Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 31

Torts is a general classification b. providing a substitute for private retaliation; and c.

preventing resport to self-

help remedies.
1. encompassing several different civil causes of action
1. to provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights of parties who might
2. providing a private remedy (usually money damages) for an injury to otherwise “take the law in their own hands”
plaintiff caused by the tortious conduct of defendant.
2. to deter wrongful conduct
Each tort cause of action is separately named and defined, each with its
own rules of liability, defenses, and damages. There is no useful general definition 3. to encourage socially responsible behavior
of “tort” or “tor-tious conduct.” Tort law is primarily judge- made law, and no
American jurisdiction has yet adopted a tort “code.” However, tort law is being 4. to restore injured parties to their original condition, insofar as the
increasingly modified by statute. In tort litigation, judges and juries have distinct law can do this, by compensating them for injury, and 5. to vindicate individual
functions. Juries decide questions of fact, such as (1) what happened, (2) certain rights of redress.
legal consequences of those facts (e.g., was D negligent, was P an invitee), and (3)
P’s damages. Judges decide issues of law, such as (1) whether D had a duty to P and B. Etymology and Historical Origins of the Law
the nature and extent of that duty, (2) the elements of the cause of action or
defense, and (3) whether certain legal rules apply (e.g., can a particular statute be
used to set the standard of care). The judge also can decide fact issues if she “Tort” comes from the Latin word “tortus” which means twisted, and the French
determines that the evidence overwhelmingly favors one conclusion. The judge word “tort”, which means injury or wrong. A tort is a civil wrong, other than a
also applies rules of civil procedure and evidence. breach of con-tract, for which the law provides a remedy. This area of law imposes
injured because of that tort. duty on persons to act in a manner that will not injure other persons. A person who
breaches a tort duty has committed a tort and may be liable to pay damages in a
Tort law has three main functions: lawsuit brought by a person

1. COMPENSATION. The most important function of tort law is to restore plaintiff, D. Major Purposes of Tort Law
so far as money damages can, to his status prior to the injury caused by defendant,
and to compensate him for harm or losses that cannot be restored. In a few torts, a 1. to provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights of parties who might
court order called an injunction can also be used as a remedy. otherwise “take the law in their own hands”

2. JUSTICE AND THE PROMOTION OF DESIRED POLICIES. Tort law also seeks to 2. to deter wrongful conduct
impose the cost of compensating the plaintiff’s injury, or who in justice or for policy 3. to encourage socially responsible behavior
rea-sons ought to be financially responsible for it, but only upon such persons.
4. to restore injured parties to their original condition, insofar as the
3. DETERRENCE. The threat of tort liability is intended to regulate human behaviour
by deterring tortuous conduct, thereby preventing at least some injuries and law can do this, by compensating them for injury, and 5. to vindicate individual
making society safer. This is a function shared with criminal law. rights of redress.

4. OTHER FUNCTIONS. These include

a. vindicating the plaintiff;

Cangco vs Manila Road JAL vs Simangan

FACTS: On January 20, 1915, Jose Cangco was riding the train of Manila Railroad Facts: Jesus Simangan decided to donate a kidney to his ailing cousin, Loreto, in
Company where he was an employee. As the train drew near to his destination, he U.S.A. Upon request of UCLA, respondent undertook a series of laboratory tests at
arose from his seat. When he was about to alight from the train, Cangco the National Kidney Institute in Quezon City to verify whether his blood and tissue
accidentally stepped on a sack of watermelons which he failed to notice because it type are compatible with Loreto's.6 Fortunately, said tests proved that
was already 7:00pm and it was dim when it happened. As a result, he slipped and respondent's blood and tissue type were well-matched with Loreto's.7
fell violently on the platform. His right arm was badly crushed and lacerated which
was eventually amputated. Respondent needed to go to the United States to complete his
preliminary work-up and donation surgery. Hence, to facilitate respondent's travel
Cangco sued Manila Railroad Company on the ground of negligence of its to the United States, UCLA wrote a letter to the American Consulate in Manila to
employees placing the sacks of melons upon the platform and in leaving them so arrange for his visa. In due time, respondent was issued an emergency U.S. visa by
placed as to be a menace to the security of passenger alighting from the company’s the American Embassy in Manila. Having obtained an emergency U.S. visa,
trains. respondent purchased a round trip plane ticket from petitioner JAL for US$1,485.00
and was issued the corresponding boarding pass.9 He was scheduled to a particular
The company’s defense was that granting that its employees were flight bound for Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. via Narita, Japan.
negligent in placing an obstruction upon the platform, the direct and proximate
cause of the injury suffered by plaintiff was his own contributing negligence. While inside the airplane, JAL's airline crew suspected respondent of
carrying a falsified travel document and imputed that he would only use the trip to
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a contributing negligence on the part of the the United States as a pretext to stay and work in Japan.
The stewardess asked respondent to show his travel documents. Shortly
HELD: The contract of defendant to transport plaintiff carried with it, by after, the stewardess along with a Japanese and a Filipino haughtily ordered him to
implication, the duty to carry him in safety and to provide safe means of entering stand up and leave the plane. Respondent protested, explaining that he was issued
and leaving its trains. a U.S. visa. Just to allow him to board the plane, he pleaded with JAL to closely
In determining the question of contributory negligence in performing monitor his movements when the aircraft stops over in Narita.17 His pleas were
such act – that is to say, whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly – the ignored. He was then constrained to go out of the plane.
age, sex, and physical condition of the passenger are circumstances necessarily The plane took off and he was left behind.1fterwards, he was informed
affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be considered. that his travel documents were, indeed, in order. Respondent was refunded the
The place was perfectly familiar to the plaintiff as it was his daily custom cost of his plane ticket less the sum of US$500.00 which was deducted by JAL AND
to get on and off the train at the station. There could, therefore, be no uncertainty visa was cancelled.
in his mind with regard either to the length of the step which he was required to Respondent filed an action for damages.
take or the character of the platform where he was alighting. The Supreme Court’s
conclusion was that the conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking to alight while the JAL denied the material allegations of the complaint. It argued, among
train was yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and that others, that its failure to allow respondent to fly on his scheduled departure was
therefore he was not guilty of contributory negligence. due to "a need for his travel documents to be authenticated by the United States
Embassy"25 because no one from JAL's airport staff had encountered a parole visa

Ruling: JAL is guilty of breach of contract of carriage.

That respondent purchased a round trip plane ticket from JAL and was RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (RCPI), petitioner, vs. COURT
issued the corresponding boarding pass is uncontroverted.49 His plane ticket, OF APPEALS AND LORETO DIONELA, respondents
boarding pass, travel authority and personal articles were subjected to rigid
immigration and security procedure.50 After passing through said immigration and Facts: Loreto Dionela filed a complaint of damages against Radio
security procedure, he was allowed by JAL to enter its airplane to fly to Los Angeles, Communiciations of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) due to the telegram sent through its
California, U.S.A. via Narita, Japan.51 Concisely, there was a contract of carriage Manila Office to the former, reading as follows:
Apart from the fact that respondent's plane ticket, boarding pass, travel KAHIT BULBUL MO
authority and personal articles already passed the rigid immigration and security Loreto Dionela alleges that the defamatory words on the telegram sent to
routines,60 JAL, as a common carrier, ought to know the kind of valid travel him wounded his feelings, caused him undue embarrassment and affected
documents respondent carried. As provided in Article 1755 of the New Civil Code: adversely his business because other people have come to know of said
"A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care defamatory words. RCPI alleges that the additional words in Tagalog was a private
and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with joke between the sending and receiving operators, that they were not addressed to
a due regard for all the circumstances."61 Thus, We find untenable JAL's defense of or intended for plaintiff and therefore did not form part of the telegram, and that
"verification of respondent's documents" in its breach of contract of carriage. the Tagalog words are not defamatory.
In an action for breach of contract of carriage, all that is required of The RTC ruled that the additional words are libelous for any person
plaintiff is to prove the existence of such contract and its non-performance by the reading the same would logically think that they refer to Dionela, thus RCPI was
carrier through the latter's failure to carry the passenger safely to his ordered to pay moral damages in the amount of P40, 000.00. The Court of Appeals
destination.63 Respondent has complied with these twin requisites. affirmed the decision ruling that the company was negligent and failed to take
Respondent is entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees plus precautionary steps to avoid the occurrence of the humiliating incident, and the
legal interest. fact that a copy of the telegram is filed among other telegrams and open to public
is sufficient publication; however reducing the amount awarded to P15, 000.00
As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for
damages predicated on a breach of contract for it is not one of the items Issue: Whether or not the company should answer directly and primarily for the
enumerated under Article 2219 of the Civil Code.64 As an exception, such damages civil liability arising from the criminal act of its employee.
are recoverable: (1) in cases in which the mishap results in the death of a Ruling: Yes. The cause of action of the private respondent is based on Arts. 19
passenger, as provided in Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206(3) of the Civil and 20 of the New Civil Code, as well as on respondent’s breach of contract thru
Code; and (2) in the cases in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith, as the negligence of its own employees. By adding extraneous and libelous matters in
provided in Article 2220.65 the message sent to the private respondent, there is a clear breach of contract; for
The acts committed by JAL against respondent amounts to bad faith. As upon payment of the fixed rate, the company undertakes to transmit the message
found by the RTC, JAL breached its contract of carriage with respondent in bad accurately.
faith. JAL personnel summarily and insolently ordered respondent to disembark In contracts, the negligence of the employee (servant) is the negligence
while the latter was already settled in his assigned seat. He was ordered out of the of the employer (master). This is the master and servant rule. As a corporation, the
plane under the alleged reason that the genuineness of his travel documents petitioner can act only through its employees. Hence the acts of its employees in
should be verified. receiving and transmitting messages are the acts of the petitioner. To hold that the
petitioner is not liable directly for the acts of its employees in the pursuit of
petitioner’s business is to deprive the general public availing of the services of the parties does not preclude the existence of a culpa aquiliana, We find no reason to
petitioner of an effective and adequate remedy. disregard the respondent’s Court finding that there was no negligence.

