Coreine Imee B. Valledor Law 118- Legal Techniques and Logic FINAL EXAMINATION I. A.

Yes, there is a flaw in Pauls defense. In Article 21 of the New Civil Code, it is stated that, Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Although an action for breach of promise to marry was not expressly stipulated in the New Civil Code and thus, not making it an actionable wrong, it must be understood that it is to the extent to which acts not contrary to law may be carried out with impunity, and falls under the aforementioned article. Jurisprudence provides that in the Case of Wassmer v. Velez- GR. # L-20089, Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wassmer contending the express provision of Article 2219 (10) of the New Civil Code, that moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21. As the defendant argued that he could not be deemed to pay for exemplary damages because under Article 2232 of the New Civil Code the condition precedent is that the person acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. However his argument was rejected for with the circumstances presented in this case, Velez clearly acted in a "wanton... , reckless [and] oppressive manner." In the facts provided in this situation, it appears to show that it is not a case of mere breach of promise to Mary. With Pauls public announcement of their forthcoming marriage and instructing Mary to have her Wedding gown made and to distribute invitations, it gave Mary an idea on how serious were Pauls intention to her , which apparently resulted in the contrary. With his breach of his promise to marry her, it did not only create a hassle on Marys part but also, she was publicly humiliated. Clearly, Paul willfully caused damage to Marry in a manner that is contrary to god customs. Mary is entitled to recover damages against Paul which is deemed appropriate for this case. B. No, there should be no warrant for Mary to file a criminal case against Paul.

There is no provision in the Revised Penal Code or any Special Law that would convict Paul for his breach to marry her. What Paul did was not a crime; it was not a felony. Although he may have caused damage to Mary but he is only entitled to indemnify civil damages and is not liable for a criminal offense. II. The warrant that I would advance for the claim is the Provision in Section 21 of Article 6 in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Section 21 of Article 6 in the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that, The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected. This article establishes crucial safeguards that inhibit the legislative power of inquiry. It also requires that the inquiry be done in accordance with the Senate or Houses duly published rules of procedure, necessarily implying the constitutional infirmity of an inquiry conducted without duly published rules of procedure; it consents that the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries be respected. In the case of Drilon v. Ermita- Gr. No. 169777, it is said that the Senate of the Philippines has a fundamental right essential not only for intelligent public decision-making in a democratic system, but more especially for sound legislation is not disputed. Jurisprudence provides that, Although there is no provision in the Constitution

expressly investing either House of Congress with power to make investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may exercise its legislative functions advisedly and effectively, such power is so far incidental to the legislative function as to be implied. In other words, the power of inquiry with process to enforce it is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. In the facts presented in this case, the invitation made by the Senate Committee to conduct an investigation states no legislative purpose. It was all about the reports of anomalies in transactions relating to the department. This does not uphold the aforementioned article because the inquiry will not aid in their legislative function. Even if the Congress has the right to conduct inquiries but it should follow said procedures and has its limitations. Congress is obligated to adhere to the guarantees in the Bill of Rights and thus, should not gravely abuse its discretion in citing anyone for contempt. Section 21 of Article 6 in the 1987 Philippine Constitution should be properly upheld and followed.