NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM, petitioners, vs. ROBERTO REYES, a..a. !

AMAY BISAYA",
respondent
G.R. No. #$%&$'
(e)r*ar+ &,, &--$
Facts:
This is a petition for review on certiorari regarding the reversing decision of the Court of
Appeals in the decision of the Trial Court and thus, making the petitioners liable for damages through the
abusive conduct of petitioner Lim, imposing upon them P2, as e!emplar" damages, P2, as moral
damages, and P#, as attorne"$s fees%
Plaintiff &oberto &e"es 'Ama" (isa"a) was having coffee at the *ikko +otel lobb" on
,ctober #-, #../ at around si! in the morning when 0r% 1ioleta Filart, a long2time friend, approached him and
invited him to a part" at the penthouse where the hotel$s former manager$s birthda" was being celebrated% +e
consented and carried the latter$s present% At the part", when he was helping himself at the buffet table, &ub"
Lim, one of the petitioners, approached him and asked him to leave in a loud voice enough to be heard b" those
around the buffet table% Then, a 3akati policeman accompanied the embarrassed Ama" (isa"a in leaving the
penthouse%
&ub" Lim accepted the fact that she asked 3r% &e"es to leave but not in the manner he
claimed% 4he said she politel" asked 3r% &e"es to finish his food and leave the part" as the celebrant wants the
part" to be intimate, and that he was not invited% ,n the other hand, 0r% Filart denied Ama" (isa"a$s claim that
she invited him to the part"%
5ssue:
6hether or not petitioner Lim$s conduct was abusive enough to make the petitioners liable
for damages caused to plaintiff%
+eld:
*o% The 4upreme Court ruled that an" damage which 3r% &e"es might have suffered
through 3s% Lim$s e!ercise of a legitimate right done within the bounds of propriet" and good faith, must be his
to bear alone%
The plaintiff failed in proving the ill2motive of the petitioners% 5t was from his confession
that when 3s% Lim approached him, the" were ver" close that the" nearl" kissed each other% Considering the
closeness of defendant Lim to plaintiff when she re7uested the latter to leave the part", it is apparent that the
re7uest was meant to be heard b" him onl" and there could have been no intention on her part to cause him
embarrassment% 5t was plaintiff$s reaction to the re7uest that must have made the other guests aware of what
transpired between them% +ad plaintiff simpl" left the part" as re7uested, there was no need for the police to
take him out% Therefore, we find the petitioners not guilt" of violating Articles #. and 2# of the Civil Code%
6+8&8F,&8, premises considered, the petition filed b" &ub" Lim and *ikko +otel 3anila
9arden is 9&A*T80% The 0ecision of the Court of Appeals dated 2: *ovember 2# and its &esolution dated .
;ul" 22 are hereb" &818&480 and 48T A4508% The 0ecision of the &egional Trial Court of <ue=on Cit", (ranch
#/, dated 2: April #... is hereb" AFF5&380% *o costs%
4, ,&08&80%
Spo*ses ANTONIO and LORNA .UISUMBING, petitioners, vs. MANILA ELE/TRI/ /OM0ANY 1MERAL/O2,
respondent
G.R. No. #%&'%3
Apri4 3, &--&
Facts:
This is a petition for review filed b" petitioners regarding the Februar" #, 2 0ecision and the
April #, 2 &esolution of the Court of Appeals where the decision of the trial court is set aside, the complaint
against 38&ALC, is dismissed, and plaintiffs2appellees are ordered to pa" defendant2appellant the differential
billing of P#.-,--2% representing the value of used but unregistered electrical consumption%
4pouses Antonio and Lorna <uisumbing, plaintiffs2appellees in this case, are the owners of a house
and lot located at *o% ./ 9reenmeadows Avenue, <ue=on Cit" which the" bought from 3s% Carmina 4erapio
4antos% ,n 3arch -, #..>, around .am, defendant2appellant$s inspectors headed b" 8mmanuel C% ,rlina were
assigned to conduct a routine on the spot inspection of all single phase meters at the house owned b" the
spouses% The inspectors performed their standard operating procedure b" first asking permission from the
secretar" of the couple before the" proceed to the inspection of the house% Later, the inspectors found out that
there were few ?illegal$ markings on the meter which made defendant2appellant temporaril" disconnect
electrical services that will onl" be restored unless the couple will pa" P#@A, A@> representing the differential
bill% +owever, at around 2pm, the electric service was reconnected as instructed b" defendant2appellant$s
officer% Plaintiff2appellees filed a complaint for damages with a pra"er for the issuance of a writ of preliminar"
inBunction despite the immediate reconnection%
5ssue:
6hether or not the act of the defendant2appellant$s inspectors in immediatel" disconnecting the
electrical service of 38&ALC, constituted a violation of rights of the plaintiffs2appellees, making the respondent
liable to pa" damages to petitioner%
+eld:
Ces% &espondent had no legal right to immediatel" disconnect petitioners$ electrical suppl"
without observing the re7uisites of law which, in turn, are akin to due process% Public utilities have a clear dut"
to see to it that the" do not violate nor transgress the rights of the consumers% An" act on their part that
militates against the ordinar" norms of Bustice and fair pla" is considered an infraction that gives rise to an
action for damages% 4uch is the case at bar%
6+8&8F,&8, the Petition is hereb" PA&TLC 9&A*T80% The assailed CA 0ecision is 3,05F580 as
follows: petitioners are ,&08&80 to pa" respondent the billing differential of P#.-, -22%.:D while respondent is
ordered to pa" petitioners P#, as moral damages, P>, as e!emplar" damages, and P>, as
attorne"$s fees% *o pronouncement as to costs%
4, ,&08&80%
/E/ILIO 0E, ET AL., p4ainti55s6appe44ants, vs. AL(ONSO 0E, de5endant6appe44ee
$ S/RA &--
Ma+ 3-, #'7&
Facts:
This is an appeal brought before the Court of Appeals upon the decision of the trial court
dismissing the complaint of plaintiffs2appellants, who are the parents, brothers and sisters of Lolita, based on
their claim that defendant AlfonsoEEa married man who works as an agent of the La Perla Cigar and Cigarette
Factor", sta"ing in 9asan, 3arindu7ue, an adopted son of a Chinese named Pe (eco who is a collateral relative of
Lolita$s fatherEEdeliberatel" and in bad faith tried to win Lolita$s affection, causing moral damages to plaintiff%
(ecause of the fre7uenc" of his visits to Lolita$s famil" who has allowed free access because he
was a collateral relative and was considered as a member of her famil", the two eventuall" fell in love with each
other and conducted clandestine love affairs both in 9asan, and (oac where Lolita used to teach in a barrio
school% 6hen the rumors about their illicit affairs reached the knowledge of her parents, defendant was
forbidden from going to their house and even from seeing Lolita% Plaintiffs even filed deportation proceedings
against defendant who is a Chinese national% *evertheless, defendant continued his love affairs with Lolita until
she disappeared from the parental home on April #/, #.>@%
5ssue:
6hether or not defendant caused moral damages to plaintiff, when as a married man, he pursued
his love affair with Lolita%
+eld:
Ces% *o other conclusion can be drawn from this chain of events than that defendant not onl"
deliberatel", but through a clever strateg", succeeded in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the e!tent of
having illicit relations with her% The wrong he has caused her and her famil" is indeed immeasurable considering
the fact that he is a married man% 1eril", he has committed an inBur" to Lolita$s famil" contrar" to morals, good
customs and public polic" as contemplated in Article 2# of the new Civil Code%
6+8&8F,&8, the decision appealed from is reversed% 0efendant is hereb" sentenced to pa" the
plaintiffs the sum of P>,% as damages and P2,% as attorne"$s fees and e!penses of litigations% Costs
against appellee%
0ASTOR B. TEN/HA8E9, p4ainti556appe44ant, vs. 8I/ENTA (. ES/A:O, ET AL., de5endants6appe44ees
#$ S/RA #;'
Nove<)er &', #'7$
Facts:
,ut of their love affair, 1icenta 8scaFo and Pastor Tenchave= secretl" got married on 2/ Februar"
#./A before Catholic chaplain Lt% 3oises Lavares% Their marriage was dul" registered in the local civil registrar%
Later in their marriage, 1icenta$s parents, 3amerto and 3ena 8scaFo, found out of their secret marriageD
however, she continued living with her parents than eloping with her husband% Pastor went to 3anila, leaving his
wife in Cebu% 1icenta later went to ;imene=, 3isamis ,ccidental Gto escape from the scandal that her marriage
stirred in Cebu societ"%H ,n 2/ ;une #.>, she applied for a passport where it is indicated the she is GsingleH%
After approval of the application, she left for the Inited 4tates and there, on August #.>, filed a complaint for
divorce against Pastor on the ground of Ge!treme cruelt", entirel" mental in characterHD marriage was decreed
divorced as Gfinal and absoluteH in *evada on ,ctober #.>% 4he then sought papal dispensation for her marriage
to Tenchave=% 5n #.>/, 1icenta married an American and begotten children% 4he ac7uired American citi=enship in
#.>A% +erein petitioner filed a complaint against 1icenta 8scaFo and her parents, whom he alleged to have
influenced her from living with him%
5ssue:
6hether or not parents2defendants shall pa" petitioner for damages%
+eld:
*o% There is no evidence that the parents of 1icenta, out of improper motives, aided and abetted
her original suit for annulment, or her subse7uent divorceD she appears to have acted independentl", and being
of age, she was entitled to Budge what was best for her and ask that her decisions be respected% +er parents, in
so doing, certainl" cannot be charged with alienation of affections in the absence of malice or unworth"
motives, which have not been shown, good faith being alwa"s presumed until the contrar" is proved%
Plaintiff Tenchave=, in falsel" charging 1icentaJs aged parents with racial or social discrimination
and with having e!erted efforts and pressured her to seek annulment and divorce, un7uestionabl" caused them
unrest and an!iet", entitling them to recover damages% 6hile this suit ma" not have been impelled b" actual
malice, the charges were certainl" reckless in the face of the proven facts and circumstances% Court actions are
not established for parties to give vent to their preBudices or spleen%
6+8&8F,&8, the decision under appeal is hereb" modified as followsD
'#) AdBudging plaintiff2appellant Pastor Tenchave= entitled to a decree of legal separation from
defendant 1icenta F% 8scaFoD
'2) 4entencing defendant2appellee 1icenta 8scaFo to pa" plaintiff2appellant Tenchave= the
amount of P2>, for damages and attorne"sJ feesD
'-) 4entencing appellant Pastor Tenchave= to pa" the appellee, 3amerto 8scaFo and the estate of
his wife, the deceased 3ena 8scaFo, P>, b" wa" of damages and attorne"sJ fees%
*either part" to recover costs%
ST. LOUIS REALTY /OR0ORATION, petitioner, vs% /OURT O( A00EALS and /ONRADO =. ARAMIL, respondents
#33 S/RA #;'
Nove<)er #%, #',%
Facts:
This case is about the recover" of damages for a wrongful advertisement in the 0ecember #>,
#.:A and ;anuar" >, #.:. issue of the Sunday Times where 4t% Louis &ealt" Corporation misrepresented that the
house of 0octor Conrado ;% Aramil belonged to Arcadio 4% Arcadio% 3oreover, there was violation of AramilJs right
to privac"%
Trial court through ;udge Leuterio awarded PA, as actual damages, P2, as moral
damages and P2, as attorne"$s fees% +ad it not been a late action for publication of rectification and
apolog"EEwhich onl" took place #> April #.:. issue of Manila Times 0octor Aramil could have not suffered
mental anguish and his income would have not been reduced b" about P#, to P#,> a month% Petitioner
assailed the decision of the Appellate Court when it affirmed the trial court$s decision% Furthermore, the
corporation contends that the decision is contrar" to law and that the case was decided in a wa" not in
conformit" with the rulings of this Court and still continues to argue that the case is not covered b" article 2:%
5ssue:
6hether or not the case filed against 4t% Louis &ealt" Corporation is covered b" Article 2:
of the new Civil Code%
+eld:
Ces, this case is covered b" Article 2: of the Civil Code%
4t% Louis &ealt"Js emplo"ee was grossl" negligent in mi!ing up the Aramil and Arcadio
residences in a widel" circulated publication like the Sunday Times% Through that negligence, persons who know
the residence of 0octor Aramil, were confused b" the distorted, lingering impression that he was renting his
residence from Arcadio or that Arcadio had leased it from him% 8ither wa", his private life was mistakenl" and
unnecessaril" e!posed% +e suffered diminution of income and mental anguish%
6+8&8F,&8, the Budgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed% Costs against the petitioner%
4, ,&08&80%
LEONILO /. DONATO, petitioner, vs% HON. ARTEMON D. LUNA, 0RESIDING =UDGE, /OURT O( (IRST INSTAN/E
O( MANIIA, BRAN/H >>>II HON. =OSE (LAMINIANO, /ITY (IS/AL O( MANILA? 0A9 B. ABAYAN, respondents
#7- S/RA %%#
Apri4 #$, #',,
Facts:
This petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminar" inBunction was filed b"
petitioner when the Court denied his motion for reconsideration due to lack of merit%
Private respondent Pa= Aba"an filed an information for bigam" against petitioner Leonilo
0onato% 4he also filed with the ;uvenile and 0omestic &elations Court a civil action for declaration of nullit" of
marriage to petitioner because of a prior marriage of petitioner% 5n his answer petitioner claimed that his second
marriage was void because it was solemni=ed without a valid marriage license and that violence, intimation and
undue influence were emplo"ed b" Pa= to obtain his consent%
Prior to the date set for the trial of the criminal case, petitioner filed a motion to suspend
the proceedings of the case because the civil action raises a preBudicial 7uestion which must first be determined
before the criminal case can proceed%
5ssue:
6hether or not a criminal case for bigam" pending before the Court of First 5nstance of
3anila should be suspended in view of a civil case for annulment of marriage pending before the ;uvenile and
0omestic &elations Court on the ground that the latter constitutes a preBudicial 7uestion%
+eld:
The respondent Budge answered in the negative% The Court sustained him%
The re7uisites of a preBudicial 7uestion do not obtain in the case at bar% 5t must be noted
that the issue before the ;uvenile and 0omestic &elations Court touching upon the nullit" of the second marriage
is not determinative of petitioner 0onatoJs guilt or innocence in the crime of bigam"% Furthermore, it was
petitionerJs second wife, the herein private respondent Pa= (% Aba"an who filed the complaint for annulment of
the second marriage on the ground that her consent was obtained through deceit% Petitioner 0onato failed to
prove that his consent to the second marriage has been obtained b" the use of threats, force and intimidation%
6+8&8F,&8, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereb" 054354480 for lack of
merit% 6e make no pronouncement as to costs%
4, ,&08&80%
Art 19
GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP V. CA
G.R. NO. 81262 August 25, 1989
AC!"#
Respondent Restituto Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay in a dual capacity, as
a purchasing agent and administrative assistant to the engineering operations manager. In 19!,
globe Mackay discovered "ctitious purchases and other #raudulent transactions #or which it lost
several thousands o# pesos. Respondent was the one who discovered the anomalies and reported
them to his immediate superior $erraren and to petitioner %erbert &. %endry who was then the
'(ecutive )ice *resident and General Manager o# Globe Mackay.
