1|Page ARTICLE 21 NO DIGEST FOR RUIZ VS SEC OF NATL DEFENSE TENCHAVEZ vs ESCANO In February 1948, Tenchavez and Escao

secretly married each other and o course !ithout the "no!ledge o Escao#s $arents !ho !ere o $rominent social status% The marriage !as celebrated by a military cha$lain% &hen Escao#s $arents learned o this, they insisted a church !edding to be held but Escao !ithdre! rom having a recelebration because she heard that Tenchavez !as having an a air !ith another !oman% Eventually, their relationshi$ !ent sour' ( years later, Escao !ent to the )* !here she ac+uired a decree o absolute divorce and she subse+uently became an ,merican citizen and also married an ,merican% In 19--, Tenchavez initiated a case or legal se$aration and urther alleged that Escao#s $arents dissuaded their daughter to go abroad and causing her to be estranged rom him hence he#s as"ing or damages in the amount o P1,...,...%..% The lo!er court did not grant the legal se$aration being sought or and at the same time a!arded a P4-,...%.. !orth o counter/claim by the Escaos% I**)E0 &hether or not damages should be a!arded to either $arty in the case at bar 1E230 4es% 5n the $art o Tenchavez0 1is marriage !ith Escao !as a secret one and the ailure o said marriage did not result to $ublic humiliation' that they never lived together and he even consented to annulling the marriage earlier 6because Escao iled or annulment be ore she le t or the )* but the same !as dismissed due to her non/a$$earance in court7' that he ailed to $rove that Escao#s $arents dissuaded their daughter to leave Tenchavez and as such his P1,...,...%.. claim cannot be a!arded% 15&E8E9, by reason o the act that Escao le t !ithout the "no!ledge o Tenchavez and being able to ac+uire a divorce decree' and Tenchavez being unable to remarry, the *: a!arded P(-,...%.. only by !ay o moral damages and attorney#s ees to be $aid by Escao and not her $arents%

5n the $art o Escao#s $arents0 It is true that the P1,...,...%.. or damages suit by Tenchavez against the Escaos is un ounded and the same must have !ounded their eelings and caused them an;iety, the same could in no !ay have seriously in<ured their re$utation, or other!ise $re<udiced them, la!suits having become a common occurrence in $resent society% &hat is im$ortant, and has been correctly established in the decision o the lo!er court, is that they !ere not guilty o any im$ro$er conduct in the !hole de$lorable a air% The *: reduced the damages a!arded rom P4-,...%.. to P-,...%.. only% Pe vs PeFACTS: ,l onso Pe, the de endant, !as a married man, agent o 2a Perla :igar and :igarette Factory in =asan>arindu+ue !ho !as treated li"e a son by :ecilio Pe, one o the $etitioners% :ecilio introduced ,l onsoto his children and !as given access to visit their house% ,l onso got ond o 2olita, (4 year old single,daughter o :ecilio% The de endant re+uented the house o 2olita sometime in 19-( on the $rete;t thathe !anted her to teach him ho! to $ray the rosary% Eventually they ell in love !ith each otherPlainti brought action be ore lo!er court o >anila and ailed to $rove ,l onso deliberately and in bad aith tried to !in 2olita#s a ection% The case on moral damages !as dismissed% I**)E0 &hether or not de endant is liable to 2olita#s amily on the ground o moral, good custom and $ublic $olicy due to their illicit a air% 1E23 ,l onso committed an in<ury to 2olita#s amily in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and $ublic $olicy contem$lated in ,rticle (. o the civil code% The de endant too" advantage o the trust o :ecilioand even used the $raying o rosary as a reason to get close !ith 2olita% The !rong caused by ,l onso isimmeasurable considering the act that he is a married man%&1E9EF59E, the decision a$$ealed rom is reversed% 3e endant is

(|Page hereby sentenced to $ay the$lainti s the sum o P-,...%.. as damages and P(,...%.. as attorney?s ees and e;$enses o litigations%:osts against a$$ellee% WASSMER vs. VELEZ F,:T*0 Francisco 8elez and @eatriz, ollo!ing their $romise to love, decided to get married% T!o days be ore their marriage Francisco !rote @eatriz telling her that their marriage had to be $ost$oned as his mother o$$oses it% , day be ore his marriage he sent a telegram in orming her Anothing changed rest assured returning soonB% Francisco !as never heard rom again% @eatriz sued or damages or breach o $romise to marry% I**)E0 Is breach o $romise to marry an actionable !rongC 1E230 The e;tent to !hich acts not contrary to la! may be $er$etrated !ith im$unity, is not limitless or ,rticle (1 o the :ivil :ode $rovides that Aany $erson !ho !ill ully causes loss or in<ury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or $ublic $olicy shall com$ensate the latter or the damages% This is not a case o mere breach to marry% ,s stated, mere breach o $romise to marry is not an actionable !rong% @ut to ormally set a !edding and go through all the $re$aration and $ublicity, only to !al" out o it !hen the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is +uite di erent% This is $al$ably and un<usti iably contrary to good customs or !hich de endant must be held ans!erable in damages in accordance !ith ,rticle (1 o the :ivil :ode% &hen a breach to marry is actionable under ,rticle (1 o the :ivil :ode, moral damages may be a!arded under ,rticle ((1961.7 o the said :ode% E;em$lary damages may also be a!arded under ,rticle ((D( o said :ode !here it is $roven that the de endant clearly acted in a !anton, rec"less and o$$ressive manner% ARTICLES 22 AND 23 (DIGEST: SPECIAL TORTS ON HUMAN RELATIONS 7 NO DIGEST FOR PEREZ VS POMAR EEEEEEEEEEEEE No !"es# $o% P&'!$!' Me%'(&) !s!)" vs Co)so*&'!o) I)s+%&)'e ,,,,,,,,,,,

CIR vs. F!%e-&).s F+) I)s+%&)'e /G.R. No. L031233. M&%'( 45 1467.8 *econd 3ivision, Paras 6F70 - concurring, 1 on leave F&'#s: Fireman#s Fund Insurance :om$any is a resident oreign insurance cor$oration organized under the la!s o the )nited *tates, authorized and duly licensed to do business in the Phili$$ines% It is a member o the ,merican Foreign Insurance ,ssociation, through !hich its business is cleared% From Fanuary 19-( to 3ecember 19-8, Fireman#s Fund entered into various insurance contracts involving casualty, ire and marine ris"s, or !hich the corres$onding insurance $olicies !ere issued% From Fanuary 19-( to 19-G, documentary stam$s !ere bought and a i;ed to the monthly statements o $olicies issued' and rom 19-H to 19-8 documentary stam$s !ere bought and a i;ed to the corres$onding $ages o the $olicy register, instead o on the insurance $olicies issued% 5n D Fuly 19-9, the com$any discovered that its monthly statements o business and $olicy register !ere lost% The loss !as re$orted to the @uilding ,dministration o ,yala @uilding and the Iational @ureau o Investigation on G Fuly 19-9% The :ommissioner o Internal 9evenue !as also in ormed o such loss by the com$any, through the latter#s auditors, *yci$, =orres and 8elayo, in a letter dated 14 Fuly 19-9% , ter conducting an investigation o said loss, the com$any#s e;aminer#s e;aminer ascertained that the com$any ailed to a i; the re+uired documentary stam$s to the insurance $olicies issued by it and ailed to $reserve its accounting records !ithin the time $rescribed by *ection DDH o the 9evenue :ode by using loose lea orms as registers o documentary stam$s !ithout !ritten authority rom the :ommissioner as re+uired by *ection 4 o 9evenue 9egulations 8/1% ,s a conse+uence o these indings, the :ommissioner, in a letter dated H 3ecember 19G(, assessed and demanded rom $etitioner the $ayment o documentary stam$ ta;es or the years 19-( to 19-8 in the total amount o PH9,8.G%8H and $lus com$romise $enalties, a total o P81,4.G%8H% The com$romise $enalties consisted o the sum o P1,...%.. as $enalty or the alleged ailure to a i; documentary stam$s and the urther sum o PG..%.. as $enalty or an alleged violation o 9evenue 9egulations 8/1 other!ise "no!n as the @oo""ee$ing 9egulations% In a letter dated 14 Fanuary 19GD, the com$any contested the assessment% , ter the :ommissioner denied the $rotest in a decision dated 1H >arch 19G-, the com$any a$$ealed to the :ourt o Ta; ,$$eals on 8 >ay 19G- 6:T, :ase 1G(97% , ter hearing the court rendered its decision dated (4 >ay 19G9 reversing the decision o the :ommissioner o Internal 9evenue% 1ence, the $etition iled on (G