In most cases, negligence must be proved in order that plaintiff may “Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
recover. However, since negligence may be hard to substantiate in some cases, we there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
may apply the doctrine of RES IPSA LOQUITUR (the thing speaks for itself), by negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
considering the presence of facts or circumstances surrounding the injury. called a quasi-delict x x x.”

The judgment of the CA is affirmed. In this case, it has been established that the Syquias and the Manila
Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc., entered into a contract entitled “Deed of Sale and
Syquia vs CA Certificate of Perpetual Care” on August 27, 1969. That agreement governed the
, Jr. relations of the parties and defined their respective rights and obligations. Hence,
had there been actual negligence on the part of the Manila Memorial Park
FACTS: Cemetery, Inc., it would be held liable not for a quasidelict or culpa aquiliana, but
for culpa contractual as provided by Article 1170 of the Civil Code, to wit: “Those
Juan Syquia, father of the deceased Vicente Syquia, entered in a contract of Deed who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or
of Sale and Interment Order with Manila Memorial Park Cemetery Inc (MMPCI). In delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for
the contract, there contained a provision which statedthat the coffin would be damages.
placed in a sealed concrete vault to protect the remains of the deceased from the

During the preparation for the transfer of Vicente’s remains in the newly FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY V. C.A. & LUISA. LUNA
bought lot in Manila Memorial, it was discovered that there was a hole in the
concrete vault which caused total flooding inside, damaged the coffin as well as the Facts: Luis Luna applied for a far east card issued by far east bank at its Pasig
body of the deceased and covered the same with filth. Syquia filed a complaint for branch. Upon his request, the bank also issued a supplemental card to private
recovery of damages arising from breach of contract and/or quasi-delict against the respondent Clarita Luna. Then Clarita lost her credit card and submitted an affidavit
MMPCI for failure to deliver a defect-free concrete vault to protect the remains of of loss. Later on October 6, 1988 in a restaurant, Luis' credit card was not honored.
the deceased. In its defense, MMPCI claimed that the boring of the hole was Luis thru a counsel then demanded from far east to pay damages for the
necessary in order to prevent the vault from floating when water fills the grave. humiliation he felt. The vice-president of the bank expressed bank's apologies to
The trial court dismissed the complaint holding that there was no quasi-delict Luis.
because the defendant is not guilty of any fault or negligence and because there
was a pre-existing contract between the parties. The CA affirmed the decision of Still evidently feeling aggrieved, private respondents, on 05 December
the trial court. Hence, the present petition. 1988, filed a complaint for damages with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Pasig
against FEBTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondent is guilty of tort
On 30 March 1990, the RTC of Pasig, given the foregoing factual settings,
HELD: Denied. Decision of the CA affirmed. We are more inclined to answer the rendered a decision ordering FEBTC to pay private respondents (a) P300,000.00
foregoing questions in the negative. There is not enough ground, both in fact and in moral damages; (b) P50,000.00 exemplary damages; and (c) P20,000.00 attorney's
law, to justify a reversal of the decision of the respondent Court and to uphold the fees.
pleas of the petitioners. Although a pre-existing contractual relation between the
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court affirmed the KHRISTINE REA M. REGINO v. PANGASINAN COLLEGES OF SCIENCE, GR No. 156109,
decision of the trial court. 2004-11-18

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the appellate court, FEBTC
has come to this Court with this petition for review.
Facts: Petitioner Khristine Rea M. Regino was a first year computer science
There is merit in this appeal. student at Respondent Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology (PCST).
Reared in a poor family, Regino went to college mainly through the financial
In culpa contractual, moral damages may be recovered where the support of her relatives. During the second semester of... school year 2001-2002,
defendant is shown to have acted in bad faith or with malice in the breach of the she enrolled in logic and statistics subjects under Respondents Rachelle A. Gamurot
contract. The Civil Code provides: and Elissa Baladad, respectively, as teachers.
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding In February 2002, PCST held a fund raising campaign dubbed the "Rave
moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such Party and Dance Revolution," the proceeds of which were to go to the construction
damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the of the school's tennis and volleyball courts. Each student was required to pay for
defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. two tickets at the price of P100 each. The... project was allegedly implemented by
Bad faith, in this context, includes gross, but not simple, negligence. recompensing students who purchased tickets with additional points in their test
Exceptionally, in a contract of carriage, moral damages are also allowed in case of scores; those who refused to pay were denied the opportunity to take the final
death of a passenger attributable to the fault (which is presumed) of the common examinations.
carrier. Financially strapped and prohibited by her religion from attending dance
parties and celebrations, Regino refused to pay for the tickets. On March 14 and
March 15, 2002, the scheduled dates of the final examinations in logic and
Held: The Court has not in the process overlooked another rule that a quasi- statistics, her teachers -- Respondents
delict can be the cause for breaching a contract that might thereby permit the
application of applicable principles on tort 9 even where there is a pre-existing Rachelle A. Gamurot and Elissa Baladad -- allegedly disallowed her from
contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. This doctrine, unfortunately, taking the tests. According to petitioner, Gamurot made her sit out her logic class
cannot improve private respondents' case for it can aptly govern only where the act while her classmates were taking their examinations. The next day, Baladad, after
or omission complained of would constitute an actionable tort independently of announcing to the entire... class that she was not permitting petitioner and another
the contract. The test (whether a quasi-delict can be deemed to underlie the student to take their statistics examinations for failing to pay for their tickets,
breach of a contract) can be stated thusly: Where, without a pre-existing contract allegedly ejected them from the classroom. Petitioner's pleas ostensibly went
between two parties, an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable unheeded by Gamurot and Baladad, who unrelentingly... defended their positions
tort by itself, the fact that the parties are contractually bound is no bar to the as compliance with PCST's policy.
application of quasi-delict provisions to the case. Here, private respondents'
damage claim is predicated solely on their contractual relationship; without such
agreement, the act or omission complained of cannot by itself be held to stand as a Issues: "Whether or not there is a need for prior declaration of invalidity of a
separate cause of action or as an independent actionable tort. certain school administrative policy by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
before a former student can successfully maintain an action exclusively for
damages in regular courts.

Ruling: Reciprocity of the School-Student Contract

The school-student relationship is also reciprocal. Thus, it has "x x x A perusal of Article 2176 [of the Civil Code] shows that obligations
consequences appurtenant to and inherent in all contracts of such kind -- it gives arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-contractual obligations, arise
rise to bilateral or reciprocal rights and obligations. The school undertakes to only between parties not otherwise bound by contract, whether express or implied.
provide students with education sufficient to enable them to pursue higher However, this impression has not prevented this Court from determining the
education or a profession. On the other hand, the students agree to abide by the existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract. In Air France v. Carrascoso
academic requirements of the school and to observe its rules and regulations. (124 Phil. 722), the private respondent was awarded damages for his unwarranted
expulsion from a first-class seat aboard the petitioner airline. It is noted, however,
In the present case, PCST imposed the assailed revenue-raising measure that the Court referred to the petitioner-airline's liability as one arising from tort,
belatedly, in the middle of the semester. It exacted the dance party fee as a not one arising form a contract of carriage. In effect, Air France is authority for the
condition for the students' taking the final examinations, and ultimately for its view that liability from tort may exist even if there is a contract, for the act that
recognition of their ability to finish a course. The fee, however, was not part of the breaks the contract may be also a tort. x x x This view was not all that
school-student contract entered into at the start of the school year. Hence, it could revolutionary, for even as early as 1918, this Court was already of a similar mind. In
not be unilaterally imposed to the prejudice of the enrollees. Cangco v. Manila Railroad (38 Phil. 780), Mr. Justice Fisher elucidated thus: 'x x x.
Such contract is by no means an ordinary one When such a contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under
such conditions that the same act which constitutes a breach of the contract would
have constituted the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract
existed between the parties.'
Liability for Tort