+ day a#ter respondent Tobias made the report, petitioner %endry con#ronted him by stating
that he was the number one suspect and ordered him to take one week #orced leave, not to
communicate with the o,ce, to leave his table drawers open and to leave the o,ce keys. -hen
respondent Tobias returned to work a#ter the #orced leave, petitioner %endry went up to him and
called him a .crook/ and a .swindler./ Tobias was then ordered to take a lie detector test. +lso, he
was instructed to submit specimen o# his handwriting, signature, and initials #or e(amination by the
police investigators to determine his complicity in the anomalies.
Manila police investigators submitted a laboratory crime report clearing private respondent o#
participation in the anomalies. 0ot satis"ed with the police report, petitioners hired a private
investigator, 1ose $ernande2 who submitted a report "nding Tobias guilty. This report however
e(pressly stated that #urther investigation was still to be conducted.
*etitioner %endry issued a memorandum suspending Tobias #rom work preparatory to the
"ling o# criminal charges against him.
3ioscoro Tagle, Metro Manila *olice &hie# 3ocument '(aminer, a#ter investigating other
documents pertaining to the alleged anomalous transactions, submitted a report reiterating his
previous "nding that the handwritings, signatures, and initials appearing in the checks and other
documents were not those o# Tobias. Moreover, lie detector tests conducted on Tobias also yielded
negative results. 0otwithstanding the two police reports, petitioners "led with the &ity $iscal o#
Manila a complaint #or esta#a through #alsi"cation o# commercial documents, later amended to 4ust
esta#a. 5ubse6uently, "ve other criminal complaints were "led against Tobias. +ll o# the si( criminal
complaints were dismissed by the "scal.
Meanwhile, Tobias received a notice #rom petitioners that his employment has been
terminated. Tobias "led a complaint #or illegal dismissal which has been dismissed by the labor
arbiter. 7n appeal, the 0ational 8abor Relations &ommission reversed the labor arbiter9s decision.
5ecretary o# 8abor reinstated the labor arbiter9s decision. Tobias appealed the 5ecretary o# 8abor9s
order with the 7,ce o# the *resident. 3uring the pendency o# the appeal, petitioners and respondent
Tobias entered into a compromise agreement regarding the complaint #or illegal dismissal.
:nemployed, Tobias sought employment with the Republic Telephone &ompany ;R'T'8&7<.
%owever, petitioner %endry, without being asked by R'T'8&7, wrote a letter to the latter stating that
Tobias was dismissed by Globe Mackay due to dishonesty.
Respondent Tobias "led a civil case #or damages anchored on alleged unlaw#ul, malicious,
oppressive, and abusive acts o# petitioners. *etitioners contend that they could not be made liable
#or damages in the law#ul e(ercise o# their right to dismiss respondent. 7n the other side, respondent
contends that because o# petitioners9 abusive manner in dismissing him as well as #or the inhuman
treatment he got #rom them, the petitioner must indemni#y him #or the damage that he had su=ered.
I""$E#
-hether or not petitioners are liable #or damages to respondent in relation to +rticle 19 o# the
0ew &ivil &ode.
%ELD#
5upreme &ourt held that petitioners have indeed abused the right that they invoke, causing
damage to Tobias and #or which the respondent must be indemni"ed. $urthermore, +rticle 19 o# the
0ew &ivil &ode provides that, .'very person must, in the e(ercise o# his rights and in the
per#ormance o# his duties, act with 4ustice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
#aith./ This article, known to contain what is commonly re#erred to as the principle o# abuse o# rights,
sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the e(ercise o# one9s rights but also in the
per#ormance o# one9s duties. + right, though by itsel# legal because recogni2ed or granted by law as
such, may nevertheless become the source o# some illegality. -hen a right is e(ercised in a manner
which does not con#orm with the norms enshrined in +rticle 19 and results in damage to another, a
legal wrong is thereby committed #or which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.
:pon reporting #or work, Tobias was con#ronted by %endry who said that respondent Tobias
was a >crook9 and a >swindler9 to the company. &onsidering that the "rst report made by the police
investigators was yet to be submitted, the statement made by %endry was baseless. The imputation
o# guilt without basis and the pattern o# harassment during the investigations o# Tobias transgress
the standards o# human conduct set #orth in +rticle 19 o# the 0ew &ivil &ode. The &ourt has already
ruled that the right o# the employer to dismiss an employee should not be con#used with the manner
in which the right is e(ercised and the e=ect ?owing there#rom. I# the dismissal is done abusively,
then the employer is liable #or damages to the employee. :nder the circumstances o# this case, the
petitioners clearly #ailed to e(ercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias, giving the
latter the right to recover damages under +rticle 19 in relation to +rticle !1 o# the &ivil &ode.
N&''( %(t)* M+,&*+ G+r-), . Ru/0 L&1 2s. R)0)s
G.R. N(. 153259. )/ru+r0 28, 2445
+5ts#
Robeto Reyes known as .+may @isaya/ was seen in a hotel lobby by his #riend 3r. )ioleta
$ilart, who he identi"ed to have invited him to the party o# the hotel9s outgoing manager. %owever,
Ruby 8im, the coordinator o# the party asked him to leave since it is an e(clusive party and he is not
one o# those invited. Reyes did not leave the party as was instructed but created a scene thereby he
was escorted out the party by the policeman. %e sued the hotel and Ruby 8im #or damages.
Issu)#
-hether or not Ruby 8im acted abusively in asking Roberto Reyes to leave the party where he
was not invited by the celebrant thereo#A thereby, becoming liable under +rticles 19 and !1 o# the
&ivil &ode.
%)*-#
0o. In the absence o# any proo# o# motive on the part o# Ms. 8im to humiliate Mr. Reyes and
e(pose him to ridicule and shame, it is highly unlikely that she would shout at him #rom a very close
distance. Ms. 8im having been in the hotel business #or twenty years wherein being polite and
discreet are virtues to be emulated, the testimony o# Mr. Reyes that she acted to the contrary does
not inspire belie# and is indeed incredible. Thus, the lower court was correct in observing that B
&onsidering the closeness o# de#endant 8im to plainti= when the re6uest #or the latter to leave the
party was made such that they nearly kissed each other, the re6uest was meant to be heard by him
only and there could have been no intention on her part to cause embarrassment to him. +bsent
such intention and as the &ourt observed the conduct o# 8im o# asking Reyes to leave was in an
e(emplary manner, there can be no damages to be awarded. +ny damage su=ered by Reyes must be
borne by him alone. It was plainti=9s reaction to the re6uest that must have made the other guests
aware o# what transpired between them, had plainti= simply le#t the party as re6uestedA there was
no need #or the police to take him out. Ms. 8im, not having abused her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave
the party to which he was not invited, cannot be made liable to pay #or damages under +rticles 19
and !1o# the &ivil &ode. 0ecessarily, neither can her employer, %otel 0ikko, be held liable as its
liability springs #rom that o# its employee.
Art 24
R&*I vs. &+
1CD 5&R+ EF ;19GE<
$+&T5H
8oreto 3ionela alleges that the de#amatory words on the telegram sent to him by the operator
R&*I not only wounded his #eelings but also caused him undue embarrassment and a=ected
adversely his business as well because other people have come to know said de#amatory words. R&*I
claims, as its de#ense, that the additional words in Tagalog were not intended #or plainti= and were
included in the original telegram unintentionally. 3ionela "led #or damages and was granted by the
trial court and was a,rmed by the &ourt o# +ppeals the liability o# R&*I company employer. R&*I now
comes to the 5upreme &ourt alleging that the &+ erred in holding that R&*I should answer directly
and primarily #or the civil liability arising #rom the criminal action o# its employees.
I55:'H
Is R&*I directly and primarily liable to 3ionela #or damagesI
%'83H
Jes. The action #or damages was "led directly against R&*I not as an employer subsidiarily
liable under the provisions o# +rticle 11E1 o# the 0ew &ivil &ode in relation to article 1KD o# the
Revised *enal &ode. The cause o# action o# 3ionela is based on +rticles 19 and !K o# the 0ew &ivil
&ode as well as on petitioner9s breach o# contract thru the negligence o# its own employees. +s a
corporation, the petitioner can act only through its employees. %ence, the acts o# its employees in
receiving and transmitting messages are the acts o# R&*I. To hold that R&*I is not liable directly #or
the acts o# its employees in the pursuit o# R&*I9s business is to deprive the general public availing o#
the services o# R&*I o# an e=ective and ade6uate remedy. In most cases, negligence must be proved
in order that plainti= may recover. %owever, since negligence may be hard to substantiate in some
cases, we may apply the doctrine o# R'5 I*5+ 87L:IT:R ;the thing speaks #or itsel#<, by considering
the presence o# #acts or circumstances surrounding the in4ury.
LAMBER!O V. !ORRI6O", P)t&t&(,)r, 2s. !%E %ONORABLE CO$R! O APPEAL", R)s7(,-),t
G.R. 0o. 8MCKDDE 7ctober !C, 19F
$actsH
8amberto ). Torri4os bought a parcel o# land containing an area o# D9.9ECD hectares located in 5itio
&acuban, @arrio Gumatdang, *itogon, @enguet #rom -akat 3iamnuan and his wi#e. The petitioner
however sued 3iamnuan #or esta#a a#ter selling to one )ictor de Guia the same property, which the
petitioner has originally purchased. The accused was sentenced to an imprisonment o# D months and
to indemni#y the petitioner #or the damages. The petitioner "led a motion #or reconsideration which
led to the increase in the indemnity. 7n March , 19D, the accused "led a motion #or reconsideration
but was deniedA thus, he appealed to the &ourt o# +ppeals.
