osts.

*n 3une 21, 155 defendant Fled a Hpetition for relief fromorders, Bud+ment and pro"eedin+s and motion for ne trialand re"onsideration.H 'lainti6 moved to strike it "ut. 8ut the"ourt, on #u+ust 2, 155, ordered the parties and theirattorne-s to appear before it on #u+ust 2), 155 Hto e<ploreat this sta+e of the pro"eedin+s the possibilit- of arrivin+ atan ami"able settlement.H t added that should an- of themfail to appear Hthe petition for relief and the oppositionthereto ill be deemed submitted for resolution.H

*n #u+ust 2), 155 defendant failed to appear before "ourt.nstead, on the folloin+ da- his "ounsel Fled a motion todefer for to eeks the resolution on defendants petition forrelief. The "ounsel stated that he ould "onfer ithdefendant in Ca+a-an de *ro Cit- M the latterDs residen"e Mon the possibilit- of an ami"able element. The "ourt +rantedto eeks "ounted from #u+ust 25, 155.

'lainti6 manifested on 3une 15, 15$ that the to eeks+iven b- the "ourt had e<pired on September , 155 butthat defendant and his "ounsel had failed to appear.

#nother "han"e for ami"able settlement as +iven b- the"ourt in its order of 3ul- $, 15$ "allin+ the parties and theirattorne-s to appear on 3ul- 1), 15$. This time. hoever,defendantDs "ounsel informed the "ourt that "han"es of settlin+ the "ase ami"abl- ere nil.

*n 3ul- 20, 15$ the "ourt issued an order den-in+defendantDs aforesaid petition. !efendant has appealed tothis Court. n his petition of 3une 21, 155 in the "ourt a6uo defendant alle+ed e<"usable ne+li+en"e as +round toset aside the Bud+ment b- default. Spe"iF"all-, it as statedthat defendant Fled no anser in the belief that an ami"ablesettlement as bein+ ne+otiated.

# petition for relief from Bud+ment on +rounds of fraud,a""ident, mistake or e<"usable ne+li+en"e, must be dul-supported b- an a>davit of merits statin+ fa"ts "onstitutin+a valid defense. :Se". ), Rule ), Rules of Court.;!efendantDs a>davit of merits atta"hed to his petition of 3une 21, 155 stated HThat he has a +ood and valid defensea+ainst plainti6Ds "ause of a"tion, his failure to marr- theplainti6 as s"heduled havin+ been due to fortuitous eventandIor "ir"umstan"es be-ond his "ontrol.H #n a>davit of merits like this statin+ mere "on"lusions or opinionsinstead of facts is not valid. :Cortes vs. Co 8un im, =%)2$,*"t. 10, 151G Lasani vs. '. Tarra"hand 8ros., =%1500,!e"ember 2, 1$0.;

27

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

!efendant, hoever, ould "ontend that the a>davit of merits as in fa"t unne"essar-, or a mere surplusa+e,be"ause the Bud+ment sou+ht to be set aside as null andvoid, it havin+ been based on eviden"e addu"ed before the"lerk of "ourt. n 'rovin"e of Pangasinan vs. Palisoc, =%1$51, *"tober )0, 1$2, this Court pointed out that thepro"edure of desi+natin+ the "lerk of "ourt as "ommissionerto re"eive eviden"e is san"tioned b- Rule )4 :no Rule ));of the Rules of Court. (o as to defendantDs "onsent to saidpro"edure, the same did not have to be obtained for he asde"lared in default and thus had no standin+ in "ourt :Lelevs. Ramas, 40 'hil. 77G #lano vs. Court of irst nstan"e, =%14557, *"tober )0, 15;.

n support of his Hmotion for ne trial and re"onsideration,Hdefendant asserts that the Bud+ment is "ontrar- to la. Thereason +iven is that Hthere is no provision of the Civil Code

authoriin+H an a"tion for brea"h of promise to marr-.ndeed, our rulin+ in Dermosisima vs. Court of Appeals :=%14$2, Sept. )0, 1$0;, as reiterated in 4stopa vs.iansa) :=%147)), Sept. )0, 1$0;, is that Hmere brea"h of apromise to marr-H is not an a"tionable ron+. 9e pointedout that Con+ress deliberatel- eliminated from the draft of the ne Civil Code the provisions that ould have it so.

t must not be overlooked, hoever, that the e<tent to hi"ha"ts not "ontrar- to la ma- be perpetrated ith impunit-,is not limitless for #rti"le 21 of said Code provides that Han-person ho ilfull- "auses loss or inBur- to another in a

manner that is "ontrar- to morals, +ood "ustoms or publi"poli"- shall "ompensate the latter for the dama+e.H

The re"ord reveals that on #u+ust 2), 154 plainti6 anddefendant applied for a li"ense to "ontra"t marria+e, hi"has subseuentl- issued :?<hs. #, #%1;. Their eddin+ asset for September 4, 154. nvitations ere printed anddistributed to relatives, friends and a"uaintan"es :Tsn., 5G?<h. C;. The bride%to%beDs trousseau, part- drsrses and otherapparel for the important o""asion ere pur"hased :Tsn., 7%

;. !resses for the maid of honor and the @oer +irl ereprepared. # matrimonial bed, ith a""essories, as bou+ht.8ridal shoers ere +iven and +ifts re"eived :Tsn., $G ?<h.?;. #nd then, ith but to da-s before the eddin+,defendant, ho as then 2 -ears old, simpl- left a note forplainti6 statin+ H9ill have to postpone eddin+ M A-mother opposes it ... H Je enplaned to his home "it- inAindanao, and the ne<t da-, the da- before the eddin+, heired plainti6 H(othin+ "han+ed rest assured returnin+soon.H 8ut he never returned and as never heard froma+ain.

Surel- this is not a "ase of mere brea"h of promise to marr-.#s stated, mere brea"h of promise to marr- is not ana"tionable ron+. 8ut to formall- set a eddin+ and +othrou+h all the above%des"ribed preparation and publi"it-,onl- to alk out of it hen the matrimon- is about to be

solemnied, is uite di6erent. This is palpabl- andunBustiFabl- "ontrar- to +ood "ustoms for hi"h defendantmust be held anserable in dama+es in a""ordan"e ith#rti"le 21 aforesaid.

!efendant ur+es in his afore%stated petition that thedama+es aarded ere e<"essive. (o uestion is raised asto the aard of a"tual dama+es. 9hat defendant ouldreall- assert hereunder is that the aard of moral ande<emplar- dama+es, in the amount of '25,000.00, shouldbe totall- eliminated.

'er e<press provision of #rti"le 221 :10; of the (e CivilCode, moral dama+es are re"overable in the "asesmentioned in #rti"le 21 of said Code. #s to e<emplar-dama+es, defendant "ontends that the same "ould not beadBud+ed a+ainst him be"ause under #rti"le 22)2 of the(e Civil Code the "ondition pre"edent is that Hthedefendant a"ted in a anton, fraudulent, re"kless,oppressive, or malevolent manner.H The ar+ument is devoidof merit as under the above%narrated "ir"umstan"es of this"ase defendant "learl- a"ted in a Hanton ... , re"kless NandO

2

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

oppressive manner.H This CourtDs opinion, hoever, is that"onsiderin+ the parti"ular "ir"umstan"es of this "ase,'15,000.00 as moral and e<emplar- dama+es is deemed tobe a reasonable aard.

'R?AS?S C*(S!?R?!, ith the above%indi"atedmodiF"ation, the loer "ourtDs Bud+ment is hereb- a>rmed,ith "osts.

G.R. No. 15149 *+-( 15, 1992

2

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

CONRADO BUNAG, *R., petitioner, vs. "ON. COURT OFAPPEALS, F$r&t D$@$&$o, a! #ENAIDA B.CIRILO, respondents.

REGALADO, J.:

'etitioner appeals for the reversal of the de"ision 1 of respondent Court of #ppeals promul+ated on Aa- 17, 11in C#%&.R. CL (o. 07054, entitled HKenaida 8. Cirilo vs.Conrado 8una+, Sr. and Conrado 8una+, 3r.,H hi"ha>rmed in toto the de"ision of the Re+ional Trial Court,8ran"h Q at 8a"oor, Cavite, and, impli"itl-, respondent"ourtDs resolution of September ), 11 2 den-in+petitionerDs motion for re"onsideration.

Respondent "ourt havin+ assiduousl- dis"ussed the salientante"edents of this "ase, visIaIvis the fa"tual Fndin+s of the

"ourt belo, the eviden"e of re"ord and the "ontentions of the parties, it is appropriate that its Fndin+s, hi"h eapprove and adopt, be e<tensivel- reprodu"ed hereunder

8ased on the eviden"e on re"ord, the folloin+ fa"tsare "onsidered indisputable *n the afternoon of September , 17), defendant%appellant 8una+, 3r.brou+ht plainti6%appellant to a motel or hotel herethe- had se<ual inter"ourse. =ater that evenin+, saiddefendant%appellant brou+ht plainti6%appellant to thehouse of his +randmother 3uana de =eon in'amplona, =as 'ias, Aetro Aanila, here the- lived

to+ether as husband and ife for 21 da-s, or untilSeptember 2, 17). *n September 10, 17),defendant%appellant 8una+, 3r. and plainti6%appellantFled their respe"tive appli"ations for a marria+eli"ense ith the *>"e of the =o"al Civil Re+istrar of 8a"oor, Cavite. *n *"tober 1, 17), after leavin+plainti6%appellant, defendant%appellant 8una+, 3r.Fled an a>davit ithdrain+ his appli"ation for amarria+e li"ense.

'lainti6%appellant "ontends that on the afternoon of September , 17), defendant%appellant 8una+, 3r.,to+ether ith an unidentiFed male "ompanion,abdu"ted her in the vi"init- of the San 3uan de !iosJospital in 'asa- Cit- and brou+ht her to a motelhere she as raped. The "ourt a 6uo, hi"hadopted her eviden"e, summaried the same hi"he paraphrased as follos

'lainti6 as 2$ -ears old on (ovember 5,174 hen she testiFed, sin+le and hadFnished a "olle+e "ourse in Commer"e :t.s.n.,p. 4, (ov. 5, 174;. t appears that onSeptember , 17), at about 400 oD"lo"k inthe afternoon, hile she as alkin+ alon+i+ueras Street, 'asa- Cit- on her a- to theSan 3uan de !ios Canteen to take her sna"k,

defendant, Conrado 8una+, 3r., "ame ridin+ ina "ar driven b- a male "ompanion. 'lainti6 and defendant 8una+, 3r. ere seethearts,but to eeks before September , 17),the- had a uarrel, and 8una+, 3r. anted totalk matters over ith plainti6, so that heinvited her to take their merienda at the#risto"rat Restaurant in Aanila instead of atthe San 3uan de !ios Canteen, to hi"hplainti6 obli+ed, as she believed in hissin"erit- :t.s.n., pp. %10, (ov. 5, 174;.

'lainti6 rode in the "ar and took the front seatbeside the driver hile 8una+, 3r. seatedhimself b- her ri+ht side. The "ar travellednorth on its a- to the #risto"rat Restaurantbut upon rea"hin+ San 3uan Street in 'asa-Cit-, it turned abruptl- to the ri+ht, to hi"hplainti6 protested, but hi"h the duo i+noredand instead threatened her not to make an-noise as the- ere read- to die and ouldbump the "ar a+ainst the post if she

)0

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

persisted. ri+htened and silen"ed, the "artravelled its "ourse thru .8. Jarrison8oulevard until the- rea"hed a motel. 'lainti6 as then pulled and dra++ed from the "ara+ainst her ill, and amidst her "ries andpleas. n spite of her stru++le she as nomat"h to the Boint stren+th of the to male"ombatants be"ause of her natural eaknessbein+ a oman and her small stature.?ventuall-, she as brou+ht inside the hotelhere the defendant 8una+, 3r. de@oered hera+ainst her ill and "onsent. She "ould notF+ht ba"k and repel the atta"k be"ause after8una+, 3r. had for"ed her to lie don andembra"ed her, his "ompanion held her tofeet, removed her pant-, after hi"h he left.8una+, 3r. threatened her that he ould askhis "ompanion to "ome ba"k and hold her feetif she did not surrender her omanhood tohim, thus he su""eeded in feastin+ on hervir+init-. 'lainti6 des"ribed the pains she feltand ho blood "ame out of her private partsafter her va+ina as penetrated b- the penisof the defendant 8una+, 3r. :t.s.n. pp. 17%24,(ov. 5, 174;.

#fter that outra+e on her vir+init-, plainti6 asked 8una+, 3r. on"e more to allo her to +ohome but the latter ould not "onsent and

stated that he ould onl- let her +o after the-ere married as he intended to marr- her, somu"h so that she promised not to make an-s"andal and to marr- him. Thereafter, the-took a ta<i to+ether after the "ar that the-used had alread- +one, and pro"eeded to thehouse of 3uana de =eon, 8una+, 3r.Ds+randmother in 'amplona, =as 'ias, AetroAanila here the- arrived at )0 oD"lo"k inthe evenin+ :t.s.n., p. 2$, (ov. 5, 174;. #t

about ten :10; oD"lo"k that same evenin+,defendant Conrado 8una+, Sr., father of 8una+, 3r. arrived and assured plainti6 thatthe folloin+ da- hi"h as a Aonda-, sheand 8una+, 3r. ould +o to 8a"oor, to appl- fora marria+e li"ense, hi"h the- did. The- Fledtheir appli"ations for marria+e li"ense:?<hibits H#H and HCH; and after that plainti6 and defendant 8una+, 3r. returned to thehouse of 3uana de =eon and lived there ashusband and ife from September , 17) toSeptember 2, 17).

*n September 2, 17) defendant 8una+, 3r.left and never returned, humiliatin+ plainti6 and "ompelled her to +o ba"k to her parentson *"tober ), 17). 'lainti6 as ashamed

hen she ent home and "ould not sleep andeat be"ause of the de"eption done a+ainsther b- defendants%appellants :t.s.n., p. )5,(ov. 5, 174;.