In her Complaint, petitioner also charged that private respondents "inhumanly
punish students x x x by reason only of their poverty, religious practice or lowly PEOPLE vs. LIGON
station in life, which inculcated upon [petitioner] the feelings of guilt, disgrace and
unworthiness;"33 as a result of such punishment, she was allegedly unable to finish Facts: Accused-appellant, Fernando Gabat was convicted of the crime of
any of her subjects for the second semester of that school year and had to lag Robbery with homicide and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Gabat allegedly
behind in her studies by a full year. The acts of respondents supposedly caused her robbed Jose “Rosales” Ortiz, a 17 year old working student, who was a cigarette
extreme humiliation, mental agony and "demoralization of unimaginable vendor. According to Prudencio Castillo, a taxi driver, who allegedly saw the
proportions" in violation of Articles 19, 21 and 26 of the Civil Code. These incident that transpired on the night Ortiz died. According to Castillo, he was at a
provisions of the law state thus: distance of about 3 meters travelling on the same lane and was behind the Kombi
driven by Rogelio Ligon together with Gabat.
"Article 19. 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 Castillo, in his testimony, said that Gabat grabbed the box of cigarettes
faith." from Rosales. That while waiting for the traffic light to change from red to green,
Castillo idly watched the Volkswagon Kombi and saw Gabat signal to Ortiz. While
"Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner Ortiz was handling the cigarettes to Gabat, the traffic light changed to green and as
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the the Kombi moved forward, Gabat grabbed the box from Ortiz. Ortiz ran beside the
latter for the damage." Jombi and was able to hold on to the windowsill with his right hand. Howeverm as
the Kombi continued to speed towards the C.M. Rector underpass, Gabat forcibly
"Article 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of remove the hand of Rosales from the said windowsill and as a result fell face down
mind of his neighbors and other persons. on the ground.
On the other hand, according to Gabat, after Ortiz handed the two sticks cigarettes manner without taking the necessary precaution to prevent and/or avoid accident
Gabat in turn paid him a 5 peso bill. In order to change the said bill, Ortiz placed his to persons and/or damage to property, and without regard to traffic rules and
box between the arm of Gabat and the window frame. When the traffic light regulations, causing as a result of his carelessness and imprudence the said vehicle
changed to green, Ligon moved the vehicle forward. That in spite of Gabat’s order that he was driving to sideswipe and hit a Colt Gallant with Plate No. AC -206 S
to stop the vehicle, Ligon said that it could not be done due the the moving Pilipinas ", driven and owned by the late JUDGE ARSENIO SOLIDUM, thereby
vehicular traffic. When Ortiz fell down, Gabat shouted at Ligon but the latter inflicting injuries upon the said Judge Arsenio Solidum which directly caused his
replied that they should go on to Las Pinas and report the incident to the parents of untimely death, and further causing damage to the said Colt Gallant in the amount
Gabat and that later they would come back to the scene of the incident. At this of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency to the damage and
point, the Kombi was blocked by Castillo’s taxi and the jeep driven by the prejudice of the late Judge Arsenio Solidum and/or his family, and likewise causing
policeman. damage to the house owned by PABLO NAVARRA, to the damage and prejudice of
the said Pablo Navarro.
The trial court gave full credence to Castillo’s testimony and dismissed
Gabat’s testimony on the ground that it is of common knowledge that cigarette Court finds accused Illustre Cabiliza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
vendors do not let go of their cigarette. Gabat was convicted by the trial court; the crime of homicide and damage to property thru reckless imprudence.
Hence, this appeal.
Cabiliza filed a Notice of Appeal. But he did not live to pursue his appeal
Issue: as he died on January 5, 1984.

Whether a person who is not criminally liable is also free from civil liability. Issue: WON upon the death of the accused it also extinguished his civil liability

Held: Ruling: The death of the accused during the pendency of his appeal or before the
judgment of conviction (rendered against him by the lower court) became final and
It does not follow that a person who is not criminally liable is also free executory extinguished his criminal liability meaning his obligation to serve the
from civil liability. While the guilt of the accused in a criminal prosecution must be imprisonment imposed and his pecuniary liability for fines, but not his civil liability
established beyond reasonable doubt, only a preponderance of evidence is should the liability or obligation arise (not from a crime, for here, no crime was
required in a civil action for damages. The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the committed, the accused not having been convicted by final judgment, and
civil liability of the accused when it includes a declaration that the facts from which therefore still regarded as innocent) but from a quasi-delict, as in this case. The
the civil liability might arise did not exist. liability of the employer here would not be subsidiary but solidary with his driver
In the case at bar, we find that a preponderance of evidence exists (unless said employer can prove there was no negligence on his part at all, that is, if
sufficient to establish the facts from which the civil liability of Gabat arises. On the he can prove due diligence in the selection and supervision of his driver).
basis of the trial court’s evaluation of testimonies of both prosecution and the
defense witnesses at the trial and applying the quantum of proof required in civil Dulay v. CA
cases, we find that a preponderance of evidence establishes that Gabat by his act
and omission with fault and negligence caused damage to Rosales and should Facts: As a result of an altercation between security guard Torzuela & Atty.
answer civilly for the damage done. Dulay at a carnival, the former shot & killed the latter. Petitioner, widow of the
deceased, filed an action for damages against Torzuela & Safeguard and/or
Rufo Nauricio Const. vs Intermideate appellate court Superguard, alleged employers of Torzuela. The trial court dismissed the complaint
Facts: Cabaliza the driver of an Izusu dump truck, , belonging to and owned by against Superguard & Safeguard since it did not state facts necessary or sufficient
RUFO MAURICIO CONSTRUCTIONS, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and to constitute a quasi-delict as there was no mention of any negligence on the part
feloniously drive, operate and manage the said vehicle in a reckless and imprudent of Torzuela in shooting Dulay or that the same was done in the performance of his
duties. It also ruled that the complaint was one for damages founded on crimes Facts: Facts
punishable under Arts. 100 & 103 of the RPC as distinguished from those arising
from quasi-delict. The CA affirmed the order of the trial court.
Lydia Hao, treasurer of Siena Realty Corporation, filed a complaint-affidavit with
the City Prosecutor of Manila charging Francis Chua and his wife, Elsa Chua, of four
Petitioners take exception to the assailed decision and insist that quasi-delicts are counts of falsification of public documents.
not limited to acts of negligence but also cover acts that are intentional and
voluntary. Petitioners further contend that under Article 2180 of the New Civil
Code, private respondents are primarily liable for their negligence either in the The accused prepared, certified, and falsified the Minutes of the Annual
selection or supervision of their employees. Moreover, petitioners argue that Stockholders meeting of the Board of Directors of the Siena Realty Corporation,
Torzuela's act of shooting Dulay is also actionable under Article 33 of the New Civil duly notarized before a Notary Public and therefore, a public document, by making
Code. or causing it to appear in said Minutes of the Annual Stockholders Meeting that
Issue: Whether the dismissal of the complaint was proper for failure to allege one LYDIA HAO CHUA was present and has participated in said proceedings, when
negligence attributable to private respondents since quasi-delicts are limited to in truth and in fact, as the said accused fully well knew that said Lydia C. Hao was
acts of negligence never present during the Annual Stockholders Meeting and neither has participated
in the proceedings .
Held: NO. It was erroneous on the part of the trial court to dismiss the
complaint simply because it failed to make allegations of attendant negligence
attributable to private respondents. There is no justification for limiting the scope The City Prosecutor filed the Information for falsification of public document,
of Art 2176 of the Civil Code to acts or omissions resulting from negligence. Art. before the MeTC of Manila, against Francis Chua but dismissed the accusation
2176 covers not only acts committed w/ negligence, but also acts w/c are voluntary against Elsa Chua.
& intentional. Consequently, a civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act
WON he is prosecuted or found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended
party is not allowed, (if the tortfeasor is actually also charged criminally), to recover
damages on both scores, & would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger During the trial in the MeTC, private prosecutors (Atty. Sua-Kho and Atty. Rivera)
award of the 2, assuming the awards made in the 2 cases vary. appeared as private prosecutors and presented Hao as their first witness. Chua
moved to exclude complainant's counsels as private prosecutors in the case on the
“Physical injuries” in Art. 33 includes bodily injuries causing death. It is ground that Hao failed to allege and prove any civil liability in the case. The MeTC
not the crime of physical injuries defined in the RPC. It includes not only physical granted Chua's motion and ordered the complainant's counsels to be excluded
injuries but also consummated, frustrated, & attempted homicide. In this case, from actively prosecuting the criminal case . Hao moved for reconsideration but it
where the accused is charged w/ homicide & not w/ reckless imprudence, a civil was denied
action based on Art. 33 lies.

