0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
61 Ansichten11 Seiten
Based on the old adage or golden rule: "do not do unto others, what others don't do unto you" "act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith," "every person, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latte" "any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
Based on the old adage or golden rule: "do not do unto others, what others don't do unto you" "act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith," "every person, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latte" "any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
Based on the old adage or golden rule: "do not do unto others, what others don't do unto you" "act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith," "every person, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latte" "any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
It is the interaction or interrelation of one person to another person or persons and vice versa, in accordance with mores, habits, customs, and public policy not contrary to laws. It refers to the rules needed to govern the interrelationships of human beings in a society for the purpose of maintaining social order
It is based on the old adage or golden rule: Do not do unto others, what others dont do unto you, and the Latin maxim: Sic uture tu ut alterium non laedas (So use your property as not to injure others.
1. CATCH ALL PROVISIONS
WHAT ARE THE ARTICLES COVERED IN THE CATCH-ALL PROVISIONS ON HUMAN RELATIONS?
1. Article 19: Every must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
2. Article 20: Every person, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latte for the same.
3. Article 21: Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES/DISTINCTIONS OF THE THREE ARTICLES?
1. Article 19 declares a principle of law and Article 21 gives flesh to its provisions, while Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction; 2. There is a common element under Articles 19 and 21, that is, the act must be intentional, however, Article 20 does not distinguish, in that the act may be done either willfully or negligently; 3. Under any of the three articles, an act which causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages; 4. Under Article 21, the act is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy; in Article 21, the act is contrary to law. Under Article 21, the act is done willfully, in Article 20, the act is done either willfully or negligently.
A. ABUSE OF RIGHT (ARTICLE 19)
Article 19 is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights. The law recognizes the norms of human on all rights: that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed.
The article sets standards which may be observed not only in the exercise of ones rights but also in the performance of ones duties. These standards are: a) to act with justice, b) to give everyone his due; and c) to observe honesty and good faith.
Article 19 rejects the classical and traditional theory that he who uses a right injures no one.
A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.
Article 19 is intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law.
Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the regulation of human relations and for the maintenance of social order. It does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Articles 20 and 21 would be proper [(Globe Mackay vs/ CA, 176 SCRA 778 (1989).]
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF AN ABUSE OF RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19?
1. Exercise of a right which is objective and apparently legal; 2. Damage or injury to an interest not specifically protected by a legal precept; and 3. Immorality or anti-social character of the damage or injury manifested either subjectively, i.e., when the right is exercised with the intent to injure or simply without legal or legitimate purpose.
WHAT ARE THE EXTERNAL LIMITATIONS OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS?
1. Those in favor of third persons who acted in good faith; and 2. Those arising from the concurrence or conflict with the tight of others.
Exercise of right. The exercise of rights must be done within certain limits.
The limitations in the exercise of a right are classified into:
a. Intrinsic limitations that which emanate from the right itself, that is, from its nature and purpose. b. Extrinsic limitations which are the following:
3. Those derived from the nature of the right itself 4. Limitations arising from good faith; and 5. Limitations imposed by the economic and social ends for the right which require the holder of the right to exercise it in accordance with the end for which it was granted or created.
IN WHAT ARTICLES IS ACTING WITH JUSTICE AND GIVING ANOTHER HIS DUE ELABORATED?
1. Article 20 indemnification of another due to illegal acts 2. Article 21 indemnification due to immoral acts 3. Article 24 unfair competition 4. Article 22 unjust enrichment
IN WHAT ARTICLE IS OBSERVANCE OF HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH ELABORATED?
1. Article 26 respect for the personality and dignity of others 2. Article 25 restraint of due extravagance 3. Article 31 et seq. independent civil actions
B1. CONTRARY TO LAW (ARTICLE 20)
WHAT IS BEING PUNISHED UNDER ARTICLE 20?