The testimon- of plainti6 as "orroborated intoto b- her un"le, Liven"io 8ansa+an hode"lared that on September , 17) henplainti6 failed to arrive home at 00 oD"lo"kin the evenin+, his sister ho is the mother of plainti6 asked him to look for her but hise6orts proved futile, and he told his sister that

plainti6 mi+ht have married :baka na+%asaa,t.s.n., pp. 5%$, Aar"h 1, 17$;. Joever, inthe afternoon of the ne<t da- :Sunda-;, hissister told him that ran"is"o Cabrera,a""ompanied b- barrio "aptain 3a"into Aanaliliof =i+as, 8a"oor, Cavite, informed her thatplainti6 and 8una+, 3r. ere in CabreraDshouse, so that her sister reuested him to +oand see the plainti6, hi"h he did, and at thehouse of Ars. 3uana de =eon in 'amplona, =as

)1

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

'ias, Aetro Aanila he met defendantConrado 8una+, Sr., ho told him, H'are, the"hildren are here alread-. =et us settle thematter and have them married.H

Je "onferred ith plainti6 ho told him that as shehad alread- lost her honor, she ould bear hersu6erin+s as 8o- 8una+, 3r. and his father promisedthe- ould be married.

!efendants%appellants, on the other hand, den- thatdefendant%appellant Conrado 8una+, 3r. abdu"ted andraped plainti6%appellant on September , 17). *nthe "ontrar-, plainti6%appellant and defendant%appellant 8una+, 3r. eloped on that date be"ause of the opposition of the latterDs father to theirrelationship.

!efendant%appellants "laim that defendant%appellant8una+, 3r. and plainti6%appellant had earlier madeplans to elope and +et married, and this fa"t asknon to their friends, amon+ them, #r"hite"t ChitoRodri+ue. The "ouple made +ood their plans toelope on the afternoon of September , 17), hendefendant%appellant 8una+, 3r., a""ompanied b- hisfriend &uillermo Ramos, 3r., met plainti6%appellantand her o>"emate named =-dia in the vi"init- of theSan 3uan de !ios Jospital. The foursome thenpro"eeded to :the; aforesaid hospitalDs "anteen

here the- had some sna"ks. =ater, &uillermoRamos, 3r. took =-dia to /uirino #venue here she"ould +et a ride home, thereb- leavin+ thedefendant%appellant 8una+, 3r. and plainti6%appellantalone. #""ordin+ to defendant%appellant 8una+, 3r.,after &uillermo Ramos, 3r. and =-dia left, he andplainti6%appellant took a ta<i to the &olden &ate andlamin+o Jotels here the- tried to +et a room, butthese ere full. The- Fnall- +ot a room at the Jolida-Jotel, here defendant%appellant re+istered usin+ his

real name and residen"e "ertiF"ate number. Threehours later, the "ouple "he"k out of the hotel andpro"eeded to the house of 3uana de =eon at'amplona, =as 'ias, here the- sta-ed untilSeptember 1, 17). !efendant%appellant "laimsthat bitter disa+reements ith the plainti6%appellantover mone- and the threats made to his lifeprompted him to break o6 their plan to +et married.

!urin+ this period, defendant%appellant 8una+, Sr.denied havin+ +one to the house of 3uan de =eon andtellin+ plainti6%appellant that she ould be ed todefendant%appellant 8una+, 3r. n fa"t, he phoned#tt-. Conrado #dreneda, member of the board of dire"tors of Aandala Corporation, defendant%appellant 8una+, 3r.Ds emplo-er, three times beteenthe evenin+ of September , 17) and September ,

17) inuirin+ as to the hereabouts of his son. Je"ame to kno about his sonDs hereabouts hen heas told of the "oupleDs elopement late in theafternoon of September , 17) b- his motherCandida &aaran. Je likeise denied havin+ metrelatives and emissaries of plainti6%appellant anda+reein+ to her marria+e to his son. 0

# "omplaint for dama+es for alle+ed brea"h of promise tomarr- as Fled b- herein private respondent Kenaida 8.Cirilo a+ainst petitioner Conrado 8una+, 3r. and his father,Conrado 8una+, Sr., as Civil Case (o. (%202 of the Re+ional

Trial Court, 8ran"h QQ at 8a"oor, Cavite. *n #u+ust 20,1), on a Fndin+, inter alia, that petitioner had for"ibl-abdu"ted and raped private respondent, the trial "ourtrendered a de"ision orderin+ petitioner 8una+, 3r. to pa-private respondent '0,000.00 as moral dama+es,'20,000.00 as e<emplar- dama+es, '20,000.00 b- a- of temperate dama+es, and '10,000.00 for and as attorne-Dsfees, as ell as the "osts of suit. !efendant Conrado 8una+,Sr. as absolved from an- and all liabilit-.

)2

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

'rivate respondent appealed that portion of the loer"ourtDs de"ision dis"ulpatin+ Conrado 8una+, Sr. from "ivilliabilit- in this "ase. *n the other hand, the 8una+s, asdefendants%appellants, assi+ned in their appeal severalerrors alle+edl- "ommitted b- trial "ourt, hi"h eresummaried b- respondent "ourt as follos :1; in Fndin+

that defendant%appellant Conrado 8una+, 3r. for"ibl-abdu"ted and raped plainti6%appellantG :2; in Fndin+ thatdefendants%appellants promised plainti6%appellant that sheould be ed to defendant%appellant Conrado 8una+, 3r.Gand :); in aardin+ plainti6%appellant dama+es for thebrea"h of defendants%appellantsD promise of marria+e.

#s stated at the outset, on Aa- 17, 11 respondent Courtof #ppeals rendered Bud+ment dismissin+ both appeals anda>rmin+ in toto the de"ision of the trial "ourt. Jis motion forre"onsideration havin+ been denied, petitioner 8una+, 3r. is

before us on a petition for revie, "ontendin+ that :1;respondent "ourt failed to "onsider vital e<hibits,testimonies and in"idents for petitionerDs defense, resultin+in the misapprehensions of fa"ts and violative of the la onpreparation of Bud+mentG and :2; it erred in the appli"ationof the proper la and Burispruden"e b- holdin+ that thereas for"ible abdu"tion ith rape, not Bust a simpleelopement and an a+reement to marr-, and in the aard of e<"essive dama+es. 3

'etitioner 8una+, 3r. Frst "ontends that both the trial andappellate "ourts failed to take into "onsideration the alle+ed

fa"t that he and private respondent had a+reed to marr-,and that there as no "ase of for"ible abdu"tion ith rape,but one of simple elopement and a+reement to marr-. t isaverred that the a+reement to marr- has been su>"ientl-proven b- the testimonies of the itnesses for both partiesand the e<hibits presented in "ourt.

This submission, therefore, "learl- hin+es on the "redibilit-of the itnesses and eviden"e presented b- the parties andthe ei+ht a""orded thereto in the fa"tual Fndin+s of the

trial "ourt and the Court of #ppeals. n e6e"t, hatpetitioner ould ant this Court to do is to evaluate andanal-e ane the eviden"e, both testimonial anddo"umentar-, presented before and "alibrated b- the trial"ourt, and as further meti"ulousl- revieed and dis"ussedb- respondent "ourt.

The issue raised primaril- and inelu"tabl- involves uestionsof fa"t. 9e are, therefore, on"e a+ain "onstrained to stressthe ell%entren"hed statutor- and Burisprudential mandatethat Fndin+s of fa"t of the Court of #ppeals are, as a rule,"on"lusive upon this Court. *nl- uestions of la, distin"tl-set forth, ma- be raised in a petition for revieon certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, subBe"t to"learl- settled e<"eptions in "ase la.

*ur Burisdi"tion in "ases brou+ht to us from the Court of

#ppeals is limited to reviein+ and revisin+ the errors of laimputed to the latter, its Fndin+s of fa"t bein+ "on"lusive. This Court has emphati"all- de"lared that it is not itsfun"tion to anal-e or ei+h su"h eviden"e all over a+ain,its Burisdi"tion bein+ limited to reviein+ errors of la thatmi+ht have been "ommitted b- the loer "ourt. 8arrin+,therefore, a shoin+ that the Fndin+s "omplained of aretotall- devoid of support in the re"ord, or that the- are so+larin+l- erroneous as to "onstitute serious abuse of dis"retion, su"h Fndin+s must stand, for this Court is note<pe"ted or reuired to e<amine or "ontrast the oral anddo"umentar- eviden"e submitted b- the parties. 4 (either

does the instant "ase reveal an- feature fallin+ ithin, an-of the e<"eptions hi"h under our de"isional rules ma-arrant a revie of the fa"tual Fndin+s of the Court of #ppeals. *n the fore+oin+ "onsiderations and our revie of the re"ords, e sustain the holdin+ of respondent "ourt infavor of private respondent.

'etitioner likeise asserts that sin"e a"tion involves abrea"h of promise to marr-, the trial "ourt erred in aardin+dama+es.

))

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

t is true that in this Burisdi"tion, e adhere to the time%honored rule that an a"tion for brea"h of promise to marr-has no standin+ in the "ivil la, apart from the ri+ht tore"over mone- or propert- advan"ed b- the plainti6 uponthe faith of su"h promise. 8 &enerall-, therefore, a brea"h of promise to marr- per se is not a"tionable, e<"ept here the

plainti6 has a"tuall- in"urred e<penses for the eddin+ andthe ne"essar- in"idents thereof.

Joever, the aard of moral dama+es is alloed in "asesspe"iFed in or analo+ous to those provided in #rti"le 221 of the Civil Code. Correlativel-, under #rti"le 21 of said Code,in relation to para+raph 10 of said #rti"le 221, an- personho ilfull- "auses loss or inBur- to another in a mannerthat is "ontrar- to morals, +ood "ustoms or publi" poli"-shall "ompensate the latter for moral dama+es. 9 #rti"le 21as adopted to remed- the "ountless +aps in the statutes

hi"h leave so man- vi"tims of moral ron+s helpless eventhou+h the- have a"tuall- su6ered material and moralinBur-, and is intended to vou"hsafe adeuate le+al remed-for that untold number of moral ron+s hi"h is impossiblefor human foresi+ht to spe"iF"all- provide for in thestatutes. 15

nder the "ir"umstan"es obtainin+ in the "ase at bar, thea"ts of petitioner in for"ibl- abdu"tin+ private respondentand havin+ "arnal knoled+e ith her a+ainst her ill, andthereafter promisin+ to marr- her in order to es"ape "riminalliabilit-, onl- to thereafter rene+e on su"h promise after

"ohabitin+ ith her for tent-%one da-s, irremissibl-"onstitute a"ts "ontrar- to morals and +ood "ustoms. Theseare +rossl- insensate and reprehensible trans+ressionshi"h indisputabl- arrant and abundantl- Bustif- the aardof moral and e<emplar- dama+es, pursuant to #rti"le 21 inrelation to para+raphs ) and 10, #rti"le 221, and #rti"le222 and 22)4 of Civil Code.

'etitioner ould, hoever, belabor the fa"t that saiddama+es ere aarded b- the trial "ourt on the basis of a

Fndin+ that he is +uilt- of for"ible abdu"tion ith rape,despite the prior dismissal of the "omplaint therefor Fled b-private respondent ith the 'asa- Cit- is"alDs *>"e.

&enerall-, the basis of "ivil liabilit- from "rime is thefundamental postulate of our la that ever- person"riminall- liable for a felon- is also "ivill- liable. n otherords, "riminal liabilit- ill +ive rise to "ivil liabilit- e" delicto onl- if the same felonious a"t or omission results indama+e or inBur- to another and is the dire"t and pro<imate"ause thereof. 11 Jen"e, e<tin"tion of the penal a"tion doesnot "arr- ith it the e<tin"tion of "ivil liabilit- unless thee<tin"tion pro"eeds from a de"laration in a Fnal Bud+mentthat the fa"t from hi"h the "ivil mi+ht arise did not e<ist. 12

n the instant "ase, the dismissal of the "omplaint forfor"ible abdu"tion ith rape as b- mere resolution of the

Fs"al at the preliminar- investi+ation sta+e. There is node"laration in a Fnal Bud+ment that the fa"t from hi"h the"ivil "ase mi+ht arise did not e<ist. Conseuentl-, thedismissal did not in an- a- a6e"t the ri+ht of herein privaterespondent to institute a "ivil a"tion arisin+ from the o6ensebe"ause su"h preliminar- dismissal of the penal a"tion didnot "arr- ith it the e<tin"tion of the "ivil a"tion.

The reason most often +iven for this holdin+ is that the topro"eedin+s involved are not beteen the same parties.urthermore, it has lon+ been emphasied, ith "ontinuin+validit- up to no, that there are di6erent rules as to the

"ompeten"- of itnesses and the uantum of eviden"e in"riminal and "ivil pro"eedin+s. n a "riminal a"tion, the Statemust prove its "ase b- eviden"e hi"h shos the +uilt of thea""used be-ond reasonable doubt, hile in a "ivil a"tion it issu>"ient for the plainti6 to sustain his "ause b-preponderan"e of eviden"e onl-. 10 Thus, in Rillon, et al. vs.Rillon, 1 e stressed that it is not no ne"essar- that a"riminal prose"ution for rape be Frst instituted andprose"uted to Fnal Bud+ment before a "ivil a"tion based on

)4

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

said o6ense in favor of the o6ended oman "an likeise beinstituted and prose"uted to Fnal Bud+ment.

9J?R?*R?, the petition is hereb- !?(?! for la"k of merit,and the assailed Bud+ment and resolution are hereb-#RA?!.

S* *R!?R?!.

G.R. No. L<4409 *+e 22, 1980

SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED, petitioner, vs. "ON.ERNANI CRU# PA;O a& Pre&$!$) *+!)e o Brac%

>?III, Co+rt o F$r&t I&tace o R$/a-, CARLOS E. CRU#a! B. E. ?ILLANUE?A, respondents.

MELENCIO<"ERRERA, J.:

*n the basi" issue of la"k of Burisdi"tion, petitioner "ompan-has elevated to us for revie the to *rders of respondent 3ud+e dated *"tober 2, 177 and 3anuar- 24, 17dismissin+ petitionerDs "omplaint for dama+es in the Frst*rder, and den-in+ its Aotion for Re"onsideration in these"ond.

*n #u+ust 21, 174, private respondent Carlos ?. Cru aso6ered emplo-ment b- petitioner as ?n+ineer *>"er iththe opportunit- to under+o a 8%707 "onversion trainin+"ourse,H hi"h he a""epted on #u+ust )0, 174. #n e<pressstipulation in the letter%o6er read

). 8*(!(&. #s -ou in be provided ith "onversiontrainin+ -ou are reuired to enter into a bond ithS# for a period of 5 -ears. or this purpose, please

)5

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

inform me of the names and addresses of -oursureties as soon as possible.

