Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Issue:
Whether or not the contention of the petitioner is correct.
Held:
No, the petitioner’s contention is not correct.
FACTS:
Petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corporation delivered to
Guaranteed Industries, Inc. at Baltao Building mild steel plates which
the latter ordered and as part of the payment, a bouncing check was
issued by one “Eugenio Baltao”.
It was found that the signature of the check was not of Eugenio S.
Baltao and because of the alleged unjust filing of a criminal case
against him, respondent Baltao filed a complaint for damages
With respect to petitioner's claim for moral damages, the right
anchored on Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code against
petitioners. to recover them under Article 21 is based on equity, and he
who comes to court to demand equity, must come with clean
ISSUE: hands. Article 21 should be construed as granting the right to
Whether or not the principle of abuse of rights (Article 19) has been recover damages to injured persons who are not themselves
violated, resulting in damages under Articles 20 and 21 or other at fault
applicable provision of law.
RULING:
No, petitioners could not be said to have violated the principle of
abuse of rights. What prompted petitioners to file the case for
violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against private respondent
was their failure to collect the amount of P2,575.00 due on a
bounced check which they honestly believed was issued to them by
private respondent. Petitioners had conducted inquiries regarding
the origin of the check. Private respondent, however, did nothing to
clarify the case of mistaken identity at first hand. Instead, private
respondent waited in ambush and thereafter pounced on the
hapless petitioners at a time he thought was propitious by filing an
action for damages.
4) GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., and 5) (RCPI), petitioner, vs.
HERBERT C. HENDRY, petitioners, C.A & LORETO DIONELA, respondents
vs. No. L-44748. August 29, 1986
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and
RESTITUTO M. TOBIAS, respondents. Facts:
G.R. No. 81262 August 25, 1989 Loreto Dionela filed a complaint of damages against Radio
Communiciations of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) due to the telegram
sent through its Manila Office to the former, reading as follows:
CASE DIGEST
176 AS JR 1215 PM 9 PAID MANDALUYONG JUL 22-66 LORETO
Facts: Restituto Tobias, a purchasing agent and administrative DIONELA CABANGAN LEGASPI CITY
assistant to the engineering operations manager, discovered fictitious
purchases and other fraudulent transactions, which caused Globe WIRE ARRIVAL OF CHECK FER
Mackay Cable and Radio Corp loss of several thousands of pesos. He
reported it to his immediate superior Eduardo T. Ferraren and to the
LORETO DIONELA-CABANGAN-WIRE ARRIVAL OF CHECK-PER
Executive Vice President and General Manager Herbert Hendry. A day
after the report, Hendry told Tobias that he was number one suspect
and ordered him one week forced leave. When Tobias returned to 115 PM
work after said leave, Hendry called him a “crook” and a “swindler”,
ordered him to take a lie detector test, and to submit specimen of his SA IYO WALANG PAKINABANG DUMATING KA DIYAN-WALA-
handwriting, signature and initials for police investigation. Moreover, KANG PADALA DITO KAHIT BULBUL MO
petitioners hired a private investigator. Private investigation was still
incomplete; the lie detector tests yielded negative results; reports Loreto Dionela alleges that the defamatory words on the telegram sent
from Manila police investigators and from the Metro Manila Police to him wounded his feelings, caused him undue embarrassment and
Chief Document Examiner are in favor of Tobias. Petitioners filed with affected adversely his business because other people have come to
the Fiscal’s Office of Manila a total of six (6) criminal cases against know of said defamatory words. RCPI alleges that the additional
private respondent Tobias, but were dismissed. words in Tagalog was a private joke between the sending and
receiving operators, that they were not addressed to or intended for
Tobias received a notice of termination of his employment from plaintiff and therefore did not form part of the telegram, and that the
petitioners in January 1973, effective December 1972. He sought Tagalog words are not defamatory.