D|Page Fune 19G9% The Supreme Court resolved to dismiss the petition and to affirm the assailed decision of the Court of Tax Appeals. 1. CTA R+*!)": &$$!9#+%e o$ o'+-e)#&%: s#&-;s #o ;&;e% o#(e% #(ose &+#(o%!<e =: *&> )o# #&)#&-o+)# #o $&!*+%e #o ;&: #(e s&-e The a i;ture o documentary stam$s to $a$ers other than those authorized by la! is not tantamount to ailure to $ay the same% It is true that the mode o a i;ing the stam$s as $rescribed by la! !as not ollo!ed, but the act remains that the documentary stam$s corres$onding to the various insurance $olicies !ere $urchased and $aid by the com$any% There is no legal <usti ication or the :ommissioner to re+uire the com$any to $ay again the documentary stam$ ta; !hich it had already $aid% To sustain the :ommissioner#s stand !ould re+uire the com$any to $ay the same ta; t!ice% I at all, the com$any should be $roceeded against or ailure to com$ly !ith the re+uirement o a i;ing the documentary stam$s to the ta;able insurance $olicies and not or ailure to $ay the ta;% 6*ee *ec% (D9 and DD(, 9ev% :ode7% 2. CTA R+*!)": Co-;%o-!se ;e)&*#!es '&))o# =e !-;ose !$ #(e 'o-;&): (&s )o# 'o)se)#e #(e%e#o &ith res$ect to the Jcom$romise $enalties# in the total sum o P1,G..%.., the $enalties cannot be im$osed in the absence o a sho!ing that the com$any consented thereto% , com$romise im$lies agreement% I the o er is re<ected by the ta;$ayer, the :ommissioner cannot en orce it e;ce$t through a criminal action% 6*ee :omm% o Int% 9ev% vs% ,bad, 2/19G(H, (H Fune 19G8%7 3. Do'+-e)#&%: #&9es5 >(e) ee-e ;&! 3ocumentary ta; is deemed $aid by0 6a7 the $urchase o documentary stam$s' 6b7 a i;ture o documentary stam$s to the document or instrument ta;ed or to such other $a$er as may be indicated by la! or regulations' and 6c7 cancellation o the stam$s as re+uired by la!% 3. P+%;ose o$ #(e *&> !s #o 'o**e'# #&9? Do'+-e)#&%: s#&-;s ;&! $o% &) '&)'e**e The over/riding $ur$ose o these $rovisions o la! is the collection o ta;es% The three ste$s involving documentary stam$s are but the means to that end% Thus, the $urchase o the stam$s is the orm o $ayment made' the a i;ture thereo on the document or instrument ta;ed is to insure that the corres$onding ta; has been $aid or such document !hile the cancellation o the stam$s is to obviate the $ossibility that said stam$s !ill be reused or similar documents or similar $ur$oses% In the $resent case, there a$$ears to be no dis$ute on the act that the documentary stam$s corres$onding to the various $olicies !ere $urchased and $aid or by the :om$any% Ieither is there any argument that the same !ere cancelled as re+uired by la!% This conclusion are also the indings o the :ommissioner#s e;aminer 6,mando @% >elgar7, and con irmed by the >emorandum o ,cting :ommissioner o Internal 9evenue Fose @% 2ingad, dated H Iovember 19G( to the :hie o @usiness Ta; 3ivision% The $urchase o documentary stam$s and their being a i;ed to the monthly statements o business and $olicy registers !ere also admitted by counsel or the =overnment as could clearly be gleaned rom his >emorandum submitted to the :ourt o Ta; ,$$eals% *im$ly said, the $ur$ose o im$osing documentary stam$ ta;es is to raise revenue and the corres$onding amount has already been $aid by the com$any and has actually become $art o the revenue o the government% @. Ev! e)'e #o ;%ove ;&:-e)# o$ o'+-e)#&%: s#&-; #&9 The insurance $olicies !ith the corres$onding documentary stam$s a i;ed are the best evidence to $rove $ayment o said documentary stam$ ta;% This rule ho!ever does not $reclude the admissibility o other $roo s !hich are uncontradicted and o considerable !eight, such as0 co$ies o the a$$lications or manager#s chec"s, co$ies o the manager#s chec" vouchers o the ban" sho!ing the $urchases o documentary stam$s corres$onding to the various insurance $olicies issued, in the $resent case, during the years 19-(/19-8 duly and $ro$erly identi ied by the !itnesses or the com$any during the hearing and admitted by the :ourt o Ta; ,$$eals% 2. S#&#+#es *ev:!)" #&9es o% +#!es5 !) '&se o$ o+=#5 'o)s#%+e s#%o)"*: &"&!)s# #(e "ove%)-e)# It is a general rule in the inter$retation o statutes levying ta;es or duties, that in case o doubt, such statutes are to be construed most strongly against the government and in avor o the sub<ects or citizens, because burdens are not to be im$osed, nor

4|Page $resumed to be im$osed beyond !hat statutes e;$ressly and clearly im$ort 6>anila 9ailroad :o% v% :ollector o :ustoms, -( Phil% 9-. K19(9L7% 7. A$$!9#+%e o$ s!")&#+%e )o# &##e) e =: =& $&!#(? A+s#!$!'&#!o) $o% #(e &'#s o$ &"e)#s '*&!-e $o% #(e &'#s o$ #(e ;%!)'!;&* !#se*$ The a i;ture o the stam$s on documents not authorized by la! is not attended by bad aith as the $ractice !as ado$ted rom the authority granted to &ise M :om$any, one o the com$any#s general agents% Indeed, the :ommissioner argued that such authority !as not given to the com$any s$eci ically, but under the general $rinci$le o agency, !here the acts o the agents bind the $rinci$al, the conclusion is inesca$able that the <usti ication or the acts o the agents may also be claimed or the acts o the $rinci$al itsel % 6. Do'#%!)e #(&# )o ;e%so) s(&** +)B+s#*: e)%!'( (!-se*$ &# #(e e9;e)se o$ &)o#(e% &;;*!es &*so #o #(e Gove%)-e)# There is no <usti ication or the government !hich has already realized the revenue !hich is the ob<ect o the im$osition o sub<ect stam$ ta;, to re+uire the $ayment o the same ta; or the same documents% Enshrined in our basic legal $rinci$les is the time honored doctrine that no $erson shall un<ustly enrich himsel at the e;$ense o another% It goes !ithout saying that the government is not e;em$ted rom the a$$lication o this doctrine 69amie Te;tiles, Inc% v% >athay *r%, 89 *:9, -8H K19H9L7% EEEEEEEEEEEEEE A*$%e o Ve*&:o vs S(e** Co-;&): Prior to 1948, :ommercial ,irlines 6:,2I7 o!ed P1H." 6abt% NH9"7 to *hell and :,2 o ered its :/-4 $lane as $ayment to *hell :om$any 6the $lane !as in :ali ornia7 but *hell at that time declined as it thought :,2I had su icient money to $ay its debt% In 1948 ho!ever, :,2I !as going ban"ru$t so it called u$on an in ormal meeting o its creditors% In that meeting, the creditors agreed to a$$oint re$resentatives to a !or"ing committee that !ould determine the order o $re erence as to ho! each creditor should be $aid% They also agreed not to ile suit against :,2I but :,2I did reserve that it !ill ile insolvency $roceedings should its assets be not enough to $ay them u$% *hell :om$any !as re$resented by a certain Fitzgerald to the three man !or"ing committee% 2ater, the !or"ing committee convened to discuss ho! :,2I#s asset should be divided amongst the creditors but !hile such !as $ending, Fitzgerald sent a telegra$h message to *hell )*, advising the latter that *hell Phili$$ines is assigning its creditto *hell )*, in the amount o NH9", thereby e ectively collecting almost all i not the entire indebtedness o :,2I to *hell Phili$$ines% *hell )*, got !ind o the act that :,2I has a :/-4 $lane is :ali ornia and so *hell )*, $etitioned be ore a :ali orniacourt to have the $lane be the sub<ect o a !rit o attachment !hich !as granted% >ean!hile, the stoc"holders o :,2I !ere una!are o the assignment o credit made by *hell Phili$$ines to *hell )*, and they !ent on to a$$rove the sale o :,2I#s asset to the Phili$$ine ,irlines% In *e$tember 1948, the other creditors learned o the assignment made by *hell% This $rom$ted these other creditors to ile their o!n com$laint o attachment against :,2I#s assets% :,2I then iled or insolvency $roceedings to $rotect its assets in the Phili$$ines rom being attached% 8elayo#s a$$ointment as :,2I#s assignee !as a$$roved in lieu o the insolvency $roceeding% In order or him to recover the :/-4 $lane in :ali ornia, it iled or a !rit o in<unction against *hell Phili$$ines in order or the latter to restrain *hell )*, rom $roceeding !ith the attachment and in the alternative that <udgment be a!arded in avor o :,2I or damages double the amount o the :/-4 $lane% The :/-4 $lane !as not recovered% *hell :om$any argued it is not liable or damages because there is nothing in the la! !hich $rohibits a com$any rom assigning its credit, it being a common $ractice% ISSUE: &hether or not *hell is liable or damages considering that it did not violate any la!% HELD: 4es% The basis o such liability, in the absence o la!, is ,rticle (1 o the :ivil :ode !hich states0 A,rt% (1% ,ny $erson !ho !ill ully causes loss or in<ury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or $ublic $olicy shall com$ensate the latter or the damageB% Thus at one stro"e, the legislator, i the orgoing rule is a$$roved 6as it !as a$$roved7, !ould vouchsa e ade+uate legal remedy or that untold numbers o moral !rongs !hich is im$ossible or human oresight to $rovide or s$eci ically in the statutes% , moral !rong or in<ury, even i it does not constitute a violation o a statute la!, should be com$ensated by damages% >oraldamages 6,rt% ((1H7 may be recovered 6,rt% ((197% In ,rticle (., the liability or damages arises rom a !ill ul or