The accused died on +ugust F, 19D and #or this reason his counsel moved that the appeal be
dismissed arguing that the .death o# a convict e(tinguishes, not only the personal penalties, but also
the Npecuniary penaltiesO as long as the death occurs be#ore "nal 4udgment./ The &+ sustained the
motion. %ence, on $ebruary !K, 19F, the petitioner challenged the order o# the &ourt o# +ppeals be
reversed.
IssueH
-hether or not the accused is still liable under +rticle !K o# the &ivil &ode.
RulingH
Jes. The court ruled that the ac6uittal #rom the criminal liability o# the accused by death does not
e(tinguish his accountability #or his civil obligations. Thus, the petitioner is not precluded #rom
pursuing a civil action #or the in4uries. Moreover, the accused is liable under +rticle !K o# the &ivil
&ode, which states that .every person, contrary to law, will#ully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemni#y the latter #or the same/, since he deliberately sold again the property to
another person which has been previously sold to the petitioner, thereby causing damage to the
latter. .-here#ore, the challenged order dated $ebruary !K, 19F is hereby set aside, the appeal shall
proceed with respect to the issue o# civil liability o# the accused appellant./
Art 21
CECILIO PE, E!. AL. V". ALON"O PE
G.R. N(. L819:96
M+0 :4, 1962
AC!"#
&ecilio *e, the plainti= and #ather o# 8olita *e, "led a case against the de#endant, +l#onso *e, an
adopted son o# a &hinaman named *e @eco, a relative o# 8olita9s #ather. The de#endant was a
#re6uent visitor in the plainti=9s residence in Marindu6ue, and this was where he met 8olita.
8olita *e ;!C, single< and +l#onso *e9s ;married< #riendship grew into a clandestine love a=air where
the two would even meet in the town o# Gasan and in @oac. The parents #orbade them #rom seeing
each other, but the #orbidden love a=air persisted, through love letters sent to one another.
3eportation proceedings were even "led against the de#endant in the parents9 wish o# separating the
two.
In +pril 1C, 19F, while residing in FCM@ 'spaPa '(tension, Lue2on &ity, 8olita disappeared #rom the
#amily9s residence. The #amily #ound a note in her cabinet written in the de#endant9s handwriting
telling her o# their supposedly rende2vous. The two decided to elope and were not seen again.
I""$E#
-hether or not the de#endant, +l#onso *e, is liable #or damages under +rticle !1 o# the new &ivil
&ode.
%ELD#
+rticle !1 states, .+ny person who will#ully causes loss or in4ury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter #or the damage./
The de#endant is held liable to the damages he had caused the plainti=9s #amily. 3espite the #act that
he is a married man, he still pursued 8olita to the point o# making her #all in love with him. ;Indeed,
no other conclusion can be drawn #rom this chain o# events than that de#endant not only deliberately,
but through a clever strategy, succeeded in winning the a=ection and love o# 8olita to the e(tent o#
having illicit relations with her. The wrong he has caused her and her #amily is indeed immeasurable
considering the #act that he is a married man. )erily, he has committed an in4ury to 8olitaQs #amily in
a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy as contemplated in +rticle !1 o# the
new &ivil &ode./
AN!ONIA L. DE 6E"$", E! AL., 7*+&,t&<8+77)**+,t,
2s.
CE"AR "Y=$IA, -)>),-+,t8+77)**+,t
G.R. N(. L8:9114 N(2)1/)r 28, 19::
.
+5ts#
&esar 5y6uia, a !DMyear old man #rom a prominent #amily courted the cashier o# their barbershop,
+ntonia 3e 1esus then !K years old. Their intimate relationship resulted in the pregnancy o# +ntonia
and the baby was born on 1une 1, 19D1. Through out her pregnancy, &esar has been constantly
visiting her and later shouldered the e(penses o# her labor and hospitali2ation. $urther, &esar, on the
eve o# $ebruary 19D1 be#ore his departure #or &hina and 1apan he wrote a note #or the priest which
readH
Saturday, 1:30 p. m.
February 14, 1931
Rev. FATHER,
The baby due in June i mine and ! h"u#d #i$e %"r my name t" be &iven t" it.
'ESAR S()*!A
+#ter the labor, &esar took +ntonia and the baby and they all lived together #or a year as a #amily.
7ver the course o# time, as +ntonia showed signs o# second pregnancyA &esar deviated his attention
to her and married another woman. +lso, instead o# the baby boy being christened as &esar 5y6uia
1r. as planned, &esar arranged that the baby be christened Ismael 8oanco.
Issu)#
Given these #acts, +ntonia demanded #or the recovery o# the sum o# thirty thousand pesos as
damages resulting #orm a breach o# promise o# marriage, to compel him to recogni2e the two children
as natural children and to pay them the amount o# "ve hundred pesos per month. It was pondered
upon ;1< whether the letters written by &esar during +ntonia9s pregnancy proves acknowledgement
o# paternity and ;!< whether the breach o# promise to marry is actionable.
%)*-#
?1@ In the issue o# acknowledgement o# paternity, the plainti= has provided su,cient evidence in
the #orm o# documents ;letters< with regard to &esar9s recognition o# paternity and hence the
5upreme &ourt granted +ntonia9s appeal o# monetary support and acknowledgement o# only
their son.
?2@ $or the issue o# whether the breach o# promise to marry is actionable, the 5upreme &ourt
ruled that +ntonia shall not be given damages #or the breach o# promise to marry because #or
a promise to be actionable, +rticle !1 o# the &onstitution posed that there should be #raud,
deceit or abduction or rape. These elements were not evident in this case. %owever, +ntonia
will recover incurred e(penses pursuant to the subsection 19.!.! o# +rticle !1 o# the &ivil
&ode.
Art 22
CAR COOL PA&*&77&,)s, I,5. 2s. $"%IO R)+*t0 +,- D)2)*(71),t C(r7(r+t&(,
G.R. N(. 1:8488 6+,u+r0 2:, 2446
P(,),t)# 6ust&5) C+r7&(
$+&T5H
:5%I7 Realty alleges that &+R &778 leased the property #rom the #ormer owners, spouses
8ope2, since 19!. 7n 1une 1F, 199F, %ector 8ope2 wrote to &+R &778 in#orming the latter o# his
intention to sell the property. %ector 8ope2 gave &+R &778 the option to buy the property be#ore
o=ering it to prospective buyers. &+R &778 #ailed to respond to the o=er. Thus, on 1une !G, 199F,
%ector 8ope2 terminated the lease agreement and gave &+R &778 until +ugust D1, 199F to vacate
the property.
In a letter dated +ugust D1, 199F, :5%I7 Realty in#ormed &+R &778 that it had purchased the
property #rom the spouses 8ope2. &+R &778 continued to occupy the property despite :5%I7
Realty9s demand. This prompted :5%I7 Realty to "le a complaint #or e4ectment.
&+R &778, on the other hand, alleges that %ector 8ope2 agreed to renew the lease
agreement #or another two ;!< years covering the period #rom 1anuary 1, 199F to 3ecember 199E.
&+R &778 #urther claims that it had paid in advance to %ector 8ope2 the monthly rentals covering
the !Myear period. In this regard, CAR COOL +ss)rts tA+t t( +B+r- -+1+g)s t( $"%IO R)+*t0
B(u*- 5(,st&tut) u,Cust ),r&5A1),t +t tA) )D7),s) (> CAR COOL.
I55:'H
-hether or not to award damages by way o# rentals in #avor o# :5%I7 Realty would constitute
un4ust enrichment at the e(pense o# &+R &778.
%'83H
&ontrary to &+R &77895 allegations, the 5upreme &ourt held that the payment o# damages in
the #orm o# rentals #or the property does ,(t constitute un4ust enrichment. The court "nds that the
allegations o# the complainant ;:5%I7 Realty< are true.
Art&5*) 22 (> tA) C&2&* C(-) st+t)s tA+t )2)r0 7)rs(, BA( tAr(ugA +, +5t (>
7)r>(r1+,5) /0 +,(tA)r, (r +,0 (tA)r 1)+,s, +5Eu&r)s (r 5(1)s &,t( 7(ss)ss&(, (>
s(1)tA&,g +t tA) )D7),s) (> tA) *+tt)r B&tA(ut Cust (r *)g+* gr(u,-, sA+** r)tur, tA) s+1)
t( A&1.
The principle o# un4ust enrichment under the above stated article re6uires two ;!< conditions,
namelyH
1< That a person is bene"ted without a valid basis or 4usti"cation, and
!< That such bene"t is derived at another9s e(pense or damage.
:5%I7 Realty, as the new owner o# the property, has a right to physical possession o# the
property. 5ince &+R &778 deprived :5%I7 Realty o# its property, tA) *+tt)r A+s tA) *)g+* r&gAt t(
r)5)&2) s(1) +1(u,t +s r)+s(,+/*) 5(17),s+t&(, >(r CAR COOLFs (55u7+t&(, (> tA)
7r(7)rt0.
&+R &778 is ordered to pay the aggregate amount o# *19G,KKK as the rental #ee #or the use
o# property #rom 3ecember 19, 199F to 0ovember 1G, 199E ;the date when &+R &778 vacated the
property<.
Ag+7&t( B(,G(,, P*+&,t&<8A77)**)) 2s !A) "t+,-+r- O&* C(17+,0 (> N)B Y(r', )t +*., tA)
D)>),-+,t
!A) "t+,-+r- O&* C(17+,0 (> N)B Y(r', tA) A77)**+,t
+5ts#
7n the 19th o# 0ovember, 191!, the de#endant 5tandard 7il &ompany appealed to the &ourt
o# $irst Instance o# the *rovince o# &avite to recover the sum o# *!,1EK, with legal interest #rom the
month o# 3ecember, 19K9, and costs. 7n the month o# 0ovember 19K9 an e(ecution was issued in
#avor o# 5tandard 7il &ompany against +lipio 8ocso and the said writ o# e(ecution which involves
seven parcels o# land owned by +lipio 8ocso was placed in the hands o# 8eonardo 7sorio, sheri= o#
the *rovince o# &avite. 7n 3ecember !D, 19K9 the said property was sold at a public auction to the
plainti=Mappellee, +gapito @on2on #or *!,1EK. *rior to the sale o# the said property, a written notice
stating that the parcels o# land belong to $eli(, *ablo &uenca and others was given to the sheri=.
3isregarding said written notice the sale continued and the plainti= took possession o# said property.
The payment o# *!,1EK was duly given by the sheri= to Rincaid and %urd, attorneys o# 5tandard 7il
&ompany. 7n the month o# March 191K, $eli( &uenca and others commenced an action in the &ourt
o# $irst Instance o# the *rovince o# &avite to recover the said parcel o# land and on !9th o# March
191!, the 4udge ruled in #avor o# the said $eli( &uenca et al..
Issu)#
-hen the right, title, and interest, o# a 4udgment debtor to the possession o# property sold by
the sheri= are brought into 6uestion and it later develops that the 4udgment debtor had no right, title
or interest in the property sold, and there are no irregularities in the proceedings concerning the sale,
can the purchaser, upon being evicted, recover the purchase price #rom the 4udgment creditorI
%)*-#
The plainti= +gapito @on2on was not able to obtain #avorable 4udgment hence the plainti=
appealed to the court. In this 4urisdiction under the principle that one person may not enrich himsel#
at the e(pense o# another, a 4udgment creditor would not be permitted to retain the purchase price
o# land sold as the property o# the 4udgment debtor had no title to the land and that the purchaser
had been evicted there#rom. 0o claim was made either in the lower court or here that the de#endant,
in any way, participated in the alleged illegal sale o# the property sold under said e(ecution. There is
no claim made by any o# the parties that the purchaser was evicted #rom the property sold, in
conse6uence o# any irregularity in the proceedings concerning the sale o# the same. There is no claim
that there was any irregularity in the proceedings, #or which the de#endant was, in any way,
responsible. In #act, no charge o# any irregularity is made, e(cept the #act that the sheri= sold the
property o# one man #or the purpose o# paying the debt o# another.
Art 2:
A,&t+ !+, 2s. "t+,-+r- V+5uu1 O&* C(., )t +*.
G.R. N(. L83164 6u*0 29, 1952
+5ts#
5tandard )acuum 7il &o. ordered the delivery o# gasoline to the Rural Transit &ompany on May 1D,
19C9. :n#ortunately, the gasoline tankMtruck trailer used in the delivery accidentally caught "re.
1ulito 5to. 3omingo, the driver, with Igmidio Rico, moved the truck and abandoned it in the middle o#
the street resulting to the destruction o# buildings within the area. @oth 5to. 3omingo and Rico were
ac6uitted o# criminal charges because it cannot be proved that it was their negligence that started
the "re. +nita Tan, the plainti=, was one o# the owners o# the houses destroyed during the accident.