This article punishes illegal acts whether done willfully or negligently. The article is broad enough to cover all legal (not moral) wrongs in violation of law, whether willfully or negligently. Thus, in the law of torts or quasi-delict Whoever by act or omission causes damages to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. (Article 2176) It embraces the Spanish-Philippine concept of quasi-delict which is based on negligence and the tort in Anglo- Amercian jurisprudence which is based on malice.
This article serves as a sanction to all violations of right which cause damage to another irrespective of whether the particular law that is violated provides for damages or not. The rule in Article 20 compliments the principle of abuse of rights enumerated in Article 19.
The conduct may be both a crime and a quasi- delict. Any person who willfully or negligently causes damage to another in his person, his property, or in any right shall be obliged to indemnify the latter. A felony may be committed by means of deceit or by means of fault or negligence (Article 3, Revised Penal Code). If the fault or negligence does not constitute a penal offense, the actor is liable only for quasi-delict under Article 2176. In either case, it is essential that the act is voluntary for the obligation to indemnify to arise.
B2. CONTRARY TO LAW (ARTICLE 21)
Article 21 seeks to remedy the countless gaps in the statutes, which leave so may victims of moral wrongs helpless, even though they have actually suffered material and moral injury.
Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF ACTS CONTRA BONUS?
1. There is an act which is legal; 2. But which is contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy; and 3. It is done with intent to injure
Under this article, damages are recoverable even though no positive law was violated.
Article 21 presupposes losses or injuries material or otherwise, which one may suffer as a result of the violation. Thus, the complaint must asks for damages.
EXAMPLES OF ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES:
1. Breach of promise to marry
As a general rule, breach of promise to marry by itself is not actionable. However, it becomes actionable if there are additional circumstances which make it fall within the purview of Articles 19, 20, 21 or 2176 of the Civil Code. In such cases, there is another act independent of the breach of promise to marry which gives rise to liability.
These include cases where:
1. If the breach of promise to marry is accompanied by a tortuous act
2. If the breach of promise to marry is accompanied by a quasi-contract as when on the strength of the promise to marry, money or property is given. An action will lie to recover such money or property
3. If the breach of promise to marry constitutes an abuse of right.
4. There was financial damage;
5. Social humiliation was caused to one of the parties; and
6. Where there was moral seduction
2. Seduction and sexual assault Seduction, by itself, without breach of promise to marry is an act which is contrary to morals, good custom and public policy. The defendant is liable if he employed deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of confidence in successfully having sexual intercourse with another.
The defendant would be liable for all forms of sexual assault. These include the crimes defined under the Revised Penal Code as rape, acts of lasciviousness and seduction.
3. Desertion by a spouse
A spouse has a legal obligation to live with his or her spouse. If a spouse does not perform his or her duty to the other, he may be held liable for damages for such omission because the same is contrary to law, morals and good customs.
4. Trespass and deprivation of property
Trespass to real property is a tort that is committed when a person unlawfully invades the real property of another. The Revised Penal Code punishes different forms of trespass. On the other hand, the Civil Code provides that damages may be awarded to the real owner if he suffered such damages because he was deprived of possession of his property by a possessor in bad faith or by a person who does not have any right whatsoever over the property. (Article 451) Anybody who builds, plants or sows on the land of another knowing full well that there is a defect in his title is liable for damages.
Liability for damages under the provisions of the revised Penal Code and the Civil Code requires intent or bad faith.
With respect to personal property, the commission of the crimes of theft or robbery is obviously trespass. In the field of tort, however, trespass extends to all cases where a person is deprived of his personal property even in the absence of criminal liability.
5. Disconnection of electricity or gas service
A usual form of deprivation of access to property is the unjustified disconnection of electricity service. The right to disconnect and deprive the customer of electricity should be exercised in accordance with law and rules.
6. Abortion and wrongful death
7. Illegal dismissal
The exercise of the right to terminate must be consistent with the general principles provided for under Articles 19 and 21. If there is non-compliance with the said articles, the employer may be held liable for damages.
