Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The law holds a person civilly liable for the damage caused by his
faulty or negligent act or omission.
II. Distinctions
(1) Civil Case No. 2196 for quasi-delict filed by UY vs NFA & GSIS
recover damage to property. Won
(2) Civil Case No. 2225 for culpa contractual filed by injured passenger
Taer vs Victor Uy and Mabuhay. Won.
(3) Civil Case No. 2256 for quasi-delict NFA and driver Corbeta, GSIS
vs Victor Uy for culpa contractual and Mabuhay.
(Note: no criminal action was filed although it may be done had any of the
injured parties minded to. The action against the Insurers GSIS and
Mabuhay are based on the insurance contract of CMVLI whereby
passengers injured have the right to sue directly the insurers)
3. Differences between Crimes and Culpa Aquiliana:
Crimes:
1. Crimes affected the public interest.
2. Penal law punishes/ corrects the criminal act.
3. Only acts covered by Penal Law are punished (Barredo vs Garcia, 73
Phil 607; J. Bocobo, 1940 : Taxi c lied with Carretela)
4. Guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Reservation to file separate civil action. No reservation, civil action
is impliedly instituted in the criminal action.
6. Employers liability is subsidiary.
Culpa Aquiliana:
1. Only private concern.
2. Repairs the damage by indemnification.
3. Covers all acts that are faulty or negligent.
4. Preponderance of evidence.
5. No reservation its independent from crime. (Andamo vs IAC, 191
SCRA 203)
6. Employers liability is solidary (Fabre Jr. vs CA, 259 SCRA 426,
96)
Culpa Contractual
(i) Pre-existing obligation between the parties
(ii) Fault or negligence is incidental to the performance of the
obligation
(iii) Defense of having exercised diligence of a good father of a
family is not available, just like in criminal action. Applied
doctrine of Respondent Superior, or Master and Servant Rule.
Every person must, in the exercise with his rights and in the
performance of his duty, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith (Art 19 NCC)
Facts: W and V set their wedding for Sept 4, 1954. Invitations were
distributed to relatives and friends. Wedding dresses purchased,
reception contracted etc. 2 days before the wedding V left for home in
Mindanao and never heard again.
Art 221. Family Code provides that parents and other persons
exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and
damages caused by the act or omission or their unemancipated
children living in their company and under parental authority subject
to the appropriate defenses provided by law.
Facts: a 10 year old boy shot and air gun a girl resulting to her death.
The boy was acquitted in the criminal suit for having acted without
discernment. However a civil suit was filed against the boys parent.
Note in this case the boy was adopted but it was the natural parent
who were held liable as they the actual physical custody of the boy at
the time of the shooting. The adoption was approved only after the
shooting although the adoption proceeding was filed before the
shooting and in between the time the adaptor was abroad.
Held: The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Art 2176 is the
fault or negligence accompanying the act or omission there being no
willfulness or intent to cause damage thereby and in Art 2180
providing vicarious liability of parent although primarily.
It was not shown that the parent could have prevented the damage as
their child was in school and they have the right to expect their child
to be under the care and supervision of the teacher. Beside the act was
an innocent prank and unusual among children at play and which no
parent could have any special reason to anticipate much less guard
against. Parent not held liable.
Held: The school is being non-academic (arts and trade), the head of
the school and teacher in charge were solidarily liable with the
assailant.
Thus, for injuries caused by the student, the teacher and not the parent
shall be held responsible if the tort was committed within the
premises of the school at any time when its authority could be validly
exercised over him.
In any event, the school may be held to answer for the acts of its
teacher or the head thereof under the general principle of respondent
superior, but it may exculpate itself from liability by proof that it had
exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. Such defense they
had taken necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of
and thus be exonerated from liability imposed by Art 2180.
As the teacher was not shown to have been negligent nor the school
remised in the discharged of their duties, they were exonerated of
liability.
The provision of Art 2180 NCC involved in this case has outlived its
purpose. The court cannot make law, it can only apply the law with
its imperfections. However the court can suggest that such a law
should be amended or repealed.
4. The state is responsible when it acts thru a special agent but not
when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the
task is done properly pertains (i.e. function or duty) in which
case Art 2176 is applied.