Tan "led a case against the two companies as well as the two employees involved #or the damages
she su=ered. %owever, the de#endants "led separate motions #or the dismissal o# the plainti=9s
allegation.
Issu)#
-hether or not the de#endants are liable #or the damages incurred by the plainti=.
%)*-#
The &ourt, based on +rticle !D o# the &ivil &ode o# the *hilippines, decided that Rural Transit
&ompany is with no doubt liable #or damages. -ith 5to. 3omingo moving the truck to avoid a greater
harm, it was the Rural Transit &ompany which bene"ted the most. The "re should have caused the
e(plosion o# the company9s gasoline deposit yet it was avoided. +nd under +rticle !D o# the &ivil
&ode, the de#endant is held liable as long as he gets bene"ted even i# the act or event that caused
damage is not his #ault, thus it applies to the company9s situation.
VICEN!E PEREH, plaintif 2s. E$GENIO POMAR, defendant
G.R. N(. L81299I N(2)1/)r 16, 194:
AC!"#
7n +ugust !, 19K!, )icente *ere2 "led a case against 'ugenio *omar #or the recovery o# due and
unpaid wage. *lainti= alleged that he rendered his service #rom 3ecember G, 19K1 up to May D1,
19K!, as an 'nglish interpreter #or the Tabacalera &ompany. %erein de#endant, an agent o# the said
company, was alleged to have paved the way #or *ere2 to be the company9s interpreter in various
meetings and con#erences where prominent business people and military authorities were present.
@eing assured by the de#endant o# the company9s generosity in compensation, plainti= held himsel#
ready to render service whenever needed on account o# his private business, a soap #actory, which
he later on abandoned #or the same reason. *lainti= portrayed a vital role in the company9s business
transactions, #or the employees o# the company do not understand the business language. The
company obtained large pro"tsA however plainti= did not receive any compensation. The de#endant
denied the plainti=9s allegations and alleged that there was no legal relation e(isting between him
and the plainti= because the latter9s services were spontaneous, voluntary and in its private capacity
as the de#endant9s ac6uaintance and not as the company9s agent.
I""$E#
-hether or not the plainti= is entitled to compensation despite the #act that there was no written
contract agreed upon by the parties.
%ELD#
The &ourt decided in #avor o# the plainti=, ordering the de#endant to pay !KK Me(ican *esos less the
FK *esos personal debt o# the plainti= to the de#endant. -hether the plainti=Qs services were
solicited or o=ered to the de#endant #or his assistance, inasmuch as these services were accepted
and made use o# by the latter, we must consider that there was a tacit and mutual consent as to the
rendition o# the services. This gives rise to the bilateral obligation o# the parties to render service and
payment to each other. I# it is a #act su,ciently proven that the de#endant, *omar, on various
occasions consented to accept an interpreterQs services, rendered in his behal# and not gratuitously,
it is but 4ust that he should pay a reasonable remuneration there#or, because it is a wellMknown
principle o# law that no one should be permitted to enrich himsel# to the damage o# another, as
provided #or under +rticle !D o# the &ivil &ode o# the *hilippines.
Art 23
R(,g+2&**+ 2s. C(urt (> A77)+*s
G.R. N(. 8:993. August 19, 1998
P(,),t)# 6ust&5) =u&su1/&,g
+5ts# The complainants in this case were Mercedes de la &ru2, age EK, and $lorencia de la &ru2,
age 1. @oth are spinsters, uneducated in 'nglish, but knows how to read and write in Tagalog. They
earned their livelihood as embroiderers and dressmakers. @oth were living in house constructed in a
parcel o# land consisting o# 1D1 s6uare meters.
7n May, 19E, the complainants borrowed *!, KKK #rom 3olores Rongavilla, their niece, #or the
purpose o# having their dilapidated roo# repaired. +#ter a month, one o# the de#endants, visited her
aunts and asked them to sign a document which was written in 'nglish. -hen the complainants
asked, in Tagalog, what the document was all about, the de#endant replied that it was 4ust a
document admitting their debt o# *!, KKK. %ence the complainants signed it. +#ter #our years, 3olores
Rongavilla asked the complainants to vacate the land claiming that she and her husband were
already the owners o# the land. It was only then that the sisters learned that what they have signed
#our years ago was a deed o# sale o# their property to the de#endants. Then the complainants "led a
complaint to declare the sale as null and void.
Issu)# -hether or not the &ourt should declare that the deed o# sale to be void, due to the
#raudulent nature in which the signature to the deed was secured.
%)*-# Jes. The &ourt is o# the opinion and so holds that there was #raud e(ercised by the de#endants
in securing the signature to the deed o# sale. :ndoubtedly the deed o# sale is simulated, "ctitious
and void. The &ourt also declared that . public policy is also well served in de#ending the rights o# the
aged to legal protection, including their right to property that is their home, as against #raud,
chicanery and abuse o# trust and con"dence by those who owed them respect and candor.
V+*),Gu)*+ 2s. C(urt (> A77)+*s
G.R. N(. L856169
AC!"#
&arlos Telosa who is a "sherman and #armer with very limited education ac6uired a loan #rom
the Rural @ank o# 8ucena. In e(change #or the granted loan, his property located at @o. +mugeria,
Malunay, Lue2on, with an area o# "#ty thousand s6uare metres was mortgaged.
5everal months a#ter the said transaction, the Rural @ank o# 8ucena became a distressed
bank. The Monetary @oard later decided to li6uidate the Rural @ank o# 8ucena. +mong the assets
inventoried was the mortgaged property o# &arlos Telosa. In the document shown in the records o#
the bank, it speci"ed that the principal amount owed to them by &arlos Telosa was *F,KKK.KK. &arlos
Telosa #ully aware o# the #act that the obliged amount was only *DKK.KK not *FKK.KK submitted an
a,davit in protest o# the demand letter submitted to him.
&laiming that payments did not satis"ed the whole balance o# *9,KD!.!!, the &entral @ank
e(tra 4udicially #oreclosed the mortgaged property and sell it in a public auction.
To restrain the auction o# the mortgaged property, a complaint was "led by the widow and
children o# &arlos Telosa be#ore the &ourt o# $irst Instance o# Lue2on seeking that the mortgage
e(ecuted bu &arlos Telosa is null and void.
I""$E#
-hether the e(tra 4udicial #oreclosure o# the property should continueI
%ELD#
The court has ruled that the heirs o# &arlos Telosa are entitled to the appeals they have
submitted. 3ue to the #act that the contract entered upon by &arlos Telosa was anomalous in nature.
This was proved by a receipt which served as evidence showing that the receive amount was on
*DKK.KK, and a testimony o# *onciano Mendo2a who was present during the transaction stating that
&arlos Telosa was made to sign blank #orms by the Rural @ank o# 8ucena. This then proves that the
said bank has taken advantage o# the limited education o# &arlos Telosa.
Art 25
+#ter doing an intensive research with the aid o# the internet and the di=erent books covering the
civil code o# the *hilippines, I #ound out that article !F which states that .Thoughtless e(travagance
in e(penses #or pleasure or display during a period o# acute public want or emergency may be
stopped by order o# the courts at the instance o# any government or private charitable institution/
has no 4urisprudence provided by the supreme court. This provision was approved by the congress
because they were aware o# the anomalous and un6uestionably shame#ul ini6uities e(isting in our
society and they are 6uite an(ious that the social order be not unnecessarily 4eopardi2ed, especially
during periods o# national distress or emergency and economic di,culties by ostentatious display o#
wealth by the aSuent. It was en#orced by *resident $erdinand Marcos during martial law through
general order 1F.
G'0'R+8 7R3'R 0o. 1F
-%'R'+5, one o# the ob4ectives #or the issuance o# *roclamation 0o.1KG1, dated 5eptember !1,
19!, placing the entire country under martial law, is to e=ect social, economic and political re#orms,
and thus bring about the trans#ormation o# a new society in our country, one in#used with a pro#ound
sense o# discipline, and social conscienceA
-%'R'+5, every citi2en and resident o# the *hilippines should participate in bringing about anew and
re#ormed society in our countryA
-%'R'+5, every e=ort to save and economi2e on the nationQs already scarce resources should be
e(ertedA
-%'R'+5, among others, +rticle !F o# the &ivil &ode o# the *hilippines ;Rep. +ct 0o.DGE< en4oins
against thoughtless e(travagance in e(penses #or pleasure or display during a period o# emergencyA
07-, T%'R'$7R', I, $'R3I0+03 '. M+R&75, *resident o# the *hilippines, by virtue o# the powers
vested in me by the &onstitution as &ommanderMinM&hie# o# all the +rmed $orces o# the *hilippines,
and pursuant to *roclamation 0o.1KG1, dated 5eptember !1, 19!, and General 7rder 0o.1 dated
5eptember !!, 19!, do hereby call upon every resident and citi2en o# the *hilippines, including all
elective local o,cials #rom provincial governors and city mayors down to barrio captains and
councilmen, to avoid and prevent, as the case may be, ostentatious display o# wealth and
e(travagance, including lavish town "estas or social gatherings. To this end, they are directed to limit
town "estas and other local #estivities to one day, which should be as simple and economical as
possible.
+ll concerned, particularly the local e(ecutives a#orementioned, are en4oined to comply with and to
en#orce this 7rder.
3one in the &ity o# Manila, this Fth day o# 7ctober, in the year o# 7ur 8ord, nineteen hundred and
seventyMtwo.
;5gd.< $'R3I0+03 '. M+R&75
*resident
Republic o# the *hilippines
Art 26
%+* M5E*r(0 2s. %(,. Ig,+5&( C+7u*(,g +,- 6u+, P(,5) E,r&*)
G.R. 0o. G!D9G +pril !9, 19GG
*onenteH 1ustice $eliciano
$+&T5H
*etitioner Mc'lroy an +ustralian "lm maker, and his movie production company, +yer
*roductions, envisioned, sometime in 19G, #or commercial viewing and #or *hilippine and
international release, the historic peace#ul struggle o# the $ilipinos at '35+. The proposed motion
picture entitled TThe $our 3ay RevolutionT was endorsed by the MTR&@ as and other government
agencies consulted. Ramos also signi"ed his approval o# the intended "lm production.
It is designed to be viewed in a si(Mhour miniMseries television play, presented in a TdocuM
dramaT style, creating #our "ctional characters interwoven with real events, and utili2ing actual
documentary #ootage as background.
'nrile declared that he will not approve the use, appropriation, reproduction andUor e(hibition
o# his name, or picture, or that o# any member o# his #amily in any cinema or television production,
"lm or other medium #or advertising or commercial e(ploitation. *etitioners acceded to this demand
and the name o# 'nrile was deleted #rom the movie script, and petitioners proceeded to "lm the
pro4ected motion picture. %owever, a complaint was "led by 'nrile invoking his right to privacy. RT&
ordered #or the desistance o# the movie production and making o# any re#erence to plainti= or his
#amily and #rom creating any "ctitious character in lieu o# plainti= which nevertheless is based on, or
bears substantial or marked resemblance to 'nrile. %ence, the appeal.
I55:'H
-hether or not private respondent 1uan *once 'nrile9s right o# privacy was violated, under
+rticle !E o# the &ivil &ode, by the production o# the "lm .The $our 3ay Revolution/.
%'83H
The pro4ected motion picture was as yet uncompleted and hence not e(hibited to any
audience. 0either private respondent nor the respondent trial 1udge knew what the completed "lm
would precisely look like. There was, in other words, no Tclear and present dangerT o# any violation o#
any right to privacy. The sub4ect matter o# the "lm does not relate to the private li#e o# *once 'nrile.
The intrusion is no more than necessary to keep the "lm a truth#ul historical account. Movie9s theme
is one o# public interest and concern. The sub4ect thus relates to a highly critical stage in the history
o# the country.
The line o# e6uilibrium in the speci"c conte(t o# the instant case between #reedom o# speech
and o# e(pression and the right o# privacy may be marked out in terms o# a re6uirement that the
proposed motion picture must be #airly truth#ul and historical in its presentation o# #acts. There must
be no showing o# a reckless disregard o# truth.
+t all relevant times, during which the momentous events, clearly o# public concern, that
petitioners propose to "lm were taking place, 'nrile was a Tpublic "gure/. + limited intrusion into a
personQs privacy has long been regarded as permissible where that person is a public "gure and the
in#ormation sought to be elicited #rom him or to be published about him constitutes matters o# a
public character. 5uccinctly put, the right o# privacy cannot be invoked to resist publication and
dissemination o# matters o# public interest. The right o# privacy o# a Tpublic "gureT is necessarily
narrower than that o# an ordinary citi2en.