8. Malicious prosecution
A tort action for malicious prosecution has been defined as An action for damages brought by one against another whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceedings has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit or proceeding in favor of the defendant therein.
The statutory bases of the action are not only Articles 19, 20 and 21 but also Articles 26, 32, 33 35, 2217 and 2219(8) of the Civil Code.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION?
a. The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor, b. That the action was finally terminated with an acquittal; c. That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; d. The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice.
IN ORDER FOR THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION SUIT TO PROSPER, WHAT MUST THE PLAINTIFF PROVE?
a. The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that the action finally terminated with an acquittal; b. That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and c. That the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice, that is by improper or sinister motive. (Lao v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 58 [1991]; Rehabilitation Finance Corporation v. Koh, 4 SCRA 535 [1962]; Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban, 32 Phil. 363 [1915])
The foregoing requisites are necessary safeguards to preserve a person's right to litigate which may otherwise be emasculated by the undue filing of malicious prosecution cases. Thus, as further held in the aforecited case of Buchanan v. Viuda. de Esteban, supra: "Malice is essential to the maintenance of an action for malicious prosecution and not merely to the recovery of exemplary damages. But malice alone does not make one liable for malicious prosecution, where probable cause is shown, even where it appears that the suit was brought for the mere purpose of vexing, harassing and injuring his adversary. In other words malice and want of probable cause must both exist in order to justify the action." (see also Rehabilitation Finance Corp. v. Koh, supra)
Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime (or in this case, the wrongdoing) for which he was prosecuted. (See Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban, supra).
The general rule is well settled that one cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted with probable cause. In other words, a suit will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause. (Id.)
9. Public humiliation
Example: slapping in public
Action In rem Verso and Liability Without Fault
Action in rem verso
Article 22: Every person who through an act or performance by another, or by any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just cause or legal ground, shall return the same to him
This article is designated as action in rem verso.
What are the requisites of action in rem verso?
a. One party must be enriched and the other made poorer; b. There must be a causal relation between the two; c. The enrichment must not be justifiable; d. There must be no other way to recover; and e. The indemnity can not extend the loss of enrichment whichever is less
C. Unjust Enrichment
Art. 22. Every person who through an act or performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.
Elements of Unjust Enrichment:
1. There must be enrichment on the part of the defendant.
2. There is a concomitant injury to the plaintiff.
3. There is no just cause or legal ground for the enrichment.
LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT
The concept of liability without fault is introduced in this article. It is based on equity.
D. Judicial Vigilance
Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
JURISPRUDENCE:
PLDT v. PLDT Union
PLDT hired a blind man to show the world its political correctness. After two years, PLDT terminated him on the ground that he was blind.
HELD: He was illegally dismissed. The court exercised judicial vigilance here in protecting the rights of the handicapped, under Article 24.
E. Thoughtless Extravagance
Art. 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.
F. Disrespect for Person
TORTS THAT INVOLVE THE RIGHT OF A PERSON TO DIGNITY, PRIVACY AND PEACE OF MIND
Article 26 Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace if mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and other similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of anothers residence; (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another; (3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPAL RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THIS ARTICLE?
a. right to personal dignity; b. right to personal security; c. right to family relations; d. right to social intercourse; e. right to privacy and f. right to peace of mind
WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THIS ARTICLE?
a. An action for damages b. An action for prevention c. Any other relief
A civil action may be instituted even if no crime is involved, and moral damages may be obtained
Scope:
a. Prying into the privacy of anothers residence includes by implication respect for anothers name, picture, or personality except insofar as is needed for publication of information and pictures of legitimate news value. b. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another includes alienation of the affection of the husband or the wife. c. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends includes gossiping, and reliance on hearsay. d. Vexing or humiliating includes criticism of ones health or features without justifiable legal cause.