Tent- si< da-s thereafter, or on *"tober 2$, 174, Cruentered into an H#+reement for a Course of Conversion Trainin+ at the ?<pense of Sin+apore #irlines =imitedHherein it as stipulated amon+ others

4. The ?n+ineer *>"er shall a+ree to remain in theservi"e of the Compan- for a period of Fve -earsfrom the date of "ommen"ement of su"h aforesaid"onversion trainin+ if so reuired b- the Compan-.

5. n the event of the ?n+ineer *>"er

1. =eavin+ the servi"e of the"ompan- durin+ the period of

Fve -ears referred to in Clause4 above, or

2. 8ein+ dismissed or havin+ hisservi"es terminated b- the"ompan- for mis"ondu"t,

the ?n+ineer *>"er and the Sureties hereb-bind themselves Bointl- and severall- to pa-to the Compan- as liuidated dama+es su"hsums of mone- as are set out hereunder

:a; durin+ the Frst -ear of the period of Fve -ears referred to in Clause 4 above...................................................................................... $7,4$0I

:b; durin+ the se"ond -ear of theperiod of Fve -ears referred to inClause 4

above ................................................................................. 5),$I

:"; durin+ the third -ear of the periodof Fve -ears referred to in Clause 4above ...................................................................................... 40,47$I

:d; durin+ the fourth -ear of the periodof Fve -ears referred to in Clause 4above .................................................................................. 2$,4I

:e; durin+ the Ffth -ear of the period of Fve -ears referred to in Clause 4 above....................................................................................... 1),42I

$. The provisions of Clause 5 above shall not appl- ina "ase here an ?n+ineer *>"er has his trainin+terminated b- the Compan- for reasons other thanmis"ondu"t or here, subseuent to the "ompletionof trainin+, he %

1. loses his li"ense to operate as a li+ht?n+ineer due to medi"al reasons hi"h "an inno a- be attributable to an- a"t or omissionon his partG

2. is unable to "ontinue in emplo-ment iththe Compan- be"ause his emplo-ment passor ork permit, as the "ase ma- be, has beenithdran or has not been reneed due to noa"t or omission on his partG

). has his servi"es terminated b- theCompan- as a result of bein+ repla"ed b- anational li+ht ?n+ineerG

)$

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

4. has to leave the servi"e of the Compan- onvalid "ompassionate +rounds stated to anda""epted b- the Compan- in ritin+. 1

Cru si+ned the #+reement ith his "o%respondent, 8. ?.Lillanueva, as suret-.

Claimin+ that Cru had applied for Hleave ithout pa-H andhad +one on leave ithout approval of the appli"ationdurin+ the se"ond -ear of the 'eriod of Fve -ears, petitionerFled suit for dama+es a+ainst Cru and his suret-,Lillanueva, for violation of the terms and "onditions of theaforesaid #+reement. 'etitioner sou+ht the pa-ment of thefolloin+ sums liuidated dama+es of 5),$.00 or itseuivalent of '1$1,04.00 :lst "ause of a"tion;G ).1 orabout '2,$51.7) as overpa-ment in salar- :2nd "lause of a"tion;G $1.00 or about '1).00 for "ost of uniforms and

a""essories supplied b- the "ompan- plus 2)0.00, orrou+hl- '$0.00, for the "ost of a @i+ht manual :)rd "ause of a"tion;G and 1,5)).71, or appro<imatel- '4,$01.1)"orrespondin+ to the va"ation leave he had availed of but tohi"h he as no lon+er entitled :4th "ause *f a"tion;Ge<emplar- dama+es attorne-Ds feesG and "osts.

n his #nser, Cru denied an- brea"h of "ontra"t"ontendin+ that at no time had he been reuired b-petitioner to a+ree to a strai+ht servi"e of Fve -ears underClause 4 of the #+reement :supra; and that he left theservi"e on Hvalid "ompassionate +rounds stated to and

a""epted b- the "ompan- so that no dama+es ma- beaarded a+ainst him. #nd be"ause of petitioner%plainti6Dsalle+ed un+rounded "auses of a"tion, Cru "ounter"laimedfor attorne-Ds fees of '7,000.00.

The suret-, Lillanueva, in his on #nser, "ontended thathis undertakin+ as merel- that of one of to +uarantorsnot that of suret- and "laimed the beneFt of e<"ussion, if atan found liable. Je then Fled a "ross%"laim a+ainst Cru fordama+es and for hatever amount he ma- be held liable to

petitioner%plainti6, and a "ounter"laim for a"tual, e<emplar-,moral and other dama+es plus attorne-Ds fees and liti+atione<penses a+ainst petitioner%plainti6.

The issue of Burisdi"tion havin+ been raised at the pre%trial"onferen"e, the parties ere dire"ted to submit theirrespe"tive memoranda on that uestion, hi"h the-"omplied ith in due time. *n *"tober 2, 177, respondent 3ud+e issued the assailed *rder dismissin+ the "omplaint,"ounter"laim and "ross%"laim for la"k of Burisdi"tion statin+.

2. The present "ase therefore involves a mone- "laimarisin+ from an emplo-er%emplo-ee relation or at thever- least a "ase arisin+ from emplo-er%emplo-eerelations, hi"h under #rt. 21$ of the =abor Code isvested e<"lusivel- ith the =abor #rbiters of the(ational =abor Relations Commission. 2

Re"onsideration thereof havin+ been denied in the *rder of 3anuar- 24, 17, petitioner availed of the present re"ourse.9e +ave due "ourse.

9e are here "onfronted ith the issue of hether or not this"ase is properl- "o+niable b- Courts of Busti"e or b- the=abor #rbiters of the (ational =abor Relations Commission.

pon the fa"ts and issues involved, Burisdi"tion over thepresent "ontrovers- must be held to belon+ to the "ivilCourts. 9hile seemin+l- petitionerDs "laim for dama+esarises from emplo-er%emplo-ee relations, and the latestamendment to #rti"le 217 of the =abor Code under '! (o.1$1 and 8' 8l+. 1)0 provides that all other "laims arisin+from emplo-er%emplo-ee relationship are "o+niable b-=abor #rbiters, 0 in essen"e, petitionerDs "laim for dama+esis +rounded on the Hanton failure and refusalH ithout Bust"ause of private respondent Cru to report for dut- despiterepeated noti"es served upon him of the disapproval of hisappli"ation for leave of absen"e ithout pa-. This, "oupledith the further averment that Cru Hmali"iousl- and ith

)7

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

bad faithH violated the terms and "onditions of the"onversion trainin+ "ourse a+reement to the dama+e of petitioner removes the present "ontrovers- from the"overa+e of the =abor Code and brin+s it ithin the purvieof Civil =a.

Clearl-, the "omplaint as an"hored not on theabandonment per se b- private respondent Cru of his Bobas the latter as not reuired in the Complaint to reportba"k to ork but on the manner and conse6uent e%ects of su"h abandonment of ork translated in terms of thedama+es hi"h petitioner had to su6er.

Suarel- in point is the rulin+ enun"iated in the "ase of /uisaba vs. Sta. nes Aelale Leneer P 'l-ood, n".4 thepertinent portion of hi"h reads

#lthou+h the a"ts "omplied of seemin+l- appear to"onstitute Hmatter involvin+ emplo-ee emplo-erHrelations as /uisabaDs dismiss as the severan"e of apre%e<istin+ emplo-ee%emplo-er relations, his"omplaint is +rounded not on his dismissal per se, asin fa"t he does not ask for reinstatement orba"ka+es, but on the manner of his dismiss and the"onseuent e6e"ts of su"h

Civil la "onsists of that Dmass of pre"epts thatdetermine or re+ulate the relations ... that e<istbeteen members of a so"iet- for the prote"tion of

private interest :1 San"he Roman );.

The Hri+htH of the respondents to dismiss /uisabashould not be "onfused ith the manner in hi"h theri+ht as e<er"ised and the e6e"ts @oin+therefrom. f the dismiss as done anti%so"iall- oroppressivel-, as the "omplaint alle+es, then therespondents violated arti"le 1701 of the Civil Codehi"h prohibits a"ts of oppression b- either "apital orlabor a+ainst the other, and arti"le 21, hi"h makers

a person liable for dama+es if he ilfull- "auses lossor inBur- to another in a manner that is "ontrar- tomorals, +ood "ustoms or publi" poli"-, the san"tionfor hi"h, b- a- of moral dama+es, is provided inarti"le 221, (o. 10 :Cf, 'hilippine ReFnin+ Co. vs.&ar"ia, =%21$2, Sept. 27, 1$$, 1 SCR# 107;.

Stated di6erentl-, petitioner seeks prote"tion under the "ivillas and "laims no beneFts under the labor Code. Theprimar- relief sou+ht is for liuidated dama+es for brea"h of a "ontra"tual obli+ation. The other items demanded are notlabor beneFts demanded b- orkers +enerall- taken"o+nian"e of in labor disputes, su"h as pa-ment of a+es,overtime "ompensation or separation pa-. The items"laimed are the natural "onseuen"es @oin+ from brea"hof an obli+ation, intrinsi"all- a "ivil dispute.

#dditionall-, there is a se"ondar- issue involved that isoutside the pale of "ompeten"e of =abor #rbiters. s theliabilit- of Lillanueva one of suret-ship or one of +uarant-nuestionabl-, this uestion is be-ond the Feld of spe"ialiation of =abor #rbiters.

9J?R?*R?, the assailed *rders of respondent 3ud+e arehereb- set aside. The re"ords are hereb- ordered remandedto the proper 8ran"h of the Re+ional Trial Court of /ueonCit-, to hi"h this "ase belon+s, for further pro"eedin+s. (o"osts.

S* *R!?R?!.

)

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

G.R. No. 4510 Febr+ar( 14, 2555

ANDRES LAO, petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS, T"E ASSOCIATED ANGLO<AMERICAN TOBACCO CORPORATION a! ESTEBANCO, respondents.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

G.R. No. 3534 Febr+ar( 14, 2555

ESTEBAN CO, petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS a! ANDRES LAO, respondents.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

G.R. No. 3598<9 Febr+ar( 14, 2555

T"E ASSOCIATED ANGLO<AMERICAN TOBACCOCORPORATION, petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS, ANDRES LAO, *OSE LAO, a!TOMAS LAO, respondents.

PURISIMA, J.:

These "onsolidated petitions for revie on certiorari underRule 45 of the Rules of Court revolve around dis"repantstatements of a""ountabilit- beteen a prin"ipal and itsa+ent in the sale of "i+arettes.

The "ommon fa"tual ba"k+round at bar follos

*n #pril $, 1$5, The #sso"iated #n+lo%#meri"an Toba""oCorporation :Corporation for brevit-; entered into a

HContra"t of Sales #+entH ith #ndres =ao. nder the"ontra"t, =ao a+reed to sell "i+arettes manufa"tured andshipped b- the Corporation to his business address in Ta"loban Cit-. =ao ould in turn remit the sales pro"eeds tothe Corporation. or his servi"es, =ao ould re"eive"ommission dependin+ on the kind of "i+arettes sold, F<ed

monthl- salar-, and operational alloan"e. #s a +uaranteeto =aoDs "omplian"e ith his "ontra"tual obli+ations, hisbrother 3ose and his father Tomas e<e"uted a deed of mort+a+e1 in favor of the Corporation in the amount of '200,000.00.

n "omplian"e ith the "ontra"t, =ao re+ularl- remitted thepro"eeds of his sales to the Corporation, +eneratin+, in thepro"ess, a +reat deal of business. Thus, the Corporationaarded him trophies and plaues in re"o+nition of hisoutstandin+ performan"e from 1$$ to 1$. Joever, inebruar- 1$ and until about seven :7; months later, =aofailed to a""omplish his monthl- sales report. n a"onferen"e in Cebu, Chin+ iat am, the 'resident of theCorporation, reminded =ao of his enormous a""ounts andthe di>"ult- of obtainin+ a tall- thereon despite =aoDsavoal of re+ular remittan"es of his "olle"tions.

Sometime in #u+ust and September 1$, ?steban Co, thevi"e%president and +eneral mana+er of the Corporation,summoned =ao to 'asa- Cit- for an a""ountin+. t as thenand there established that =aoDs liabilit- amounted to'525,05).47. #nd so, =ao and his brother =ao E a, enlisted

the servi"es of the S-"ip &orres and Lela-o #""ountin+ irm:S&L; to "he"k and re"on"ile the a""ounts.

Chin+ iat am alloed =ao to "ontinue ith the salesa+en"- provided =ao ould redu"e his a""ountabilit- to'200,000.00, the amount se"ured b- the mort+a+e. TheCorporation thereafter "redited in favor of =ao the amount of ')25,05).47 representin+ partial pa-ments he had madebut ithout preBudi"e to the result of the audit of a""ounts.Joever, the S&L personnel =ao had emplo-ed failed to

)

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

"on"lude their servi"es be"ause the Corporation did nothonor its "ommitment to assi+n to of its a""ountants toassist them. (either did the Corporation allo the S&L mena""ess to its re"ords.

Subseuentl-, the Corporation dis"overed that =ao asen+a+in+ in the "onstru"tion business so mu"h so that itsuspe"ted that =ao as divertin+ the pro"eeds of his salesto Fnan"e his business. n the demand letter of #pril 15,17,2 "ounsel for the Corporation sou+ht pa-ment of theobli+ations of =ao, arnin+ him of the intention of theCorporation to fore"lose the mort+a+e. #tta"hed to saidletter as a statement of a""ount indi"atin+ that =aoDs totalobli+ations dul- supported b- re"eipts amounted to'24,0.2.

Sin"e =ao appeared to en"ounter di>"ulties in "ompl-in+

ith his obli+ations under the "ontra"t of a+en"-, theCorporation sent (+o hen+ to supervise =aoDs salesoperations in =e-te and Samar. (+o hen+ dis"overed that,"ontrar- to =aoDs alle+ation that he still had hu+e "olle"tiblesfrom his "ustomers, nothin+ as due the Corporation from=aoDs "lients. rom then on, =ao no lon+er re"eivedshipments from the Corporation hi"h transferred itsvehi"les to another "ompound "ontrolled b- (+o hen+.Shipments of "i+arettes and the "orrespondin+ invoi"esere also pla"ed in the name of (+o hen+.