-|Page negligent act contrary to la!% In this article, the act is contrary to morals, good customs or $ublic $olicy% EEEEEEEEEEEEE ITLE: St. Louis Realty Corp. vs. CA CITATION: 133 SCRA 179 FACTS: 3r% :onrado ,ramil, a neuro$sychiatrist and member o the aculty o )E 9amon >agsaysay >edical :enter, see" to recover damage or a !rong ul advertisement in the *unday Times !here *t 2ouis 9ealty :or$% misre$resented his house !ith >r% ,rcadio% *t% 2ouis $ublished an ad on 3ecember 1-, 19G8 !ith the heading A!here the heart isB% This !as re$ublished on Fanuary -, 19G9% In the advertisement, the house eatured !as 3r ,ramil#s house and not >r% ,rcadio !ith !hom the com$any as"ed $ermission and the intended house to be $ublished% , ter 3r ,ramil noticed the mista"e, he !rote a letter to *t% 2ouis demanding an e;$lanation 1 !ee" a ter such recei$t% Io recti ication or a$ology !as $ublished des$ite that it !as received by Ernesto >agtoto, the o icer in charge o the advertisement% This $rom$ted 3r% ,ramil#s counsel to demand actual, moral and e;em$lary damages% 5n >arch 18, 19G9, *t 2ouis $ublished an ad no! !ith >r% ,rcadio#s real house but nothing on the a$ology or e;$lanation o the error% 3r ,ramil iled a com$laint or damages on >arch (9% 3uring the ,$ril 1- ad, the notice o recti ication !as $ublished% ISSUE: &hether *t% 2ouis is liable to $ay damages to 3r% ,ramil% HELD: *t 2ouis !as grossly negligent in mi;ing u$ residences in a !idely circulated $ublication% Furthermore, it never made any !ritten a$ology and e;$lanation o the mi;/u$% It <ust contented itsel !ith a cavalier Orecti ication O% The trial court a!arded ,ramil P8,... as actual damages, P(.,... as moral damages and P(,... as attorney?s ees% &hen *t% 2ouis 9ealty a$$ealed to the :ourt o ,$$eals, :, a irmed the <udgement or the reason that A*t% 2ouis 9ealty committed an actionable +uasi/delict under articles (1 and (G o the :ivil :ode because the +uestioned advertisements $ictured a beauti ul house !hich did not belong to ,rcadio but to 3octor ,ramil !ho, naturally, !as annoyed by that contretem$sB% &1E9EF59E, the <udgment o the ,$$ellate :ourt is a irmed% :osts against the $etitioner% EEEEEEEEEEE NO DIGEST FOR DANAO VS CA ARTICLE 27 NO DIGEST FOR PILAR VS SANGGUNIAN EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ARTICLE 26 UNFAIR COMPETITION NO DIGEST FOR US VS MANUEL ,,,,,,,,,,,, ARTICLE 24 S&;!e%& vs Co+%# o$ A;;e&*s /G.R. No. 126427. Se;#e-=e% 135 14448 FACTS: Pe#!#!o)e% Re-e !os S&;!e%&5 & s&%!0s&%! s#o%e o>)e%5 >&s !ss+e =: o)e ,rturo de =uzman chec"s as $ayment or $urchases he made at her store% *he used said chec"s to $ay or certain items she $urchased rom the grocery store o 9amon *ua% These chec"s !ere signed at the bac" by $etitioner% &hen $resented or $ayment the chec"s !ere dishonored because the dra!er#s account !as already closed% *ua in ormed ,rturo de =uzman and $etitioner about the dishonor but both ailed to $ay the value o the chec"s% Petitioner !as ac+uitted in the charge o esta a iled against her but she !as ound liable or the value o the chec"s. ISSUE: W(e#(e% ;e#!#!o)e% !s *!&=*e $o% #(e v&*+e o$ #(e '(e'Cs eve) !$ s(e s!")e #(e s+=Be'# '(e'Cs o)*: $o% #(e ! e)#!$!'&#!o) o$ #(e s!")&#+%e o$ A%#+%o e G+<-&). RULING:

G|Page Petitioner is liable or the value o the chec"s% ,s she 6$etitioner7 signed the sub<ect chec"s on the reverse side !ithout any indication as to ho! she should be bound thereby, she is deemed to be an un+uali ied indorser thereo % Every indorser !ho indorses !ithout +uali ication, !arrants to all subse+uent holders in due course that, on due $resentment, it shall be acce$ted or $aid or both, according to its tenor, and that i it be dishonored and the necessary $roceedings on dishonor be duly ta"en, he !ill $ay the amount thereo to the holder or to any subse+uent indorser !ho may be com$elled to $ay it% EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE S&;!e%& vs Co+%# o$ A;;e&*s F&'#s: 9emedios Iota *a$iera, a sari/sari store o!ner, on several occasions, $urchased rom >onrico >art grocery items, mostly cigarettes and $aid or them !ith chec"s issued by one ,rturo de =uzman% These chec"s !ere signed by *a$iera on the bac"% &hen they !ere $resented or $ayment, the chec"s !ere dishonoured because the dra!er#s account !as already closed% 9es$ondent 9amon *amua in ormed ,rturo de =uzman and $etitioner but both ailed to $ay% 1ence, our charges o Esta a !ere iled against*a$iera !hile t!o counts o @P (( !as iled against ,rturo de =uzman% These cases !ere consolidated% 5n 3ecember (H 1999, the 9T: 3agu$an city ac+uitted *a$iera o all charges o Esta a but did not rule on the civil as$ect o the case% ,rturo de =uzman !as held liable or the ( @P (( cases and !as ordered to $ay *ua 1GH,1-. Ph$ as civil indemnity and !as sentenced or im$risonment o G months and 1 day% 9es$ondent *ua a$$ealed regarding the civil as$ect o *a$iera#s case but the courtdenied it saying that the ac+uittal o $etitioner !as absolute% 9es$ondent iled a $etition or mandamus !ith the :ourt o ,$$eals $raying that the a$$eal be given due course, this !as granted% 5n Fanuary 199G, :, rendered a decision ordering *a$iera to $ay DD-... $h$ to *ua% *a$iera iled a motion or reconsideration% The :, the issued a resolution noting that the admission o both $arties that *ua already collected 1(-... or the ( chec" $aid by 3e =uzman on the @P (( cases% It a$$ears that the $ayment should be deducted on her liability as they involved the same t!o chec"s !hich *a$iera !as involved in% the :, deducted the liability to (1.,... Ph$% 1ence this $etition by *a$iera claiming that the :, erred in rendering such decision because she !as ac+uitted and the act rom !hich the civil liability e;ists did not e;ist% Iss+e 0 &hether or not *a$iera could be held civilly liable !hen she !as ac+uitted in the criminal charges against her% He* 0 4es% *ec% ( o rule 111 o the rules o court $rovides that e;tinction o the $enal action does not carry !ith it the e;tinction o the civil, unless this sho!s that the act rom !hich the civil liability is based is $roven to not have e;isted because o such ac+uittal% :ivil liability is not e;tinguished !here0 6a7 the ac+uittal is not based on reasonable doubt% 6b7 &here the court e;$ressly declares that the liability is not criminal but only civil, 6c7 !here the civil liability is not derived rom or based on the criminal act% The decision o the case!ould sho! that the ac+uittal !as based on ailure o the $rosecution to $resent su icient evidence sho!ing cons$iracy bet!een her and 3e =uzman% *ince all chec"s !ere signed by *a$iera on the bac", sec 1H o Iegotiable instruments la! says that she !ould be considered an indorser o the bill o e;change and under section GG thereo !ould be held liable or breach o !arrantyand is held liable to $ay the holder !ho may be com$elled to $ay the instrument% EEEEEEEEEEEEEE 31@ S&;!e%& vs. CA P @ellosillo =%9% Io% 1(89(H, *e$tember 14, 1999 P D14 *:9, DH. FACTS Q5n several occasions, *a$iera, a sari/sari store o!ner, $urchased rom >onrico >art certain grocery items, mostly cigarettes, and $aid or them !ith chec"s issued by one de =uzman, signed at the ban" by *a$iera% Q&hen $resented or $ayment, the chec"s !ere dishonored because the dra!er#s account !as already closed% Private res$ondent *ua in ormed de =uzman and *a$iera about the dishonor, but both ailed to $ay the value o the chec"s% 1ence, 4 charges o @P (( !ere iled against *a$iera, and ( counts o @P (( against de =uzman be ore the 9T:% QThe 9T: held de =uzman guilty and ac+uitted *a$iera o all charges o esta a% 1o!ever, it did not rule on !hether she could be held civilly liable% Q*ua iled an a$$eal !ith the 9T: !ith regard the civil as$ect, but it re used to give due course to the a$$eal on the ground that the ac+uittal o *a$iera !as absolute% It then iled a $etition or mandamus !ith the :,, !hich !as granted% QThe :, also ordered *a$iera to $ay *ua PDD-,..., re$resenting the aggregate ace value o the 4 chec"s indorsed by *a$iera $lus legal interest% Q*a$iera iled a motion or reconsideration, alleging that *ua had already recovered P1(-,... under the criminal $roceedings% The :, then corrected its $revious a!ard by deducting such amount% 1ence this $etition%