employment with the Republic Telephone Company (RETELCO); but
Hendry wrote a letter to RETELCO stating that Tobias was dismissed The RTC ruled that the additional words are libelous for any person
by Globe Mackay due to dishonesty. Tobias, then, filed a civil case for reading the same would logically think that they refer to Dionela, thus
damages anchored on alleged unlawful, malicious, oppressive, and RCPI was ordered to pay moral damages in the amount of P40,
abusive acts of petitioners. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision ruling that the
IX, through Judge Manuel T. Reyes rendered judgment in favor of company was negligent and failed to take precautionary steps to avoid
private respondent, ordering petitioners to pay him eighty thousand the occurrence of the humiliating incident, and the fact that a copy of
pesos (P80,000.00) as actual damages, two hundred thousand pesos the telegram is filed among other telegrams and open to public is
(P200,000.00) as moral damages, twenty thousand pesos sufficient publication; however reducing the amount awarded to P15,
000.00
(P20,000.00) as exemplary damages, thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000.00) as attorney’s fees, and costs; hence, this petition for
review on certiorari. Issue:
Issue: Whether petitioners are liable for damages to private Whether or not the company should answer directly and primarily for
respondent. the civil liability arising from the criminal act of its employee.
Held: Yes. The Court, after examining the record and considering Ruling:
certain significant circumstances, finds that all petitioners have indeed
abused the right that they invoke, causing damage to private Yes. The cause of action of the private respondent is based on Arts. 19
respondent and for which the latter must now be indemnified: when and 20 of the New Civil Code, as well as on respondent’s breach of
Hendry told Tobias to just confess or else the company would file a contract thru the negligence of its own employees. By adding
hundred more cases against him until he landed in jail; his (Hendry) extraneous and libelous matters in the message sent to the private
scornful remarks about Filipinos (“You Filipinos cannot be trusted.”) respondent, there is a clear breach of contract; for upon payment of
as well as against Tobias (“crook”, and “swindler”); the writing of a the fixed rate, the company undertakes to transmit the message
letter to RETELCO stating that Tobias was dismissed by Globe Mackay accurately.
due to dishonesty; and the filing of six criminal cases by petitioners
against private respondent. All these reveal that petitioners are In contracts, the negligence of the employee (servant) is the
motivated by malicious and unlawful intent to harass, oppress, and negligence of the employer (master). This is the master and servant
cause damage to private respondent. The imputation of guilt without rule. As a corporation, the petitioner can act only through its
basis and the pattern of harassment during the investigations of employees. Hence the acts of its employees in receiving and
Tobias transgress the standards of human conduct set forth in Article transmitting messages are the acts of the petitioner. To hold that the
19 of the Civil Code. petitioner is not liable directly for the acts of its employees in the
pursuit of petitioner’s business is to deprive the general
The Court has already ruled that the right of the employer to dismiss public availing of the services of the petitioner of an effective and
an employee should not be confused with the manner in which the adequate remedy.
right is exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal
is done abusively, then the employer is liable for damages to the In most cases, negligence must be proved in order that plaintiff may
employee. Under the circumstances of the instant case, the recover. However, since negligence may be hard to substantiate in
petitioners clearly failed to exercise in a legitimate manner their right some cases, we may apply the doctrine of RES IPSA LOQUITUR (the
to dismiss Tobias, giving the latter the right to recover damages under thing speaks for itself), by considering the presence of facts or
Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code. circumstances surrounding the injury.
The judgment of the CA is affirmed.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 09055 is AFFIRMED.
6) CECILIO PE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, On October 16, 1989, the lower court applied Article 21 of the New
vs. Civil Code in its decision favoring Marilou Gonzales and ordered
ALFONSO PE, defendant-appellee. (1962) Gashem Baksh to pay PhP 20,000 moral damges, PhP 3,000.00 in
attorney’s fees and PhP 2,000.00 for the litigation expenses.
FACTS: 12)
Alfonso Pe, the defendant, was a married man, agent of La Hence, Baksh filed an appeal with the Supreme Court seeking for the
Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory in Gasan Marinduque who review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Pangasinan and
was treated like a son by Cecilio Pe, one of the to set aside the said decision which was also affirmed in toto by the
petitioners. Cecilio introduced Alfonso to his children and was Court of Appeals.