G. Dereliction of Duty
TORTS COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS UNDER HUMAN RELATIONS
Article 27 Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR ACTION UNDER THIS ARTICLE?
a. That the defendant be a public official charged with the performance of official duties; b. That there be a violation of an official duty in favor of an individual; c. That there be willfulness or negligence in the violation of such official duty; d. That there be an injury to the individual
H. Unfair Competition
Article 28 Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination, or any other unjust, oppressive or high handed method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffer damage.
WHEN IS THERE UNFAIR COMPETITION?
Unfair competition consists in employing deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which any person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services to those of the one having established goodwill, or committing any acts calculated to produce such result.
WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION?
i. Agricultural enterprises ii. Commercial enterprises iii. Industrial enterprises iv. Labor
b. Examples
i. Strike prematurely declared ii. Strike for trivial, unjust or unreasonable cause iii. Strike carried out thru force, intimidation or other unlawful means iv. Strike in order to circumvent valid obligations entered into a collective bargaining contracts v. Cut-throat competition vi. The making of false statement in the course of trade to discredit the goods, business or services of another vii. The making of goods so as to deceive purchasers viii. Selling of goods above the maximum prices set by the state
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF UNFAIR COMPETITION?
1. That the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or dealer; 2. That the general appearance is shown in the (1) goods themselves, or in the (2) wrapping of their packages, or in the (3) device or words therein, or in (4) any other feature of their appearance; 3. That the offender offers to sell or sells those goods or gives other persons a chance or opportunity to do the same with a like purpose; 4. That there is actual intent to deceive the public or defraud a competition.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF A COMPLAINT FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION?
It is basically a suit for injunction and damages.
JURISPRUDENCE:
Habana v. Robles
HELD: Yes. Robles is guilty of copyright infringement. Infringement of copyright consists in doing by any person, without the consent of the owner of the copying, of anything, the sole right to do which is conferred by statute on said owner.
Said infringement is in fact a trespass on a private domain owned by the owner of the copyright. With regard to books and other literary works, the purpose of copywriting is to give protection to the intellectual product of an author. In such a case, copying alone is not what is prohibited the copying must produce an injurious effect.
In this case, even if Habanas book, or even a large portion of it, was not copied by Robles, if so much is taken that the value of the original work is substantially diminished, then Robles is indeed guilty of infringement. With regard to the injurious effect, the least Robles could have done was to acknowledge Habanas book as the source of the contested portions of her own book.
To allow another to copy the book without appropriate acknowledgment is injury enough, hence the requisite of injurious effect is complied with.
More Examples:
A owns a hospital named St. Peters located in a small town. B owns another hospital in the same town.
B puts up a funeral parlor across the street from St. Peters Hospital and names it St. Peters Funeral Parlor. Is this unfair competition under Article 28?
A: Yes. This is an unjust, oppressive, and highhanded method of competing with A.
The ad for a product claims that Our product is number one. Does this constitute unfair competition?
A: No.
The ad for a product claims that Our product is the only good product. Does this constitute unfair competition?
A: Yes.
I. Violation of Civil/Political Rights
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
1. Freedom of religion; 2. Freedom of speech; 3. Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication; 4. Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention; 5. Freedom of suffrage; 6. The right against deprivation of property without due process of law; 7. The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use; 8. The right to the equal protection of the laws; 9. The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; 10. The liberty of abode and of changing the same; 11. The privacy of communication and correspondence; 12. The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law; 13. The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances; 14. The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form; 15. The right of the accused against excessive bail; 16. The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf; 17. Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness; 18. Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and 19. Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief.
Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
NOTES:
If you will notice, the rights enumerated in Article 32 are the same as the rights protected under Article III of the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. Is Article 32 a surplussage then?
A: No. The Constitution protects citizens from violations of their civil rights by the State. Article 32 covers violations committed even by private individuals.
Moreover, Article 32 covers not only direct violations of civil rights, but also INDIRECT violations. For example, under Article 32, even a witness for the application of a search warrant who lies in his testimony may be liable for damages to the aggrieved party.