H|Page ISSUES D ARGUMENTS QWEN #(e CA e%%e !) %eF+!%!)" S&;!e%& #o ;&: '!v!* !) e-)!#: &$#e% #(e #%!&* 'o+%# (& &'F+!##e (e% o$ '%!-!)&* '(&%"es. HOLDING D RATIO DECIDENDI SAPIERA MAG HE ORDERED TO PAG CIVIL INDEMNITG DESPITE ACIUITTAL OF CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR ESTAFA. Q*ection (6b7 o 9ule 111 o the 9o: $rovides0 AE;tinction o the $enal action does not carry !ith it e;tinction o the civil, unless the e;tinction $roceeds rom a declaration in a inal <udgment that the act rom !hich the civil might arise did not e;ist% QThus, the civil liability is not e;tinguished by ac+uittal !here0 6a7 the ac+uittal is based on reasonable doubt' 6b7 !here the court e;$ressly declares that the liability o the accused is not criminal but only civil in nature' and, 6c7 !here the civil liability is not derived rom or based on the criminal act o !hich the accused is ac+uitted% QThus, under ,rticle (9 o the I::1G% 1G &hen the accused in a criminal $rosecution is ac+uitted on the ground that his guilt has not been $roved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action or damages or the same act or omission may be instituted% *uch action re+uires only a $re$onderance o evidence% )$on motion o the de endant, the court may re+uire the $lainti to ile a bond to ans!er or damages in case the com$laint should be ound to be malicious% QThe e;oneration o *a$iera !as based on the ailure o the $rosecution to $resent su icient evidence sho!ing cons$iracy bet!een her and the other accused 6de =uzman7% 1o!ever, *a$iera had admitted having signed the 4 chec"s on the reverse side% 1ence, she is deemed to be an indorser thereo , and thus made hersel liable or the $ayment o said chec"s% QThe dismissal o the criminal cases against *a$iera did not erase her civil liability since the dismissal !as due to insu iciency o evidence and not rom a declaration that the act rom !hich the civil action might arise did not e;ist% Q,n accused ac+uitted o esta a may nevertheless be held civilly liable !here the acts established by the evidence so !arrant% QThe rationale behind the a!ard o civil indemnity des$ite a <udgment o ac+uittal is that the t!o liabilities are se$arate and distinct rom one another% &hile it is <ust and $ro$er or the $ur$oses o im$risonment o the accused that the o ense should be $roved beyond reasonable doubt, there is no such evidence re+uired or the $ur$ose o indemni ying the com$laining $arty% For the latter, only a $re$onderance o evidence should be re+uired% Petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIR ED. !!!!!!!!!!!! No D!"es# $o% SADIO VS RTC OF ANTIIUE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE No D!"es# $o% M&'(!)e%: &) E)"!)ee%!)" vs I+!)#&)o5 14@2 ,,,,,,,,,,, S&)#os vs. P!<&% o (211@J FACTS: 3ionisio >% *ibayan, a driver o 8iron Transit @us collided !ith a lite ace van !hich claimed the lives o the van?s driver and three 6D7 o its $assengers, including a t!o/ month old baby, and caused $hysical in<uries to ive 6-7 o the van?s $assengers% , criminal action or 9ec"less Im$rudence 9esulting to >ulti$le 1omicide and >ulti$le Physical In<uries !as therea ter iled% There !as a reservation or iling a se$arate civil action arising rom the crime% *ibayan !as ad<udged guilty beyond reasonable doubt o the crime charged% , se$arate civil action or damages !as iled against *ibayan, 8iron transit and its o!ner, citing the <udgment convicting *ibayan% ,s a de ense, *ibayan, et al iled a motion to dismiss on the ground o $rescri$tion% 9T: decision0 dismissed the com$laint on the ground o $rescri$tion% :, decision0 dismissed the $etition or certiorari or the reason that it !as not the $ro$er remedy% ISSUE 0 &5I there !as $rescri$tion% RULING: Ione% , reading o the com$laint reveals that the allegations therein are consistent !ith $etitioners? claim that the action !as brought to recover civil liability arising rom crime% ,lthough there are allegations o negligence on the $art o *ibayan and 8iron Transit, such does not necessarily mean that $etitioners !ere $ursuing a cause o action based on +uasi delict, considering that at the time o the iling o the com$laint, the cause o action e; +uasi delicto had already $rescribed% @esides, in cases o negligence, the o ended $arty has the choice bet!een an action to en orce civil