13)
given access to visit their house. Alfonso got fond of Lolita, 24 Issue:
year old single, daughter of Cecilio. The defendant frequented Whether or not damages may be recovered for a breach of promise
the house of Lolita sometime in 1952 on the pretext that he to marry on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. Eventually 14)
The Court affirmed the Decisions of the lower court and the Court of
took advantage of the trust of Cecilio and even used the
Appeals pursuant to Aticle 21 of the New Civil Code, not because of
praying of rosary as a reason to get close with Lolita. The
the breach of promise to marry, but due the fraud and deceit
wrong caused by Alfonso is immeasurable considering the
employed by herein petitioner that wilfully caused injury to the
fact that he is a married man. honor and reputation of the herein private respondent, which
committed contrary to the morals, good customs or public policy.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed.
Defendant is hereby sentenced to pay the plaintiffs the sum
CASE DIGEST 2
of P5,000.00 as damages and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees
FACTS:
and expenses of litigations. Costs against appellee. Petitioner was a medicine student at Lyceum Northwestern Colleges
at Dagupan City. He was an Iranian exchange student and was 29
7) GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner, years old. Respondent was a former waitress on a luncheonette, and
vs. was 22 years old. Petitioner was allegedly the lover of the
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T. respondent, and was said to promise marriage to the latter, which
GONZALES, respondents. (1993) convinced her to live with him in his apartment. It was even alleged
that the petitioner went to the house of the respondent to inform her
family about the marriage on the end of the semester. However, the
Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in marriage did not materialize, with several beatings and
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall maltreatment experienced by the respondent from the petitioner.
compensate the latter for the damage. The case was filed in the RTC of Pangasinan, and the decision was
8) held in favor of the respondent. However, the petitioner claimed that
Facts: the judgment of the RTC was an error, for the claims of the
Marilou T. Gonzales, a 22 year old Filipino, single and of good moral respondent are not true, and that he did not know about the custom
of the Filipinos; his acts were in accordance of his custom.
character and reputation, duly respected in her community filed a The decision of the RTC was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.
complaint on October 27, 1987, against Gashem Shookat Baksh, an Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Iranian citizen, and an exchange student taking up a medical course
ISSUE:
at the Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan City. The
Whether or not the respondent could claim payment for the damages
complaint for damages is due to Baksh’s violation of their agreement incurred by the petitioner.
to get married.
9) RULING:
Prior to the filing of complaint, Gashem courted Marilou and Mere breach of marriage is not punishable by law. However, since the
proposed to marry her. She accepted his love on the condition that respondent was proved to have a good moral character, and that she
had just let her virginity be taken away by the petitioner since
they will get married. They agreed to get married at the end of the the latter offered a promise of marriage, then she could ask for
semester, which was October of that year. They also visited payment for damages. Furthermore, since she let her lover, the
Marilou’s parents in Pangasinan to secure their approval to the petitioner, “deflowered” her since she believed that his promise to
marry was true, and not due to her carnal desire, then she could have
marriage.
10)
her claims against the petitioner. Moreover, the father of the
Shortly thereafter, Gashem forced the petitioner to live with him in respondent had already looked for pigs and chicken for the marriage
reception and the sponsors for the marriage, and then damages were
Guilig, Dagupan City. It should be noted that she was a virgin before caused by the petitioner against the respondents, which qualified the
she lived with him and not a woman of loose morals. A few weeks claims of the respondent against the petitioner.
after she begun living with him, Gashem started to maltreat her,
which result to injuries. A confrontation with the barangay captain
of Guilig ensued and Gashem repudiated their marriage agreement
and said that he is already married to a girl in Bacolod City.