*n Aa- 21, 170, #ndres, 3ose and Tomas =ao brou+ht a

"omplaint for a""ountin+ and dama+es ith rit of preliminar- inBun"tion) a+ainst the Corporation, do"keted asCivil Case (o. 4452 before the then Court of irst nstan"e of =e-te, 8ran"h in Ta"loban Cit-, hi"h "ourt4 "ame out ithits de"ision5 on Aar"h 2$, 175, disposin+ as follos

( L?9 * #== TJ? *R?&*(& 'R?AS?S, andupon a "lear preponderan"e of eviden"e in favor of the plainti6s, the "ourt hereb- renders Bud+ment asfollos

1. *rderin+ both the plainti6s and defendant"orporation to under+o a Court superviseda""ountin+ of their respe"tive a""ount iththe vie of establishin+ on"e and for all, b- are"on"iliation of their respe"tive books of a""ounts, the true and "orre"t a""ountabilit-

of #ndres =ao to the defendant "orporation.'ursuant thereto, both plainti6 #ndres =aoand the defendant The #sso"iated #n+lo%#meri"an Toba""o Corporation are dire"ted tomake available all their re"ords pertaintin+NsicO to their business transa"tions ith ea"hother under the "ontra"t of sales a+ent, from1$5 up to the time #ndres =ao "eased bein+the a+ent of the defendant. # Committee on#udit is hereb- formed to be "omposed of three :); members, one member to benominated b- the plainti6s, another to be

nominated b- the defendant "orporation andthe third member ho shall a"t as theCommittee Chairman to be appointed b- thisCourt. #s Committee Chairman, the Courthereb- appoints the 8ran"h Clerk of Court of this Court, #tt-. Li"torio &alapon, ho shallimmediatel- "onvene the Committee uponappointment of the other to members, andundertake to Fnish their assi+ned task underhis de"ision ithin to :2; months.

2. *rderin+ the defendant "orporation to pa-'lainti6s the amount of '10,000 representin+a"tual loss of earnin+s.

). *rderin+ the defendant to pa- plainti6smoral dama+es in the amount of '1)0,000.00.

4. *rderin+ the defendant to pa- to theplainti6s, e<emplar- dama+es in the amountof '50,000.00.

40

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

5. *rderin+ the defendant to pa- to theplainti6s, attorne-Ds fees in the amount of '40,000.00.

$. *rderin+ the plainti6s and the defendant topa- the "ompensation of the "ommissionerspro%rata.

7. inall- orderin+ the defendant to pa- the"ost of this suit.

S* *R!?R?!.

The Committee of #udit that as eventuall- "onstituted as"omposed of #tt-. Li"torio =. &alapon, 3r., as "hairman,9ilfredo Aadaran+, 3r. and Cesar .'. Cor"uera, asrepresentatives of the Corporation, and =ao himself. *n

September 1$, 17$, said "ommittee submitted areport$ ith the folloin+ Fndin+s

Total remittan"es made b- Ar. #ndres =ao in favor of #sso"iated from #pril 10, 1$5to (ovember 1$ hi"h are substantiall- supported b- o>"ial re"eipt

Shipments b- #sso"iated to Ar. #ndres =ao dul- supported b- bills of ladin+, fa"tor-

"onsi+nment invoi"es and deliver- re"eipts

Shipments b- #sso"iated to Ar. #ndres =ao, "overed b- bills of ladin+ and fa"tor-"onsi+nment invoi"es but ith no supportin+ deliver- re"eipts purported to havebeen delivered to Ar. =ao on the basis of sales made b- him as reported in hismonthl- sales reports :e<"ept for sales in !e"ember, 1$ and (ovember and

!e"ember 1$ here the sales reports ere not available to the #

Shipments "overed b- bills of ladin+ and fa"tor- "onsi+nment invsupportin+ deliver- re"eipts

Shipments ith "overin+ fa"tor- "onsi+nment invoi"es but not "ladin+ and deliver- re"eipts

*n ebruar- 2, 177, the trial "ourt7 promul+ated a

supplemental de"ision herein it dismissed =aoDs "laim thathe had made an overpa-ment of '55$,444.20. The alle+edoverpa-ment as arrived at after dedu"tin+ the totalpa-ment made b- =ao in the amount of '1),$$,14.0from the total volume of shipments made b- the Corporationin the amount of '1),12,704.$0, ithout in"ludin+ theamount of '57,2).40, representin+ alle+ed shipments"overed b- bills of ladin+ and fa"tor- "onsi+nment invoi"esbut ith no supportin+ deliver- re"eipts, and the amount of '12$,50.00, representin+ shipments ith fa"tor-"onsi+nment invoi"es but not "overed b- bills of ladin+ anddeliver- re"eipts. The trial "ourt, in reBe"tin+ the "laim of overpa-ment, held that Hhen he :referrin+ to =ao; madepartial pa-ments amountin+ to ')25,05).47 subseuent tothe demand in September, 1$, he is deemed to haveadmitted his liabilit- and his "laim of overpa-ment is notonl- preposterous but devoid of lo+i".H Therefore, ith thesums of '57,2).40 and '12$,50.00 in"luded in the totalvolume of shipments made b- the Corporation in theamount of '1),12,704.$0, =aoDs total remittan"es of '1),$$,24.0 ere short of '1$7,745.20. Thus, the trial"ourt held

41

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

9J?R?*R?, Bud+ment is hereb- rendered de"larin+plainti6 #ndres =aoDs a""ountabilit- to defendantCorporation in the amount of '1$7,745.20 andorderin+ him to pa- said amount of '1$7,745.20 todefendant The #sso"iated #n+lo%#meri"an Toba""oCorporation.

The Corporation appealed the de"ision, dated Aar"h 2$,175, Bust as =ao appealed the supplemental de"ision, datedebruar- 2, 177, to the Court of #ppeals. !o"keted as C#%&.R. (o. $25)2%R, the appeal as resolved in the !e"ision of the Court of #ppeals dated *"tober 2$, 11, disposin+thus

9J?R?*R?, in "onne"tion ith the de"ision of Aar"h 2$, 175, defendant "orporation is hereb-ordered to pa- plainti6s '150,000.00 a"tual dama+es

for loss of earnin+s, ')0,000.00 b- a- of moraldama+es and '10,000.00 for e<emplar- dama+es. #smodiFed, the de"ision is #RA?! in all otherrespe"ts.

#s for the supplemental de"ision of ebruar- 2,177, the same is hereb- reversed and set aside, anddefendant%appellant "orporation senten"ed toreimburse #ndres =aoDs overpa-ment in the amountof '55$,444.20. Costs a+ainst defendant%appellant"orporation.

The Corporation presented a motion for re"onsideration of the said !e"ision but the same as denied in a Resolutiondated Aa- 1, 12.10 # motion for leave to Fle a se"ondmotion for re"onsideration as likeise denied.11

Aeanhile, on 3une 24, 174 and durin+ the penden"- of Civil Case (o. 4452, ?steban Co, representin+ theCorporation as its ne vi"e%president, Fled an a>davit of "omplaint12 ith the 'asa- Cit- is"alDs *>"e under .S. (o.04G alle+in+ that =ao failed to remit the amount of

'224,55.2 hi"h he alle+edl- misappropriated and"onverted to his personal use. #lthou+h the amountsupposedl- defal"ated as put up as a "ounter"laim in CivilCase (o. 4452 for a""ountin+, the Corporation averted thatit reserved the ri+ht to institute a "riminal "ase a+ainst =ao.

*n 3ul- )1, 174, after Fndin+ a prima facie "ase a+ainst=ao, the 'asa- Cit- is"al Fled an information1) for estafaa+ainst =ao, do"keted as Criminal Case (o. 2$50%' beforethe then Court of irst nstan"e of Rial, 8ran"h QQL. =aosou+ht a reinvesti+ation14 of the "ase, "ontendin+ that heas never served a subpoena or noti"e of preliminar-investi+ation that as "onsidered mandator- in "ases"o+niable b- Court of irst nstan"e, no Re+ional TrialCourt. #pparentl-, the preliminar- investi+ationpro"eeded e"Iparte be"ause ?steban Co made it appearthat =ao "ould not be lo"ated.

*n !e"ember 17, 174, ithout aaitin+ the termination of the "riminal "ase, =ao lod+ed a "omplaint15 for mali"iousprose"ution a+ainst the Corporation and ?steban Co,pra-in+ for an aard of dama+es for violation of #rti"les 20and 21 of the Civil Code. The "ase as do"keted as CivilCase (o. 552 before 8ran"h of the then Court of irstnstan"e in Cotabato Cit-.

n his resolution dated 3anuar- ), 175,1$ then 'asa- Cit-is"al 3ose laminiano found merit in the petition forreinvesti+ation of the estafa "ase. Je opined that =ao had

not "ommitted estafa as his liabilit- as essentiall- "ivil innature. The is"al entertained doubts about the motive of the Corporation in institutin+ the "riminal "ase a+ainst =aobe"ause of the undue dela- in its Flin+, aside from the fa"tthat the estafa "ase involved the same subBe"t matter theCorporation sued upon b- a- of "ounter"laim in Civil Case(o. 4452. ?ventuall-, on Aa- 1), 17$, the Court of irstnstan"e of Rial, 8ran"h QQL, in 'asa- Cit-, promul+ated ade"ision17 a"uittin+ =ao of the "rime "har+ed andadoptin+ in toto the said Resolution of is"al laminiano.

42

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

*n Aar"h 1, 177, the Court of irst nstan"e of Samar1 handed don a de"ision in Civil Case (o. 552, thea"tion for dama+es arisin+ from mali"ious prose"ution,disposin+ thus

9J?R?*R?, the Court de"lares that the defendantsFled Criminal Case (o. 2$50%' a+ainst the plainti6 forestafa before the Court of irst nstan"e of Rial,8ran"h QQL, 'asa- Cit-, ithout probable "ause andith mali"e and therefore orders the defendants#sso"iated #n+lo%#meri"an Toba""o Corporation and?steban Co to Bointl- and severall- pa- the plainti6

a. ')0,000 as a"tual dama+esG

b. '150,000.00 as moral dama+esG

". '100,000.00 as e<emplar- dama+esG

d. '50,000.00 as attorne-Ds fees and "osts.

S* *R!?R?!.

The Corporation and ?steban Co both appealed theaforesaid de"ision to the Court of #ppeals under C#%&.R. (o.$125%R.

*n #pril 1, 177, =ao presented a motion for e<e"ution

pendin+ appeal1

before the trial "ourt. The opposition of theCorporation notithstandin+, on 3une , 177 the trial "ourtissued a spe"ial order +rantin+ the motion for e<e"utionpendin+ appeal,20 and on the folloin+ da-, the"orrespondin+ rit of e<e"ution issued.21

*n 3une 10, 177, the Court of #ppeals issued a Restrainin+*rder enBoinin+ the e<e"ution of subBe"t Bud+ment.22 Thesaid order as issued on a""ount of a petition for certiorari,prohibition and mandamus ith preliminar- inBun"tion2) Fled

b- the Corporation and ?steban Co ith the said appellate"ourt. !o"keted as C#%&.R. (o. 0$7$1, the petition asre"eived b- the Court of #ppeals on 3une , 177. #supplemental to the petition and a H"omplian"eH ere alsore"eived on the same time and date. 24 *n 3une 21, 177,=ao moved to lift the restrainin+ order.

*n September 14, 177, the Court of #ppeals resolved inC#%&.R. (o. 0$7$1 thus

9J?R?*R?, the petition for certiorari is hereb-+ranted, the spe"ial order +rantin+ e<e"utionpendin+ appeal is annulled and the restrainin+ orderheretofore issued is made permanent.

(o pronoun"ement as to "osts.

*n *"tober 21, 11, the Court of #ppeals likeise rendereda !e"ision25 in C#%&.R. (o. $25)2%R, a>rmin+ the trial"ourtDs Fndin+ that Criminal Case (o. 2$50%' as Fledithout probable "ause and ith mali"eG and held theCorporation and ?steban Co solidaril- liable for dama+es,attorne-Ds fees and "osts.

The Corporation and ?steban Co moved to re"onsider2$ thesaid de"ision in C#%&.R. (o. $125%R but to no avail. Themotion for re"onsideration as denied in a Resolutionpromul+ated on Aa- 1, 12. # motion for leave of "ourt toFle a se"ond motion for re"onsideration27 met the same fate.

t as likeise denied in a Resolution2 dated 3une 2), 12.

rom the said "ases sprun+ the present petitions hi"h ereordered "onsolidated in the Resolutions of !e"ember 15,12 and (ovember 11, 15.2 SubBe"t petitions are to bepassed upon in the order the- ere Fled.

L.R. o. *7013

4)

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

# petition for revie on certiorari of the !e"ision of theCourt of #ppeals in C#%&.R. (o. 0$7$1 that =ao Fled,"ontendin+ that

1. The Court of #ppeals "annot validl- +ive due"ourse to an ori+inal a"tion for certiorari, prohibitionandmandamus here the petition is fatall- defe"tivefor not bein+ a""ompanied b- a "op- of the trial"ourtDs uestioned pro"essIorder.

2. The Court of #ppeals, "annot, in a petitionfor certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, disre+ard,disturb and substitute its on Bud+ment for theFndin+s of fa"ts of the trial "ourt, parti"ularl- as inthe present "ase, here the trial "ourt did not e<"eednor abuse its dis"retion.

). The Court of #ppeals did not a"t in a""ordan"eith established Burispruden"e hen it overruled thetrial "ourtDs holdin+ that the postin+ of a +ood andsolvent bond is a +ood or spe"ial reason fore<e"ution pendin+ appeal.

or "larit-, the petition for revie on certiorari uestionin+the !e"ision of the Court of #ppeals that nulliFed the spe"ialorder +rantin+ e<e"ution pendin+ appeal is an"hored on theante"edent fa"ts as follos

#fter the Court of irst nstan"e of Samar had de"ided in

favor of =ao in the a"tion for dama+es b- reason of mali"ious prose"ution, =ao Fled a motion for e<e"utionpendin+ appeal)0 even as the Corporation and Co hadinterposed an appeal from the said de"ision. n that motion,=ao theoried that the appeal had no merit and the Bud+ment in his favor ould be rendered ine6e"tual ona""ount of losses in"urred b- the Corporation in the 172@oods in =uon and in a Fre that "ost the Corporation '5million, as ell as the fa"t that the properties of theCorporation ere heavil- en"umbered as it had even

in"urred an overdraft ith a bankG for hi"h reasons, =aoevin"ed his illin+ness to post a bond althou+h Se"tion 2,Rule ) of the Rules of Court does not reuire su"h bond.=ao thereafter sent in a supplemental motion)1 assertin+that the CorporationDs properties ere mort+a+ed in thetotal amount of Seven Aillion :'7,000,000.00; 'esos. The

Corporation and Co opposed both motions.