*rivate respondent cannot ob4ect to his inclusion in the movie on the '35+ Revolution by
invoking his right to privacy. The right o# privacy is not an absolute right. The right o# privacy cannot
be invoked to resist publication and dissemination o# matters o# public interest. The interest sought
to be protected by the right o# privacy is the right to be #ree #rom .unwarranted publicity, #rom the
wrong#ul publici2ing o# the private a=airs and activities o# an individual which are outside the realm
o# legitimate public concern./
"!. LO$I" REAL!Y CORPORA!ION 2s. CO$R! O APPEAL" +,- CONRADO 6. ARAMIL
1:: "CRA 199
N(2)1/)r 13, 1983
+5ts#
3r. &onrado +ramil, a neuropsychiatrist and member o# the #aculty o# :' Ramon Magsaysay
Medical &enter, seek to recover damage #or a wrong#ul advertisement in the 5unday Times where 5t
8ouis Realty &orp. misrepresented his house with Mr. +rcadio. 5t. 8ouis published an ad on 3ecember
1F, 19EG with the heading .where the heart is/. This was republished on 1anuary F, 19E9. In the
advertisement, the house #eatured was 3r +ramil9s house and not Mr. +rcadio with whom the
company asked permission and the intended house to be published. +#ter 3r +ramil noticed the
mistake, he wrote a letter to 5t. 8ouis demanding an e(planation 1 week a#ter such receipt. 0o
recti"cation or apology was published despite that it was received by 'rnesto Magtoto, the o,cer in
charge o# the advertisement. This prompted 3r. +ramil9s counsel to demand actual, moral and
e(emplary damages. 7n March 1G, 19E9, 5t 8ouis published an ad now with Mr. +rcadio9s real house
but nothing on the apology or e(planation o# the error. 3r +ramil "led a complaint #or damages on
March !9. 3uring the +pril 1F ad, the notice o# recti"cation was published. Moreover, there was
violation o# +ramilQs right to privacy.

Trial court through 1udge 8euterio awarded *G,KKK as actual damages, *!K,KKK as moral
damages and *!,KKK as attorney9s #ees. %ad it not been a late action #or publication o# recti"cation
and apologyBBwhich only took place 1F +pril 19E9 issue o# +ani#a TimeBB 3octor +ramil could have
not su=ered mental anguish and his income would have not been reduced by about *1,KKK to *1,FKK
a month. *etitioner assailed the decision o# the +ppellate &ourt when it a,rmed the trial court9s
decision. $urthermore, the corporation contends that the decision is contrary to law and that the case
was decided in a way not in con#ormity with the rulings o# this &ourt and still continues to argue that
the case is not covered by article !E.
Issu)#

-hether or not the case "led against 5t. 8ouis Realty &orporation is covered by +rticle !E o#
the new &ivil &ode.
%)*-#
Jes, this case is covered by +rticle !E o# the &ivil &ode. 5t. 8ouis RealtyQs employee was
grossly negligent in mi(ing up the +ramil and +rcadio residences in a widely circulated publication
like the Sunday Time. Through that negligence, persons who know the residence o# 3octor +ramil,
were con#used by the distorted, lingering impression that he was renting his residence #rom +rcadio
or that +rcadio had leased it #rom him. 'ither way, his private li#e was mistakenly and unnecessarily
e(posed. %e su=ered diminution o# income and mental anguish. &+ a,rmed the 4udgement #or the
reason that .5t. 8ouis Realty committed an actionable 6uasiMdelict under articles !1 and !E o# the
&ivil &ode because the 6uestioned advertisements pictured a beauti#ul house which did not belong to
+rcadio but to 3octor +ramil who, naturally, was annoyed by that contretemps.
-%'R'$7R', the 4udgment o# the +ppellate &ourt is a,rmed. &osts against the petitioner.
57 7R3'R'3.
Art 29
BAGALAY V". $R"AL
G.R. N(. L86335 6u*0 29, 1953
P(,),t)# 6ust&5) P+-&**+
AC!"# The &ity +ssessor o# &ebu, Genaro :rsal, during the course o# his duties, mailed a letter to
the appellant, Tomas @agalay in#orming the latter that he was delin6uent in the payment o# realty ta(
#rom 19C to 19F1 on a parcel o# land assessed at *1,GKK, amounting to *9G.CF including penalties,
and that unless the same be paid the real property would be advertised #or sale to satis#y the ta( and
penalty due and e(penses o# the auction sale. The letter caused the appellant mental anguish,
#rights, serious an(iety, moral shock and social humiliation, due to such, @agalay #airly estimates his
moral damages with the sum o# *1K,KKK. The &ourt dismissed the case upon the motion o# the
appellee. %ence, this appeal.
I""$E# -hether or not :rsal is liable #or moral damages under +rticle ! o# the &ivil &ode.
R$LING# The order appealed #rom is +$$IRM'3, with costs against the plainti=. The &ourt ruled that
despite the truth#ulness o# the #acts were proven, @agalay is not entitled to recover #or moral
damages he claims to have su=ered as a result o# the writing and mailing o# the letter by the
de#endant in his o,cial capacity and receipt thereo# by the plainti= because the #ormer has done
nothing more than to write and mail the letter. There is no allegation in the complaint that the
amount due #or the realty ta( and penalty re#erred to in the de#endantQs letter complained o# had
been paid by the plainti=. +ccording to +rticle !, .+ny person su=ering material or moral loss
because a public servant or employee re#uses or neglects, without 4ust cause, to per#orm his o,cial
duty may "le an action #or damages and other relie# against he latter, without pre4udice to any
disciplinary administrative action that may be taken./, the same contemplates a re#usal or neglect
without 4ust cause by a public servant or employee to per#orm his o,cial duty which causes material
su=ering or moral loss. The provisions o# the article invoked by the plainti= do not lend support to his
claim and contention, because the de#endant did not re#use nor did he neglect to per#orm his o,cial
duty but on the contrary he per#ormed it. +ll the moral damages the plainti= claims he has su=ered
are but the product o# over sensitiveness.
N)ss&+ 2s. )r1&, +,- Mu,&5&7+*&t0 (> V&5t(r&+s, N)gr(s O55&-),t+*
G.R. 0o. 1K!91G March DK, 199D
*onenteH 1ustice @ellosillo
AC!"# +ccording to +rticle ! o# the &ivil &ode o# the *hilippines, a 4udicial relie# may be given to
.any person su=ering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee re#uses or
neglects, without 4ust cause, to per#orm his o,cial duty./ +pplying this, herein petitioner "led a case
against the respondent #or recovery o# damages and reimbursement o# e(penses incurred in the
per#ormance o# his o,cial duties as the then 3eputy Municipal +ssessor o# )ictorias. *etitioner
claimed that respondent deliberately ignored and caused the nonMpayment o# the vouchers because
he de"ed the #ormerQs re6uest to all municipal o,cials to register and vote in )ictorias in the 19GK
local elections. %owever, herein respondent counterclaimed that the vouchers were not approved
because they e(ceeded the budgetary appropriations.
I""$E# -hether or not a 4udicial relie# shall be accorded to the herein petitioner #or su=ering
material or moral loss because a public servant or employee ;respondent< re#uses or neglects,
without 4ust cause, to per#orm his o,cial duty.
%ELD# The allegations in the complaint such as, Tpetitioner presented the said claims to the
respondent Mayor 1esus $ermin, but re#used and continued to re#use the payments thereo#T and
Trespondents re#used and continue to re#use to pay,T should not be interpreted as mere admission o#
the act o# disapproval o# the claims. Re#usal to pay is not in#erred solely #rom disapproval o# claims
but #rom inaction as well. %owever, while it is true that herein respondent may not be compelled by
law to approve vouchers because they e(ceeded the budgetary appropriations, he may,
nevertheless, be held liable #or damages under +rt. ! #or malicious inaction because he did not act
on the vouchers. It should be noted that public o,cials should act e,ciently on matters pending
be#ore them. $or only in acting thereon either by signi#ying approval or disapproval may the
petitioner continue on to the ne(t step o# the bureaucratic process. 7n the other hand, o,cial
inaction brings to a standstill the administrative process and the petitioner is le#t in the darkness o#
uncertainty. In this regard, o,cial TinactionT cannot be e6uated with Tdisapproval.T
Art 28
PRO LINE "POR!" CEN!ER, INC., +,- =$E"!OR CORPORA!ION, 7)t&t&(,)rs, 2s. CO$R! O
APPEAL", $NIVER"AL A!%LE!IC" IND$"!RIAL PROD$C!", INC.,+,- MONICO
"E%JANI,r)s7(,-),ts
G.R. 0o. 11G19!. 7ctober !D, 199
AC!"# 7n 11 $ebruary 19G1, 'dwin 3y @uncio,General Manager o# *R7 8I0', whose domestic
company is the e(clusive distributor o# .5palding/ sports products in the *hilippines, sent a letterM
complaint to the 0ational @ureau o# Investigation ;0@I< regarding the alleged manu#acture o# #ake
.5*+83I0G/ balls by :0I)'R5+8. 7n !D $ebruary 19G1 the 0@I applied #or a search warrant with the
then &ourt o# $irst Instance, @r.!D, *asig Ri2al, presided over by 1udge Ri2alina @oni#acio )era. 7n that
same day, 1udge )era issued 5earch -arrant 0o. !MG1 authori2ing the search o# the premises o#
:0I)'R5+8 in *asig. In the course o# search, some 1,!KK @asketballs and volleyballs marked
.5*+83I0G/ were sei2ed and con"scated by the 0@I. +nd days later, 1udge )era issued another order
to seal and padlock the molds, rubber mi(er, boiler and other instruments at :0I)'R5+89s #actory
that were used to manu#acture the #ake .5palding/ products.
I""$E# -hether :niversal +thletics Industrial *roducts, Inc. is liable #or un#air competition even i# the
selling has not been provedI
%ELD# Jes. The respondents9 act constituted un#air competition even i# the element o# selling has not
been approved. To hold that the act o# selling is an indispensable element o# the crime o# un#air
competition is illogical because i# the law punishes the seller o# the imitation goods, then with more
reason should the law penali2e the manu#acturer. In this case, it was observed by the Minister o#
1ustice that the manu#acture o# the .5*+83I0G/ balls was obviously done to deceive wouldMbe
buyers. The pro4ected sale would have pushed through were it not #or the timely sei2ure o# the goods
made by the 0@I.
MCDONALDK" CORPORA!ION +,- MCGEORGE OOD IND$"!RIE", INC., Petitioners, 2s. L.C.
BIG MAK B$RGER, INC., RANCI" B. DY, EDNA A. DY, RENE B. DY, JILLIAM B. DY, 6E"$"
AYCARDO, ARACELI AYCARDO, +,- GRACE %$ER!O, Respondents.
G. R. 0o. 1CD99D M +ugust 1G, !KKC
AC!"# Mc3onald9s &orporation is a corporation bound by the laws o# the :nited 5tates. It consists
o# many #amily marks including the .@ig Mac/ mark #or its .doubleMdecker hamburger sandwich/. The
trademark #or @ig Mac is registered in the :nited 5tates Trademark Registry as well as in the
*hilippines9 Intellectual *roperty 7,ce #or its #ranchises in the country. The approval by the then
*@*TT #or the registration o# Mc3onald9s #or the @ig Mac mark in the *rincipal Register was given on
1G 1uly 19GF.
Respondent 8.&. @ig Mak @urger, Inc., a domestic corporation operating in Metro Manila and selling
hamburger sandwiches along with other #ood items.
The respondent corporation applied with *@*TT #or the registration o# .@ig Mak/ mark #or its
hamburger sandwiches but was 6uickly opposed by the petitioner corporation on the ground that
.@ig Mak/ was a colorable imitation o# its registered .@ig Mac/ mark, a mark which the petitioner
e(clusively owns.
Respondent corporation claimed that they are not liable #or trademark in#ringement and un#air
competition, as .@ig Mak/ is not a colorable imitation o# .@ig Mac/ and also because they do not pass
o# their hamburger sandwiches as those o# petitioner9s @ig Mac hamburgers.
+lthough previous marks have been registered #or the .@ig Mac/ mark by the Isaiyas Group o#
&orporations and one Rodol#o Topacio, the #ormer9s registration was only in the 5upplemental
registration o# the *@*TT and the latter9s rights were ac6uired by Mc3onald9s &orporation in a 3eed
o# +ssignment dated 1G May 19G1.