As a general rule, the state cannot be sued without its consent.
(principle of immunity from suit) This consent is manifested in
legislative acts enactment of laws making the state suable as in this
specific provision of the Civil Code, in RA 7160 LGC of 1991
providing that LGU and their officials are not exempt from liability
for death or injury to person or damage to property (Sec 24).
The state the state may not be sued without its consent. (Sec 3 Art
XVI 87 Constitution) This is the doctrine of immunity from suit or
principle of non liability (enuciated in the 1910 case of Forbes vs
Chuco Tiaco & Crossfield, 16 Phil 534) was originally founded upon
an old maxim that The King can do no wrong prevailing during the
medieval England when the King was generally accepted as the State
himself. With the development of democratic thoughts and institution,
the concept eventually lost is moral force, the natural person-king is
no longer the state but merely its representative who may be removed
by the people. i.e. thru impeachment. The modern basis of the
principle is that immunity from suit is inherent in all sovereign states.
The reason is based on the logical and practical ground that there can
be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which
the right depends. (Kawananakoa vs Plyblank, 206 US 349 cited by
Hector S. Deleon, 2002 Ed Textbook on the Phil Const)
The state (Govt) may be sued only with its consent which may be
given
i. expressly thru duly enacted statutes such as the ff:
a. CA NO. 327 amended by PD 14445 providing conditions
under which the state may be sued
b. Administrative Code of 1987
c. Civil Code Art 2180 state acting thru special agent
d. Charters of public corp vesting them with power to sue and
be sued, eg. RA 7610 LGC
ii. Impliedly as in the ff cases:
a. When the Govt sues to recover money from individual who
has claim against it, the latter may set a counterclaim.
b. When the Govt engages in commercial business or enters
into a contract, it can be sued upon the theory that it has
descended to the level of private individual from which it
can be implied that its has given its consent to be sued
under the contract and thereby divested itself of its
sovereign character and its immunity from suits. (National
Airport Corp vs Teodoro, 91 Phil 203, Manila Hotel
Employees Assn. Vs Manila Hotel, 73 Phil 347)
The term State used in Art 2180 NCC refers to the Govt of the
Republic of the Philippines defined in Sec 2, 1987 Revised
Administrative Code as the Corporate Governmental entity thru
which the functions of the govts are exercised throughout the Phils,
which included the various arms thru which political authority is
made effective in the Phils such as the autonomous regions and the
local govt units (province, city, municipality and barangay). The term
does not include agency or instrumentality or other entity which their
enabling laws have invested with juridical personality separate and
distinct from that of the Republic of the Philippines (Fontanilla vs
Maliaman, 194 SCRA 495 J. Paras)
The state for the governmental function the state can not be sued
without its consent. For the proprietary function of the govt may be
sued without its consent which is presumed have been given in
advance.
The state may be sued only thru its Special Agent but not when the
damage had been caused by the official to whom properly it pertained
to do the act performed (Merritt Fontanilla case, 194 SCRA 503)
Thus NIA was held responsible for the negligent act of its employee
Garcia who is not a special agent. (J. Padilla separate opinion in
Fontanilla vs Maliaman Resolution in 1991, 194 SCRA 499)
Facts: Provinces truck on its was to the river for gravel and sands to
be used in the construction and repair of its road (a governmental
function) runs over a pedestrian resulting to the latters death.
Held: The province was not liable because its employee driver at the
time of the accident was performing his regular duties and is not a
special agent.
Held: As ECA or its officers were shown to have acted not as special
agent of the govt in storing gasoline in the warehouse, the Govt is not
responsible for the damages caused thru such negligence.
Held: The ISU being an office in the govt and its fund is a public fund.
It is being shown that the ISU was guilty of tort, however the sate not
its fund is not liable because the ISU was not a special agent. Under
Art 2180 the state is liable only for tort caused by its special agent.
Facts: GAA charges fees for the use of the Airports terrace or
viewing deck where one gets a better view of arriving and departing
passengers at the airport. The deck had an elevated portion (4 inches)
which caused a viewer to fall breaking his thigh bone. He sued CAA
for hospital expenses. CAA raised the defense of being a govt agency
subject of immunity from suit.