*n 3une , 177, after hearin+ and presentation of eviden"eb- both parties, the Court of irst nstan"e of Samar issued aspe"ial order +rantin+ the motion for e<e"ution pendin+appeal.)2 The folloin+ da-, 3une , 177, the "orrespondin+rit of e<e"ution pendin+ appeal issued.)) #t 00 a.m. onthe same da-, the Corporation and Co Fled a petitionfor certiorari, prohibition and mandamus ith preliminar-inBun"tion ith the Court of #ppeals, the Fllin+ of hi"hpetition as folloed b- the Flin+ of a supplement to thepetition and a H"omplian"eH ith ea"h pleadin+ bearin+ thedo"ket stamp shoin+ that the Court of #ppeals alsore"eived the same at 00 a.m.)4

n the petition under "onsideration, petitioner =ao "ontendsthat the supplemental petition and H"omplian"eH "ould nothave been Fled ith the Court of #ppeals at the same timeas the ori+inal petitionG pointin+ out that the supplementalpetition "ontains an alle+ation to the e6e"t that the spe"ialorder +rantin+ e<e"ution pendin+ appeal as then stillHbein+ @on to AanilaH and ould be atta"hed to thepetition Has soon as it arrives in Aanila hi"h is e<pe"ted

tomorro, 3une 10, 177 or Saturda-.H)5

'etitioner =ao thuse<pressed in"redulit- on the fa"t that both the supplementalpetition and the H"omplian"eH submitted to the appellate"ourt a "op- of the spe"ial order bearin+ the same time of re"eipt. Je theoried that the rit of e<e"ution "ould havebeen issued b- the Court of irst nstan"e of Samar at theearliest, at )0 a.m. on 3ul- , 177. 'etitioner =ao thennoted that, the restrainin+ order enBoinin+ e<e"utionpendin+ appeal did not mention the date of issuan"e of therit subseuentl- issued and the names of the spe"ial

44

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

sheri6s tasked to e<e"ute it simpl- be"ause hen therestrainin+ order as issued the "op- of the rit of e<e"ution as not -et Fled ith the Court of #ppeals.'etitioner =ao also averred that be"ause his "ounsel asfurnished a "op- of the restrainin+ order throu+h the mail,he as deprived of the opportunit- to take immediate

Hremedial steps in "onne"tion ith the improvident issuan"eof the restrainin+ order.H)$

n their "omment on the petition, respondent Corporationand Co assail petitioner =aoDs insinuation of irre+ularit- inthe Flin+ of their pleadin+s. The- aver that in vie of petitioner =aoDs alle+ation, the-, made inuiries in the!o"ket Se"tion of the Court of #ppeals, and the- ereinformed that the re"eivin+ ma"hine of said se"tion as outof order hen the pleadin+s ere re"eived Has the time of re"eipt appearin+ therein is ala-s 00 a.m.H)7

This Court "annot +loss over, as it has never +lossed overalle+ations of irre+ularit- in the handlin+ of pleadin+s Fled inthe Court. Joever, in the absen"e of "on"rete proof thatthere as mali"ious intent to derail the propriet- of pro"edure, this Court has no basis on hi"h to arrive at a"on"lusion thereon. The do"umentar- eviden"e of simultaneous re"eipt of pleadin+s that should ordinaril- bere"eived one after another is simpl- insu>"ient to arrantan- "on"lusion on irre+ularit- of pro"edure.

#ll "ourt personnel are enBoined to do their Bobs properl- and

a""ordin+ to la. Should the- noti"e an-thin+ in theperforman"e of their duties that ma- +enerate even a meresuspi"ion of irre+ularit-, the- are dut-%bound to "orre"t thesame. n this "ase, more dili+en"e on the part of thepersonnel handlin+ the re"eivin+ ma"hine "ould haveprevented the stampin+ on the pleadin+s ith erroneousdate and time of re"eipt and ould have averted suspi"ionof an anomal- in the Flin+ of pleadin+s. 'ersons responsiblefor the ne+li+en"e should be taken to task. Joever, sin"ethis is not the proper forum for hatever administrative

measures ma- be taken under the premises, the Court optsto dis"uss the merits of the petition for revieon certiorari at bar rather than tarr- more on anadministrative matter that is fundamentall- e<traneous tothe petition.

'etitioner =ao maintains that the Court of #ppeals shouldnot have been +iven due "ourse to the petition forcertiorari,prohibition and mandamus "onsiderin+ that it as fatall-defe"tive for failure of the petitioners to atta"h thereto a"op- of the uestioned rit of e<e"ution. *n their part,private respondents "on"ede the mandator- "hara"ter of the reuirement of Se"tion 1, Rule $5 of the Rules of CourtM that the petition Hshall be a""ompanied b- a "ertiFed true"op- of the Bud+ment or order subBe"t thereof, to+ether ith"opies of all pleadin+s and do"uments relevant andpertinent thereto.H Joever, private respondents asked thattheir submission of a "ertiFed true "op- of the spe"ial order+rantin+ e<e"ution pendin+ appeal atta"hed to theirH"omplian"eH dated 3une , 177) be taken as substantial"omplian"e ith the rule.

The Court +ives due "onsideration to private respondentsDstan"e. Stri"t adheren"e to pro"edural rules must at alltimes be observed. Joever, it is not the end%all and be%allof liti+ation. #s this Court said

. . . adBe"tive la is not to be taken li+htl- for,ithout it, the enfor"ement of substantive la ma-

not remain assured. The Court must add,nevertheless, that te"hni"al rules of pro"edure arenot ends in themselves but primaril- devised anddesi+ned to help in the proper and e<pedientdispensation of Busti"e. n appropriate "ases,therefore, the rules ma- have to be so "onstruedliberall- as to meet and advan"e the "ause of substantial Busti"e.)

45

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

Thus, in holdin+ that the Court of #ppeals ma- entertain ase"ond motion for re"onsideration of its de"ision althou+hthe Flin+ of su"h motion violates a prohibition thereof, theCourt said

. . . :;t is ithin the poer of this Court to temper

ri+id rules in favor of substantial Busti"e. 9hile it isdesirable that the Rules of Court be faithfull- andeven meti"ulousl- observed, "ourts should not be sostri"t about pro"edural lapses that do not reall-impair the proper administration of Busti"e. f therules are intended to ensure the orderl- "ondu"t of liti+ation, it is be"ause of the hi+her obBe"tive the-seek hi"h is the prote"tion of substantive ri+hts of the parties.40

n the "ase under "onsideration, private respondents

substantiall- "omplied ith the Rules of Court hen the-submitted a "op- of the rit of e<e"ution sou+ht to beenBoined on the same da- the- Fled the petitionforcertiorari, prohibition and mandamus. 'etitioner CoDsalle+ation of irre+ularit- as to the time of re"eipt of theH"omplian"eH to hi"h "op- of the rit as atta"hed bein+unsubstantiated, the presumption of re+ularit- of its re"eipton the da- the ori+inal petition as Fled should prevail.

'etitioner Co ar+ues that the Court of #ppeals "annotdisturb the fa"tual Fndin+s of the trial "ourt and substituteits on in a petition for certiorari, prohibition

and mandamus here the basi" issue is one of Burisdi"tionor +rave abuse of dis"retion. t is ell%settled, hoever, thatin a petition for certiorari and mandamus, the Court of #ppeals, hen inevitable, ma- e<amine the fa"tual merits of the "ase.41 n the present "ase, it as ne"essar- andinevitable for the Court of #ppeals to look into the diversefa"tual alle+ations of the parties. t is orth- to note thatpetitionerDs motion for e<e"ution pendin+ appeal aspremised on his "ontention that the aard of dama+es in hisfavor ould be meanin+less on a""ount of respondent

CorporationDs pre"arious Fnan"ial status. *n the other hand,respondent Corporation "ountered that it as operatin+ at aproFt, an assuran"e that at the time, it as a stablebusiness entit- that "ould anser for its obli+ations. n thefa"e of these "ontradi"tor- alle+ations, the appellate "ourt"orre"tl- opted to make its on Fndin+ of fa"ts on the issue

of the propriet- of the issuan"e of the rit of e<e"utionpendin+ appeal. t should be stressed that hat as at issueas not the aard of dama+es itself but the issuan"e of saidrit.

'etitioner =aoDs position that the postin+ of a +ood andsolvent bond is a spe"ial reason for the issuan"e of the ritof e<e"ution pendin+ appeal is utterl- barren of merit. Aerepostin+ of a bond to anser for dama+es does not su>"e asa +ood reason for the +rantin+ of e<e"ution pendin+ appeal,ithin the "onte<t of H+ood reasonsH under Se"tion 2, Rule) of the Rules of Court.42 n Ro"as v . Court of Appeals,4) theCourt held

t is not intended obviousl- that e<e"ution pendin+appeal shall issue as a matter of "ourse. H&oodreasons, spe"ial, important, pressin+ reasons muste<ist to Bustif- itG otherise, instead of an instrumentof soli"itude and Busti"e, it ma- ell be"ome a tool of oppression and ineuit-. 8ut to "onsider the merepostin+ of a bond a H+ood reasonH ould pre"isel-make immediate e<e"ution of a Bud+ment pendin+appeal routinar-, the rule rather than the e<"eption.

3ud+ments ould be e<e"uted immediatel-, as amatter of "ourse, on"e rendered, if all that theprevailin+ part- needed to do as to post a bond toanser for dama+es that mi+ht result therefrom. Thisis a situation, to repeat, neither "ontemplated norintended b- la.44

L.R. o. H0H*7

4$

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

rom the de"ision of the Court of irst nstan"e of Samar inCivil Case (o. 552, Fndin+ that the- are liable for mali"iousprose"ution and therefore, the- must pa- =ao dama+es, theCorporation and Co appealed to the Court of #ppeals. na>rmin+ the loer "ourtDs de"ision, the Court of #ppealsdedu"ed from the fa"ts established that the Corporation

kne all alon+ that =aoDs liabilit- as "ivil in nature.Joever, after around four :4; -ears had elapsed andsensin+ that Civil Case (o. 4452 ould result in a de"isiona+ainst them, the- instituted the "riminal "ase for estafa. naardin+ dama+es in the total amount of '))0,000, theCourt of #ppeals took into a""ount =aoDs so"ial and businessstandin+.45

rom the !e"ision of the Court of #ppeals in C#%&.R. (o.$125%R, Co Fled the instant petition for revie oncertiorariG"ontendin+ that the Court of #ppeals erred in a>rmin+ thede"ision of the Samar Court of irst nstan"e be"ause henthe "ase for mali"ious prose"ution as "ommen"ed thereas as -et no "ause of a"tion as the "riminal "ase as stillpendin+ de"ision. Co also asserted that he should not beheld Bointl- and severall- liable ith the Corporationbe"ause in Flin+ the a>davit%"omplaint a+ainst respondent=ao, he as a"tin+ as the e<e"utive vi"e%president of theCorporation and his a"tion as ithin the s"ope of hisauthorit- as su"h "orporate o>"er.

The issue of hether the Court of #ppeals "orre"tl- ruledthat the Corporation and petitioner Co should be held liable

for dama+es on a""ount of mali"ious prose"ution shall beratio"inated upon and resolved ith the issues submitted forresolution in &.R. (os. $05%5. 9hat should "on"ern theCourt here is hether petitioner Co should be held solidaril-liable ith the Corporation for hatever dama+es ould beimposed upon them for Flin+ the "omplaint for mali"iousprose"ution.

'etitioner Co ar+ues that folloin+ the dictum in a+en"-, thesuit should be a+ainst his prin"ipal unless he a"ted on hison or e<"eeded the limits of his a+en"-.

# perusal of his a>davit%"omplaint reveals that at the timehe Fled the same on 3une 24, 174, petitioner Co as the

vi"e%president of the Corporation. #s a "orporate o>"er, hispoer to bind the Corporation as its a+ent must be sou+htfrom statute, "harter, b-%las, a dele+ation of authorit- to a"orporate o>"er, or from the a"ts of the board of dire"torsformall- e<pressed or implied from a habit or "ustom of doin+ business.4$ n this "ase, no su"h sour"es of petitionerDsauthorit- from hi"h to dedu"e hether or not he asa"tin+ be-ond the s"ope of his responsibilities as "orporatevi"e%president are mentioned, mu"h less proven. t is thuslo+i"al to "on"lude that the board of dire"tors or b- las% of the "orporation vested petitioner Co ith "ertain e<e"utiveduties47 one of hi"h is a "ase for the Corporation.

That petitioner Co as authoried to institute the estafa"ase is buttressed b- the fa"t that the Corporation failed tomake an issue out of his authorit- to Fle said "ase. ponell%established prin"iples of pleadin+, la"k of authorit- of an o>"er of a "orporation to bind it b- "ontra"t e<e"uted b-him in its name, is a defense hi"h should have beenspe"iall- pleaded b- the Corporation.4 The CorporationDsfailure to interpose su"h a defense "ould onl- mean that theFlin+ of the a>davit%"omplaint b- petitioner Co as ith the"onsent and authorit- of the Corporation. n the same vein,

petitioner Co ma- not be held personall- liable for a"tsperformed in pursuan"e of an authorit- and therefore,holdin+ him solidaril- liable ith the Corporation for thedama+es aarded to respondent =ao does a""ord ith laand Burispruden"e.

L.R. o. H0H95MI59

n this petition for revie on certiorari of the !e"isions of theCourt of #ppeals in C#%&.R. (o. $125%R, re+ardin+ =aoDs

47

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

"laim for dama+es on a""ount of mali"ious prose"ution, andin C#%&.R. (o. $25)2%R that arose from =aoDs "omplaint fora""ountin+ and dama+es, petitioner Corporation assi+ns aserrors, that

1. The respondent Court of #ppeals erred andIor

"ommitted a +rave abuse of dis"retion in a>rmin+the erroneous de"ision of the loer "ourt. The "ivil"ase for mali"ious prose"ution as Fled durin+ thependen"- of the "riminal "ase upon hi"h the "ivilsuit as based. There is as -et no "ause of a"tion. . . . .

2. The respondent Court of #ppeals erred andIor"ommitted a +rave abuse of dis"retion hen itreversed or set aside the supplemental de"ision of the loer "ourt in Civil Case (o. 4452, hi"h reversal

as merel- based on surmises and "onBe"tures. . . . .