Under Art. 2180, when an injury is caused by the negligence of the

employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on Hao filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC of Manila. The RTC gave due
the part of the master course to the petition and the RTC in an order reversed the MeTC Order. Chua filed
before the CA petition for certiorari. The appellate court promulgated its assailed
Decision denying the petition

Chua vs. CA
Ruling: Under the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable for a felony penis, which exhibited blisters. His testicles were swollen. The parents noticed that
is also civilly liable. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the the child urinated abnormally after the petitioner forcibly removed the catheter,
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed but the petitioner dismissed the abnormality as normal. Hanz was discharged from
instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil the hospital over his parents’ protestations, and was directed to continue taking
action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior antibiotics. After a few days, Hanz was confined in a hospital because of the
to the criminal action. abscess formation between the base and the shaft of his penis. Presuming that the
ulceration was brought about by Hanz’s appendicitis, the petitioner referred him to
The basis of civil liability arising from crime is the fundamental postulate Dr. Henry Go (Go), an urologist, who diagnosed the boy to have a damaged urethra.
that every man criminally liable is also civilly liable. When a person commits a crime Thus, Hanz underwent cystostomy, and thereafter was operated on three times to
he offends two entities namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the political repair his damaged urethra. Unfortunately the damaged urethra could not be fully
entity called the State whose law he has violated; and (2) the individual member of repaired and reconstructed.
the society whose person, right, honor, chastity or property has been actually or
directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act or omission. An act or Spouses Calapiz brought a criminal charge against the petitioner for reckless
omission is felonious because it is punishable by law, it gives rise to civil liability not imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries before the RTC of Oroquieta City.
so much because it is a crime but because it caused damage to another. In his defense, the petitioner denied the charge. He contended that at the time of
Additionally, what gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation and the his examination of Hanz, he had found an accumulation of pus at the vicinity of the
moral duty of everyone to repair or make whole the damage caused to another by appendix two to three inches from the penis that had required immediate surgical
reason of his own act or omission, whether done intentionally or negligently. The operation; that after performing the appendectomy, he had circumcised Hanz with
indemnity which a person is sentenced to pay forms an integral part of the penalty his parents’ consent by using a congo instrument, thereby debunking the parents’
imposed by law for the commission of the crime. The civil action involves the civil claim that their child had been cauterized; that he had then cleared Hanz once his
liability arising from the offense charged which includes restitution, reparation of fever had subsided; that he had found no complications when Hanz returned for his
the damage caused, and indemnification for consequential damages. follow up check-up; and that the abscess formation between the base and the shaft
of the penis had been brought about by Hanz’s burst appendicitis. The RTC ruled in
Under the Rules, where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is favor of the petitioner, but had ordered him to pay damages. The CA affirmed the
instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may decision, hence this petition.
intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
ISSUES: Whether the CA erred in affirming the petitioner’s civil liability despite
Private respondent did not waive the civil action, nor did she reserve the his acquittal of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
right to institute it separately, nor institute the civil action for damages arising from injuries.
the offense charged. Thus, we find that the private prosecutors can intervene in the
trial of the criminal action. RULING: NO. A person may be acquitted in the criminal aspect of his case, but it
does not ipso facto acquit him of the civil aspect of the case.
Dr. Lumantas v. Calapiz
The petitioner’s contention that he could not be held civilly liable
In 1995, Spouses Hilario Calapiz, Jr. and Herlita Calapiz (Spouses Calapiz) because there was no proof of his negligence deserves scant consideration. The
brought their 8-year-old son, Hanz Calapiz (Hanz), to the Misamis Occidental failure of the Prosecution to prove his riminal negligence with moral certainty did
Provincial Hospital, for an emergency appendectomy. Hanz was attended to by the not forbid a finding against him that there was preponderant evidence of his
Dr. Encarnacion Lumantas (Petitioner), who suggested to the parents that Hanz negligence to hold him civilly liable. With the RTC and the CA both finding that Hanz
also undergo circumcision at no added cost to spare him the pain. With the had sustained the injurious trauma from the hands of the petitioner on the
parents’ consent, the petitioner performed the coronal type of circumcision on occasion of or incidental to the circumcision, and that the trauma could have been
Hanz after his appendectomy. On the following day, Hanz complained of pain in his
avoided, the Court must concur with their uniform findings. In that regard, the While the cause of action ex quasi delicto had already prescribed, petitioners can
Court need not analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the still pursue the remaining avenue opened for them by their reservation, i.e., the
proceedings a quo. The Court, by virtue of its not being a trier of facts, should now surviving cause of action ex delicto. This is so because the prescription of the action
accord the highest respect to the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by ex quasi delicto does not operate as a bar to an action to enforce the civil liability
the CA in the absence of a clear showing by the petitioner that such findings were arising from crime especially as the latter action had been expressly reserved.
tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.
We held that the dismissal of the action based on culpa aquiliana is not a
bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary liability of the employer. Once there is a
conviction for a felony, final in character, the employer becomes subsidiarily liable
SANTOS vs. PIZARRO if the commission of the crime was in discharge of the duties of the employees. This
Facts: In April 1994, Viron Transit driver Sibayan was charged with is so because Article 103 of the RPC operates the controlling force to obviate the
reckless imprudence resulting to multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries possibility of the aggrieved party being deprived of indemnity even after the
for which Sibayan was eventually convicted in December 1998. As there was a rendition of a final judgment convicting the employee.
reservation to file a separate civil action, no pronouncement of civil liability was
made by the MCTC. In October 2000 Santos filed a complaint for damages against
Sibayan and Rondaris, the president and chairman of Viron Transit. Viron Transit LG Foods & Victorino Gabor vs. Hon. Philadelfa Agraviador & Sps. Florention and
moved for the dismissal of the complaint citing, among others, prescription alleging Theresa Vallejera
that actions based on quasi delict prescribe in 4 years from the accrual of the cause
of action. FACTS: On 26 Feb. 1996, Charles Vallejera (7 yrs old) was hit by a Ford Fiera van
owned by LG Foods and driven by Vincent Ferrer (employee). Charles died as a
Held: Petitioners expressly made a reservation of their right to file a result.
separate civil action as a result of the crime committed by Sibayan. On account of
this reservation the MCTC did not make any pronouncement as to the latter’s civil An Information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide was filed
liability. Although there were allegations of negligence on the part of Sibayan and against Ferrer before the MTCC Bacolod City. However, before the trial could be
Viron Transit, such does not necessarily mean that petitioners were pursuing a concluded, Ferrer committed suicide. The MTCC had dismissed the case.
cause of action based on quasi delict, considering that at the time of the filing of On 23 June 1999, in the RTC of Bacolod City, the spouses Vallejera filed a
the complaint, the cause of action ex quasi delicto had already prescribed. Besides, complaint for damages against LG Foods as employers of the deceased Ferrer.
in cases of negligence, the offended party has the choice between an action to They allege that as the employers, they had failed to exercise the due diligence in
enforce liability arising from crime under the Revised Penal Code and an action for the selection and supervision of their employees.
quasi delict under the Civil Code.
LG Foods denied liability for the death of Charles. They claimed that they
An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to 2 separate had exercised the required due diligence in the selection and supervision of their
civil liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e. (1) civil liability ex delicto, under employees. They moved for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of
Article 100 of the RPC; and (2) independent civil liabilities (a) not arising from an act action.
or omission complained of as a felony, e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising
from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code, intentional torts under Articles 32 and LG Foods argued that the complaint is a “claim for subsidiary liability
34, and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code; or (b) where the against an employer” under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code. They contend that
injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the there must be first a judgment of conviction against Ferrer as a condition sine qua
criminal proceedings. non to hold them liable. And because Ferrer had died during the pendency of the
criminal case, the sine qua non condition for their subsidiary liability was not FACTS: On 26 Feb. 1996, Charles Vallejera (7 yrs old) was hit by a Ford Fiera van
fulfilled, hence the lack of cause of action on the part of the spouses Vallejera. owned by LG Foods and driven by Vincent Ferrer (employee). Charles died as a
On 4 Sept. 2001, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of
merit. To add, the case exacts responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176 An Information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide was filed
of the Civil Code, which is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability against Ferrer before the MTCC Bacolod City. However, before the trial could be
arising from negligence under the Revised Penal Code. They applied Art. 2180 of concluded, Ferrer committed suicide. The MTCC had dismissed the case.
the Civil Code in determining the liability of LG Foods.
On 23 June 1999, in the RTC of Bacolod City, the spouses Vallejera filed a
ISSUE: Is the cause of action of the Spouses Vallejera founded on Art. 103 of the complaint for damages against LG Foods as employers of the deceased Ferrer.
Revised Penal Code (as LG Foods assert) or derived from Art. 2180 of the Civil They allege that as the employers, they had failed to exercise the due diligence in
Code? the selection and supervision of their employees.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Art. 2180 of the Civil Code is to be applied LG Foods denied liability for the death of Charles. They claimed that they
in this case. had exercised the required due diligence in the selection and supervision of their
employees. They moved for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of
Under Art. 2180, the liability of the employer is direct or immediate. It is action.
not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior
showing of insolvency of such employee. LG Foods argued that the complaint is a “claim for subsidiary liability
against an employer” under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code. They contend that
The complaint of the Spouses Vallejera had sufficiently alleged that the there must be first a judgment of conviction against Ferrer as a condition sine qua
death of Charles was caused by the negligent act of LG Foods’ driver. Hence, LG non to hold them liable. And because Ferrer had died during the pendency of the
Foods is civilly liable for the negligence of their driver for failing “to exercise the criminal case, the sine qua non condition for their subsidiary liability was not
necessary diligence required of a good father of the family in the selection and fulfilled, hence the lack of cause of action on the part of the spouses Vallejera.
supervision of [their] employee, the driver, which diligence, if exercised, would
have prevented said accident.” On 4 Sept. 2001, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of
merit. To add, the case exacts responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176
To add, the Court also stated that “victims of negligence or their heirs of the Civil Code, which is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability
have a choice between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from culpa arising from negligence under the Revised Penal Code. They applied Art. 2180 of
criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an action for quasi-delict the Civil Code in determining the liability of LG Foods.
(culpa aquiliana) under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code.”
ISSUE: Is the cause of action of the Spouses Vallejera founded on Art. 103 of the
Since Ferrer had committed suicide, the Spouses Vallejera had no other Revised Penal Code (as LG Foods assert) or derived from Art. 2180 of the Civil
remedy but to sue LG Foods based on their direct and primary liability based on Code?
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Art. 2180 of the Civil Code is to be applied
The Supreme Court had denied the petition of LG Foods. in this case.