I""$E# -hether 8.&. @ig Mak @urger Inc. is liable #or un#air competition under +rticle !G o# the &ivil
&ode
%ELD# The &ourt reinstated the decision made by the Regional Trial court o# Makati dated F
5eptember 199C which #ound 8.&. @ig Mak @urger Inc. liable #or trademark in#ringement and un#air
competition.
The court arrived at this decision upon de"ning the elements o# an action #or un#air competition,
which are ;1< con#using similarity in the general appearance o# goods, and ;!< intent to deceive the
public and de#raud a competitior. The intent to deceive and de#raud may be in#erred #rom the
similarity o# the appearance o# goods as o=ered #or sale to the public. :n#air competition e(ists not
only i# there is a likelihood o# con#usion #or the two goods but also i# there is an actual or probable
deception on the public because o# the general appearance o# goods.
To support their claim o# un#air competition, petitioners allege that respondents #raudulently passed
o= their hamburgers as T@ig MacT hamburgers. *etitioners add that respondentsQ #raudulent intent
can be in#erred #rom the similarity o# the marks in 6uestion. +lso, the respondentsQ goods are
hamburgers which are also the goods o# petitioners. I# respondents sold egg sandwiches only instead
"% hamburger sandwiches, their use o# the T@ig MakT mark would not give their goods the general
appearance o# petitionersQ T@ig MacT hamburgers. %owever, since respondents chose to apply the
T@ig MakT mark on hamburgers, 4ust like petitionerQs use o# the T@ig MacT mark on hamburgers,
respondents have "bvi"u#y clothed their goods with the general appearance o# petitionersQ goods.
Moreover, there is no notice to the public that the T@ig MakT hamburgers are products o# T8.&. @ig
Mak @urger, Inc.T The plastic wrappers used #or the .@ig Mak/ hamburgers did not bore the
respondent9s corporation name thus providing no notice to the public that .@ig Mak/ hamburgers are
goods owned by the respondents and not o# the petitioners. @ecause o# this, intention to deceive the
public is e(isting in the part o# 8.&. @ig Mak @urger Inc.
The order appealed #rom is +$$IRM'3, with costs against the respondent corporation. The &ourt
reinstated the decision made by the Regional Trial court o# Makati dated F 5eptember 199C which
#ound 8.&. @ig Mak @urger Inc. liable #or trademark in#ringement and un#air competition.
Art 29
P%ILIPPINE NA!IONAL BANK V". DALMACIO CA!IPON
G.R. 0o. 8MEEE! 1anuary D1, 19FE
*onenteH 1ustice Reyes
+5ts# &harged with esta#a #or having misappropriated and convereted the the merchandise covered
by the trust receipt but a#ter a while with due trial, &atipon was ac6uitted #rom the charge. 5hortly
therea#ter, the bank initiated the present action to recover the value o# goods by "ling a civil case.
@ut &atipon appealed that his ac6uittal in the esta#a case is a bar to the @ank9s instituting the
present civil action #or the bank did not reserve the right in the criminal case its right to separately
en#orce the civil liability o# the de#endant.
Issu)# -hether or not &atipon may be charged with a civil case #ollowing his ac6uittal #rom the
criminal case o# esta#a.
%)*-# +lthough the trial court has reali2ed that the &atipon9s case has no merit. The decision
ac6uitting &atipon o# the charge o# esta#a, however, does not bar or prevent the "ling o# the @ank9s
action to en#orce his civil liability. The ac6uittal o# &atipon was predicated on the conclusion that his
guilt has not been duly established and the ac6uittal being e6uivalent to one on reasonable doubt
does not necessarily prevent a suit to en#orce the civil liability #or the same act or omission and it
does not "nally determine nor e(pressly declare that the #act #rom which the civil case might arise
did not e(ist.
In addition, the declaration in the decision o# the ac6uittal to the e=ect that i# any
responsibility be given to the accused, which would be civil in nature and not criminal, amounts to a
reservation o# the civil action in #avor o# the o=ended party, #or the court in its decision had no
reason to dwell on a civil liability that it intended to e(tinguish by the same decision.
$inally because &atipon e(ecuted the trust receipt, that the present action seeks to en#orce,
he is liable e(Mcontractu #or its breach, whether he did or he did not misappropriate, misapply or
convert the said merchandise as charged in the in#ormation "led in the criminal case. Thus, a civil
liability may be charged against &atipon.
RANCI"CO BONI!E 2s. MARIANO A. HO"A
G.R. 0o. 8MDD! 1une !K, 19GG
+5ts# 7n 5eptember !C, 19EG $lorencio @onite was working as .caminero/ in the @ureau o# *ublic
%ighways. %e was hit by a truck driven by a private respondent, as a result @onite died on the same
day. + criminal complaint #or homicide trough reckless imprudence was "led by the surviving heirs.
+s private prosecutor +tty. +lberto 3ulalas activrly participated in the prosecution o# the criminal
case. 3ecember!G, 19K, petitioners "led an action #or recovery o# damages against the same
accused on account o# the death o# $lorencio @onite, with the &ourt o# $irst Instance o# Misamis
7ccidental, 1Eth 1udicial 3istrict, @ranch III, docketed as &ivil &ase 0o. !GKE. In an order dated !F
$ebruary 191.
Issu)# -hether or not an independent civil action #or damages, under +rticle !9 o# the &ivil &ode, is
deemed barred by petitionersQ #ailure in the criminal action to make a reservation to "le a separate
civil action and by their active participation in the prosecution o# such criminal action.
%)*-# The court believes and so holds that as the plainti=s did not reserve the right to "le an
independent civil action, and the #urther #act that the plainti=s have been represented by a private
prosecutor in the prosecution o# the criminal case, the action presently "led by the plainti=s is
already res ad4udicata and there#ore, dismisses the complaint without pronouncement as to costs.
Art :4
PEOPLE O !%E P%ILIPPINE", P*+&,t&<8A77)**)), 2s ROGELIO BAYO!A" 0 CORDOVA,
A55us)-8A77)**+,t.
G.R 0o. 1K!KK 5eptember !, 199C
AC!"# Rogelio @ayotas y &ordova, in &riminal &ase "led be#ore RT& Ro(as &ity, was charged with
Rape and eventually convicted. @ayotas appealed his case, but be#ore the "nal 4udgment, he died at
the 0ational @ilibid %ospital. The 5upreme &ourt decided to dismiss the criminal aspect o# the appeal
but re6uired the 5olicitor General to "le its comment with regard to @ayotaQs civil liability arising #rom
his commission o# the o=ense charged.
The 5olicitor General commented that the death o# the accusedMappellant did not e(tinguish his civil
liability and insists that the appeal should be resolved #or the purpose o# reviewing his conviction on
which the civil liability is based.
I""$E# 3oes death o# the accused pending appeal o# his conviction e(tinguishes his civil liabilityI
%ELD# +,rmative. +rticle DK o# the &ivil &ode providesH
T-hen a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising #rom a criminal o=ense, and
no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency o# the civil case, a preponderance o#
evidence shall likewise be su,cient to prove the act complained o#.T
-hat +rticle DK recogni2es is a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising #rom a criminal
o=ense. In pursuing recovery o# civil liability arising #rom crime, the determining #actor o# the criminal
liability is the condition precedent to the prosecution o# the civil action. That is, when the criminal
action is cancelled out by death o# the accused while pending appeal, the said civil action cannot
survive. +rticle G9 o# the Revised *enal &ode is clear on this matter and states that death o# the
convict be#ore "nal 4udgment totally e(tinguishes his criminal liability. -hether asserted in a criminal
action or in a separate civil action, civil liability is e(tinguished by the death o# the accused while his
conviction is on appeal.
-e hold that the death o# appellant @ayotas e(tinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability
based solely on the act complained o#, i.e., rape. &onse6uently, the appeal is hereby dismissed
without 6uali"cation.
-here#ore, the appeal o# the late Rogelio @ayotas is 3I5MI55'3 with costs de o"cio.
I
G.R. N(. L8::253
6+,u+r0 24, 1998
P(,),t)# 6ust&5) AEu&,(
AC!"H In a scheme o# malversation, accused 8icerio *. 5endaydiego, the provincial treasurer o#
*angasinan, in conspiracy with 1uan 5amson y Galvan, an employee o# a lumber and hardware store
in 3agupan &ity, and with +nastacio Luirimit, the provincial auditor, as an accomplice, used si( ;E<
#orged provincial vouchers in order to embe22le #rom the road and bridge #und the total sum o#
*F,KCG.!D. +#ter trial the lower court ac6uitted the auditor, Luirimit and #ound 5endaydiego and
5amson guilty o# malversation through #alsi"cation o# public or o,cial documents imposing each with
D criminal cases, with reclusion perpetua being the highest. 5endaydiego and 5amson appealed to
the 5upreme &ourt. 5endaydiego died on 7ctober F, 19E. %is appeal as to his criminal liability was
dismissed. 5endaydiegoQs appeal will be resolved only #or the purpose o# showing his criminal liability
which is the basis o# the civil liability #or which his estate would be liable.
I""$E# -hether or not a#ter his criminal liability was e(tinguished because o# death that the civil
liability stands even when there is no separate civil action.
%ELD# The supreme court are convinced a#ter a minutiose e(amination o# the documentary and oral
evidence and an unpre4udiced consideration o# the arguments o# 5endaydiegoQs counsel that his
criminal liability was established beyond reasonable doubt and, there#ore, the civil liability #or his
estate #or the amounts malversed was duly substantial. The 5upreme &ourt held that claims #or civil
liability survive the death o# the accused, there by treating the civil action impliedly instituted with
the criminal as one "led under +rticle DK, as though no criminal proceedings had been "led but
merely a separate civil action. The estate o# the late 8icerio *. 5endaydiego is ordered to indemni#y
the province o# *angasinan in the sum o# *F,KCG.!D.
Art :1
!A) %)&rs (> 6(s) M+r5&+* O5A(+ 2s. G . " !r+,s7(rt C(r7(r+t&(,
G.R. 0o. 1KK1, March 9, !K11
*onenteH 1ustice &orona
AC!"# 7n the night o# March 1K, 199F, 1ose Marcial R. 7choa died while on board an +vis ta(icab
owned and operated by G V 5 Transport &orporation, a common carrier. The death certi"cate issued
by the 7,ce o# the &ivil Registrar o# Lue2on &ity cited the cause o# his death as vehicular accident it
was #ound that the death o# 1ose Marcial 7choa was caused by negligence on the part o# the ta(icab
driver employed by G V 5 Transport &orporation, @ibiano *adilla. %owever, the ta(icab driver, @ibiano
*adilla, was ac6uitted o# the crime o# reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Regardless, the
petitioners alleged that respondent, as a common carrier, was under legal obligation to observe and
e(ercise e(traordinary diligence in transporting its passengers to their destination sa#ely and
securely. The contract was entered the moment 7choa entered the vehicle owned by the respondent.
The #ailure o# the respondent, as evidenced by the death o# 7choa, led the petitioners to aver that
they, the respondents, are liable #or having breached the contract o# common carriage. The heirs
thus prayed #or G V 5 to pay them actual damages, moral damages, e(emplary damages, and
attorney9s #ees and e(penses o# litigation.
I""$E# -hether or not the petitioner may proceed with the civil action given that there was already
an ac6uittal in the related criminal case.
%ELD# The 5upreme &ourt declared the ruling o# &ancio, 1r., v. Isip, which stated that .in the instant
case, it must be stressed that the action "led by petitioner is an independent civil action, which
remains separate and distinct #rom any criminal prosecution based on the same act. 0ot being
deemed instituted in the criminal action based on culpa criminal, a ruling on the culpability o# the
o=ender will have no bearing on said independent civil action based on an entirely di=erent cause o#
action, i.e., culpa contractual./ &onsidering +rticle D1 o# the &ivil &ode, the petitioners9 claim #or
damages is valid considering that the civil action, being based on an obligation, proceeded
independently o# the criminal proceedings and regardless o# the result o# the latter. Thus, the
respondent is liable to pay the petitioners #or damages because by not transporting 1ose Marcial
7choa sa#ely to his destination the #ormer breached its contract with the passenger.
C+,5&( 2s. Is&7
G.R. N(. 1::998. N(2)1/)r 12, 2442
P(,),t)# 6ust&5) Y,+r)s8 "+,t&+g(
$actsH
The petitioner, 1ose 5. &ancio 1r. represented by Roberto &ancio "led D cases o# eta%a against
respondent 'merenciana Isip #or allegedly issuing D checks ;a. *hp GK,KKK.KK, b. *hp GK,KKK.KK V c.