JURISPRUDENCE:
MHP Garments, Inc vs. CA
THEY ARE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages.
(9) The rights to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudged.
The very nature of Article 32 is that the wrong may be civil or criminal. It is not necessary therefore that there should be malice or bad faith. To make such a requisite would defeat the main purpose of Article 32 which is the effective protection of individual rights.
Public officials in the past have abused their powers on the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the performance of their duties.
Precisely, the object of the Article is to put an end to official abuse by plea of the good faith.
In the United States this remedy is in the nature of a tort.
VI. INTERFERENCE IN CONTRACTUAL RELATION
Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.
JURISPRUDENCE:
Daywalt v. La Corporacion
Article 1902 of the Civil Code declares that any person who by an act or omission, characterized by fault or negligence, causes damage to another shall be liable for the damage so done.
Ignoring so much of this article as relates to liability for negligence, we take the rule to be that a person is liable for damage done to another by any culpable act; and by "culpable act" we mean any act which is blameworthy when judged by accepted legal standards.
The idea thus expressed is undoubtedly broad enough to include any rational conception of liability for the tortious acts likely to be developed in any society.
The fact that the officials of defendant La Corporacion may have advised Endencia not to carry the contract into effect would not constitute actionable interference with such contract.
It may be added that when one considers the hardship that the ultimate performance of that contract entailed on the vendor, and the doubt in which the issue was involved to the extent that the decision of the Court of the First Instance was unfavorable to the plaintiff and the Supreme Court itself was divided the attitude of the defendant corporation, is not difficult to understand.
To our mind a fair conclusion on this feature of the case is that father Juan Labarga and his associates believed in good faith that the contract could not be enforced and that Teodorica would be wronged if it should be carried into effect. Any advice or assistance which they may have given was, therefore, prompted by no mean or improper motive. It is not, in our opinion, to be denied that Teodorica would have surrendered the documents of title and given possession of the land but for the influence and promptings of members of the defendants corporation.
But we do not credit the idea that they were in any degree influenced to the giving of such advice by the desire to secure to themselves the paltry privilege of grazing their cattle upon the land in question to the prejudice of the just rights of the plaintiff.
GILCHRIST v CUDDY
The only motive for the interference with the Gilchrist - Cuddy contract on the part of the appellants was a desire to make a profit by exhibiting the film in their theater.
There was no malice beyond this desire; but this fact does not relieve them of the legal liability for interfering with that contract and causing its breach.
It is, therefore, clear, that they are liable to Gilchrist for the damages caused by their acts.
The liability of the Espejo and Zaldriagga arises from unlawful acts and not from contractual obligations, as they were under no such obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist.
So that if the action of Gilchrist had been one for damages, it would be governed by chapter 2, title 16, book 4 of the Civil Code.
Article 1902 of that code provides that a person who, by act or omission, causes damages to another when there is fault or negligence, shall be obliged to repair the damage so done.
There is nothing in this article which requires as a condition precedent to the liability of a tort-feasor that he must know the identity of a person to whom he causes damages.
In fact, the chapter wherein this article is found clearly shows that no such knowledge is required in order that the injured party may recover for the damage suffered.
Interference in Contractual Relation
Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.
Elements of Interference in Contractual Relation:
1. Valid contract; 2. Outsider knows of the existence of the contract; 3. The third party induces one party to breach his obligation under the contract; 4. Damage.
Is malice an element of interference in contractual relation?
A: There are variances in opinion. Some cases say that it is not, while other cases say that it is (So Ping Bun v. CA).
So if youre the lawyer for the plaintiff, you should try to prove it anyway just to be sure.
What are the defenses available to the defendant?
(1) Business competition & the purpose is:
(i) furtherance of the business; & (ii) lawful means are used. Note that there is no intent to cause damage. (So Ping Bun v. CA)
(2) Honest advice made:
(i) in good faith and (ii) in performance of his duty as adviser
(3) Innocence of breaching party; Element of inducement lacking Cite Daywalt that the third party cannot be more liable than the party on whose behalf he intermeddles.