11)
8) CONRADO BUNAG, JR., petitioner, dismissal of the penal action did not carry with it the extinction of the civil
vs. action.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, First Division, and The reason most often given for this holding is that the two proceedings
ZENAIDA B. CIRILO, respondents. (1992) involved are not between the same parties. Furthermore, it has long been
emphasized, with continuing validity up to now, that there are different rules
FACTS: as to the competency of witnesses and the quantum of evidence in criminal
and civil proceedings. In a criminal action, the State must prove its case by
On the afternoon of September 8, 1973, defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr. evidence which shows the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,
brought plaintiff-appellant to a motel or hotel where they had sexual while in a civil action it is sufficient for the plaintiff to sustain his cause by
intercourse. Later that evening, said defendant-appellant brought plaintiff- preponderance of evidence only. 13 Thus, in Rillon, et al. vs. Rillon, 14 we
appellant to the house of his grandmother Juana de Leon in Pamplona, Las stressed that it is not now necessary that a criminal prosecution for rape be
Piñas, Metro Manila, where they lived together as husband and wife for 21 first instituted and prosecuted to final judgment before a civil action based
days, or until September 29, 1973. On September 10, 1973, defendant- on said offense in favor of the offended woman can likewise be instituted
appellant Bunag, Jr. and plaintiff-appellant filed their respective and prosecuted to final judgment.
applications for a marriage license with the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar of Bacoor, Cavite. On October 1, 1973, after leaving plaintiff- 9) RODRIGO CONCEPCION, Petitioner,
appellant, defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr. filed an affidavit withdrawing his v.
application for a marriage license. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. NESTOR NICOLAS
Plaintiff-appellant contends that on the afternoon of September 8, 1973, and ALLEM NICOLAS, Respondents. (2000)
defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr., together with an unidentified male
companion, abducted her in the vicinity of the San Juan de Dios Hospital in
Pasay City and brought her to a motel where she was raped. Facts:
ISSUE:
Sometime in 1985 the spouses Nestor Nicolas and Allem Nicolas
Whether, since action involves a breach of promise to marry, the trial court resided at Pasig City, in an apartment leased to them by the owner
erred in awarding damages. Florence “Bing” Concepcion, who also resided in the same compound
where the apartment was located. Nestor Nicolas was then engaged in
RULING: the business of supplying government agencies and
private entities with office equipment, appliances and other fixtures.
It is true that in this jurisdiction, we adhere to the time-honored rule that an
Florence Concepcion joined this venture. Sometime in the second
action for breach of promise to marry has no standing in the civil law, apart week of July 1985 Rodrigo Concepcion, brother of
from the right to recover money or property advanced by the plaintiff upon the deceased husband of Florence, angrily accosted Nestor at the
the faith of such promise. 8 Generally, therefore, a breach of promise to latter’s apartment and accused him of conducting an adulterous
marry per se is not actionable, except where the plaintiff has actually relationship with Florence.
incurred expenses for the wedding and the necessary incidents thereof.
However, the award of moral damages is allowed in cases specified in or Rodrigo threatened Florence over the telephone that should
something happen to his sick mother; in case the latter learned about
analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil the affair, he would kill Florence. As a result of this incident, Nestor
Code. Correlatively, under Article 21 of said Code, in relation to Nicolas felt extreme embarrassment and shame to the extent that he
paragraph 10 of said Article 2219, any person who wilfully causes could no longer face his neighbors. Consequently, he was forced to
loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good write Rodrigo demanding public apology and payment of damages.
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for moral Rodrigo pointedly ignored the demand, for which reason the Nicolas
damages. 9 Article 21 was adopted to remedy the countless gaps in the spouses filed a civil suit against him for damages. The Court of
statutes which leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless even Appeals ruled in favor of Nestor Nicolas, hence this case.
though they have actually suffered material and moral injury, and is
intended to vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of Issue:
moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically
provide for in the statutes. 10 Whether or not the CA erred in granting damages to Nestor Nicolas
and his spouse.