). The respondent Court of #ppeals erred andIor"ommitted +rave abuse of dis"retion hen itaarded moral dama+es in Civil Case (o. 4452 hi"has not pra-ed for be"ause #ndres =ao pra-ed formoral dama+es and as alread- aarded in CivilCase (o. 552. Aoral dama+es must be spe"iF"all-pra-ed for. . . . .4

'etitioner Corporation "ontends that the "omplaint formali"ious prose"ution brou+ht b- =ao durin+ the penden"-

of subBe"t "riminal "ase for estafa, states no "ause of a"tionas it as prematurel- Fled hen the "riminal "ase thatresulted in the a"uittal of =ao as not -et terminated. *nthe other hand, respondent =ao "ountered that the elementssupportive of an a"tion for mali"ious prose"ution areevidentiar- in nature and their e<isten"e or non%e<isten"e"annot be the subBe"t of evaluation and "on"lusion upon theFlin+ of the "omplaint. or =ao, those elements must bedetermined at the time the plainti6 has o6ered all hiseviden"e and rested his "ase.

Aali"ious prose"ution has been deFned as an a"tion fordama+es brou+ht b- one a+ainst hom a "riminalprose"ution, "ivil suit or other le+al pro"eedin+ has beeninstituted mali"iousl- and ithout probable "ause, after thetermination of su"h prose"ution, suit or other pro"eedin+ infavor of the defendant therein.50 #s thus deFned, the fa"t of

termination of the "riminal prose"ution, "ivil suit or le+alpro"eedin+ mali"iousl- Fled and ithout probable "ause,should pre"ede the "omplaint for mali"ious prose"ution.Su"h a "omplaint states a "ause of a"tion if it alle+es :a;that the defendant as himself the prose"utor or at leastinsti+ated the prose"utionG :b; that the prose"ution Fnall-terminated in the a"uittal of the plainti6G :"; that inbrin+in+ the a"tion the prose"utor a"ted ithout probable"ause, and :d; that the prose"utor as a"tuated b-mali"e, i.e., b- improper and sinister motives.51

'camp v . uenaventura52 demonstrates the importan"e of the reuirement that the "ase mali"iousl- "ommen"edshould be terminated before a "laim for dama+es arisin+from the Flin+ of su"h "ase should be presented. n that"ase, a "omplaint for dama+es arisin+ from the alle+edmali"ious Flin+ of an administrative "ase for seriousmis"ondu"t, +rave abuse of authorit- and "ommission of afelon-, as held to be premature durin+ the penden"- of said administrative "ase before the then 'oli"e Commission:'*=C*A;. *bservin+ that the "omplaint for dama+es asbased on the "laim that the administrative "ase brou+htbefore the '*=C*A as mali"ious, unfounded and aimed toharass the respondents, the Court there held

. . . . The vera"it- of this alle+ation is not for us todetermine, for if 9e rule and allo the "ivil "ase fordama+es to pro"eed on that +round, there is thepossibilit- that the "ourt a 6uo in de"idin+ said "asemi+ht de"lare the respondents vi"tims of harassmentand thereb- indire"tl- interfere ith the pro"eedin+sbefore the '*=C*A. The respondentsD "ase fordama+es before the loer "ourt is, therefore,

4

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

premature as it as Fled durin+ the penden"- of theadministrative "ase a+ainst the respondents beforethe '*=C*A. The possibilit- "annot be overlookedthat the '*=C*A ma- hand don a de"ision adverseto the respondents, in hi"h "ase the dama+e suitill be"ome unfounded and baseless for antin+ in

"ause of a"tion. *f persuasive for"e is the rulin+in Eilliam D. ro-n vs. an/ of te Pilippine #slandsand antiago ;rei"as, 101 'hil. )0, )12, here thisCourt said

. . . . n e6e"t, plainti6 herein seeks to re"overdama+es upon the +round that the detainer "ase hasbeen Fled, and is bein+ maintained, mali"iousl- andithout BustiF"ationG but this pretense a6e"ts themerits of said detainer "ase. Should Fnal Bud+mentbe eventuall- rendered in that "ase in favor of theplainti6s therein, su"h as the one rendered in themuni"ipal "ourt, the validit- of the "ause of a"tion of said lessors a+ainst 8ron, ould thereb- be"on"lusivel- established, and ne"essaril-, his"ontention in the present "ase ould have to bereBe"ted. Similarl-, e "annot sustain the theor- of 8ron in the "ase at bar, ithout preBud+in+ theissue in the detainer "ase, hi"h is still pendin+. ntilFnal determination of said "ase, plainti6 herein"annot, and does not, have, therefore, a "ause of a"tion M if an-, on hi"h e do not e<press ouropinion M a+ainst the herein defendants. n short,the loer "ourt has "orre"tl- held that the presenta"tion is premature, and, that, "onseuentl-, the"omplain herein does not set forth a "ause of a"tiona+ainst the defendants.5)

# similar rulin+ as laid don in Ca$acunganv . Corrales54 here the Court sustained the dismissal of ana"tion for dama+es on the +round of prematurit-. There"ords dis"losed that the alle+ed false and mali"ious"omplaint "har+in+ plainti6s ith mali"ious mis"hief as still

pendin+ trial hen the a"tion for dama+es based on thesubBe"t "omplaint as brou+ht.

'remises studiedl- vieed in proper perspe"tive, the"ontention of =ao that the elements of an a"tion formali"ious prose"ution are evidentiar- in nature and should

be determined at the time the plainti6 o6ers eviden"e andrests his "ase, is untenable. To rule otherise ould, ine6e"t, san"tion the Flin+ of a"tions ithout a "ause of a"tion. The e<isten"e of a "ause of a"tion is determinedsolel- b- the fa"ts alle+ed in the "omplaint. Consideration of other fa"ts is pros"ribed and an- attempt to provee<traneous "ir"umstan"es is not alloed.55 #s this Court saidin urigao &ine 4"ploration Co., #nc. v . Darris,5$ Hunless theplainti6 has a valid and subsistin+ "ause of a"tion at thetime his a"tion is "ommen"ed, the defe"t "annot be "ured orremedied b- the a"uisition or a""rual of one hile thea"tion is pendin+, and a supplemental "omplaint or anamendment settin+ up su"h after%a""rued "ause of a"tion isnot permissible.H57 Thus, the "ir"umstan"e that the estafa"ase "on"luded in respondent =aoDs a"uittal durin+ thependen"- of the "omplaint for mali"ious prose"ution did not"ure the defe"t of la"k of "ause of a"tion at the time of Flin+of the "omplaint.

(either does the Court Fnd merit in respondent =aoDssubmission that the "omplaint for mali"ious prose"ution isviable inasmu"h as it is also an"hored on #rti"les 20 and 21of the Civil Code. This ma- appear to be a persuasive

ar+ument sin"e there is no hard and fast rule hi"h "an beapplied in the determination of hether or not the prin"ipleof abuse of ri+hts has been violated, resultin+ in dama+esunder the said arti"les of the Civil Code on Juman Relations.ndeed, a part- inBured b- the Flin+ of a "ourt "ase a+ainsthim, even if he is later on absolved, ma- Fle a "ase fordama+es +rounded either on the prin"iple of abuse of ri+htsor on mali"ious prose"ution.5 Joever, hether based onthe prin"iple of abuse of ri+hts or mali"ious prose"ution, areadin+ of the "omplaint here reveals that it is founded on

4

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

the mere Flin+ of the estafa "har+e a+ainst respondent =ao.#s su"h, it as prematurel- Fled and it failed to alle+e a"ause of a"tion. Should the a"tion for mali"ious prose"utionbe entertained and the estafa "har+e ould result inrespondent =aoDs "onvi"tion durin+ the penden"- of thedama+e suit, even if it is based on #rti"les 20 and 21, su"h

suit ould nonetheless be"ome +roundless and unfounded. To repeatG that the estafa "ase, in fa"t, resulted inrespondent =aoDs a"uittal ould not infuse a "ause of a"tion on the mali"ious prose"ution "ase alread-"ommen"ed and pendin+ resolution.

The "omplaint for dama+es based on mali"ious prose"utionandIor on #rti"les 20 and 21 should have been dismissed forla"k of "ause of a"tion and therefore, the Court of #ppealserred in a>rmin+ the de"ision of the trial "ourt of ori+in. tshould be stressed, hoever, that the dismissal of subBe"t"omplaint should not be taken as an adBudi"ation on the

merits, the same bein+ merel- +rounded on the failure of the "omplaint to state a "ause of a"tion.5

#s re+ards the !e"ision in C#%&.R. (o. $25)2%R hi"h asspaned b- respondent =aoDs "omplaint for a""ountin+,petitioner "ontends that the appellate "ourt erred hen itreversed and set aside the supplemental de"ision in CivilCase (o. 4452 and dire"ted the "orporation to reimburse theamount of '55$,444.20, representin+ =aoDs overpa-ment tothe Corporation. The Court ould normall- have restri"teditself to uestions of la and shunned aa- from uestions

of fa"t ere it not for the "on@i"tin+ Fndin+s of fa"t b- thetrial "ourt and appellate "ourt on the matter. The Court istherefore "onstrained to rela< the rule on "on"lusiveness of fa"tual Fndin+s of the Court of #ppeals and, on the basis of the fa"ts on re"ord, make its on Fndin+s.$0

t is si+niF"ant to note that as per de"ision of the trial "ourtdated Aar"h 2$, 175, a "ourt%supervised a""ountin+ asdire"ted so as to as"ertain the true and "orre"ta""ountabilit- of #ndres =ao to the defendant "orporation.

Thus, a three%man audit "ommittee as formed ith thebran"h of "lerk of "ourt, #tt-. Li"torio &alapon, as "hairman,and to other "ertiFed publi" a""ountants respe"tivel-nominated b- the parties, as members.

*n September 1$, 17$, the said #udit Committee

submitted its report$1 and in the hearin+ of (ovember 25,17$, the parties interposed no obBe"tion thereto andunanimousl- a""epted the #udit Committee Report. TheCommittee found that #ndres =ao has made a totaloverpa-ment to defendant "orporation in the amount of '55$ ,444.20.

Trial b- "ommissioners is alloed b- the Rules of Court hena; the trial of an issue of fa"t reuires the e<amination of alon+ a""ount on either side, in hi"h "ase the "ommissionerma- be dire"ted to hear and report upon the hole issue oran- spe"iF" uestion involved thereinG b; hen the takin+ of an a""ount is ne"essar- for the information of the "ourtbefore Bud+ment, or for "arr-in+ a Bud+ment or order intoe6e"tG and "; hen a uestion of fa"t, other than upon thepleadin+s, arises upon motion or otherise, at an- sta+e of a "ase, or for "arr-in+ a Bud+ment or order intoe6e"t.$2 ltimatel-, the trial "ourt, in the e<er"ise of itssound dis"retion, ma- either adopt, modif-, or reBe"t inhole or in part, the "ommissionersD report or it ma-re"ommit the same ith instru"tions, or reuire the partiesto present additional eviden"e before the "ommissioners orbefore the "ourt.$)

n the "ase under "onsideration, it is thus ithin the poerof the trial "ourt to refer the a""ountin+ to "ourt%appointed"ommissioners be"ause a true and "orre"t a""ountin+ isne"essar- for the information of the "ourt before it "anrender Bud+ment. Aoreover, the te"hni"al nature of the auditpro"edure ne"essitates the assistan"e of a "ertiFed publi"a""ountant. #nd sin"e both parties o6ered no obBe"tion tothe "ommissionersD report, the- are deemed to havea""epted and admitted the Fndin+s therein "ontained.

50

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

There is no dis"ernible "ause for veerin+ from the Fndin+s of the #udit Committee. n arrivin+ at its "on"lusion, the #uditCommittee subtra"ted the total remittan"es of =ao in theamount of '1),$$,14.0 from the entire volume of shipments made b- the "orporation. n determinin+ the totalvolume of shipments made b- the "orporation, the #udit

Committee did not in"lude the shipments "overed b- bills of ladin+ and fa"tor- "onsi+nment invoi"es but ithout the"orrespondin+ deliver- re"eipts. These in"luded shipmentsin the amount of '57,2).40 "overed b- bills of ladin+ andfa"tor- "onsi+nment invoi"es but ith no supportin+deliver- re"eipts, and shipments orth '12$,50.00 ithfa"tor- "onsi+nment invoi"es but not "overed b- bills of ladin+ and deliver- re"eipts. Joever, the #udit Committee"onsidered shipments made b- the "orporation to =ao in theamount of ',110,777.00 "overed b- bills of ladin+ andfa"tor- invoi"es but ithout the "orrespondin+ deliver-re"eipts be"ause subBe"t shipments ere dul- reported in

=aoDs monthl- sales report.

The #udit Committee "orre"tl- e<"luded the shipments notsupported b- deliver- re"eipts, albeit "overed b- bills of ladin+ and fa"tor- "onsi+nment invoi"es. nder #rti"le 147of the Civil Code, a thin+ sold shall be understood asdelivered hen it is pla"ed in the "ontrol or possession of the vendee. nless possession or "ontrol has beentransferred to the vendee, the thin+ or +oods sold "annot be"onsidered as delivered. Thus, in the present "ase, the #uditCommittee as "orre"t hen it adopted as +uideline thata""ountabilit- over the +oods shipped as transferred fromthe "orporation to #ndres =ao onl- upon a"tual deliver- of the +oods to him. or it is onl- hen the +oods ere a"tuall-delivered to and re"eived b- =ao, did =ao have "ontrol andpossession over subBe"t +oods, and onl- hen he had"ontrol and possession over said +oods "ould he sell thesame.

!eliver- is +enerall- eviden"ed b- a rittena"knoled+ement of a person that he or she has a"tuall-

re"eived the thin+ or the +oods, as in deliver- re"eipts. # billof ladin+ "annot substitute for a deliver- re"eipt. This isbe"ause it is a ritten a"knoled+ement of the re"eipt of the +oods b- the "arrier and an a+reement to transport anddeliver them at a spe"iF" pla"e to a person named or uponhis order.$4 t does not eviden"e re"eipt of the +oods b- the

"onsi+nee or the person named in the bill of ladin+G rather, itis eviden"e of re"eipt b- the "arrier of the +oods from theshipper for transportation and deliver-.