VII. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM CRIME (ROC)
A. Remedies
1. Civil Action with Criminal Action
RULE 111 - PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.
(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
2. Separate Civil Action
RULE 111, Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended. After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever state it may be found before judgment on the merits.
The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action.
In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witness presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the running period of prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled.
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
3. Independent Civil Action
WHAT IS THE BASIS OF TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS?
Article 31 When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the later.
WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 31?
This article refers to a civil action based not on the act or omission charged as a felony in a criminal case, but to one based on an obligation arising from other sources, such as law or contract (Example: Breach of contract of carriage. Reason: The civil action based on contractual liability of a common carrier is distinct from the criminal action instituted against the carrier or its employee based on the latters negligence).
Meaning of independent civil actions An independent civil action is one that is brought distinctly and separately from a criminal case allowed for considerations of public policy, because the proof needed for civil cases is less than that required for criminal cases; but with the injunction in general that success in financially recovering in one case should prevent a recovery of damages in the other.
Note that the bringing of the independent civil action is permissive, not compulsory
WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES OF INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS?
Article 21 Acts contra bonus mores
Article 32 breach of constitutional and other rights
Article 33 Defamation, fraud, physical injuries
Article 34 Refusal or failure of city or municipal police to give protection
Article 2177 Quasi-delict
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL IN THE CIVIL CASE?
The dismissal of the civil action cannot constitute a bar to the criminal suit for the two actins are entirely distinct from each other, and may therefore be litigated independently.
PROSECUTION OF INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION [RULE 111, RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE]
What are the general rules in institution of criminal and civil actions?
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless :
(1) the offended party waives the civil action, (2) reserves the right to institute it separately or (3) institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
[The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. Section 1, Rule 111]
When the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation if the criminal and civil action.
After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. [Section 2, Ibid.]
WHAT ARE THE RULES ON INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS?
In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. [Section 3, Ibid.]
The independent civil actions contemplated in the present Rule 111 include quasi-delicts provided for in Article 2176, in addition to Articles 32, 33 and 34. It is necessary, however, that the civil liability under the said articles arise from the same act or omission of the accused. Further, a reservation of the right to institute these separate actions are impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the former are waived or filed ahead of the criminal action.
Where an independent civil action is permitted, the result of the criminal action, whether of acquittal or conviction is entirely irrelevant to the civil action. Thus under Article 31 of the Civil Code, the civil action may proceed independently of the criminal action regardless of the result of the latter.
Prior to the case of Roa vs. De la Cruz (101 Phil. 8), it was held that where the law authorizes a separate and independent civil action, there was no need for making a reservation, however, in subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has decided that reservation is needed because of the specific provision of Section 3, Rule 111 requiring such reservation to be made even where the law provides for independent civil actions.
What are the kinds of independent civil actions?
a. Article 21 [Supra]
b. Article 32 Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: x x x x
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendants act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution, and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral and exemplary damages.
Where a public officer is charged with violation of any of the basic rights of an individual provided for in this article, it is deemed that the action is against him in his private capacity and not a suit against the state which requires its consent.
c. Article 33 In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the civil action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
This article speaks of independent civil action in cases of:
defamation, libel or slander or intriguing against honor fraud, including estafa and swindling, and physical injuries, including attempted and frustrated homicide so long as there was injury.
d. Article 34 When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefore. The civil action recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.
The liability of the city or municipality being subsidiary can only be enforced when the guilty officer is insolvent. However, it can not be avoided by proving that the city or municipality has exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its policemen. This defense, allowed under Article 2180, in favor of employers for the fault or negligence of their employees, is available only to private employers; it would be available to the city or municipality if the function involved is a corporate function, but not when, as contemplated by the present article, it is a governmental function.
e. Article 2177 Responsibility for fault or negligence under Article 2176 is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising form negligence under the penal code. But the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
B. EFFECTS:
1. Civil Action After Acquittal In a Criminal Case
Article 29 When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.