Under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, the acts of petitioner
in forcibly abducting private respondent and having carnal knowledge with Ruling:
her against her will, and thereafter promising to marry her in order to
escape criminal liability, only to thereafter renege on such promise after
According to petitioner, private respondents’ evidence is inconsistent
cohabiting with her for twenty-one days, irremissibly constituteacts
as to time, place and persons who heard the alleged defamatory
contrary to morals and good customs. These are grossly insensate and statement. The Court finds this to be a gratuitous observation, for the
reprehensible transgressions which indisputably warrant and abundantly testimonies of all the witnesses for the respondents are unanimous
justify the award of moral and exemplary damages, pursuant to Article 21 that the defamatory incident happened in the afternoon at the front
in relation to paragraphs 3 and 10, Article 2219, and Article 2229 and 2234 door of the apartment of the Nicolas spouses in the presence of some
of Civil Code. friends and neighbors, and later on, with the accusation being
repeated in the presence of Florence, at the terrace of her house. All
Petitioner would, however, belabor the fact that said damages were told, these factual findings provide enough basis in law for the award
awarded by the trial court on the basis of a finding that he is guilty of of damages by the Court of Appeals in favor of respondents.
forcible abduction with rape, despite the prior dismissal of the complaint
therefor filed by private respondent with the Pasay City Fiscal's Office. The Court reject petitioner’s posture that no legal provision supports
such award, the incident complained of neither falling under Art. 22,
Generally, the basis of civil liability from crime is the fundamental postulate 19, nor Art. 26 of the Civil Code. Damages therefore are allowable for
of our law that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. actions against a person’s dignity, such as profane, insulting,
In other words, criminal liability will give rise to civil liability ex delicto only if humiliating, scandalous or abusive language. As stated in the Civil
the same felonious act or omission results in damage or injury to another Code, moral damages which include physical suffering, mental
and is the direct and proximate cause thereof. 11 Hence, extinction of the anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability unless the feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury, although
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from incapable of pecuniary computation, may be recovered if they are the
which the civil might arise did not exist. 12 proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. There is
no question that private respondent Nestor Nicolas suffered mental
In the instant case, the dismissal of the complaint for forcible abduction anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social
with rape was by mere resolution of the fiscal at the preliminary humiliation as a proximate result of petitioner’s abusive, scandalous
investigation stage. There is no declaration in a final judgment that the fact and insulting language. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
therefore affirmed.
from which the civil case might arise did not exist. Consequently, the
dismissal did not in any way affect the right of herein private respondent to
institute a civil action arising from the offense because such preliminary
10) WILLAWARE PRODUCTS CORP., Petitioner, 11) SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING, Petitioners,
vs. JESICHRIS MANU. CORP., Respondent. (2014) v. ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. AND ALLAN
CHOACHUY, Respondents. (2013)
CASE DIGEST An individual’s right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code should
not be confined to his house or residence as it may extend to places where
Facts: Jesichris Manufacturing Company filed this present he has right to exclude the public or deny them access. The phrase “prying
complaint for damages for unfair competition with prayer for into the privacy of another’s residence,” therefore, covers places, locations,
permanent injunction to enjoin Willaware Products or even situations which an individual considers as private.
Corporationfrom... manufacturing and distributing plastic-made
automotive parts similar to those of respondent-jesichris.
FACTS: Spouses Bill and Victoria Hing own a parcel of land adjacent
[Respondent] alleged that it is a duly registered partnership engaged to the property of Alexander Choachuy, owner of Aldo Devt &
in the manufacture and distribution of plastic and metal products Resources, Inc (ALDO). ALDO filed a case for injuction and damages
[Respondent] further alleged that in view of the physical proximity of against the spouses, claiming that they were constructing a fence
[petitioner's] office to [respondent's] office, and in view of the fact w/o valid permit and that the said construction would destroy the
that some of the [respondent's] employees had transferred to wall of its building. In order to get evidence to support said case,
[petitioner], [petitioner] had developed familiarity with ALDO illegaly set-up and installed on the bldg of ALDO Goodyear
[respondent's]... products, especially its plastic-made automotive Servitec 2 CCTV facing Spuses Hing’s property and also took
parts.
pictures of the spouses’ on-going construction. Thus, Spouses Hing
That sometime in November 2000, [respondent] discovered that prayed that ALDO be ordered to remove the CCTV at the left side
[petitioner] had been manufacturing and distributing the same of their bldg overlooking the side of spouses’ lot and enjoined from
automotive parts with exactly similar design, same material and conducting illegal surveillance.