LGU are liable for damages for the death or injuries suffered by any
person by reason of defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges,
public building and other public works under their control or
supervision. (Art 2189)
LGUs and their official are not exempt from liability for death or
injury to persons or damage to property. (Sec 24, RA 7160 LGC of
1991)
In this case, the state is not liable for the civil liability arising from
criminal acts of the military for violating BP Blg 880 which prohibits
unnecessary firing in dispensing public assembly. The doctrine of
immunity from suit will not be applied to the military officers who
have acted beyond the scope of their authority because in so doing
they are deemed to ceased to be a public officers but a private person
liable like any other private persons for doing wrongful acts.
Held: when a govt thru its agency takes away private property
without going to legal process of expropriation and paying just
compensation, a suit may be properly maintained against the govt.
The civil action may be based under Art 32 NCC and the
constitutional provisions on rights against privation of property
without due process of law and without just compensation.
The state is liable fro the tortuous acts only of its special agent but not
of its public officials in the performance of their assigned usual duties
and functions who are liable under Art 2176 NCC and not Art 2180
NCC
5. Employers: Master
a. Owner and Manager of establishment or enterprises are
liable for damage caused by their employees in the service
of employment or on the occasion of their functions.
b. Employer of household helper though not engaged in any
business or industry are liable for damages caused by helper
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.
Case: Phil Rabbit Bus Lines Inc vs Phil Am Forwarder, Mar 25, 1975
Facts: Gas station proprietor was sued for selling adulterated gas with
water. He settled amicably the suit and then Phil Shell for the
negligence of Feliciano who was hired in undertaking hydro pressure
test in the underground storage tank which was cracked causing water
to seep into the tank.
Held: Phil Shell is not liable because Feliciano was not its employee.
It was shown that Phil Shell has no control over Feliciano who do
business of his own, used his own tools and worked on his own time
charging a fixed lump sum for every piece of work. Feliciano was an
independent contractor and not an employee and thus he alone is
liable.
Civil Code
1. Direct and primary solidary, employer is sue even without suing
the employee
2. Defense of exercise of diligence of a good father of the family to
be relieve of liability
3. Employer is liable even if not engaged in business
4. Proof of negligence is by mere preponderance of evidence
Facts: Underwood riding in his car and his driver suddenly turned to
the wrong side of the street and hit the plaintiff. Driver was negligent.
Was the owner liable too?
The owner of the car Yu was not liable because he did not see the
carretela at a distance, however, he could not anticipated his drivers
sudden decision to pass the carretela. The time element was such that
there was not reasonable opportunity for Yu to assess the danger
involved and warn the driver accordingly.
Former owner of Motor Vehicle are liable for the tortuous acts of the
new owner
Facts: Equitable sold to Lim a Fuso tractor. After the sales price
was fully paid, a deed of sale executed by Equitable in favor of Lim
who had not registered the sale with the LTO. While the tractor was
driven by Lims employee, it rammed into a house causing death and
injuries and damages.
Held: This court (SC) has consistently held that regardless of the sales
made of motor vehicle, the registered owner is the lawful operator
insofar as the public and third persons are concerned. Consequently it
is directly and primary liable for the consequences of its operation in
contemplation of the law. The owner of record is the employer of
the driver while the actual owner is considered as merely its agent.
The law governing damages is found in Art 2195 to 2235, NCC, which reincorporated
some of the Spanish Civil Code and adopted some principles of the American law (Civil code
commission report)
Damages (Latin Damnum or Demo = to take away) refers to the harm done and what
may be recovered.
Injury refers to the wrongful or unlawful or tortuous act. Damages is the measure of
recovery while injury is the legal wrong to be redressed.
There may be damage without injury (damnum absque injuria) and an injury without
damages. (15 Am Jur 388)
Cases (i) De la Rama Steamship vs Tan, 99 Phil 1034 Govt agency terminated contract of
agency under its right stipulated in the contract, although the agent suffered damages.
(ii) Janda vs Lepanto, 99 Phil 197, 1956 in compliance with the law (RA 529) purchaser of
shares of stock pain in pesos despite agreement to pay in dollar because at the time the law
declared stipulation as void to pay in currency other than pesos.