Under Art. 2180, the liability of the employer is direct or immediate. It is

People vs Consing not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior
showing of insolvency of such employee.
The complaint of the Spouses Vallejera had sufficiently alleged that the JII denied liability and interposed a counterclaim for damages representing
death of Charles was caused by the negligent act of LG Foods’ driver. Hence, LG unrealized profits when JII sold to the Farm System Development Corporation
Foods is civilly liable for the negligence of their driver for failing “to exercise the (FSDC) 21 units of Mitsubishi power tillers. In the counterclaim, JII alleged that as a
necessary diligence required of a good father of the family in the selection and dealer in Capiz, JII contracted to sell 24 units of Mitsubishi power tillers to a group
supervision of [their] employee, the driver, which diligence, if exercised, would of farmers to be financed by said corporation, which fact JII allegedly made known
have prevented said accident.” to petitioner, but the latter taking advantage of said information and in bad faith,
directly dealt with FSDC and sold 21 units of said tractors, thereby depriving JII of
To add, the Court also stated that “victims of negligence or their heirs unrealized profit of P85,415.61.
have a choice between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from culpa
criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an action for quasi-delict
(culpa aquiliana) under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code.”
Since Ferrer had committed suicide, the Spouses Vallejera had no other
remedy but to sue LG Foods based on their direct and primary liability based on The trial court ordered JII to pay SEACOM the amount of Eighteen
quasi-delict. P18,843.85 representing its outstanding obligation. The trial court likewise granted
JII’s counterclaim for unrealized profits, and for moral and exemplary damages and
The Supreme Court had denied the petition of LG Foods. attorney fees. SEACOM appealed the decision on the counterclaim.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC ruling and held that while there
exists no agency relationship between SEACOM and JII, SEACOM is liable for
damages and unrealized profits to JII.
1. Sea Commercial Co. vs. Court of Appeals Whether SEACOM acted in bad faith when it competed with its own dealer as
regards the sale of farm machineries to FSDC


SEACOM is a corporation engaged in the business of selling and distributing SEACOM’s actuations are tainted with bad faith. By appointing JII the dealer
agricultural machinery, products and equipment. In 1966, SEACOM and Jamandre of its agricultural equipment, SEACOM recognized the role and undertaking of JII to
Industries Inc. (JII) entered into a dealership agreement whereby SEACOM promote and sell said equipment. Under the dealership agreement, JII was to act as
appointed JII as its exclusive dealer in the Province of Iloilo. Tirso Jamandre a middleman to sell SEACOM’s products, in Iloilo and Capiz , to the exclusion of
executed a suretyship agreement binding himself jointly and severally with JII to other places, to send its men to Manila for training on repair, servicing and
pay for all obligations of JII to SEACOM. The agreement was subsequently amended installation of the items to be handled by it, and to comply with other personnel
to include Capiz in the territorial coverage and to make the dealership agreement and vehicle requirements intended for the benefit of the dealership. After being
on a non-exclusive basis. In the course of the business relationship arising from the informed of the demonstrations JII had conducted to promote the sales of SEACOM
dealership agreement, JII allegedly incurred a balance of P18,843.85 for unpaid equipment, SEACOM participated in the bidding for the said equipment at a lower
deliveries, and SEACOM brought action to recover said amount plus interest and price, placing itself in direct competition with its own dealer. Further, the testimony
attorneys fees. of Jamandre that JII was the sole representative of SEACOM in the local
demonstrations to convince the farmers and cooperative officers to accept the
Mitsubishi brand of equipment in preference to other brands, was unrebutted by
SEACOM thereby evidencing that SEACOM’s acts unjustly deprived JII of profits it
could have acquired.
Notwithstanding the negative results of both police report and private
Even if the dealership agreement was amended to make it on a non-exclusive basis, investigation, Globe Mackay filed a complaint for estafa through falsification of
SEACOM may not exercise its right unjustly or in a manner that is not in keeping commercial documents against Tobias. And thereafter, dismissed Tobias from
with honesty or good faith; otherwise it opens itself to liability under the abuse of work.
right rule embodied in Article 19 of the Civil Code above-quoted. This provision,
together with the succeeding article on human relation, was intended to embody
certain basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship Unemployed, Tobias applied with Republic Telephone Company (RETELCO).
between human beings and for the stability of the social order. However, Hendry, without any request from RETELCO, sent a letter stating that
The award for unrealized profits was also affirmed by the Court. In view of the fact Tobias was dismmised by Globe Mackay due to dishonesty.
that moral damages are not, as a general rule, granted to a corporation, and that
Tirso Jamandre was the one who testified on said claim for moral damages, the
award should go to defendant Jamandre, President of JII. Tobias filed a civil case for damages anchored on alleged unlawful, malicious,
oppressive, and abusive acts of Hendry. RTC rendered its judgment in favor of
VIII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION Tobias. On appeal, the CA affirmed RTC’s decision in totoo, hence the instant
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with the petition for review on certiorari.
modification that the award of P2,000.00 in moral and exemplary damages shall be
paid to defendant Tirso Jamandre.

WON Globe Mackay and Hendry are liable for damages to Tobias
2. Globe Mckay vs CA

FACTS: Restituto Tobias (TOBIAS) was employed by Globe Mackay in a dual

capacity, as a purchasing agent and administrative assistant to the engineering HELD:
operations mgr. In 1972, Tobias discovered fictitious purchases and fraudulent
transactions which caused the company to loss several hundreds of thousand
pesos. Tobias reported the discovery to his immediate supervisors, including Yes, Globe Mackay and Hendry are liable for damages to Tobias.
Herbert Hendry, Globe Mackay’s general manager. However, Tobias was named as
the primary suspect and was ordered to take a one week forced leave. Upon his Article 19 of the NCC states that: Every person must, in the exercise of his rights
return to work, Tobias was called “crook” and “swindler” by Hendry. and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith. This is known to contain what is commonly
referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which must be
Thereafter, Tobias underwent a lie detector test and a police investigation, to observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of
which he was found to be clear from any participation in the anomaly. Albeit, Globe one's duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give
Mackay conducted a private investigation regarding the anomaly and suspended everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore,
Tobias from work. recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of
human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed.
December 28, 1979, 94 SCRA 953; PAL v. CA, G.R. No. L-46558, July 31,1981,106
SCRA 391; United General Industries, Inc, v. Paler G.R. No. L-30205, March
A right, though by itself legal bec. recognized or granted by law as such, may 15,1982,112 SCRA 404; Rubio v. CA, G.R. No. 50911, August 21, 1987, 153 SCRA
nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a 183] the question of whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been
manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results violated resulting in damages under Article 20 or Article 21 or other applicable
in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer provision of law, depends on the circumstances of each case. And in the instant
must be held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the case, the Court, after examining the record and considering certain significant
government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does circumstances, finds that all petitioners have indeed abused the right that they
not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under invoke, causing damage to private respondent and for which the latter must now
either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper. be indemnified.

Article 20, which pertains to damage arising from a violation of law, provides that: 3.Heirs of PURISIMA NALA vs CABANSAG
Every person who contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. Facts:

-Artemio Cabansag (respondent) filed Civil Case No. Q-91-10541 for damages.
According to respondent, he bought a 50-square meter property from spouses
However, in the case at bar, petitioners claim that they did not violate any Eugenio Gomez, Jr. and Felisa Duyan Gomez on July 23, 1990. Said property is part
provision of the law since they were merely exercising their legal right to dismiss of a 400-square meter lot registered in the name of the Gomez spouses
private Tobias. This does not, however, leave Tobias with no relief bec. Article 21 of
the New Civil Code provides that: Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to -On October 1991, he received a demand letter from Atty. Alexander del Prado
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall (Atty. Del Prado), in behalf of Purisima Nala (Nala), asking for the payment of
compensate the latter for the damage. rentals from 1987 to 1991 until he leaves the premises, as said property is owned
by Nala, failing which criminal and civil actions will be filed against him.