=ikeise, a fa"tor- "onsi+nment invoi"e is not eviden"e of a"tual deliver- of the +oods. #n invoi"e is nothin+ more thana detailed statement of the nature, uantit- and "ost of thethin+ sold.$5 t is not proof that the thin+ or +oods erea"tuall- delivered to the vendee or the "onsi+nee. #sadmitted b- the itness for the "orporation

# a"tor- "onsi+nment invoi"es representshat the "ompan- billed the plainti6 Ar. =ao and thebill of ladin+ represents the +oods hi"h eresupposed to have been shipped.

< < < < < < < < <

# Shipments "overed b- fa"tor- "onsi+nmentinvoi"es simpl- meant these are billin+s made a+ainb- the #sso"iated #n+lo%#meri"an Toba""oCorporation to plainti6 #ndres =ao. :t.s.n., (ovember25, 17$, pp. 45%47 as "ited in Respondent =aoDs

Comment, Rollo, p. 25;

Thus, in the absen"e of proof that the +oods ere a"tuall-re"eived b- =ao as eviden"ed b- deliver- re"eipts, theshipments alle+edl- made b- the "orporation in the amountof '57,2).40 and '12$,50.00 "overed onl- b- bills of ladin+ and fa"tor- "onsi+nment invoi"es "annot be in"ludedin =aoDs a""ountabilit-.

51

T t 071514

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

Joever, as to the shipments orth '4,01,27.$0 likeise"overed onl- b- bills of ladin+ and fa"tor- "onsi+nmentinvoi"es, the #udit Committee "orre"tl- "onsidered them in=aoDs a""ount be"ause su"h shipments ere reported in thelatterDs sales reports. The fa"t that =ao in"luded them in hissales reports is an implied admission that subBe"t +oods

ere a"tuall- delivered to him, and that he re"eived the said+oods for resale.

#s re+ards the aard of moral dama+es, petitionerCorporation faults the Court of #ppeals for aardin+ su"hdama+es not spe"iF"all- pra-ed for in the "omplaint fora""ountin+ and dama+es in Civil Case (o. 4452. 'etitionerCorporation ar+ues that moral dama+es ere pra-ed for anddul- aarded in Civil Case (o. 552 and therefore, it ouldbe unfair and unBust to allo on"e a+ain, re"over- of moraldama+es on similar +rounds.

Contrar- to the alle+ation of the petitioner Corporation, theaard of moral dama+es as spe"iF"all- pra-ed for in the"omplaint albeit it left the amount of the same to thedis"retion of the "ourt.$$ Aoreover, Civil Case (os. 4452 and552 ere on varied "auses of a"tion. 9hile the aard formoral dama+es in Civil Case (o. 4452 as based on theevident bad faith of the petitioner Corporation in unilaterall-res"indin+ respondent =aoDs sales a+en"- throu+h hisimmediate repla"ement b- (+o hen+, the "laim for moraldama+es in Civil Case (o. 552 as an"hored on thesupposed mali"e that attended the Flin+ of the "riminal "ase

for estafa.

'etitioner Corporation also opposes for bein+ "onBe"tural,the aard of '150,000.00 in Civil Case (o. 4452,representin+ a"tual dama+es for loss of earnin+s. True,dama+es "annot be presumed or premised on "onBe"ture oreven lo+i". # part- is entitled to adeuate "ompensationonl- for dul- substantiated pe"uniar- loss a"tuall- su6eredb- him or her.$7 n this "ase, hoever, the trial "ourt"orre"tl- found that an aard for a"tual dama+es as

BustiFed be"ause several months before their "ontra"t of a+en"- as due to e<pire in 1$, the petitioner Corporationrepla"ed =ao ith (+o hen+ as sales a+ent for the areas of =e-te and Samar. This, despite the fa"t that the- hadalread- a+reed that =ao ould "ontinue to a"t as the"orporationDs sales a+ent provided that he ould redu"e his

a""ountabilit- to '200,000.00, the amount "overed b- hisbond, and en+a+ed the servi"es of an independenta""ountin+ Frm to do an audit to establish =aoDs trueliabilit-. !ue to his ouster as sales a+ent, =ao failed torealie a net in"ome from his sales a+en"- in the amount of ')0,000,00 a -ear.

Joever, the amount of a"tual dama+es should be redu"edto ')0,000.00 onl- instead of the '150,000.00 aarded b-the appellate "ourt. Sin"e the "ontra"t of sales a+en"- ason a -earl- basis, the a"tual dama+es =ao su6ered shouldbe limited to the annual net in"ome he failed to realie due

to his unBust termination as sales a+ent prior to thee<piration of his "ontra"t in 1$. nrealied in"ome for thesu""eedin+ -ears "annot be aarded to =ao be"ause the"orporation is deemed to have opted not to rene the"ontra"t ith =ao for the su""eedin+ -ears.

#s to the aard of e<emplar- dama+es, su>"e it to statethat in "ontra"ts and uasi%"ontra"ts, the "ourt ma- aarde<emplar- dama+es if the defendant a"ted in a anton,fraudulent, re"kless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.$ nthe "ase under s"rutin-, the Court Fnds the aard of

e<emplar- dama+es unBustiFed or unarranted in theabsen"e of an- proof that the petitioner Corporation a"ted ina anton, fraudulent, re"kless, oppressive, and malevolentmanner. or the same reasons, the aard for attorne-Ds feesshould be deleted.1>-pi1.nJt

9J?R?*R?,

n &.R. (o. =%4701), the petition for revie on certiorari is!?(?! for la"k of meritG

52

T t 071514

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

n &.R. (o. $0$47, the petition is &R#(T?! and the assailedde"ision is S?T #S!?G and the !e"ision of the Court of #ppeals in C#%&.R. (o. $125%R, Fndin+ ?steban Cosolidarit- liable ith the respondent #sso"iated #n+lo%#meri"an Toba""o Corporation for dama+es, is R?L?RS?!#(! S?T #S!?. #s above ratio"inated, the respondent

"orporation "annot be held liable for dama+es.

n &.R. (os. $05%5, the !e"ision in C#%&.R. (o. $125%Ris R?L?RS?! #(! S?T #S!?G the respondent "orporation isadBud+ed not liable for mali"ious prose"ution due to theprematurit- of the a"tionG hile the !e"ision in C#%&.R. (o.$25)2%R is #RA?!, insofar as it ordered respondent"orporation to reimburse #ndres =aoDs overpa-ment in theamount of '55$,444.20, but A*!?!, in that onl- anaard of ')0,000.00 for a"tual dama+es is &R#(T?!, andall the other monetar- aards are deleted. (opronoun"ement as to "osts.

S* *R!?R?!.

G.R. No. 154519. Marc% 25, 1994

FRAN6LIN M. DRILON, AURELIO C. TRAMPE,GREGORIO A. ARI#ALA, CESAR M. SOLIS a!FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS, petitioners, vs. COURT OFAPPEALS, "ON. GEORGE C. MACLI<ING, $ %$& ca'ac$t(a& Pre&$!$) *+!)e o Brac% 155 o t%e Re)$oa- Tr$a-

5)

Torts 071514

8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

Co+rt o +e/o C$t(, a! "OMOBONOADA#A, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

"ERMOSISIMA, *R., J.

'etitioners seek the reversal of the Resolutions of respondent Court of #ppeals in C#%&.R. S' (o. 2500 dated 3anuar- )1, 12 and September 2, 12 a>rmin+ the*rders, dated ebruar- , 11 and Aa- 14, 11, of respondent 3ud+e &eor+e C. Aa"li%in+ hi"h denied hereinpetitionerUs Aotion to !ismiss the "omplaint Fled in CivilCase (o. /%0%$07) b- respondent Jomobono #daa.

The fa"ts are not in dispute.

n a letter%"omplaint to then Se"retar- of 3usti"e ranklin!rilonN1O dated Aar"h 20, 10, &eneral Renato de Lilla,N2O ho as then the Chief of Sta6 of the #rmed or"es of the'hilippines, reuested the !epartment of 3usti"e to order theinvesti+ation of several individuals named therein, in"ludin+herein private respondent Jomobono #daa, for theiralle+ed parti"ipation in the failed !e"ember 1 coupdNetat . The letter%"omplaint as based on the a>davit of 8ri+adier &eneral #leBandro &alido, Captain *s"arlitoAapalo, Colonel 3uan Aamorno, Colonel Jernani i+ueroaand AaBor ?duardo Sebastian.

&en. de LillaUs letter%"omplaint ith its anne<es asreferred for preliminar- inuir- to the Spe"ial Composite Team of 'rose"utors "reated pursuant to !epartment of 3usti"e *rder (o. 5 dated 3anuar- 10, 10. 'etitioner then#ssistant Chief State 'rose"utor #urelio Trampe,N)O the Team=eader, Fndin+ su>"ient basis to "ontinue the inuir-,issued a subpoena to the individuals named in the letter%"omplaint, #daa in"luded, and assi+ned the "ase forpreliminar- investi+ation to a panel of investi+ators

"omposed of prose"utors &eor+e #riala, as Chairman, anderdinand #besamis and Cesar Solis as members. The "aseas do"keted as .S. (o. !*3%SC%0%01).

*n #pril 17, 10, the panel released its Fndin+s, thru aResolution, hi"h reads

V'R?AS?S C*(S!?R?!, e Fnd and so hold that there isprobable "ause to hold herein respondents for trial for the"rime of R?8?==*( 9TJ AR!?R #(! RSTR#T?!AR!?R. Jen"e e respe"tfull- re"ommend the Flin+ of the "orrespondin+ information a+ainst them in "ourt.W N4O

The above Resolution be"ame the basis for the Flin+ of an nformation,N5O dated #pril 1, 10, "har+in+ privaterespondent ith the "rime of rebellion ith murder andfrustrated murder before the Re+ional Trial Court of /ueon

Cit-, ith no re"ommendation as to bail.N$O

eelin+ a++rieved b- the institution of thesepro"eedin+s a+ainst him, private respondent #daa Fled a"omplaint for dama+es,N7O dated 3ul- 11, 10, before 8ran"h100 of the Re+ional Trial Court of /ueon Cit-. The"omplaint as do"keted as Civil Case (o. /%0%$07)entitled, VDomo$ono AdaFa, plainti% versus ;ran/lin !rilon,et al., respondents.W n his "omplaint, #daa "har+edpetitioners ith en+a+in+ in a deliberate, illful andmali"ious e<perimentation b- Flin+ a+ainst him a "har+e of rebellion "omple<ed ith murder and frustrated murder

hen petitioners, a""ordin+ to #daa, ere full- aare of the non%e<isten"e of su"h "rime in the statute books.

*n *"tober 15, 10, petitioners Fled a Aotion to!ismiss #daaUs "omplaint on the +round that said"omplaint states no a"tionable ron+ "onstitutin+ a valid"ause of a"tion a+ainst petitioners.

54

Torts 071514

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/107019.htm#_edn1

















8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

*n ebruar- , 11, publi" respondent Bud+e issued an*rderNO den-in+ petitionersU Aotion to !ismiss. n the same*rder, petitioners ere reuired to Fle their anser to the"omplaint ithin Ffteen :15; da-s from re"eipt of the *rder.

'etitioners moved for a re"onsideration of the *rder of

denial, but the same as likeise denied b- respondent 3ud+e in another *rder dated Aa- 14, 11.NO Thesubseuent *rder reiterated that petitioners Fle theirresponsive pleadin+ ithin the pres"ribed re+lementar-period.

nstead of Flin+ their anser as ordered, petitionersFled on 3une 5, 11 a petition for certiorari under Rule $5before the Court of #ppeals, do"keted as C#%&.R. (o. 2500,alle+in+ +rave abuse of dis"retion on the part of therespondent 3ud+e in rulin+ that su>"ient "ause of a"tione<ists to arrant a full%blon hearin+ of the "ase Fled b-#daa and thus den-in+ petitionersU Aotion to !ismiss.

n its Resolution promul+ated on 3anuar- )1, 12, theappellate "ourt dismissed the petition for la"k of merit andordered respondent 3ud+e to pro"eed ith the trial of CivilCase (o. /%0%$07).N10O # Aotion for Re"onsideration havin+been subseuentl- Fled on ebruar- 2, 12, the "ourt a6uo denied the same in a Resolution dated September 2,12.N11O

Jen"e, this petition, dated *"tober , 12, pleadin+

this Court to e<er"ise its poer of revie under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.

*n 3anuar- 1), 1), hoever, this Court, thru theSe"ond !ivision, dismissed the petition for failure to "ompl-ith Revised Cir"ular (o. 1%, parti"ularl- the reuirementon the pa-ment of the pres"ribed do"ketin+ fees. N12O

*n Aar"h , 1),N1)O e reinstated the petition andreuired the respondents to "omment on the aforesaidpetition. n the same Resolution, a temporar- restrainin+order as issued b- this Court enBoinin+ respondent 3ud+efrom further pro"eedin+ ith Civil Case (o. /%0%$07) untilfurther orders from this Court.

The petition has merit.

n his Comment,N14O dated Aar"h 2), 1), respondent#daa maintains that his "laim before the trial "ourt asmerel- a suit for dama+es based on tort b- reason of petitionersU various malfeasan"e, misfeasan"e andnonfeasan"e in o>"e, as ell as for violation b- thepetitioners of Se"tion ) :e; of Republi" #"t (o. )01,otherise knon as the #nti%&raft and Corrupt 'ra"ti"es#"t. t as not a suit for mali"ious prose"ution.

'rivate respondent is takin+ us for a ride. # "ursor-perusal of the "omplaint Fled b- #daa before respondent 3ud+e &eor+e Aa"li%in+ reveals that it is one for mali"iousprose"ution a+ainst the petitioners for the latterUs Flin+ of the "har+e a+ainst him of rebellion ith murder andfrustrated murder. #n e<amination of the re"ords ouldsho that this latest posture as to the nature of his "ause of a"tion is onl- bein+ raised for the Frst time onappeal. (ohere in his "omplaint Fled ith the trial "ourtdid respondent #daa alle+e that his a"tion is one based ontort or on Se"tion ) :e; of Republi" #"t (o. )01. Su"h a

"han+e of theor- "annot be alloed. 9hen a part- adopts a"ertain theor- in the "ourt belo, he ill not be permittedto "han+e his theor- on appeal, for to permit him to do soould not onl- be unfair to the other part- but it ould alsobe o6ensive to the basi" rules of fair pla-, Busti"e and duepro"ess.N15O #n- member of the 8ar, even if not too s"hooledin the art of liti+ation, ould easil- dis"ern that #daaUs"omplaint is no doubt a suit for dama+es for mali"iousprose"ution a+ainst the herein petitioners. nfortunatel-,hoever, his "omplaint Fled ith the trial "ourt su6ers from

55

Torts 071514





















8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

a fatal inFrmit- %% that of failure to state a "ause of a"tion %%and should have been dismissed ri+ht from the start. 9eshall sho h-.