(iii) Saba vs CA, 189 SCRA 50 restated the doctrine of Qui Jure Suo Utitur Nullum Damnum =
one who exercise his right does no injury and if damage result, it is damnum absque injuria. The
case made the distinction between damage and injury.
Injury of loss arises from the violation if legal right while damages refer to money or pecuniary
compensation which the law impose or awarded for the injury done.
The Civil codes provisions on damages are applicable to all obligations arising from (1)
Law, (2) Contracts, (3) Quasi Contracts, (4) Delicts crimes, and (5) Quasi-delicts = tort. (Art
2195 NCC)
Compensation for workmen and other employees are governed by special law and
rules governing damages laid down in other laws shall be observed insofar as are not in conflict
with the Civil Code. (Art 2196 NCC) This makes the Civil Codes provisions on damages as the
general law.
Held:
The heirs of the deceased seaman have the choice of availing remedy to recover damages,
workmens compensation law-labor code for work connected injury, or for tort under the Civil
Code for negligence of the employer. However, once they pursue one, they are no longer free
to avail the other. (Cited Florensca vs Phil Ex, 136 SCRA 141 case of miners who died in a
cave-in.
B. Kinds of Damages
There are 6 kinds of damages, namely
1. Actual or compensatory
2. Moral
3. Nominal
4. Temperate or moderate
5. Liquidated
6. Exemplary or corrective
Damages:
For the same faulty or negligent act or omission causing damages it may produce
multiple liabilities, namely (1) criminal liability and (2) civil liability which in turn may be (a) a
Civil Liability arising from a crime under the Revised Penal Code, or (b) Civil liability arising from
culpa extra-contractual or quasi delict or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code and (c) civil liability
arising from culpa contractual or breach of contract.
The liability arising from culpa aquiliana is entirely separate and distinct the civil liability
arising from a crime. However the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission. (Art 2177 NCC)
The acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case,
unless the acquittal is declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist which
extinguished the criminal liability and the civil liability. (Andamo vs IAC, 191 SCRA 204) The
aggrieved party has the option to choose which of the actions that may be filed because double
recovery or damages is prohibited. (Virata vs Ochoa, 81 SCRA 472).
This damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right. This court will decide whether
or not they should be adjudicated, (Art 2233) and any stipulation renouncing in advance such
damages shall be null and void. (Art 2234 NCC).
Facts:
The ship radio officer was taken ill while the ship was in New Zealand, Despite notice thereof by
the ship's captain, the ship proceeded with the voyage and reached the Phil in 10 days and yet
the sick radio officer was not immediately taken to hospital for medical treatment.
Held:
Ship owner is liable for moral damages for the physical suffering and mental anguish caused to
Radio Officer. P50,000 in moral damages is proper.
As the fact of negligence of the ship's captain was not only shown to have existed but it was
deliberately perpetrated by the arbitrary refusal to commit the ailing radio officer to a hospital in
New Zealand or at the nearest port resulting to his permanent partial disability, the award of
exemplary damages for P50,000 is adequate and reasonable.
In this case the awarding of the exemplary damages is to serve a correction as well as an
example for ship owners to look after the welfare of their employees first to that of their
customers-cargo-owner.
The rationale behind the exemplary damages is to provide an example or correction for public
good and not to enrich the victim. (People vs Agustin, 350 SCRA 216, '01)
Atty's fees may be recovered when exemplary damages are awarded. (Coca cola bottlers Phil vs
Roque, 305 SCRA 215)
Held:
Banks are liable for tortuous act of its officers an employee within the course or scope of thei
employment.
In this case, both the drawee and collection banks were negligent in failing to select and
supervise their employees resulting to the encashment of the check to the syndicate instead of
the rightful person.
These are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiffs for any loss suffered by him.
Nominal Damages are merely for the vindication of a right that has been violated, not
for indemnification of the losses suffered. (ventanilla vs Centeno, Jan 28, 61). Case of a lawyer
who was negligent in filing appeal time tho he was not liable for actual damages.