-Because of such demands, respondent suffered damages and was constrained to

This article, adopted to remedy the "countless gaps in the statutes, which leave so file the case against Nala and Atty. Del Prado.
many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even though they have actually suffered
material and moral injury" [Id.] should "vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that -Atty. Del Prado claimed that he sent the demand letters in good faith and that he
untold number of moral wrongs which it is impossible for human foresight to was merely acting in behalf of his client, Nala, who disputed respondent's claim of
provide for specifically in the statutes" [Id. it p. 40; See also PNB v. CA, G.R. No. L- ownership.
27155, May 18,1978, 83 SCRA 237, 247].
-Nala alleged:

1. that said property is part of an 800-square meter property owned by her late
In determining whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked, husband, Eulogio Duyan, which was subsequently divided into two parts.
there is no rigid test which can be applied. While the Court has not hesitated to
apply Article 19 whether the legal and factual circumstances called for its 2. The 400-square meter property was conveyed to spouses Gomez in a fictitious
application [See for e.g., Velayo v. Shell Co. of the Phil., Ltd., 100 Phil. 186 (1956); deed of sale, with the agreement that it will be merely held by them in trust for the
PNB v. CA, supra; Grand Union Supermarket, Inc. v. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. L-48250, Duyan's children.
3. Said property is in the name of spouses Gomez. ISSUE: WON the damages suffered by Artemio Cabansag (respondent) should be
borne by Nala.
4. that respondent is only renting the property which he occupies.4
-After trial, the RTC of Quezon City rendered its Decision in favor of respondent.
No, whatever damages are suffered by respondent, it should be borne
-Nala and Atty. Del Prado appealed to the CA. The herein assailed CA Decision solely by him.
affirmed the RTC Decision with modification in which defendants-appellants are
ordered to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff-appellee the amount of P30,000.00 -In order to be liable for damages under the abuse of rights principle, the following
by way of moral damages. It is further ordered to pay him exemplary damages in requisites must concur: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is
the amount of P10,000.00 and P10,000.00, attorney's fees. exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
-Hence, herein petition by the heirs of Nala (petitioners)8 with the following
assignment of errors: It should be stressed that malice or bad faith is at the core of Article 19 of the Civil
Code. Good faith is presumed, and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove
a) Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not considering the right of Purisima Nala the same.12 Bad faith, on the other hand, does not simply connote bad judgment
to assert her rights and interest over the property. to simple negligence, dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and conscious
b) Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not considering the Decision rendered by doing of a wrong, or a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill
the Court of Appeals in the case for reconveyance which upheld the rights and will that partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks
interest of Purisima Nala and her children over a certain parcel of land, a portion of not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable
which is subject of the present case. harm.

c) Respondent Court of Appeals erred in awarding damages and attorney's fees -There is nothing on record which will prove that Nala and her counsel, Atty. Del
without any basis Prado, acted in bad faith or malice in sending the demand letters to respondent. In
the first place, there was ground for Nala's actions since she believed that the
-Petitioners argue: property was owned by her husband Eulogio Duyan and that respondent was
illegally occupying the same. She had no knowledge that spouses Gomez violated
1. that their predecessor-in-interest had every right to protect and assert her the trust imposed on them by Eulogio and surreptitiously sold a portion of the
interests over the property. property to respondent. It was only after respondent filed the case for damages
2. Nala had no knowledge that the property was sold by spouses Gomez to against Nala that she learned of such sale. The bare fact that respondent claims
respondent when the demand letters were sent. What she was aware of was the ownership over the property does not give rise to the conclusion that the sending
fact that spouses Gomez were managing the rentals on the property by virtue of of the demand letters by Nala was done in bad faith. Absent any evidence
the implied trust created between them and Eulogio Duyan. presented by respondent, bad faith or malice could not be attributed to petitioner
since Nala was only trying to protect their interests over the property.
3. that it was error for the CA to take note of the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 91-
8821 without further noting that the CA had already reversed and set aside said -Respondent failed to show that Nala and Atty. Del Prado's acts were done with the
RTC Decision and ordered reconveyance of the property to Nala and her children in sole intention of prejudicing and injuring him. It may be true that respondent
a Decision dated March 8, 2000 rendered in CA-G.R. CV No. 49163. Petitioners also suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety and sleepless nights when he received the
argue that respondent did not substantiate his claim for damages. demand letters; however, there is a material distinction between damages and
injury. Injury is the legal invasion of a legal right while damage is the hurt, loss or
harm which results from the injury.14Thus, there can be damage without injury in
those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal Reyes filed an action for damages under the human relations provisions of the New
duty. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person alone; Civil Code against the respondents.
the law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not
amount to a legal injury or wrong. These situations are often called damnum
absque injuria. V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
-Nala was acting well within her rights when she instructed Atty. Del Prado to send The RTC dismissed the complaint, giving more credence to the testimony of Ms.
the demand letters. She had to take all the necessary legal steps to enforce her Lim that she was discreet in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party. Upon appeal,
legal/equitable rights over the property occupied by respondent. One who makes Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court as it found more commanding
use of his own legal right does no injury. of belief the testimony of Mr. Reyes that Ms. Lim ordered him to leave in a loud
voice within hearing distance of several guests. Petitioners Lim and Hotel Nikko
contend that pursuant to the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, they cannot be
4.Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes made liable for damages as respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to
leave (and being embarrassed and humiliated in the process) as he was a gate-
FACTS: crasher
According to herein respondent Reyes, on the eve of October 13, 1994, Mr. Reyes VI. ISSUE(S):
while having coffee at the lobby of Nikko Hotel was approached by Dr. Violet Filart,
a friend several years back. According to Mr. Reyes, Dr. Filart invited him to join a 1. WON the doctrine of the volenti non fit injuria is applicable to the case at
birthday party at the penthouse for the hotel’s former General Manager, Mr. bar.
Tsuruoka. Plaintiff agreed as Dr. Filart agreed to vouch for him and carried a basket
of fruits, the latter’s gift. He lined up at the buffet table as soon as it was ready but 2. WON the CA erred in ruling that petitioners are liable for damages.
to his great shock, shame and embarrassment, Ruby Lim, Hotel’s Executive
Secretary, asked him to leave in a loud voice enough to be heard by the people
around them. He was asked to leave the party and a Makati policeman VII. RULING:
accompanied him to step-out the hotel. All these time, Dr Filart ignored him
adding to his shame and humiliation. 1. NO. The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria refers to self-inflicted injury or
to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has
knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in
doing so. As formulated by petitioners, however, this doctrine does not find
On the other hand, Lim admitted asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party but not in the application to the case at bar because even if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of
manner claimed by the plaintiff. Ms. Lim approached several people including Dr. being asked to leave the party, petitioners, under Articles 19 and 21 of the New
Filart’s sister, Ms. Zenaida Fruto, if Dr. Filart did invite him as the captain waiter Civil Code, were still under obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him
told Ms. Lim that Mr. Reyes was with Dr. Filart’s group. She wasn’t able to ask it to unnecessary ridicule and shame.
personally with Dr. Filart since the latter was talking over the phone and doesn’t
want to interrupt her. She asked Mr. Reyes to leave because the celebrant 2. NO. In the absence of any proof of motive on the part of Ms. Lim to
specifically ordered that the party should be intimate consisting only of those who humiliate Mr. Reyes and expose him to ridicule and shame, it is highly unlikely that
part of the list. She even asked politely with the plaintiff to finish his food then she would shout at him from a very close distance. To unnecessarily call attention
leave the party. to the presence of Mr. Reyes would certainly reflect badly on Ms. Lims ability to
follow the instructions of the celebrant to invite only his close friends and some of
the hotels personnel. Mr. Reyes, upon whom the burden rests to prove that indeed Fake yan at hindi kayo maaaring pumasok dito. Kayo ay dapat paalisin. A security
Ms. Lim loudly and rudely ordered him to leave, could not offer any satisfactory guard then cocked his shotgun and warned petitioner to leave the place. Petitioner
explanation why Ms. Lim would do that and risk ruining a formal and intimate offered to settle the dispute in the office of Anchor Security Agency, through its
affair. Ms. Lim having been in the hotel business for twenty years wherein being manager, Mrs. Nassam, but the security guards merely replied: Wala kaming
polite and discreet are virtues to be emulated, the testimony of Mr. Reyes that she pakialam kay Nassam. Lahat ginagawa dito, lahat ay utos ni Torres. At yan ay
acted to the contrary does not inspire belief and is indeed incredible. sinusunod naming dahil si Torres ang bumubuhay sa amin.
Parenthetically, the manner by which Ms. Lim asked Mr. Reyes to leave was
likewise acceptable and humane under the circumstances. All told, and as far as When petitioner refused to leave the premises, One of the guards threatened
Ms. Lim and Hotel Nikko are concerned, any damage which Mr. Reyes might have petitioner that should he stay inside, or he would shoot him, so petitioner
suffered through Ms. Lims exercise of a legitimate right done within the bounds of immediately left the place. Petitioner ran to the back of his hut but was shot by the
propriety and good faith, must be his to bear alone. guard named Cabos, hitting petitioner on the back. After a while, the other security
guards, came, and mauled and kicked petitioner all over his body until he lost

As a result of the incident, petitioner was hospitalized and placed under

continuous treatment and medication. Due to the multiple gunshot wounds,
5. Ang vs Ang hematoma, and contusions sustained by petitioner, his left eye became 90 to 95%
6.Jose S. Roque, Jr. vs. Jaime Torres blind and his body was paralyzed. Consequently, petitioner filed a criminal case for
frustrated murder before the RTC of Antipolo against the security guards.
G.R. No. 157632 Eventually, after suffering for more than nine years, petitioner died.