colors but was selling these products at a lower price as
[respondent's] plastic-made... automotive parts and to the same
customers. The RTC issued an Order granting the application for a TRO and
directed ALDO to remove immediately the revolving camera that
Issues: they installed and to transfer and operate it elsewhere at the back
In essence, the issue for our resolution is: whether or not petitioner where the spouses’ property can no longer be viewed. On appeal
committed acts amounting to unfair competition under Article 28 of the CA reversed the RTC’s decision explaining that the right to
the Civil Code. privacy of residence under Art. 26 of the NCC was not violated
since the property subject of the controversy is not used as a
Ruling:
residence.
The concept of "unfair competition" under Article 28 is very much
broader than that covered by intellectual property laws. Under the ISSUE: Did ALDO violate Spouses Hing’s right to privacy?
present article, which follows the extended concept of "unfair
competition" in American jurisdictions, the term covers even cases of
discovery of... trade secrets of a competitor, bribery of his
HELD:
employees, misrepresentation of all kinds, interference with the Yes. Article 26(1) of the CC states that every person shall respect
fulfillment of a competitor's contracts, or any malicious interference the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors
with the latter's business. and other persons. Prying into the privacy of another’s residence,
though it may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a
Article 28 of the Civil Code provides that "unfair competition in cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief.
agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through
the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other
unjust, oppressive or high-handed method shall give rise to a right of
An individual’s right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the CC
action... by the person who thereby suffers damage." should not be confined to his house or residence as it may extend to
places where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them
In order to qualify the competition as "unfair," it must have two access. The phrase “prying into the privacy of another’s residence,”
characteristics: (1) it must involve an injury to a competitor or trade therefore, covers places, locations, or even situations which an
rival, and (2) it must involve acts which are characterized as individual considers as private. And as long as his right is
"contrary to good conscience," or "shocking to judicial sensibilities," recognized by society, other individuals may not infringe on his
or... otherwise unlawful; in the language of our law, these include
force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust,
right to privacy. The CA, therefore, erred in limiting the application
oppressive or high-handed method. The public injury or interest is a of Article 26(1) of the CC only to residences.
minor factor; the essence of the matter appears to be a private
wrong perpetrated by... unconscionable means. In ascertaining whether there is a violation of the right to privacy,
courts use the reasonable expectation of privacy” test. This
Here, both characteristics are present. determines whether the expectation has been violated. In Ople v.
First, both parties are competitors or trade rivals, both being Torres, the court enunciated that “the reasonableness of a person’s
engaged in the manufacture of plastic-made automotive parts. expectation of privacy depends on a 2-part test: (1) whether, by his
conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and
Second, the acts of the petitioner were clearly "contrary to good (2) this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable.”
conscience" as petitioner admitted having employed respondent's Customs, community norms, and practices may, therefore, limit or
former... employees, deliberately copied respondent's products and
extend an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Hence,
even went to the extent of selling these products to respondent's
customers. the reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy must be
determined on a case-to-case basis since it depends on the factual
As aptly observed by the court a quo, the testimony of petitioner's circumstances surrounding the case.
witnesses indicate that it acted in bad faith in competing with the
business of respondent, to wit: The RTC, thus, considered that spouses Hing have a “reasonable
In sum, petitioner is guilty of unfair competition under Article 28 of expectation of privacy” in their property, whether they use it as a
the Civil Code. business office or as a residence and that the installation of CCTV
directly facing spouses Hing’s property or covering a significant
Principles: portion thereof, w/o their consent, is a clear violation of their right
In order to qualify the competition as "unfair," it must have two
to privacy. As the Court sees then, the issuance of preliminary
characteristics: (1) it must involve an injury to a competitor or trade injunction was justified.
rival, and (2) it must involve acts which are characterized as
"contrary to good conscience," or "shocking to judicial sensibilities,"
or... otherwise unlawful; in the language of our law, these include
force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust,
oppressive or high-handed method. The public injury or interest is a
minor factor; the essence of the matter appears to be a private
wrong perpetrated by... unconscionable means.