Case: Almeda vs Carino, Jan 13, 2003
Facts:
C sold a lot on installments to A. A last sold the same to another, and despite of demands, A
refused to pay the unpaid balance of the purchase price owing to C.
Held:
The vendor C has the right to the unpaid balance to the lot sold to A who violated such right
when he refused to pay. For this, C is entitled, aside from the payment of the unpaid balance, to
a nominal damages.
Nominal Damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or
invaded by the defendant for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right and not for
indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss suffered. Its award is thus not for the purpose of
indemnification for a loss but for the recognition and vindication of a right. When granted by the
courts, they are treated not as an equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply a recognition of the
existence of a technical injury. A violation of the plaintiff's right, even if only technical, is
sufficient to support an award of nominal damages. So long as there s a showing of a violation
of a right of the plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is proper.
These are damages which are more than nominal but less compensatory damage
which may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but
the amount can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
Facts:
PT&T breached its contract in failing to remit money order sent by plaintiff on time. However the
latter failed to prove actual damages and that PT&T was in bad faith.
Held:
Either Temperate or nominal damages could be awarded.
Facts:
A issued checks in payment of jewels purchased. The checks were dishonored despite of the
sufficiency of fund to cover the checks. The bank apologized for the errors of its employee.
Again, similar incidents subsequently occurred. Thus a sued the bank.
Held:
While A may not be able to prove the profit he would have net had the jewelry transaction been
pushed thru, his claim for temperate damages is justified.
The principles of the general law on damages are adopted insofar as they are not
inconsistent with the Civil Code (Art 2198).
While the same faulty or negligent act or omission may give rise to multiplicity of suits,
however under Art 2177, NCC, the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission, If the plaintiff recovers from the defendant under the civil code, he cannot recover
damage from the same defendant under Revised Penal Code on the premise that person
criminally liable is also civilly liable.
Facts:
Bus collided with a car driven by Reyes resulting to death of Reyes and injuries to his passengers
Cardena. Cardena and heirs of Elizondo sued the Bus operator whose driver was found
negligent.
The defendant bus operator contended that it was premature to proceed with the civil case
pending final resolution of the criminal case against their driver.
Held:
Employer's liability is made clear under Art 2180 and under Art 2177 is entirely separate and
distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under Revised Penal Code. But the plaintiff
cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission
It is not required that the injured party should not seek out a third person crimirnally
liable whose prosecution must be a condition precedent to the enforcement of the civil right.
(Rakes vs AGP Co, 7 Phil 359) The civil liability under quasi delict is contracted without
agreement or consent, thus culpa extra contractual, on the principle that where harm, loss or
damage has been caused to a person thru fault or negligent act the aggrieve party is entitled to
be indemnified. (Cangco vs MRR, 38 Phil 768)
MORAL DAMAGES
4. Cases where Moral Damages may be recovered or Awarded
a. Acts mentioned in Art 309 - disrespect to the dead or wrongful interference with funeral
b. Arts and actions referred in Articles on human relation - 21, 26, to 30, 32 to 35
c. Willful injury to property committed maliciously or fraudulently (Art 2220, Francisco vs GSIS,
Mar 30, '63)
d. Breaches of contracts where the defendant acted with fraudulently or in bad faith. (Art 2220)
Facts:
Calalas' jeep was improperly parked with its rear portion protruding from the board shoulder of
the road (violation of LTTC). Passenger Sunga who was sited on wooden stool as extended seat
alighted to give way to another passenger alighting from the inside and in the process he was
bumped by an overtaking truck owned by Salinas.
Held:
While moral damages are not recoverable in actions for breach of contract for it is not one of the
items enumerated in Art 2219, NCC, however, the exception is in the cases of mishap resulting
to the death or injury of passenger unddder Art 1764 in relation to Art 2206 (3) NCC and in cases
in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or in bad faith.
In this case the ruling in Calamas vs Salvas is not binding in the case of Sunga vs Calalas. Res
Judicata does not apply because Sunga is not a party to the tort case where Salva was found at
fault and liable to Calalas. Thought both cases has the same issue of negligence, however, each
is distinct and separate from the other. (Breach of contract and tort)
Defense of proximate cause is not available in breach of contract of carriage: only in tort cases.