(The deceased petitioner Jose Roque, Jr. is substituted by his wife Norma Roque On his part, respondent admits the existence of the titles in the name of Rafael
while respondent Jaime T. Torres, is herein represented by his son James Kenley M. Roque but denies the latter’s ownership over the property. He further admits the
Torres.) dismissal of his case for cancellation of Roques titles based on a technical ground.
Respondent likewise admits to the posting of the security guards on the property to
FACTS: guard the same from any intruder but denies that they were his personal security
Petitioner was the administrator of certain parcels of land in Upper Boso-Boso, guards, and moreover claimed that they were security guards of the Antipolo
Antipolo, Rizal, registered in the name of his son Rafael Roque. Sometime before Landowners and Farmers Association, Inc. (ALFAI), of which he was president.
the incident, respondent, claiming to be the owner of said property, hired security Respondent further asserts that being the President of ALFAI, his instruction to the
guards who allegedly barred petitioner from entering the property and threatened security guards was to prevent squatters or intruders from entering the property
him with physical harm should he attempt to tend the said land. As a result, and to make use of reasonable force to repel aggression in the event of any
petitioner filed a case for grave threats against said security guards before the untoward incident.
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Rizal. Thereafter, the RTC held Torres responsible because the law provides that the
Petitioner maintained that at around four o’clock in the afternoon of 27 August liability falls on the employer being the principal within the strict compliance of the
1989, he, visited the said property and was surprised to see seven security guards, instruction of the defendant. This is because of the fact that defendant Torres
guarding the property upon orders of respondent. Thereafter, the said security exercised direct supervision of the said security guards. Hence, defendant Torres is
guards asked him to leave the property and uttered: Bakit mo kami kinakalaban? liable for the unlawful acts committed by the said security guards against herein
Utos ni Torres na ito’y bantayan pagkat itoy kanyang property raw!. Petitioner plaintiff. Such unlawful acts would not have been accomplished had defendant
showed his son’s titles to the property but the security guards merely answered: Torres being their employer at that time, not instructed them so. What resulted to
the shooting of the plaintiff by the security guards cannot be given justice except by The fact that a client company may give instructions or directions to the security
indemnifying him. guards assigned to it, does not, by itself, render the client responsible as an
employer of the security guards concerned and liable for their wrongful acts or
Aggrieved by the above judgment, respondent lodged an appeal before the Court omissions.
of Appeals. According to respondent, he did not know that the security guards
would commit the alleged aggressive acts until the commission thereof, and that However, the Court still held Torres liable for damages resulting from the injuries
said security guards acted upon their own judgment. Respondent claimed that sustained by Roque.
petitioner was an intruder and squatter on the property who entered it without
permission from members of the ALFAI, the real owners of the said property. Thus, Assuming arguendo that the security guards are not respondent’s employees, the
respondent argued that petitioner forcibly entered the property and that the same does not constitute a valid defense at all.
security guards merely repelled the unlawful aggression. Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that “a person who, by act or omission,
Subsequently, the appellate court reversed the RTC judgment and rendered a causes damage to another through fault or negligence may be held liable in
decision stating that the agency is the employer of such security guards or damages.”
watchmen. Liability for illegal or harmful acts committed by the security guards By making it appear that he owns the disputed properties, putting security guards
attaches to the employer agency, and not to the clients or customers of such thereat to intimidate, harass or cause the rightful owner and his representatives
agency. The appellant cannot be held liable under Art. 33 of the Civil Code as no and by providing the escape vehicle, more than sufficient evidence was established
evidence whatsoever, was adduced to show his participation in the commission of on the civil liability of private respondent under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the
the acts complained of. Neither was appellee able to prove that appellant can be Philippines.
held liable in the alternative under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the
Civil Code. Respondent committed all these overt acts despite an earlier Decision by the
Regional Trial affirming Rafael Roque’s ownership of the properties. Had he not
ISSUE: misrepresented to the security guards that he owns the properties and had he not
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave and reversible error in ruling hired these security guards to secure the premises which he does not own, then
that Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code is not applicable to the the untoward incident would not have happened.
case at bar. To allow private respondent to escape liability, despite his misdeeds, will not only
RULING: result in grave injustice to Jose Roque, Jr. who eventually died after having been
paralyzed for several years as a result of the incident. Respondent cannot feign
NO. Respondent cannot be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the ignorance of the fact that at the time of the shooting incident, the titles to the
damages suffered by petitioner because respondent is not the employer of the disputed property were already registered in the name of petitioner’s son.
security guards who inflicted the injuries upon the person of the petitioner. Therefore, by hiring the security guards to prevent entry, possibly even by the
registered owner, to the subject property, titles to which he fully knew he did not
Liability for illegal or harmful acts committed by the security guards attaches to the possess, respondent blatantly acted in bad faith. Respondents unwarranted act of
employer agency, and not to the clients or customers of such agency. As a general posting security guards within the property, which he clearly knew is registered in
rule, a client or customer of a security agency has no hand in selecting who among the name of another, unduly placed petitioner at harm and deprived him of his
the pool of security guards or watchmen employed by the agency shall be assigned right to fully exercise his privileges and duties as administrator of said property.
to it; the duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection Respondent, by his grossly faulty acts, paved the way to the infliction of injuries by
of the guards cannot, in the ordinary course of events, be demanded from the the security guards on petitioner.
client whose premises or property are protected by the security guards.
Furthermore, respondent’s palpable display of bad faith in claiming a superior right petitioner was guilty of negligence and thus liable to respondent for the latter’s
to the property over petitioner’s son entitles petitioner to damages resulting actual damages, we hold that respondent should not have been awarded moral
therefrom. damages. As a senior law student respondent should have been responsible
enough to ensure that all his affairs, specifically those pertaining to his academic
achievement, are in order.
7.University of the East v. Romeo Jader

February 17, 2000 DISPOSTIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of CA is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

FACTS: Romeo Jader took his law proper at UE from 1984-88. During the first Petitioner is ordered to pay the sum of Php 35, 470 with legal interest of 6% per
semester of his last year in law school, he failed to take the examination for annum computed from the date of filing of the complaint until fully paid; the
Practice Court I in which he obtained an incomplete grade. He filed an application amount of Php 5000 as attorney’s fees and the cost of the suit. The award of moral
for removal of the incomplete grade given by Prof. Carlos Ortega on February 1, damages is deleted.
1988 which was approved by Dean Celedonio Tiongson after the payment of
required fees. He took the exam on March 28 and on May 30, the professor gave
him a grade of 5. 8.UST vs Sanchez

His name was still on the tentative list of candidates for graduation. Facts:
Likewise, his named appeared in the invitation for the commencement exercises
which was held on April 16, 1988. When he learnt of his deficiency, he dropped This case began with a Complaint for Damages filed by respondent Danes
from his Bar Review classes thereby made him ineligible to take the bar exam. B. Sanchez (respondent) against the University of Santo Tomas (UST) and its Board
of Directors, the Dean and the Assistant Dean of the UST College of Nursing, and
He filed a civil suit against UE for damages because he suffered moral the University Registrar for their alleged unjustified refusal to release the
shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, respondents Transcript of Records (ToR).
and sleepless nights due to UE’s negligence. The petitioner denied liability arguing
that it never led respondent to believe that he completed the requirements for an Respondent alleged that he graduated from UST on April 2, 2002 with a Bachelors
LlB degree when his name was included in the tentative list of graduating students. Degree of Science in Nursing. He was included in the list of candidates for
The court ruled in favor of the respondent. graduation and attended graduation ceremonies.

Respondent sought to secure a copy of his ToR with the UST Registrars Office, paid
the required fees, but was only given a Certificate of Graduation by the Registrar.
ISSUE: Whether or not UE be held liable for damages to the respondent. Despite repeated attempts by the respondent to secure a copy of his ToR, and
submission of his class cards as proof of his enrolment, UST refused to release his
records, making it impossible for him to take the nursing board examinations,
HELD: The petition lacks merit. Instead of filing an Answer, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss where they
The court ruled that the petitioner’s liability arose from its failure to promptly claimed that they refused to release respondents ToR because he was not a
inform the result of the examination and in misleading respondent into believing registered student, since he had not been enrolled in the university for the last
that the latter had satisfied all the requirements for graduation. However, while three semesters.
They also sought the dismissal of the case on the ground that the complaint failed RTC issued a TRO, enjoining Villanueva and the Finance Sec. from implementing
to state a cause of action, Valera's appointment. Thereafter, RTC superseded the TRO with a WPI.

Denying the Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the issues involved required an
examination of the evidence, which should be threshed out during trial
Villanueva, Valera, and the Sec. of Finance challenged the injunction order before
The CA affirmed the denial of petitioners Motion to Dismiss, and directed the RTC CA.CA issued its own TRO, enjoining the implementation of the RTC's injunction
to proceed with trial. order. But the TRO lapsed after 60D and CA eventually dismissed the petition
before it.
Issue: WON the Sanchez failed to state his cause of action.