WHAT ARE THE REASONS OF THE PROVISION IN ALLOWING THE FILING OF A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES EVEN THOUGH THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN ACQUITTED ON REASONABLE DOUBT?
b. The reason is found in Article 2177 which states that responsibility for fault or negligence is entirely separate and distinct form the civil liability arising form negligence under the penal code but the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
c. Also, under the Revised Penal Code, a person criminally liable is also civilly liable (Article 100). The two liabilities are separate and distinct form each other; the criminal aspect affects social order; the civil, private rights. One is for the punishment or correction of the offender, while the other is for reparation of damages suffered by the aggrieved party.
WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES WHERE NO CIVIL ACTION MAY BE INSTITUTED?
(a) When the accused is acquitted on the ground that he did not commit the act, or (b) That no crime was committed, or (c) Because he is justified or exempt from criminal liability,
Reason: Because the acquittal on these grounds constitutes res adjudication.
When such civil action is instituted, only a preponderance of evidence is required. However, to protect persons form harassment, the provision authorizes the defendant t file a motion in court requiring the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
Note that Article 29 does no speak of an independent civil action.
Institution of Civil Action for Damages Arising out of a Criminal Offense before a Criminal Action is Instituted for the Criminal Offense
Article 30 When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.
If however, a criminal action is instituted while the civil action is pending, the civil action will be suspended until final judgment in the criminal case has been rendered.
As in Article 29, this article does not speak of an independent civil action.
e. Torts with Independent Civil Actions.
2. Extinction of Civil Liability:
Rule 111, Sec 2: The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
C. PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS:
NCC, Art. 36. Pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which the Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code.
RULE 111, Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.
A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation.
When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests.
RULE 111, Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question.
The elements of a prejudicial questions are:
(a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. D. SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY
RPC, Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments.
In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
RPC, Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.
The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
JURISPRUDENCE:
Carpio v. Doroja
ISSUE: WON the subsidiary liability of the owner- operator may be enforced in the same criminal proceeding against the driver where the award was given, or in a separate civil action.
HELD:
The subsidiary liability in Art. 103 should be distinguished from the primary liability of employers, which is quasi- delictual in character as provided in Art. 2180 of the New Civil Code.
Under Art. 103, the liability emanated from a delict. On the other hand, the liability under Art. 2180 is founded on culpa-aquiliana.
The present case is neither an action for culpa-contractual nor for culpa-aquiliana. This is basically an action to enforce the civil liability arising from crime under Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code. In no case can this be regarded as a civil action for the primary liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of the New Civil Code, i.e., action for culpa-aquiliana.
In order that an employer may be held subsidiarily liable for the employee's civil liability in the criminal action, it should be shown (1) that the employer, etc. is engaged in any kind of industry, (2) that the employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties and (3) that he is insolvent (Basa Marketing Corp. v. Bolinao, 117 SCRA 156).
The subsidiary liability of the employer, however, arises only after conviction of the employee in the criminal action.
All these requisites are present, the employer becomes ipso facto subsidiarily liable upon the employee's conviction and upon proof of the latter's insolvency.
Needless to say, the case at bar satisfies all these requirements.
ADDITIONAL INPUTS:
I. Interference in Contractual Relation
Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.
Elements of Interference in Contractual Relation:
1. Valid contract; 2. Outsider knows of the existence of the contract; 3. The third party induces one party to breach his obligation under the contract; 4. Damage.
Is malice an element of interference in contractual relation?
A: There are variances in opinion. Some cases say that it is not, while other cases say that it is (So Ping Bun v. CA).
So if youre the lawyer for the plaintiff, you should try to prove it anyway just to be sure.
What are the defenses available to the defendant?