8|Page liability arising rom crime under the 9evised Penal :ode and an action or +uasi delict under the :ivil :ode% ,n act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to t!o se$arate civil liabilities on the $art o the o ender, i%e%, 617 civil liability e; delicto, under ,rticle 1.. o the 9evised Penal :ode' and 6(7 inde$endent civil liabilities, such as those 6a7 not arising rom an act or omission com$lained o as a elony, e%g%, cul$a contractual or obligations arising rom la! under ,rticle D1 o the :ivil :ode, intentional torts under ,rticles D( and D4, and cul$a a+uiliana under ,rticle (1HG o the :ivil :ode' or 6b7 !here the in<ured $arty is granted a right to ile an action inde$endent and distinct rom the criminal action under ,rticle DD o the :ivil :ode% 1- Either o these liabilities may be en orced against the o ender sub<ect to the caveat under ,rticle (1HH o the :ivil :ode that the $lainti cannot recover damages t!ice or the same act or omission o the de endant and the similar $roscri$tion against double recovery under the 9ules above/+uoted% A# #(e #!-e o$ #(e $!*!)" o$ #(e 'o-;*&!)# $o% &-&"es !) #(!s '&se5 #(e '&+se o$ &'#!o) e9 F+&s! e*!'#o (& &*%e& : ;%es'%!=e . No)e#(e*ess5 ;e#!#!o)e%s '&) ;+%s+e #(e %e-&!)!)" &ve)+e o;e)e $o% #(e- =: #(e!% %ese%v&#!o)5 !.e.5 #(e s+%v!v!)" '&+se o$ &'#!o) e9 e*!'#o. T(!s !s so =e'&+se #(e ;%es'%!;#!o) o$ #(e &'#!o) e9 F+&s! e*!'#o oes )o# o;e%&#e &s & =&% #o &) &'#!o) #o e)$o%'e #(e '!v!* *!&=!*!#: &%!s!)" $%o- '%!-e es;e'!&**: &s #(e *&##e% &'#!o) (& =ee) e9;%ess*: %ese%ve . ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ARTICLE 31 No D!"es# $o% Re;+=*!' vs He**o ,,,,,,,,,,, TAGAG V ALCANTARA 46 SCRA 723 CONCEPCION? A+*: 235 1461 NATURE Pe#!#!o) $o% %ev!e> o) 'e%#!o%&%! #(e o% e% o$ CFI T&%*&' ( !s-!ss!)" ;e#!#!o) $o% &-&"esJ FACTS 0 Pe %o T&:&" >&s %! !)" & -o#o%':'*e >(e) (e >&s =+-;e =: & Phili$$ine 9abbit @us, driven by 9omeo 8illa, !hich caused his instantaneous death% Pending the criminal case against the driver, the heirs o Tayag instituted a civil action to recover damages rom the com$any 6Phil 9abbit @us Inc7 and the driver% In turn, the com$any and driver iled a motion to sus$end trial o the civil case on the ground that the criminal case !as still $ending% Fudge ,lcantara granted this motion% / In the criminal case, the driver as ac+uitted based on reasonable doubt% The com$any and driver then iled or dismissal o the civil case on the ground that the heirs do not have a cause o action because o the ac+uittal% Fudge ,lcantara granted this and dismissed the civil case. ISSUE WON A+ "e A*'&)#&%& 'o%%e'#*: !s-!sse #(e '!v!* '&se o) #(e "%o+) o$ )o '&+se o$ &'#!o) +e #o #(e &'F+!##&* o$ #(e %!ve% HELD 1% I5 Ratio The $etitioners? cause o action being based on a +uasi/delict, the ac+uittal o the driver o the crime charged is not a bar to the $rosecution or damages based on +uasi/delict Reasonin" / ,rt% D1, I:: $rovides0 A&hen the civil action is based on an obligation not arising rom the act or omission com$lained o as a elony, such civil action may $roceed inde$endently o the criminal $roceedings and regardless o the result o the latterB / Evidently, this $rovision re ers to a civil action based on an obligation arising rom +uasi/delict% The com$laint itsel sho!s that the claim !as based on +uasi/delit, vi#0 AG% That de endant Phili$$ine 9abbit @us 2ino, Inc%, has ailed to e;ercise the diligence o a good ather o a amily in the selection and su$ervision o its em$loyees, $articularly de endant 9omeo 8illa y :unanan% 5ther!ise, the accident in +uestion !hich resulted in the death o Pedro Tayag, *r% and damage to his $ro$erty !ould not have occurred'B ,ll the essential averments or a +uasi/delictual action are $resent0 617 act or omission constituting ault Rnegligence on the $art o res$ondent 6(7 damage caused by the said act or omission 6D7 direct causal relation bet!een the damage and the act or omission and 647 no $ree;isting contractual relation bet!een the $arties% :iting Elcano v 1ill0 a se$arate civil action lies against the o ender in a criminal act, &5I he is criminally $rosecuted and ound guilty or ac+uitted, $rovided that o ended $arty is not allo!ed to recover damages on both scores

9|Page 3I*P5*ITI5I $etition granted% 5rder o :FI Tarlac set aside, case 9E>,I3E3 to lo!er court or urther $roceedings% SEPARATE OPINION AIUINO /'o)'+%8 / I concur because $etitioners? action or damages is based on article (1HH o the :ivil :ode, under !hich according to the :ode :ommission, Oac+uittal rom an accusation o criminal negligence, !hether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subse+uent civil action, not or civil liability rom criminal negligence, but or damages due to a +uasi/delict or cul$a a+uilianaO% ,rticle DD o the :ivil :ode also <usti ies the $etitioners? inde$endent civil action or damages since the term O$hysical in<uriesO therein embraces death 63yogi vs% 4atco, 1.. Phil% 1.9-7% / >oreover, the ac+uittal o 9omeo 8illa !as based on reasonable doubt% The $etitioners, as $lainti s in the civil case, can amend their com$laint and base their action also on article (9 I:: !hich allo!s an inde$endent civil action or damages in case o ac+uittal on the ground o reasonable doubt% / The re+uirement in section (, 9ule III o the 9ules o :ourt that there should be a reservation in the criminal cases o the right to institute an inde$endent civil action is contrary to la!% EEEEEEE ARTICLE 32 CONSTITUTIONAL TORTS 273 A=e%'& vs. Ve%P En @anc =%9% Io% 2/G98GG, ,$ril 1-, 1988 P 1G. *:9, -9. FACTS QThen President >arcos had already li ted >artial 2a! but the $rivilege o the !rit o habeas cor$us !as still sus$ended% Q=eneral 8er ordered Tas" Force >a"abansa 6TF>7 to conduct $re/em$tive stri"es against "no!n communist/terrorist 6:T7 underground houses in vie! o increasing re$orts about :T $lans to so! disturbances in >etro >anila% QPlainti s iled a com$laint !hich contained allegations o searches made !ithout search !arrants or based on irregularly issued or substantially de ective !arrants' seizures and con iscation, !ithout $ro$er recei$ts, o cash and $ersonal e ects belonging to $lainti s and other items o $ro$erty !hich !ere not subversive and illegal nor covered by the search !arrants' arrest and detention o $lainti s !ithout !arrant or under irregular, im$ro$er and illegal circumstances' detention o $lainti s at several undisclosed $laces o ?sa ehousesO !here they !ere "e$t incommunicado and sub<ected to $hysical and $sychological torture and other inhuman, degrading and brutal treatment or the $ur$ose o e;tracting incriminatory statements% The com$laint contains a detailed recital o abuses $er$etrated u$on the $lainti s violative o their constitutional rights% ISSUES D ARGUMENTS QWEN #(e TFM -&: =e (e* *!&=*e $o% #(e!% &'#s +) e% &) o$$!'!&* +#: Res;o) e)#s: They have immunity rom suit o a state or they only ollo!ed the orders o the President !hen he called them out% It !as their constitutional duty to e;ercise their unctions% HOLDING D RATIO DECIDENDI GES5 THEIR DUTG TO SUPPRESS LAWLESSNESS IS NOT A HLANKET LICENSE WHICH IGNORED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. Q,rticle D( o the :ivil :ode $rovides0 1% Freedom rom arbitrary arrest or illegal detention' (% The right against de$rivation o $ro$erty !ithout due $rocess o la!' D% The right to be secure in one?s $erson, house, $a$ers and e ects against unreasonable searches and seizures' 4% The $rivacy o communication and corres$ondence' -% Freedom rom being com$elled to be a !itness against one?s sel , or rom being orced to con ess guilt, or rom being induced by a $romise o immunity or re!ard to ma"e a con ession, e;ce$t !hen the $erson con essing becomes a state !itness% QThe com$laint alleges acts sho!ing !ith abundant clarity and details, ho! $lainti s? constitutional rights and liberties mentioned in ,rticle D( o the :ivil :ode !ere violated and im$aired by de endants% QThe sus$ension o the $rivilege o the !rit o habeas cor$us does not destroy $etitioners? right and cause o action or damages or illegal arrest and detention and other violations o their constitutional rights% The sus$ension does not render valid an other!ise illegal arrest or detention% &hat is sus$ended is merely the right o the individual to see" release rom detention through the !rit o habeas cor$us as a s$eedy means o obtaining his liberty% Qit does not and cannot sus$end their rights and causes o action or in<uries su ered because o res$ondents? con iscation o com$lainants# $rivate belongings, the violation o their right to remain silent and to counsel and their right to $rotection against unreasonable searches and seizures and against torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment% EEEEEEEEE