Neither is the defense of caso fortuitous where it is attended to by negligence which in Calalas
case were overloading and parking improrely which are vioation of tle LTTC.
Moral damages cannot be award in the absence of any injury or factual basis. There
must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright, wounded feelings ad
similar injury. (Brent Hospital Inc vs NLRC, 292 SCRA 304, '98; People vs Aguilar, 349 SCRA 292,
'98)
1. Moral damages are not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of the defendant.
They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion or amusements
that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of the defendant's
culpable action. (J. Paraz, Prudencio vs Alliance Transport, Mar 16 '87)
2. Concept - Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, freight, serious anxiety,
dismirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.
Thought incapable of pecuniary computation, it may recover if they are the proximate
result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission. (2217)
Moral damages are not punitive in nature, but are designed to compensate and
alleviate in some way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, etc. This is
so because moral damages are in the category of an award designed to compensate the
claimant for actual injury suffered, not to impose a penalty in the wrongdoer. (Equitable Leasing
Corp vs Suyom et al, Sept 5, '02)
Corporation are not entitled to moral damages because an artificial person existing only
in legal contemplation-legal fiction, have no feelings no emotions, no senses and therefore, it
cannot experience physical suffering and mental anguish, sorrows and grief of life- all of which
can not be suffered by artificial person. (National Power Corp vs Phil Brothers Oceanio, Inc, Nov
21, 2001)
3. Conditions to recover moral damages while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order
to recover and the assessment is left to the discretion of the court (Art 2216 NCC). However, the
complainant must satisfactory show the ff:
1. factual basis for the award which is the injury or wrong doing of the defendant
2. the injury, i.e. physical suffering etc are the proximate result of the defendants
wrongful act or omission (2217)
3. casual connection or relation between the actual injury and the wrongful act or omission
of the defendant. (Equitable Leasing Corp vs Suyom)
1. Criminal offenses resulting to physical injuries (Art 33 NCC and Madeja Caro, 126 SCRA
293)
2. Quasi-delict causing physical injuries
3. Adultery and concubinage
4. Abduction, Rape, Seduction and other malicious act, victim and parent are entitled
5. Illegal search
6. Illegal arbitrary detention or arrest
7. Libel, slander or other form of defamation (Art 33)
8. Malicious prosecution
1. Abuse of rights every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in
the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith. (Art 19) The elements are the ff:
i. There must be a legal right or duty
ii. Exercise of such right or duty in bad faith
iii. Prejudices or causes damage to another
This reiterated in Art 2176 and 2194 dealing on quasi delicts holding that
person are liable for damages caused by their fault or negligence. (Prof.
Jarencio opined that this provision refers to willful or negligent acts contrary
to law not constituting quasi delict or delict)
3. Contra Bonus Mores- any person who willfully causes losses or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for damage (Art 21)
Held: No conclusion can be drawn from the fact that defendant, not only
deliberately, but thru a clever strategy, succeeded in winning the affection
and love to the woman to the extent of having illicit relations with her. The
wrong caused to her and her family is contrary to morals etc as
contemplated in Art 21.
Case: Wassmer vs Velez, 12 Scra 648
Held: The mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But
to formally set a wedding and go thru all those preparation and expenses and
publicity only to walk out is contrary to good custom for which defendant is
held answerable for damages under Art 21.
B. Unjust enrichment
Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of
mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts,
though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of
action for damages, prevention and other relief:
Facts: Z filed a complaint against the Governor of Rizal for libel. After
investigation the Fiscal absolved the Governor on the ground that there was
no prima facie evidence for filing the libel complaint.
F. Acquittal in criminal case on the ground that guilt has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt. A civil action for damages for the same act or
omission may be instituted and such action requires only preponderance of
evidence. (Art 29)
The rationale for this is provided in Art 2177 NCC which states the
responsibility for fault or negligence is entirely separate and distinct from
the civil liability arising from negligence under the Revised Penal Code but
the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act or omission.
However, if the acquittal is based on proof that the accused did not
commit a crime, or that no crime was committed, or because he is justified
or exempt from criminal liability, no civil action may be instituted because
the acquittal on those ground constitutes res adjudicate.