*hp DK,KKK.KK< without su,cient #unds. The trial court dismissed the complaint due to lack o#
interest or #ailure to prosecute. It was also held that the civil case "ling amounted to #orumMshopping
;"ling o# multiple suits involving the same parties #or the same cause o# action, either simultaneously
or successively, to secure #avorable 4udgment<. +#ter a #ew months, the courts lso denied the motion
#or reconsideration o# the petitioner.
IssueH
-hether or not the eta%a cases9 dismissal bars the institution o# a civil action #or collection o#
the checks9 value which is the sub4ect o# the eta%a cases.
%eldH
The complaint "led by the petitioner show that his cause o# action is based on ,u#pa
,"ntra,tua#, an independent civil action ;portions o# the complaint readsH that when the said checks
were presented to the drawee bank #or encashment, the same were all dishonored #or reason o#
drawn against insu,cient #unds, that several demands were made upon the de#endant to make good
the checks but #ailed and re#used and still re#uses without 4usti"able reasons to pay plainti=<. The
respondent9s breach o# contract is the petitioner9s cause o# action. @ased on +rticle D1 o# the &ivil
&ode, .-hen the ,ivi# a,ti"n i baed "n an "b#i&ati"n n"t ariin& %r"m the a,t "r "mii"n
,"mp#ained "% a a %e#"ny, u,h ,ivi# a,ti"n may pr",eed independent#y "% the ,rimina# pr",eedin&
and re&ard#e the reu#t "% the #atter/. +s such, the case at bar is distinct and independent #rom the
eta%a case "led against the o=ender and may proceed regardless the dismissal o# the criminal case
"led. There#ore, the instant petition is GR+0T'3. The orders o# the regional trial court are R')'R5'3
and 5'T +5I3'.
Art :2
LIM V". PONCE DE LEON
G.R. N(. L822553 August 29, 1995
AC!"# 7n +pril !9, 19E1, 1ikil Taha sold to a certain +lberto Timbangcaya o# @rooke9s *oint, *alawan
a motor launch named MU8 .5an Ra#ael/. + year later, Timbangcaya "led a complaint alleging that
Taha #orcibly took away the motor launch #rom him. -ithout a search warrant and in the absence o#
consent, $iscal $rancisco *once de 8eon e=ected the impound o# the motor launch #rom 3el"n 8im.
$iscal de 8eon e(plained in his re6uest that the subse6uent sale o# the motor launch to a third party
cannot prevent the court #rom taking custody o# the same. In his de#ense, $iscal de 8eon claimed that
.he was in good #aith, without malice and without the slightest intention o# in?icting in4ury to
plainti=Mappellant, 1ikil Taha/ when he ordered the sei2ure o# the motor launch.
I""$EH Is the de#ense o# good #aith enough to clear the liability o# $iscal de 8eon under +rticle D! o#
the &ivil &odeI
%ELD# The &ourt held in the negative. The &ourt citing 3r. 1orge @ocobo, &hairman o# the &ode
&ommission stated that the very nature o# +rticle D! is that the wrong may be civil or criminal. It is
not necessary there#ore that that there should be malice or bad #aith. To make such a re6uisite would
de#ect the main purpose o# +rticle D! which is the e=ective protection o# individual rights. *ublic
o,cials in the past have abused their powers on the prete(t o# 4usti"able motives or good #aith in the
per#ormance o# their duties. *recisely, the ob4ect o# the +rticle is to put an end to o,cial abuse by
the plea o# good #aith.
A/)r5+ 2s. V)r
G.R. N(. L869866 A7r&* 15, 1988
P(,),t)# 6ust&5) Y+7
AC!"# 5ometime in the early 19GKs, various Intelligence units o# the +$* known as Task $orce
Makabansa ;T$M< were ordered by respondents then Ma4. Gen. $abian )er to conduct preMemptive
strikes against known communistMterrorist ;&T< underground houses in view o# increasing reports
about &T plans to sow disturbances in Metro Manila. In compliance thereo#, the T$M raided several
places, employing in most cases de#ectively issued 4udicial search warrants. 3uring these raids,
certain members o# the raiding T$M con"scated a number o# purely personal items belonging to the
!K petitioners. *etitioners were arrested without proper arrest warrants issued by the courts. $or
some period a#ter their arrest, they were arrested with denied visits o# relatives and lawyersA
interrogated in violation o# their rights to silence and counsel, through threats, torture and other
#orms o# violence in order to obtain incriminatory in#ormation or con#essions and in order to punish
them.
*lainti=s then "led an action #or damages be#ore the regional trial court o# Lue2on &ity against
respondentsMo,cers o# the +$* headed by )er. Respondents, in their motion to dismiss, claimed that
;1< the writ o# habeas corpus was suspended, thus giving credence to petitioners9 detentionA ;!<
respondents were immune #rom liability #or acts done in the per#ormance o# their o,cial duties, and
that ;D< the complaint did not state a cause o# action against respondents.
I""$E# -hether or not respondents may invoke state immunity #rom suit #or acts done in the
per#ormance o# o,cial duties and #unctions.
%ELD# The petition is GR+0T'3, with costs against the respondents. The respondents may be, as
members o# the +$*, merely responding to their duties, as they claim, .to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion and subversion/ in accordance with *roclamation 0o. !KFC o#
*res. Marcos, despite the li#ting o# Martial 8aw on 1anuary !, 19G1, and in pursuance o# such
ob4ective, to launch preMemptive strikes against alleged &T underground houses. @ut this cannot be
construed as a blanket license or roving commission untrammeled by any constitutional restraint, to
disregard or transgress upon the rights and liberties o# the individual citi2en enshrined and protected
by the &onstitution. +rticle D! o# the &ivil &ode, which renders any public o,cer or employees, or
any private individual, liable in damages #or violating the constitutional rights and liberties o#
another, does not e(empt the respondents #rom responsibility. 7nly 4udges are e(cluded #rom liability
under the said article, provided their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation o# the Revised
*enal &ode or other penal statute.
Art ::
G+r5&+ 2s. *(r&-(
G.R. 0o. DFK9F, +ug. D1, 19D
+5ts# 7n +ugust C, 191, petitioners, German &. Garcia, &hie# o# the Misamis 7ccidental %ospital,
together with his wi#e, 8uminosa 8. Garcia, and 'ster $rancisco, bookkeeper o# said hospital, hired
and boarded a *: car owned and operated by respondent, Marcelino Inesin, and driven by
respondent, Ricardo )ayson, #or a roundMtrip #rom 7ro6uieta &ity to Wamboanga &ity, #or the purpose
o# attending a con#erence. Their car then collided with an oncoming passenger bus. +lleging that
both drivers o# the *: car and the passenger bus were at the time o# the accident driving in a
reckless, grossly negligent and imprudent manner in gross violation o# tra,c rules and without due
regard to the sa#ety o# the passengers aboard the *: car, petitioners, "led on 5eptember 1, 191
with respondent &ourt o# $irst Instance o# Misamis 7ccidental an action #or damages ;&ivil &ase 0o.
!GFK< against the private respondents, owners and drivers, respectively, o# the *: car and the
passenger bus that "gured in the collision, with prayer #or preliminary attachment. 5aid action was
"led, however, despite the pending o# a criminal case "led prior to that o# the petitioners, when they
were still recovering #rom the accident.
Issu)# -hether or not the civil case be allowed to prosper, despite the pendency o# the criminal
proceedingsI
%)*-H The 5upreme &ourt cited its ruling in the case o# Meneses vs. 8uat, stating that when the
criminal action #or physical in4uries against the de#endant did not proceed to trial as he pleaded
guilty upon arraignment and the &ourt made no pronouncement on the matter or damages su=ered
by the in4ured party, the mere appearance o# private counsel in representation o# the o=ended party
in said criminal case does not constitute such active intervention as could impart an intention to
press a claim #or damages in the same action, and, there#ore, cannot bar a separate civil action #or
damages subse6uently instituted on the same ground under +rticle DD o# the 0ew &ivil &ode.
IN!ERNA!IONAL LAVOR" AND RAGRANCE" ?P%IL.@, INC., 7)t&t&(,)r, 2s. MERLIN 6.
ARGO" +,- 6A6A C. PINEDA, r)s7(,-),ts, ")7t)1/)r 14, 2441
8:63 ".C.R.A. 9928
G.R. N(. 1:4:62
+5ts# Respondents Merlin +rgos and 1a4a *ineda are the general manager and commercial director,
respectively, o# the $ragrances 3ivision o# the petitioner International $lavors and $ragrances, Inc.
;I$$I<. The general managers reported directly to %ernan &osta, a 5paniard who was the appointed
managing director o# the operations o# the petitioner in the *hilippines. &osta and respondents had
serious di=erences. -hen the positions o# the general managers became redundant, respondents
agreed to the termination o# their services. They signed a .Release -aiver and Luitclaim/ on
3ecember 1K, 199D. That same time, &osta issued a .*ersonnel +nnouncement/ which described
respondents as .persona non grata/ and urged the employees not to have #urther dealings with
them.
Two In#ormation were "led against &osta #or the criminal charge o# libel while the respondents also
"led a civil case #or damages against &osta and petitioner ;I$$I<, in its subsidiary capacity as the
employer o# &osta.
Issu)# -hether or not private respondents could sue petitioner #or damages based on subsidiary
liability in an independent civil action under +rticle DD o# the &ivil &ode, during the pendency o# the
criminal libel cases against petitioner9s employee.
Ru*&,g# +rticle DD o# the &ivil &ode provides speci"cally that in cases o# de#amation, the in4ured
party may bring a civil action #or damages, entirely separate and distinct #rom the criminal action.
5uch civil action proceeds independently o# the criminal prosecution and re6uires only a
preponderance o# evidence.
In 1oa6uin vs. +niceto, 1! 5&R+ DKG ;19EC<, the &ourt held that +rticle DD contemplates an action
against the employee in his primary civil liability. It does not apply to an action against the employer
to en#orce its subsidiary civil liability, because such liability arises only a#ter conviction o# the
employee in the criminal case or when the employee is ad4udged guilty o# the wrong#ul act in a
criminal action and #ound to have committed the o=ense in the discharge o# his duties. +ny action
brought against the employer based on its subsidiary liability be#ore the conviction o# its employee is
premature. The court ruled that the civil suit "led against the petitioners in their subsidiary capacity
is premature under +rticle DD o# the 0ew &ivil &ode.
Art :3
C+,5&(, 6r. 2s. Is&7
D91 5&R+ D9D
0ovember 1!, !KK!
*onenteH 1ustice JnaresM5antiago
AC!"# *etitioner "led three cases o# violation o# @.*. 0o. !! and three cases o# 'sta#a against
respondent #or allegedly issuing checks without insu,cient #unds. The three cases #or 'sta#a were
"led in the Regional Trial &ourt ;RT&< o# *ampanga and docketed as &riminal &ase 0os. GMDE11 to GM
DE1D. 7n 7ctober !1, 199, a#ter #ailing to present its second witness, the prosecution moved to
dismiss the esta#a cases against respondent. The prosecution likewise reserved its right to "le a
separate civil action arising #rom the said criminal case. 7n 3ecember 1F, 199, petitioner "led the
instant case #or collection o# sum o# money to recover amount o# checks sub4ect o# the esta#a cases.
Thus, respondent "led a motion to dismiss the complaint contending that petitioner9s action is barred
by the doctrine o# res 4udicata. The RT& ruled in #avor o# respondent.
I""$E"#
1< -hether or not the dismissal o# the criminal cases ;'sta#a cases< against respondent bars the
institution o# a civil action #or the value o# the checks sub4ect o# the esta#a cases.
!< -hether or not the trial court erred in ruling that the dismissal o# the criminal cases against
respondent on the ground o# lack o# interest or #ailure to prosecute is an ad4udication on the merits
which amounted to res 4udicata on the civil case #or collection.
%ELD# The 5upreme &ourt ruled in #avor o# the petitioner. +ccording to the 5upreme &ourt, an act or
omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part o# the
o=ender, i.e., ;1< civil liability e( delicto, under +rticle 1KK o# the Revised *enal &odeA and ;!<
independent civil liabilities, such as those ;a< not arising #rom an act or omission complained o# as
#elony Xe.g. culpa contractual or obligations arising under +rticle D1 o# the &ivil &ode, intentional torts
under +rticles D! and DC, and culpa a6uiliana under +rticle !1E o# the &ivil &odeYA or ;b< where the
in4ured party is granted a right to "le an action independent and distinct #rom criminal action X+rticle
DD o# the &ivil &odeY. :nder the present rules, the independent civil actions may be "led separately
and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action.