1. | P a g e V!)<o)s0C(&#o v. Fo%#+)e To=&''o Tags0 damages, digest, ortune tobacco, torts, vinzons/chato, vinzons/chato v% ortune tobacco V!)<o)s0C(&#o v. Fo%#+)e To=&''o 6(..H7 R 4nares/*antiago Facts :ham$ion, 1o$e, and >ore !ere considered local brands sub<ect to ad valorem Kaccdg to valueL ta; K(./4-SL% T!o days $rior 61 Ful ?9D7 to 9, HG-4?s e ectivity, 8: K:omm%, @I9L issued the 9>: reclassi ying the brands as locally manu actured cigarettes bearing a oreign brand sub<ect to --S ,8 ta; 6brands !ere sub<ected to 9, HG-4, *ec% 14( 6c7617 be ore it too" e ect7% 5n ( Ful, @I9 3e$uty :omm sent a co$y o 9>: to Fortune via a;% It !as only on 1- Ful !hen Fortune received a certi ied $hotoco$y o the 9>:% Fortune iled an > 9 on (. Ful, re+uesting the 9>:?s recall but it !as denied on D. Ful, and $ayment o the ,8 ta; de iciency 69>T7 !as demanded !ithin 1. days% Fortune iled a $etition or revie! !ith the :Ta;,$$ 6:T,7 !hich issued an in<unction en<oining 9>:?s im$lementation 6de ective, invalid, unen orceable7% This !as a irmed by the :,, and *: in Comm$ %IR v. CA, since the 9>: ell short o the re+uirements or a valid admin issuance% Fortune iled a com$laint or damages against 8: in her $rivate ca$acity in the 9T:, saying that she should be held liable or damages under I:: D( 69>: issuance violated right against $ro$erty de$rivation !ithout due $rocess U e+ual $rotection o the la!s7% 8: iled a motion to dismiss since she issued 9>: in the $er ormance o her ;n, !ithin authority, and said that being an agent o 9P, the latter is the one res$onsible or her acts, and that the com$laint did have a cause o a;n because there !as no allegation o maliceRbad aith% 9T: denied 8:?s motion to dismiss% :, dismissed the case as !ell, saying that under I:: D(, liability may arise even i de endant did not act !ith maliceRbad aith% :, also said that ,dmin :ode is the general la! on $ubo ?s civil liab !hile I:: D( is the s$ecial la! governing this case, and that maliceRbad aith need not be alleged in the com$laint or damages% 8: iled this com$laint, saying that !hat shld be a$$lied is the ,dmin :ode Kliab attaches only !hen there is a clear sho!ing o bad aith R malice R gross negligenceL and said that ,dmin :ode is the s$ecial la!, and that I:: is the general la!% Issues a ! "ol!i # 1% &5I a $ubo be sued in his $rivate ca$acity or acts done in connection !ith the discharge o o c ;ns% GES5 >(e) /L38 1% =EI 9)2E0 Pub5 not liab or damages !hich another su ers rom <ust $er ormance o o icial duties, !ithin sco$e o tas"s U 9P not amenable to <udgment or monetary claims !ithout its consent 1% 15&E8E9, $ubo not immune rom damages in $ersonal ca$acity or acts done in bad aith 6not $rotected by mantle o immunity7 K*ee cited ,dmin :ode $rovision U *ec D9 o the sameL (% Co&uan"co$ 'r. v. CA / $ubo !ho inRdirectly violates another?s consti rights may be sued or damages under I:: D( even though there is no malice R bad aith D% *50 $ubo may be sued K%%%L 1% !hen there is malice, bad aith, negligence (% !hen he violated a consti right o $lainti (% I:: D( or ,dmin :ode *ec% D8, @oo" IC NCC 32 1% 2eg>eth "no!ledge / gen, s$ecial la! shld be harmonized i $ossible' s$ecial la! $revails' the circ that s$ecial la! is $assed be ore or a ter gen la! does not change $rinci$le (% 3iscussion o :ode :omm 63ean @ocobo7 1% There !as a $ro$osal re I:: D( that $ubo be held liable or consti right violation only i there is malice R bad aith but he said that :ode :omm o$$oses this 1% Iature o I:: D( / !rong may be civil or criminal (% To ma"e such a re+uisite !ould de eat main $ur$ose 6e ective $rotection o individual rights7 D% 5b<ect is to $ut an end to abuse by $lea o good aith' in )* the remedy is in the nature o tort D% I:: D( $atterned a ter ,m la! tort / &95I=, T59TI5)* ,:T 3EFIIE3 ,* T1E :5>>I**I5IR5>I**I5I 5F ,:T @4 5IE, &IT15)T 9I=1T, &1E9E@4 ,I5T1E9 9E:EI8E* *5>E IIF)94 II PE9*5I, P95PE9T4, 59 9EP)T,TI5I 1% 2iab in tort not $recluded by the act that de endant acted !ithout evil intent 4% A(erca v. )er / &ith I:: D(, $rinci$le o $ubo acctability under :onsti ac+uires added meaning, assumes larger dimension -% ,dmin :ode / bad aith, malice, negligence vital elements to ma"e $ubo liable or damages' sub<ect is general 6OactsO done in $er ormance o duties, !ithout s$eci ying actionRomission that may give rise to civil suit7

11 | P a g e 1% II :5IT9,*T T5 I:: D( !hich s$eci ies clearly the acts that may give rise to a;n or damages 6tort or im$airment o rights, liberties7 D% &5I 8: may be held liable or damages% GES 6no e;$licit R direct ans!er on this though7 1% :om$laint brought under I:: D( !hich does not re+uire bad aith and malice, so the ailure to allege it !ill not amount to ailure to state cause o action EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 274 L!>&:>&: V!)<o)s0C(&#o vs. Fo%#+)e To=&''o Co%;o%&#!o) P Iachura =%9% Io% 141D.9 3ecember (D, (..8P FACTS QO) A+)e 115 14435 #(e *e"!s*&#+%e e)&'#e Re;+=*!' A'# No. 72@3 (RA 72@3J5 >(!'( #ooC e$$e'# o) A+*: 35 1443% Prior to its e ectivity, cigarette brands ?:ham$ion,O O1o$e,O and O>oreO !ere considered local brands sub<ected to an ad valorem ta; at the rate o (./4-S% 1o!ever, o) A+*: 15 14435 o% #>o &:s =e$o%e RA 72@3 #ooC e$$e'#5 ;e#!#!o)e% !ss+e RMC 37043 reclassi ying O:ham$ion,O O1o$e,O and O>oreO as locally manu actured cigarettes bearing a oreign brand sub<ect to the --S ad valorem ta;% 9>: DH/9D in e ect sub<ected O1o$e,O O>ore,O and O:ham$ionO cigarettes to the $rovisions o 9, HG-4, s$eci ically, to *ec% 14(, 6c7 617 on locally manu actured cigarettes !hich are currently classi ied and ta;ed at --S, and !hich im$oses an ad valorem ta; o O--S $rovided that the minimum ta; shall not be less than Five Pesos 6P-%..7 $er $ac"%O QO) A+*: 25 14435 &# &=o+# @:@1 ;.-.5 HIR De;+#: Co--!ss!o)e% V!'#o% A. Deo$e%!o5 A%. se)# v!& #e*e$&9 & 'o;: o$ RMC 37043 #o Fo%#+)e To=&''o but it !as addressed to no one in $articular% 5n Fuly 1-, 199D, Fortune Tobacco received, by ordinary mail, a certi ied ;ero; co$y o 9>: DH/9D% O) A+*: 215 14435 %es;o) e)# $!*e & -o#!o) $o% %e'o)s! e%&#!o) %eF+es#!)" #(e %e'&** o$ RMC 370435 =+# >&s e)!e !) & *e##e% &#e A+*: 315 1443. T(e s&-e *e##e% &ssesse %es;o) e)# $o% & v&*o%e- #&9 e$!'!e)': &-o+)#!)" #o P45@465333.11 ('o-;+#e o) #(e =&s!s o$ RMC 37043J &) e-&) e ;&:-e)# >!#(!) 11 &:s $%o- %e'e!;# #(e%eo$ % O) A+"+s# 35 14435 %es;o) e)# $!*e & ;e#!#!o) $o% %ev!e> >!#( #(e Co+%# o$ T&9 A;;e&*s 6:T,7, !hich on *e$tember D., 199D, !ss+e &) !)B+)'#!o) e)Bo!)!)" #(e !-;*e-e)#&#!o) o$ RMC 37043% In its decision dated ,ugust 1., 1994, #(e CTA %+*e #(&# RMC 37043 !s e$e'#!ve5 !)v&*! 5 &) +)e)$o%'e&=*e &) $+%#(e% e)Bo!)e ;e#!#!o)e% $%o- 'o**e'#!)" #(e e$!'!e)': #&9 &ssess-e)# !ss+e ;+%s+&)# #o RMC No. 37043. T(!s %+*!)" >&s &$$!%-e =: #(e Co+%# o$ A;;e&*s5 &) $!)&**: =: #(!s Co+%# !) Co--!ss!o)e% o$ I)#e%)&* Reve)+e v. Co+%# o$ A;;e&*s. It !as held, among others, that 9>: DH/9D, has allen short o the re+uirements or a valid administrative issuance% QO) A;%!* 115 14475 %es;o) e)# $!*e =e$o%e #(e RTC & 'o-;*&!)# $o% &-&"es &"&!)s# ;e#!#!o)e% !) (e% ;%!v&#e '&;&'!#: % 9es$ondent contended that the latter should be held liable or &-&"es +) e% A%#!'*e 32 o$ #(e C!v!* Co e 'o)s! e%!)" #(&# #(e !ss+&)'e o$ RMC 37043 v!o*&#e !#s 'o)s#!#+#!o)&* %!"(# &"&!)s# e;%!v&#!o) o$ ;%o;e%#: >!#(o+# +e ;%o'ess o$ *&> &) #(e %!"(# #o eF+&* ;%o#e'#!o) o$ #(e *&>s % QPetitioner iled a motion to dismiss contending that0 617 res$ondent has no cause o action against her because she issued 9>: DH/9D in the $er ormance o her o icial unction and !ithin the sco$e o her authority% *he claimed that she acted merely as an agent o the 9e$ublic and there ore the latter is the one res$onsible or her acts' 6(7 the com$laint states no cause o action or lac" o allegation o malice or bad aith' and 6D7 the certi ication against orum sho$$ing !as signed by res$ondent?s counsel in violation o the rule that it is the $lainti or the $rinci$al $arty !ho should sign the same% Q5n *e$tember (9, 199H, the 9T: denied $etitioner?s motion to dismiss' the case !as subse+uently elevated to the :ourt o ,$$eals via a $etition or certiorari under 9ule G-% 1o!ever, same !as dismissed on the ground that under ,rticle D( o the :ivil :ode, liability may arise even i the de endant did not act !ith malice or bad aith% KIt seems that in effect (oth RTC and CA ruled in favor of Fortune To(acco and held )in#ons*Chato lia(le for dama"es under Art. +, of NCCQIn a decision dated Fune 19, (..H, SC &$$!%-e #(e e'!s!o) o$ #(e CA % >9 denied, ;e#!#!o)e% $!*e 5 o) A;%!* 245 2116 (e% Mo#!o) #o Re$e% /#(e '&se8 #o #(e Ho)o%&=*e Co+%# E) H&)' % *he contends that the $etition raises a legal +uestion that is novel and is o $aramount im$ortance% The earlier decision rendered by the :ourt !ill send a chilling e ect to $ublic o icers, and !ill adversely a ect the $er ormance o duties o su$erior $ublic o icers in de$artments or agencies !ith rule/ma"ing and +uasi/<udicial $o!ers% &ith the said decision, the :ommissioner o Internal 9evenue !ill have reason to hesitate or re rain rom $er orming hisRher o icial duties des$ite the due $rocess sa eguards in *ection ((8 o the Iational Internal 9evenue :ode% Petitioner hence moves or the reconsideration o the Fune 19, (..H 3ecision%