12) LAURA CORPUS, and the minors RICARDO, The trial court ruled in favor of herein petitioners, but lost in the Court
TERESITA and CORAZON, all surnamed MARCIA and of Appealswhere the accused was acquitted based on reasonable
represented by their mother LAURA CORPUS, plaintiffs- doubt. This was because it was found out that the deceased was the
one who acted negligently. The accused the claimed appealed in the
appellants, court that the civil case filed against him be extinguished since the
vs. FELARDO PAJE and THE VICTORY LINER extinguishment of his criminal liability necessarily follows the
TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., defendants-appellees. (1969) extinguishment of his civil liability, since his civil liability aroused
from his criminal liability. The petitioners disagreed on this ground,
claiming that the civil case should pursue. This was then appealed to
CASE DIGEST the Supreme Court.
Facts:
ISSUE:
December 23, 1956 in Lubao, Pampanga, the passenger bus driven Whether or not the civil case must be terminated as a consequence of
by Felardo Paje collided with the jeep driven by Clemente Marcia the termination of the criminal case based on reasonable doubt.
resulting to Clemente’s death and physical injuries to two other
persons. RULING:
A case was filed against Paje in the CFI of Pampanga for homicide The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of the bus driver was based
and double serious physical injuries through reckless on reasonable doubt, which means that the civil case for damages was
imprudence. —On November 7, 1960, Paje was found guilty but he not barred since the cause of action of the heirs was based on quasi
appealed the judgment of conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA). delict. Even if damages are sought on the basis of crime and not quasi
delict, the acquittal of the bus driver will not bar recovery of damages
On November 21, 1961, while Paje’s appeal was pending decision in because the acquittal was based not on a finding that he was not guilty
the CA, Corpus instituted in the CFI of Rizal a separate civil action but only on reasonable doubt. Thus, it has been held:
(Civil Case No. 6880) for damages based upon the criminal act of
reckless imprudence against Paje & Victory Liner Transportation
Co., Inc. The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the accused for
damages only when it includes a declaration that the facts from which
Corpus was claiming that the defendants be ordered to pay jointly the civil might arise did not exist. Thus, the civil liability is not
and separately the amounts of damages. —On November 9, 1962, extinguished by acquittal where the acquittal is based on reasonable
CA promulgated its decision in the appeal of Paje reversing the doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases;
appealed judgement and acquitting him after finding that the where the court expressly declares that the liability of the accused is
reckless imprudence charged against him did not exist, and that the not criminal but only civil in nature as, for instance, in the felonies
collision was a case of pure accident. of estafa, theft, and malicious mischief committed by certain relatives
who thereby incur only civil liability; and, where the civil liability does
On December 29, 1962, Paje & Victory Liner filed in the civil action a not arise from or is not based upon the criminal act of which the
accused was acquitted.
motion to dismiss on the ground that the action was barred by the
acquittal by the CA but the motion was denied.
Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the proceedings for the civil
case of the said incident must continue for the recovery of damages of
Issue: the victim’s heirs. The case was remanded to the trial court to
determine the civil liability of the accused.
Whether or not Corpus could claim the damages from Paje & Victory
Liner as per the civil case she filed.
14) [G.R. NO. 141309 : December 23, 2008]
FACTS:
The charge against Felardo Paje was not for homicide and physical
injuries but for reckless imprudence or criminal negligence resulting
in homicide (death of Clemente Marcia) and physical injuries
suffered by Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap. They are not one of the
three (3) crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil Code and,
therefore, no civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution.
The case of Laura Corpus vs. Felardo Paje (supra) is the same as
the case at bar, the only difference being the party-plaintiffs or
petitioners. Clemente Marcia died, while Edgar Marcia and Renato
Yap suffered physical injuries in the same accident. The heirs of
Clemente Marcia filed Civil Case No. 6880 in the Court of First
Instance of Rizal against herein respondents. The case was
dismissed and appealed directly to this Court. The order appealed
from was affirmed, as recorded in Laura Corpus vs. Felardo Paje, 28
SCRA 1062.