Moreover, the 5upreme &ourt believed that the trial court erred in dismissing petitioner9s complaint
#or collection o# the value o# checks issued by the respondent. @eing an independent civil action
which is separate and distinct #rom any criminal prosecution and which re6uire no prior reservation
#or its institution, the doctrine o# res 4udicata will not operate to bar the same.
Art :5
Est+,&s*+B+ C+,*+s 2 CA+, L&, P(, R)1)-&(s D&+*+, +,- L&1K((L B+rr)r+
G.R. 0o. 8M1E9!9, 1uly D1, 19E9 Z ! 5&R+ 9D
AC!"# 7n 1une 11 19F1, 1uanito &han, son o# &han 8in *o and Remedios 3iala, drove and operated
a motor vehicle ;a truck< along Ri2al +ve '(t, Manila allegedly in a reckless and imprudent manner
and so hitting 0icolas *aras, EF yrs old, and ran over his head, crushing it, resulting to his
instantaneous death. It must be noted that the truck was coMowned by 1uan9s parents and one 8im
Roo.
+t the initial stage o# the criminal trial, *etitioner, 'stanislawa &anlas ;widow o# 0icolas, representing
also F minor children<, made a reservation to "le a separate civil action.
Trial &ourt heldH 1uanito is guilty, serve sentence o# 1yrMGmos, plus FR indeminity. :pon appeal to the
&ourt o# +ppeals, it was modi"edH 1yr not less than C yrs o# imprisonment, indemnity also a,rmed.
In the civil action, the same #acts were alleged. 3e#endants disclaimed liability by establishing that
1uanito is married and is no longer a minor living in the company o# his parents, and that he is also
not an employee o# 8im Roo. Thus, 0either 1uanito9s parents can be made liable under vicarious
liability ;!1GK o# the 0&&< nor the owner o# vehicle be the subsidiary liable under 1KD o# the R*&.
The separate civil action was dismissed, since petitioner already tried to e(ecute the indemnity
ad4udged in the criminal action and 1uanito already served subsidiary imprisonment because he was
unable to pay indemnity. *etitioner insists on the liability o# parents and truck owner. %er Motion #or
Reconsideration was denied, hence this petition.
I""$E" . ARG$MEN!"# -hether or not the 4udgment o# the criminal case bars the civil actionI
%OLDING . RA!IO DECIDENDI# 07.
!1GK par F o# the 0&& ;primary liabilityMvicarious liability< only applies i# the o=ender is a MI07R
8I)I0G in the &7M*+0J o# his *+R'0T5. In this case, 1uanito was already married and lives
independently #rom his parents
1KD o# the R*& ;subsidiary liability< only attaches i# the act happened while he was discharging his
duties ;as employee<. In this case, no evidence was presented to establish such relationship.
The civil complaint was con#used with the nature o# liability to charge ;1KD or !1GK<. &ourt however
clari"ed that the lower court erred when they ad4udged that the civil action is barred by res 4udicata.
The civil action #rom criminal act and independent civil action are o# di=erent nature and purpose.
The ! cases a=ect di=erent parties. In the independent civil action, subsidiary and vicarious liability
were being established. 0evertheless, since !1GK o# 0&& and 1KD o# R*& was inapplicable, the action
was still dismissed.
J&**&+1 R. B+0+,& 2s. P+,+0 E*)5tr&5 C(., I,5.
G.R. 0o. 1D9EGK +pril 1!, !KKK
*onenteH 1ustice Luisimbing
AC!"# *rivate respondent *anay 'lectric &o., Inc.;*'&7< discontinued supplying electric services to
two pension houses owned by petitioner -illiam @ayani, alleging that it had discovered the#t o#
electricity in the establishments o# the latter. *rivate respondent then "led two complaints under R.+.
0o. GD! or +ntiM 'lectricity and 'lectric Transmission 8inesU Materials *il#erage +ct against petitioner
in the &ity *rosecutor o# Iloilo &ity but such complaints were dismissed. *'&7 then appealed the
dismissal to the 5ecretary o# 1ustice.
In return, petitioner "led a case in the Regional Trial &ourt o# Iloilo &ity #or in4unction and damages #or
malicious prosecution. *'&7 moved to dismiss the petition. +#ter which, petitioner amended his
complaint and prayed #or *'&7 to desist #rom making #alse imputations that he allegedly continued
to commit violations o# the a#orementioned republic act. *'&7 also moved to dismiss the amended
petition but the court denied it alongside a motion #or reconsideration instituted by *'&7.
The trial court ruled in #avor o# the petitioner and ordered him to put up a bond be#ore a writ o#
preliminary in4unction is issued. The court likewise ordered *'&7 to restore the electric services to
the establishments owned by -illiam @ayani.
*etitioner submitted a surety bond but substituted it with a cashier9s check which was approved by
the trial court.
*'&7 appealed to the &ourt o# +ppeals and prayed #or the reversal o# the lower court9s decision
which was granted by the same. The petitioned moved #or reconsideration but was denied. %ence,
petitioner seeks redress #rom the 5upreme &ourt.
I""$EM"H -hether or not the case "led by petitioner against private respondent is based on
malicious prosecution under +rt. DF o# the &ivil &ode.
R$LING# @e#ore deciding the matter, it is necessary to de"ne the meaning o# malicious prosecution.
There is malicious prosecution when a person directly insinuates or imputes to an innocent person
the commission o# a crime and the maliciously accused is compelled to de#end himsel# in court. 5uch
may be proved when the prosecutor acted without probable cause, the prosecutor was impelled by
legal malice, or a prior case was "led against the prosecutor and the same subse6uently "les a case
ahead o# the decision in the "rst case.
In this case, petitioner insists that his case is #ounder on other causes o# action other than malicious
prosecution. %e alleged particularly that the summary disconnection o# the electrical services o# his
two establishments were in violation o# +rt. 19 and !1 o# the &ivil &ode.
%owever, a review o# the #acts o# the amended complaint shows that it deals mainly with the criminal
complaints instituted by *'&7 against the petitioner. Moreover, the initial complaint was "led even
be#ore the dismissal o# the 5ecretary o# 1ustice o# the criminal complaints "led by *'&7.
Thus, the 5upreme &ourt "nds no reversible error in the decision o# the &ourt o# +ppeals and,
there#ore, denies the petition.
Art :6
R+s 2s. R+su*
144 "CRA 125 ?1984@
*etitionerH +le4andro Ras
RespondentH %on. 1ainal 3. Rasul, 3istrict 1udge o# the &ourt o# $irst Instance o# @asilan,
and *'7*8' 7$ T%' *%I8I**I0'5
*onenteH Teehankee, 1.
AC!"#
1. +le4andro Ras was a de#endant in the &ivil &ase 0o. D over a property allegedly sold twice.
!. +le4andro Ras claims the signatures appearing in the prior deed o# sale were #orgeries and
that he never sold the property twice.
D. -hile the &ivil &ase against Ras was pending, &riminal &ase 0o. !CK o# esta#a was "led
against him over the alleged double sale sub4ect o# the &ivil &ase.
C. The petitioner +le4andro Ras "led #or the suspension o# &riminal &ase 0o. !CK due to the
e(istence o# a pre4udicial 6uestion in &ivil &ase 0o. D o# the same court.
F. The motion #or suspension was denied.
E. The matter was elevated to the 5upreme &ourt.
I""$E"# -hether or not the &riminal &ase against +le4andro Ras should be suspended by the
5upreme &ourt until the matter o# the &ivil &ase is to be decided, on the grounds o# the e(istence o#
a pre4udicial 6uestion between the two cases.
%ELD#Jes. The resolution o# the &ivil &ase against +le4andro Ras would be directly determinative o#
the outcome o# the &riminal &ase. I# the alleged #orgeries in the #ormer case were to be proven null
and void, then the alleged double sale and crime o# esta#a in the &riminal &ase would be a nonM
e(istent issue and no o=ense could be legally charged. There#ore, the 5upreme &ourt decided that
there indeed was a pre4udicial 6uestion present, a valid basis su,cient to suspend the latter case
until the &ivil &ase is resolved.
"PO$"E" VICEN!E Y$ AND DEME!RIA LEE8Y$, P)t&t&(,)rs, 2s. P%ILIPPINE COMMERCIAL
IN!ERNA!IONAL BANK, R)s7(,-),t
G.R. N(. 139942I M+r5A 19, 2446
*'TITI70 $7R R')I'- 70 &'RTI7R+RI
+5ts# 5pouses )icente Ju V 3emetria 8eeMJu, among others mortgaged their title, interest and
participation over several parcels o# land located in 3agupan &ity and Lue2on &ity in #avor o# the
*hilippine &ommercial International @ank as security #or the payment o# loan. %owever the
petitioners #ailed to pay the loan, interests V penalties due thereon and the respondent "led a
*etition #or '(traM1udicial $oreclosure o# Real 'state Mortgage on 3agupan &ity properties be#ore the
RT& o# 3agupan &ity. The said properties were auctioned on 5eptember 1K, 199G where respondent
emerged as the highest bidder. Then #our days a#ter the auction a &erti"cate o# 5ale was issued in
#avor o# the respondent and a#terwards the sale was registered with the Registry o# 3eeds o#
3agupan &ity.
Then on +ugust !K, 199G, about two months be#ore the e(piration o# the redemption period,
respondent "led an '(M*arte *etition #or -rit o# *ossession be#ore the RT& o# 3agupan &ity, docketed
as 5pecial *roceeding 0o. 99MKK9GGM3. + hearing was conducted on 5eptember 1C, 1999 where the
respondent presented its evidence e(Mparte by the testimony o# Rodante Manuel. @ut on 5eptember
DK, 1999 the petitioners "led a Motion to 3ismiss and to 5trike 7ut testimony o# Rodante Manuel
stating that the &erti"cate o# 5ale dated 5eptember 1C, 199G, was void because respondent violated
+rticle !KG9 o# the &ivil &ode in the indivisibility o# the mortgaged by conducting two separate
#oreclosure proceedings on the mortgaged properties in 3agupan &ity and Lue2on &ity. 8ikewise the
petitioners "led a &omplaint #or +nnulment #or a &erti"cate o# 5ale be#ore the RT& o# 3agupan &ity,
docketed as &ivil &ase 0o. 99MKD1E9M3.
7n $eb. 1C, !KKK, RT& @ranch CD denied petitioners Motion to 3ismiss to 5trike 7ut Testimony o#
Rodante Manuel. 0onetheless the petitioners "led a Motion o# Reconsideration #urther arguing that
the pendency o# &ivil 8aw 0o. 99MKD1E9M3 in RT& @ranch CC is a pre4udicial issue to 5pecial
proclamation 0o. 99MKK9GGM3 in RT& @ranch CD, but was denied because the pending case be#ore
RT& @ranch CC is also a civil case and not a criminal case.
$urthermore on 1une 1, !KKK petitioners "led a *etition #or &ertiorari but the &+ dismissed it. 7ver
and above that the petitioners "led a Motion #or Reconsideration but were denied again by the &+ on
+pril !E, !KK1.
%ence, the present *etition #or Review on &ertiorari.
Issu)s#
1. -hether or not a real estate mortgage over several properties located in di=erent locality can be
separately #oreclosed in di=erent places.
!. -hether or not the pendency o# civil case no. 99MKD1E9M3 is a pre4udicial issue that will render the
issues in 5pecial *roclamation no. 99MKK9GGM3 moot and academic.
%)*-# +s to the "rst issue, the court "nds that petitioners have mistaken a notion that the
indivisibility o# a real estate mortgage relates to the venue o# e(tra 4udicial #oreclosure proceedings.
The rule on indivisibility o# a real estate mortgage is provided #or in +rticle !KG9 o# the &ivil &ode.
Indivisibility means that the mortgage obligation cannot be divided among the di=erent lots, that is
each and every parcel under mortgage answers #or the totality o# the debt. In addition the court
holds that the rule on indivisibility o# the real estate mortgage cannot be e6uated with the venue o#
#oreclosure proceedings on mortgaged properties located in di=erent provinces since these are two
unrelated concepts.
+s to the second issue, civil case no. 99MK1DE9M3 and 5pecial *roclamation no. 99MKK9GGM3 are both
civil in nature. &learly no pre4udicial 6uestion can arise #rom the e(istence o# the two actions and
since the two cases are both civil in nature it can proceed separately and take its own direction
independently o# each other.
The petition is denied.