1( | P a g e o$ening or closing o high!ays, but it is not a duty to any $articular individual o the community% (% O$ D+#!es #o I) !v! +&*s % / The second class above re erred to includes those !ho, !hile they o!e to the $ublic the general duty o a $ro$er administration o their res$ective o ices, yet become, by reason o their em$loyment by a $articular individual to do some act or him in an o icial ca$acity, under a s$ecial and $articular obligation to him as an individual% They serve individuals chie ly and usually receive their com$ensation rom ees $aid by each individual !ho em$loys them% , sheri or constable in serving civil $rocess or a $rivate suitor, a recorder o deeds in recording the deed or mortgage o an individual, a cler" o court in entering u$ a $rivate <udgment, a notary $ublic in $rotesting negotiable $a$er, an ins$ector o elections in $assing u$on the +uali ications o an elector, each o!es a general duty o o icial good conduct to the $ublic, but he is also under a s$ecial duty to the $articular individual concerned !hich gives the latter a $eculiar interest in his due $er ormance% Q,n individual can never be su ered to sue or an in<ury !hich, technically, is one to the $ublic only' he must sho! a !rong !hich he s$ecially su ers, and damage alone does not constitute a !rong% , contrary $rece$t 6that an individual, in the absence o a s$ecial and $eculiar in<ury, can still institute an action against a $ublic o icer on account o an im$ro$er $er ormance or non$er ormance o a duty o!ing to the $ublic generally7 !ill lead to a deluge o suits, or i one man might have an action, all men might have the li"e/the com$laining individual has no better right than anybody else% I such !ere the case, no one !ill serve a $ublic o ice% Thus, the rule restated is that an individual cannot have a $articular action against a $ublic o icer !ithout a $articular in<ury, or a $articular right, !hich are the grounds u$on !hich all actions are ounded% QFu;ta$osed !ith A%#!'*e 32 o$ #(e C!v!* Co e5 #(e ;%!)'!;*e -&: )o> #%&)s*&#e !)#o #(e %+*e #(&# &) !) !v! +&* '&) (o* & ;+=*!' o$$!'e% ;e%so)&**: *!&=*e $o% &-&"es o) &''o+)# o$ &) &'# o% o-!ss!o) #(&# v!o*&#es & 'o)s#!#+#!o)&* %!"(# o)*: !$ !# %es+*#s !) & ;&%#!'+*&% >%o)" o% !)B+%: #o #(e $o%-e% % This is consistent !ith this :ourt?s $ronouncement in its Fune 19, (..H 3ecision 6sub<ect o $etitioner?s motion or reconsideration7 that ,rticle D(, in act, allo!s a damage suit or Otort or im$airment o rights and liberties%O

ISSUES D ARGUMENTS QC&) & ;+=*!' o$$!'e%5 !) ;&%#!'+*&%5 HIR5 =e (e* *!&=*e $o% &-&"es +) e% A%#. 32 o$ NCC $o% v!o*&#!)" #(e %es;o) e)#.s 'o)s#! %!"(# &"&!)s# e;%!v&#!o) o$ ;%o;e%#: >!#(o+# +e ;%o'ess o$ *&> &) #(e %!"(# #o eF+&* ;%o#e'#!o) o$ #(e *&>s5 o) #(e =&s!s o$ #(e 'o+%#.s e'!s!o) (o* !)" #(&# #(e RMC !ss+e =: s&! o$$!'!&* !s e$e'#!ve5 !)v&*! &) +)e)$o%'e&=*eM HOLDING D RATIO DECIDENDI NO. W(e) >(&# !s !)vo*ve !s & N +#: o>!)" #o #(e ;+=*!' !) "e)e%&*N5 &) !) !v! +&* '&))o# (&ve & '&+se o$ &'#!o) $o% &-&"es &"&!)s# #(e ;+=*!' o$$!'e%5 eve) #(o+"( (e -&: (&ve =ee) !)B+%e =: #(e &'#!o) o% !)&'#!o) o$ #(e o$$!'e%. T(e %e-e : !) #(!s '&se !s )o# B+ !'!&* =+# ;o*!#!'&*. T(e e9'e;#!o) #o #(!s %+*e o''+%s >(e) #(e 'o-;*&!)!)" !) !v! +&* s+$$e%s & ;&%#!'+*&% o% s;e'!&* !)B+%: o) &''o+)# o$ #(e ;+=*!' o$$!'e%Os !-;%o;e% ;e%$o%-&)'e o% )o)0;e%$o%-&)'e o$ (!s ;+=*!' +#:. QThere are t!o "inds o duties e;ercised by $ublic o icers0 the Oduty o!ing to the $ublic collectivelyO 6the body $olitic7, and the Oduty o!ing to $articular individuals, thus0 1% O$ D+#!es #o #(e P+=*!'. V The irst o these classes embraces those o icers !hose duty is o!ing $rimarily to the $ublic collectively /// to the body $olitic /// and not to any $articular individual' !ho act or the $ublic at large, and !ho are ordinarily $aid out o the $ublic treasury% The o icers !hose duties all !holly or $artially !ithin this class are numerous and the distinction !ill be readily recognized% Thus, the governor o!es a duty to the $ublic to see that the la!s are $ro$erly e;ecuted, that it and com$etent o icials are a$$ointed by him, that un!orthy and ill/considered acts o the legislature do not receive his a$$roval, but these, and many others o a li"e nature, are duties !hich he o!es to the $ublic at large and no one individual could single himsel out and assert that they !ere duties o!ing to him alone% *o, members o the legislature o!e a duty to the $ublic to $ass only !ise and $ro$er la!s, but no one $erson could $retend that the duty !as o!ing to himsel rather than to another% 1igh!ay commissioners o!e a duty that they !ill be governed only by considerations o the $ublic good in deciding u$on the