The term malicious prosecution has been deFned invarious a-s. n #meri"an Burisdi"tion, it is deFned as

V*ne be+un in mali"e ithout probable "ause to believe the"har+es "an be sustained :?usta"e v . !e"hter, 2 Cal. #pp.2d. 70$,) '. 2d. 525;. nstituted ith intention of inBurin+defendant and ithout probable "ause, and hi"hterminates in favor of the person prose"uted. or this inBur-an a"tion on the "ase lies, "alled the a"tion of mali"iousprose"ution :Ji"ks v . 8rantle-, 2 S.?. 45, 102 &a. 2$4G?++ett v . #llen, $ (.9. 0), 11 9is. $25;.W N1$O

n 'hilippine Burisdi"tion, it has been deFned as

V#n a"tion for dama+es brou+ht b- one a+ainst hom a"riminal prose"ution, "ivil suit, or other le+al pro"eedin+ hasbeen instituted mali"iousl- and ithout probable "ause,after the termination of su"h prose"ution, suit, or otherpro"eedin+ in favor of the defendant therein. The +ist of thea"tion is the puttin+ of le+al pro"ess in for"e, re+ularl-, forthe mere purpose of ve<ation or inBur- :Cabasaan v. #nota,141$%R, (ovember 1, 15$;.WN17O

The statutor- basis for a "ivil a"tion for dama+es formali"ious prose"ution are found in the provisions of the (e

Civil Code on Juman Relations and on dama+es parti"ularl-#rti"les 1, 20, 21, 2$, 2, )2, )), )5, 2217 and 221 :;.N1O To "onstitute mali"ious prose"ution, hoever, there mustbe proof that the prose"ution as prompted b- a sinisterdesi+n to ve< and humiliate a person, and that it asinitiated deliberatel- b- the defendant knoin+ that his"har+es ere false and +roundless. Con"ededl-, the merea"t of submittin+ a "ase to the authorities for prose"utiondoes not make one liable for mali"ious prose"ution. N1O Thus,in order for a mali"ious prose"ution suit to prosper, the

plainti6 must prove three :); elements :1; the fa"t of theprose"ution and the further fa"t that the defendant ashimself the prose"utor and that the a"tion Fnall- terminatedith an a"uittalG :2; that in brin+in+ the a"tion, theprose"utor a"ted ithout probable "auseG and :); that theprose"utor as a"tuated or impelled b- le+al mali"e, that is

b- improper or sinister motive.N20O #ll these reuisites must"on"ur.

3ud+in+ from the fa"e of the "omplaint itself Fled b-#daa a+ainst the herein petitioners, none of the fore+oin+reuisites have been alle+ed therein, thus renderin+ the"omplaint dismissible on the +round of failure to state a"ause of a"tion under Se"tion 1 :+;, Rule 1$ of the RevisedRules of Court.

There is nothin+ in the re"ords hi"h shos, and the"omplaint does not alle+e, that Criminal Case (o. /%0%1155, Fled b- the petitioners a+ainst respondent #daa forRebellion ith Aurder and rustrated Aurder, has beenFnall- terminated and therein a""used #daa a"uitted of the "har+e. (ot even #daa himself, thru "ounsel, makesan- positive asseveration on this aspe"t that ould establishhis a"uittal. nsofar as Criminal Case (o. /%0%1155 is"on"erned, hat appears "lear from the re"ords onl- is thatrespondent has been dis"har+ed on a rit of habeas "orpusand +ranted bail.N21O This is not, hoever, "onsidered thetermination of the a"tion "ontemplated under 'hilippine Burisdi"tion to arrant the institution of a mali"iousprose"ution suit a+ainst those responsible for the Flin+ of the informaion a+ainst him.

The "omplaint likeise does not make an- alle+ationthat the prose"ution a"ted ithout probable "ause in Flin+the "riminal information dated #pril 1, 10 for rebellionith murder and frustrated murder. ?lementaril- deFned,probable "ause is the e<isten"e of su"h fa"ts and"ir"umstan"es as ould e<"ite the belief, in a reasonablemind, a"tin+ on the fa"ts ithin the knoled+e of the

5$

Torts 071514















8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

prose"utor, that the person "har+ed as +uilt- of the "rimefor hi"h he as prose"uted. t is ell%settled that one"annot be held liable for mali"iousl- institutin+ a prose"utionhere one has a"ted ith probable "ause. ?lseise stated,a suit for mali"ious prose"ution ill lie onl- in "ases here ale+al prose"ution has been "arried on ithout probable

"ause. The reason for this rule is that it ould be a ver-+reat dis"oura+ement to publi" Busti"e, if prose"utors, hohad tolerable +round of suspi"ion, ere liable to be sued atla hen their indi"tment mis"arried. N22O

n the "ase under "onsideration, the de"ision of theSpe"ial Team of 'rose"utors to Fle the information forrebellion ith murder and frustrated murder a+ainstrespondent #daa, amon+ others, "annot be dismissed asthe mere produ"t of him or "apri"e on the part of theprose"utors ho "ondu"ted the preliminar-investi+ation. Said de"ision as full- BustiFed in an ei+hteen

:1;%pa+e Resolution dated #pril 17, 10.N2)O 9hile it is truethat the petitioners ere full- aare of the prevailin+ Burispruden"e enun"iated inPeople v. DernandeF,N24O hi"hpros"ribes the "omple<in+ of murder and other "ommon"rimes ith rebellion, petitioners ere of the honest"onvi"tion that the Jernande Case "an be di6erentiatedfrom the present "ase. The petitioners thus ar+ued

V*f "ourse e are aare of the rulin+ in 'eople vs.Jernande, 'hil. 515, hi"h held that "ommon "rimeslike murder, arson, et". are absorbed b- rebellion. Joever,the Jernande "ase is di6erent from the present "ase beforeus. n the Jernande "ase, the "ommon "rimes of murder,arson, et". ere found b- the Fs"al to have been "ommittedas a ne"essar- means to "ommit rebellion, or in furtheran"ethereof. Thus, the Fs"al Fled an information for rebellionalle+in+ those "ommon "rimes as a ne"essar- means of "ommittin+ the o6ense "har+ed under the se"ond part of #rti"le 4, R'C.

9e, hoever, Fnd no o""asion to appl- the Jernande rulin+sin"e as intimated above, the "rimes of murder andfrustrated murder in this "ase ere absolutel- unne"essar-to "ommit rebellion althou+h the- ere the natural"onseuen"es of the unlaful bombin+. Jen"e, theappli"able provision is the Frst part of #rti"le 4 of the

R'C.WN25O

9hile the Supreme Court in the "ase of ?nrile v. Salaar,N2$O addressin+ the issue of hether or not the Jernandedo"trine is still +ood la, in a 10%) vote, did not sustain theposition espoused b- the herein petitioners on thematter, three Busti"esN27O felt the need to re%stud- theJernande rulin+ in li+ht of present%da- developments,amon+ hom as then Chief 3usti"e Aar"elo ernan horote a dissentin+ opinion in this ise

V am "onstrained to rite this separate opinion on hatseems to be a ri+id adheren"e to the 15$ rulin+ of theCourt. The numerous "hallen+es to the do"trine enun"iatedin the "ase of People vs. DernandeF , 'hil. 515 :15$;,should at on"e demonstrate the need to redeFne theappli"abilit- of said do"trine so as to make it "onformableith a""epted and ell%settled prin"iples of "riminal la and Burispruden"e.

To m- mind, the Jernande do"trine should not beinterpreted as an all%embra"in+ authorit- for the rule that all"ommon "rimes "ommitted on the o""asion, or in

furtheran"e of, or in "onne"tion ith, rebellion are absorbedb- the latter. To that e<tent, "annot +o alon+ ith the vieof the maBorit- in the instant "ase that XJernande remainsbindin+ do"trine operatin+ to prohibit the "omple<in+ of rebellion ith another o6ense "ommitted on the o""asionthereof, either as a means ne"essar- to its "ommission or asan unintended e6e"t of an a"tivit- that "onstitutes rebellionU:p. , !e"ision;.

57

Torts 071514














8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

The Jernande do"trine has served the purpose for hi"h itas applied b- the Court in 15$ durin+ the "ommunist%inspired rebellion of the Juks. The "han+es in our so"iet- inthe span of )4 -ears sin"e then have far%rea"hin+ e6e"ts onthe all%embra"in+ appli"abilit- of the do"trine "onsiderin+the emer+en"e of alternative modes of seiin+ the poers of

the dul-%"onstituted &overnment not "ontemplated in#rti"les 1)4 and 1)5 of the Revised 'enal Code and their"onseuent e6e"ts on the lives of our people. The do"trineas +ood la then, but believe that there is a "ertainaspe"t of the Jernande do"trine that needs "lariF"ation.W N2O

#pparentl-, not even the Supreme Court then as of one mind in debunkin+ the theor- bein+ advan"ed b- thepetitioners in this "ase, some of hom ere also thepetitioners in the 4nrile "ase. (evertheless, e heldin 4nrile that the nformation Fled therein properl- "har+edan o6ense %% that of simple rebellion %% N2O and thereupon

ordered the remand of the "ase to the trial "ourt for theprose"ution of the named a""usedN)0O in the nformationtherein. olloin+ this lead, the nformation a+ainst #daain Criminmal Case (o. /%0%1155 as not uashed, butas instead treated likeise as "har+in+ the "rime of simplerebellion.

# doubtful or di>"ult uestion of la ma- be"ome thebasis of +ood faith and, in this re+ard, the la ala-sa""ords to publi" o>"ials the presumption of +ood faith andre+ularit- in the performan"e of o>"ial duties.N)1O #n- personho seeks to establish otherise has the burden of provin+bad faith or ill%motive. Jere, sin"e the petitioners ere of the honest "onvi"tion that there as probable "ause to holdrespondent #daa for trial for the "rime of rebellion ithmurder and frustrated murder, and sin"e #daa himself,throu+h "ounsel, did not alle+e in his "omplaint la"k of probable "ause, e Fnd that the petitioners "annot be heldliable for mali"ious prose"ution. (eedless to sa-, probable"ause as not antin+ in the institution of Criminal Case (o./%0%1155 a+ainst #daa.

#s to the reuirement that the prose"utor must beimpelled b- mali"e in brin+in+ the unfounded a"tion, su>"eit to state that the presen"e of probable "ause si+niFes, as ale+al "onseuen"e, the absen"e of mali"e.N)2O #t the risk of bein+ repetitious, it is evident in this "ase that petitionersere not motivated b- mali"ious intent or b- a sinister

desi+n to undul- harass private respondent, but onl- b- aell%founded belief that respondent #daa "an be held fortrial for the "rime alle+ed in the information.

#ll told, the "omplaint, dated 3ul- 11, 10, Fled b-#daa before 8ran"h 100 of the Re+ional Trial Court a+ainstthe petitioners does not alle+e fa"ts su>"ient to "onstitute a"ause of a"tion for mali"ious prose"ution. =a"k of "ause of a"tion, as a +round for a motion to dismiss under Se"tion 1:+;, Rule 1$ of the Revised Rules of Court, must appear onthe fa"e of the "omplaint itself, meanin+ that it must bedetermined from the alle+ations of the "omplaint and from

none other.N))O The inFrmit- of the "omplaint in this re+ard isonl- too obvious to have es"aped respondent Bud+eUsattention. 'ara+raph 14 of the "omplaint hi"h states

V< < < < << < < <

14. The mali"ious prose"ution, na- perse"ution, of plainti6 for a non%e<istent "rime had severel- inBured andbesmir"hed plainti6Us name and reputation and foreversti+matied his stature as a publi" F+ure, thereb- "ausin+

him e<treme ph-si"al su6erin+, serious an<iet-, mentalan+uish, moral sho"k and so"ial humiliation.WN)4O

is a mere "on"lusion of la and is not an averment oralle+ation of ultimate fa"ts. t does not, therefore, aid in an-ise the "omplaint in settin+ forth a valid "ause of a"tiona+ainst the petitioners.

t is orth- to note that this "ase as elevated to thepubli" respondent Court of #ppeals and no to this Court

5

Torts 071514















8/9/2019 torts 071514


Torts 071514

be"ause of respondent 3ud+e Aa"li%in+Us denial of petitionersU motion to dismiss the #daa "omplaint. Theordinar- pro"edure, as a +eneral rule, is that petitionersshould have Fled an anser, +o to trial, and if the de"ision isadverse, reiterate the issue on appeal. N)5O This +eneral rule,hoever, is subBe"t to "ertain e<"eptions, amon+ hi"h are,

if the "ourt den-in+ the motion to dismiss a"ts ithout or ine<"ess of Burisdi"tion or ith +rave abuse of dis"retion, inhi"h "ase certiorari under Rule $5 ma- be availed of. Thereason is that it ould be unfair to reuire the defendants:petitioners in this "ase; to under+o the ordeal and e<penseof trial under su"h "ir"umstan"es, be"ause the remed- of appeal then ould then not be plain and adeuate. N)$O 3ud+eAa"li%in+ "ommitted +rave abuse of dis"retion in den-in+petitionersU motion to dismiss the #daa "omplaint, andthus publi" respondent Court of #ppeals should have issuedthe rit of certiorari pra-ed for b- the petitioners andannulled the ebruar- , 11 and Aa- 14, 11 *rders of

respondent 3ud+e. t as +rievous error on the part of the"ourt a 6uo not to have done so. This has to be"orre"ted. Respondent #daaUs baseless a"tion "annot besustained for this ould unBustl- "ompel the petitioners to

needlessl- +o throu+h a protra"ted trial and thereb- undul-burden the "ourt ith one more futile and in"onseuential"ase.

:"EREFORE, the petition is &R#(T?!. TheResolutions of respondent Court of #ppeals dated 3anuar-

)1, 12 and September 2, 12 a>rmin+ the ebruar- ,11 and Aa- 14, 11 *rders of respondent 3ud+e &eor+eC. Aa"li%in+ are all hereb- (==?! #(! S?T#S!?. Respondent 3ud+e is !R?CT?! to take no furthera"tion on Civil Case (o. /%0%$07) e<"ept to !SASS thesame.

SO ORDERED.





torts 071514

Documents