(1) Business competition & the purpose is:
(i) furtherance of the business; & (ii) lawful means are used. Note that there is no intent to cause damage. (So Ping Bun v. CA)
(2) Honest advice made:
(i) in good faith and (ii) in performance of his duty as adviser
(3) Innocence of breaching party; Element of inducement lacking Cite Daywalt that the third party cannot be more liable than the party on whose behalf he intermeddles.
II. Remedies
a. Civil Action with Criminal Action
Clarification of this rule:
This rule on civil actions instituted with the criminal action has been amended several times, hence the conflicting jurisprudence.
Under the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the civil liability arising from crime is deemed instituted and not merely impliedly instituted with the institution of the criminal action, unless:
1. the offended party waives the civil action, 2. reserves the right to institute it separately, or 3. institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
But take note that the civil action that is deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the one for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged, and no other civil action.
All decisions to the contrary are no longer controlling.
What are the independent civil actions?
A: The independent civil actions are those under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176. These are NOT deemed instituted with the criminal action or considered as waived even if there is no reservation.
The need for reservation applies only to the civil liability arising from the offense charged. Can an employer be held civilly liable for quasi delict in a criminal action for reckless imprudence filed against his employee?
A: No. Quasi delict under Article 2176 is not deemed instituted with the criminal action. If at all, the only civil liability of the employer in the criminal action would be his subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code.
What is the difference between separate civil action under Section 2 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court and an independent civil action?
A: The independent civil actions are those under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code. These are not deemed instituted with the criminal action even if there is no reservation made by the plaintiff.
The separate civil action under Section 2 of Rule 111 refers to an action to recover civil liability arising from the crime.
This is deemed instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives it, makes a reservation, or institutes it prior to the institution of the criminal action.
Note that this should refer to the civil liability arising from the offense, and not to any other civil action which may be connected to the offense but does not necessarily arise from the crime (ex: civil case for legal separation in connection with a case for bigamy).
b. Separate Civil Action
Summary of this Rule:
1. This rule contemplates a situation where the offended party files a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from the offense. This is a departure from the general rule in Section 1 that the civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action.
2. If the criminal action has bee commenced, and the offended party makes a reservation to separately file the civil action arising therefrom, he cannot institute the civil action until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action.
3. If the separate civil action has already been instituted prior to the filing of the criminal action, upon filing of the criminal action, the civil action shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action.
4. In case the criminal action is instituted after the civil action, the two actions may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action. It will be tried and decided jointly by the court trying the criminal action.
5. The only civil action that is deemed suspended is the civil action arising from the offense charged and not other civil actions that may be related to but do not arise from the offense. A civil action may not be suspended under Rule 111 where the action is not to enforce civil liability from the crime charged.
6. As a general rule, there can only be consolidation of the criminal and civil actions if the civil action is for recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense. However, under certain exceptional circumstances, there can still be consolidation of the criminal and civil actions even if the civil action is not for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense (ex: civil action based on contract).
The requisites for consolidation in these cases are:
a. the actions arise from the same act, event, or transaction;
b. they involve the same or like issues;
c. they depend largely or substantially on the same evidence
d. the court must have jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated; and
e. a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.
7. The period of prescription of the civil action arising from a crime that has not been reserved or that was filed ahead of the criminal action and was subsequently suspended shall not run while the criminal action is pending.
III. Prejudicial Question
What is a prejudicial question?
A prejudicial question is one based on a fact separate and distinct from the crime but is so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Elements:
1. the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and
2. the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
Take note that the new rule is that the civil action must have been previously instituted in order to constitute a prejudicial question (Torres v. Garchitorena).
IV. Subsidiary Liability
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments.
In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods.
No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.
The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
Requisites of subsidiary civil liability of the employer, teacher, corporation, etc:
(a) the existence of an employer-employee relationship;
(b) that the employer is engaged in some kind of industry;
(c) that the employee is adjudged guilty of the wrongful act and found to have committed the offense in the discharge of his duties (not necessarily any offense he commits "while" in the discharge of such duties); and