1D | P a g e QIt may be recalled that in tort la!, or a $lainti to maintain an action or damages or the in<uries o !hich he com$lains, he must establish that such in<uries resulted rom a breach o duty !hich the de endant o!ed the $lainti , meaning a concurrence o in<ury to the $lainti and legal res$onsibility by the $erson causing it% Indeed, central to an a!ard o tort damages is the $remise that an individual !as in<ured in contem$lation o la!% QI) #(e !)s#&)# '&se5 >(&# !s !)vo*ve !s & ;+=*!' o$$!'e%Os +#: o>!)" #o #(e ;+=*!' !) "e)e%&*. The $etitioner, as the then :ommissioner o the @ureau o Internal 9evenue, is being ta"en to tas" or 9evenue >emorandum :ircular 69>:7 Io% DH/9D !hich she issued !ithout the re+uisite notice, hearing and $ublication, and !hich, in :ommissioner o Internal 9evenue v% :ourt o ,$$eals, !e declared as having O allen short o a valid and e ective administrative issuance%O A ;+=*!' o$$!'e%5 s+'( &s #(e ;e#!#!o)e%5 ves#e >!#( F+&s!0*e"!s*&#!ve o% %+*e0-&C!)" ;o>e%5 o>es & +#: #o #(e ;+=*!' #o ;%o-+*"&#e %+*es >(!'( &%e 'o-;*!&)# >!#( #(e %eF+!%e-e)#s o$ v&*! & -!)!s#%&#!ve %e"+*&#!o)s. H+# !# !s & +#: o>e )o# #o #(e %es;o) e)# &*o)e5 =+# #o #(e e)#!%e =o : ;o*!#!' >(o >o+* =e &$$e'#e 5 !%e'#*: o% !) !%e'#*:5 =: #(e & -!)!s#%&#!ve %+*e. QFurthermore, as discussed above, #o (&ve & '&+se o$ &'#!o) $o% &-&"es &"&!)s# #(e ;e#!#!o)e%5 %es;o) e)# -+s# &**e"e #(&# !# s+$$e%e & ;&%#!'+*&% o% s;e'!&* !)B+%: o) &''o+)# o$ #(e )o)0;e%$o%-&)'e =: ;e#!#!o)e% o$ #(e ;+=*!' +#:. A '&%e$+* %e& !)" o$ #(e 'o-;*&!)# $!*e >!#( #(e #%!&* 'o+%# %eve&*s #(&# )o ;&%#!'+*&% !)B+%: !s &**e"e #o (&ve =ee) s+s#&!)e =: #(e %es;o) e)#. T(e ;(%&se N$!)&)'!&* &) =+s!)ess !$$!'+*#!esN -e)#!o)e !) #(e 'o-;*&!)# !s & v&"+e )o#!o)5 &-=!"+o+s !) 'o)'e;#5 &) '&))o# #%&)s*&#e !)#o & N;&%#!'+*&% !)B+%:.N In contrast, the acts o the case elo+uently demonstrate that the $etitioner too" nothing rom the res$ondent, as the latter did not $ay a single centavo on the ta; assessment levied by the ormer by virtue o 9>: DH/9D% QThe com$laint in this case does not im$ute bad aith on the $etitioner% &ithout any allegation o bad aith, the cause o action in the res$ondent?s com$laint 6s$eci ically, $aragra$h (%.( thereo 7 or damages under ,rticle D( o the :ivil :ode !ould be $remised on the indings o this :ourt in :ommissioner o Internal 9evenue v% :ourt o ,$$eals 6:I9 v% :,7, !here !e ruled that 9>: Io% DH/9D, issued by $etitioner in her ca$acity as :ommissioner o Internal 9evenue, had O allen short o a valid and e ective administrative issuance%O QI !e divest the com$laint o its reliance on :I9 v% :,, !hat remains o res$ondent?s cause o action or violation o constitutional rights !ould be $aragra$h (%.1, !hich reads >emorandum :ircular Io% DH/9D 6hereina ter re erred to as 9>: Io% DH/9D7 reclassi ying s$eci ically O:ham$ionO, O1o$eO and O>oreO as locally manu actured cigarettes bearing a oreign brand% , co$y o the a oresaid circular is attached hereto and made an integral $art hereo as ,IIEW O,O% The issuance o a circular and its im$lementation resulted in the Ode$rivation o $ro$ertyO o $lainti % They !ere done !ithout due $rocess o la! and in violation o the right o $lainti to the e+ual $rotection o the la!s% 6Italics su$$lied%7 Q@ut, as intimated above, the bare allegations, Odone !ithout due $rocess o la!O and Oin violation o the right o $lainti to the e+ual $rotection o the la!sO are conclusions o la!% They are not hy$othetically admitted in $etitioner?s motion to dismiss and, or $ur$oses o the motion to dismiss, are not deemed as acts% QFurthermore, in an action or damages under ,rticle D( o the :ivil :ode $remised on violation o due $rocess, it may be necessary to harmonize the :ivil :ode $rovision !ith subse+uent legislative enactments, $articularly those related to ta;ation and ta; collection% Fudicial notice may be ta"en o the $rovisions o the Iational Internal 9evenue :ode, as amended, and o the la! creating the :ourt o Ta; ,$$eals% @oth statutes $rovide am$le remedies to aggrieved ta;$ayers' remedies !hich, in act, !ere availed o by the res$ondent!ithout even having to $ay the assessment under $rotest/as recounted by this :ourt in :I9 v% :,% T(e &v&!*&=!*!#: o$ #(e %e-e !es &"&!)s# #(e &ss&!*e & -!)!s#%&#!ve &'#!o)5 #(e o;;o%#+)!#: #o &v&!* o$ #(e s&-e5 &) &'#+&* %e'o+%se #o #(ese %e-e !es5 'o)#%& !'# #(e %es;o) e)#Os '*&!- o$ +e ;%o'ess !)$%!)"e-e)#. QThe :ourt discussed the ,merican <uris$rudence on this matter and in summary it $rovides that A!hen the design o a =overnment $rogram suggests that :ongress has $rovided !hat it considers ade+uate remedial mechanisms or constitutional violations that may occur in the course o its administration, additional @ivens remedies 6,rt% D( o I:: in the Phili$$ines7 cannot be claimed% Q2astly, citing Se'#!o) 227 o$ RA 6323 (T&9 Re$o%- A'# o$ 1447J >(!'( ;%ov! es #(&# &): B+ "-e)#5 &-&"es o% 'os#s %e'ove%e !) &) &'#!o) =%o+"(# &"&!)s# &): I)#e%)&* Reve)+e o$$!'e% s(&** =e s&#!s$!e =: #(e Co--!ss!o)e%5 +;o) &;;%ov&* o$ #(e Se'%e#&%: o$ F!)&)'e5 o% !$ #(e s&-e =e ;&! =: #(e ;e%so) s+e s(&** =e %e;&! o% %e!-=+%se #o (!-. T(e e9'e;#!o) =e!)" >(e%e #(e ;e%so) (&s &'#e )e"*!"e)#*: o% !) =& $&!#(5 o% >!#( >!**$+*

14 | P a g e o;;%ess!o). He'&+se #(e %es;o) e)#Os 'o-;*&!)# oes )o# !-;+#e )e"*!"e)'e o% =& $&!#( #o #(e ;e#!#!o)e%5 &): -o)e: B+ "-e)# =: #(e #%!&* 'o+%# &"&!)s# (e% >!** (&ve #o =e &ss+-e =: #(e Re;+=*!' o$ #(e P(!*!;;!)es. As s+'(5 #(e 'o-;*&!)# !s !) #(e )&#+%e o$ & s+!# &"&!)s# #(e S#&#e. Pe#!#!o)e%.s MR !s GRANTED &) #(e '&se ;e) !)" !) #(e RTC &"&!)s# #(e $o%-e% ($o% &-&"es +) e% A%#. 32J !s DISMISSED. ,,,,,,,,,,,,, E ND