While the preliminary injunction in the quo warranto case was again in force,
No. A motion to dismiss may be made on the ground that the pleading asserting Villanueva issued Customs Memo. Order 40-2001, authorizing Valera to exercise
the claim states no cause of action. The test to constitute a cause of action is the powers and functions of the Deputy Commissioner.
whether admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon
the same in accordance with the prayer of the petition. The Complaint makes the
following essential allegations: that petitioner unjustifiably refused to release
respondents ToR despite his having obtained a degree from UST; that petitioners During the Bureau's celebration of its centennial anniversary, its special Panorama
claim that respondent was not officially enrolled is untrue; assuming that the facts magazine edition featured all the customs deputy commissioners, except Rosqueta.
Even the commemorative billboard displayed at the Bureau's main gate included
alleged in the Complaint are true, the RTC would be able to render a valid judgment Valera's picture but not Rosqueta's.
in accordance with the prayer in the Complaint.

Lastly, we fully agree with the RTCs finding that a resolution of the case requires
the presentation of evidence during trial. Rosqueta filed a complaint for damages before the RTC QC Villanueva alleging that
the latter maliciously excluded her from the centennial anniversary memorabilia.
She claimed that he prevented her from performing her duties as Deputy
Commissioner, withheld her salaries, and refused to act on her leave applications.
9.G.R. No. 180764 January 19, 2010 She asked the RTC to award her P1M MD, P500k ED, and P300k AF and costs of
FACTS: suit.

Rosqueta, formerly Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue Collection and

Monitoring Group of the Bureau of Customs, tendered her courtesy resignation RTC dismissed Rosqueta's complaint, stating that Villanueva committed no wrong
from that post, shortly after President GMA assumed office. 5 months later, she and incurred no omission that entitled her to damages. RTC found that Villanueva
withdrew her resignation, claiming that she enjoyed security of tenure and that she had validly and legally replaced her as Deputy Commissioner 7 months before the
had resigned against her will on orders of her superior. Bureau's centennial anniversary.
Pres. GMA appointed Gil Valera to Rosqueta's position. Challenging such
appointment, Rosqueta filed a petition for prohibition, quo warranto, and
injunction against Villanueva Villanueva, then Commissioner of Customs, the Sec. of CA reversed RTC's decision, holding instead that Villanueva's refusal to comply with
Finance, and Valera with RTC Manila. the preliminary injunction order issued in the quo warranto case earned for
Rosqueta the right to recover MD from him and ordered Villanueva to pay P500k quo warranto case moot and academic, it did not have the effect of wiping out the
MD, P200k ED and P100k AF and litigation expenses. CA denied Villanueva’s MR. injuries she suffered on account of Villanueva's treatment of her. The damage suit
is an independent action.

CA correctly awarded MD to Rosqueta. MD may be awarded when the defendant's

WON CA erred in holding Villanueva liable in damages to Rosqueta for ignoring the transgression is the immediate cause of the plaintiff's anguish in the cases specified
preliminary injunction order that RTC issued in the quo warranto case, denying her in Art. 2219 CC.
of the right to do her job as Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau.

SC finds the award of P500k excessive. MD should reasonably approximate the
extent of hurt caused and the gravity of the wrong done. Here, that would be
Under the abuse of right principle found in Art. 19 CC, ”a person must, in the P200k. Also, it affirms the grant of ED but reduced it to 50k and affirms the award
exercise of his legal right or duty, act in GF.” He would be liable if he instead acts in of AF and LE but reduces it to P50k.
BF, with intent to prejudice another. Complementing this principle are Arts. 20 &
21 CC which grant the latter indemnity for the injury he suffers bec. of such abuse
of right or duty. 10.METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. ACT
THEATER, INC., respondent.

A government official of his rank must know that a preliminary injunction order
issued by a court of law had to be obeyed, especially since the question of Valeras FACTS:
right to replace Rosqueta had not yet been properly resolved.
Four employees of the respondent Act Theater, Inc., namely, Rodolfo Tabian,
Armando Aguilar, Arnel Concha and Modesto Ruales, were apprehended by
members of the Quezon City police force for allegedly tampering a water meter in
That Villanueva ignored the injunction shows BF and intent to spite Rosqueta who violation of P.D. No. 401, as amended by B.P. Blg. 876. The respondents employees
remained in the eyes of the law the Deputy Commissioner. His exclusion of her were subsequently criminally charged. On account of the incident, the respondents
from the centennial anniversary memorabilia was not an honest mistake by any water service connection was cut off. Consequently, the respondent filed a
reckoning. Indeed, he withheld her salary and prevented her from assuming the complaint for injunction with damages against the petitioner MWSS. Respondent
duties of the position. alleged in its complaint filed with the court a quo that the petitioner acted
arbitrarily, whimsically and capriciously, in cutting off the respondents water
service connection without prior notice. Due to lack of water, the health and
A party's refusal to abide by a court order enjoining him from doing an act, sanitation, not only of the respondent’s patrons but in the surrounding premises as
otherwise lawful, constitutes an abuse and an unlawful exercise of right. well, were adversely affected. The respondent prayed that the petitioner be
directed to pay damages.

Petitioner invoked Art. 429 which provided that the owner or lawful possessor of a
That Rosqueta was later appointed Deputy Commissioner for another division of thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
the Bureau is immaterial. While such appointment, when accepted, rendered the
For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonable to repel or prevent rentals and alleged that he made an advance payment of P825,000.00 when he
an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. paid for the repairs done on the leased property. MeTC ruled in favor of
petitioners. RTC reversed the MeTC decision. When both parties moved for the
reconsideration of the RTC decision, the RTC issued an Order dated February 23,
ISSUE: 2001 modifying its previous ruling by increasing the value of the improvements
introduced by respondent.
WON respondent is entitled to damages.
Whilst respondent’s appeal of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) judgment in the
Yes. unlawful detainer case was pending, respondent filed a Complaint for Breach of
Contract and Damages against the petitioners on the basis of two causes of action:
Having the right should not be confused with the manner by which such right is to The first cause of action was for damages because the respondent supposedly
be exercised. [8] suffered embarrassment and humiliation when petitioners distributed copies of the
Article 19 of the Civil Code precisely sets the norms for the exercise of ones rights: above-mentioned MeTC decision in the unlawful detainer case to the homeowners
of Horseshoe Village while respondent’s appeal was still pending before the
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of Quezon City RTC-Branch 88. The second cause of action was for breach of contract
his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good since petitioners, as lessors, failed to make continuing repairs on the subject
faith. property to preserve and keep it tenantable. Petitioners argued that respondent
had no cause of action against them because the MeTC decision in the unlawful
When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in detainer case was a matter of public record and its disclosure to the public violated
damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which actor can be held no law or any legal right of the respondent.
accountable. In this case, the petitioner failed to act with justice and give the
respondent what is due to it when the petitioner unceremoniously cut off the RTC dismissed the Breach of Contract case. The Court of Appeals found petitioners
respondents water service connection. liable to respondent for damages and ruled that the distribution of the court
decision during the pendency of an appeal was clearly intended to cause
While it is true that MWSS had sent a notice of investigation to plaintiff-appellee [respondent] some form of harassment and/or humiliation and that there was
prior to the disconnection of the latters water services, this was done only a few evident bad faith intended to mock [respondent’s] right to appeal. Hence, the
hours before the actual disconnection instant Petition for Review.

11.Manaloto v. Veloso III VI. ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent is entitled to the award of moral and exemplary
This case is an off-shoot of an unlawful detainer case filed by [herein petitioners]
Ermelinda C. Manaloto, Aurora J. Cifra, Flordeliza J. Arcilla, Lourdes J. Catalan,
Ethelinda J. Holt, Bienvenido R. Jongco, Artemio R. Jongco, Jr. and Joel Jongco
against [herein respondent]. The action was instituted on the ground of VII. RULING:
[respondent’s] failure to pay rentals on a residential house in Horseshoe Village,
Quezon City despite repeated demands. [Respondent] denied the non-payment of
NO. A cause of action (for damages) exists if the following elements are present: (1) While Article 19 may have been intended as a mere declaration of principle, the
a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises “cardinal law on human conduct” expressed in said article has given rise to certain
or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or rules, e.g. that where a person exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or unjustly
not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant or performs his duties in a manner that is not in keeping with honesty and good
violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of faith, he opens himself to liability. The elements of an abuse of rights under Article
defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery 19 are: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for
of damages. We find that all three elements exist in the case at bar. Respondent the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.”
may not have specifically identified each element, but it may be sufficiently
determined from the allegations in his complaint.

First, respondent filed the complaint to protect his good character, name, and Nevertheless, we further declare that the Court of Appeals erred in already
reputation. Every man has a right to build, keep, and be favored with a good name. awarding moral and exemplary damages in respondent’s favor when the parties
This right is protected by law with the recognition of slander and libel as actionable have not yet had the chance to present any evidence before the RTC-Branch 227. In
wrongs, whether as criminal offenses or tortuous conduct. Second, petitioners are civil cases, he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it by a preponderance of
obliged to respect respondent’s good name even though they are opposing parties evidence. It is incumbent upon the party claiming affirmative relief from the court
in the unlawful detainer case. As Article 19 of the Civil Code requires, “[e]very to convincingly prove its claim. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence are
person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act not equivalent to proof under our Rules. In short, mere allegations are not
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.” A evidence. At this point, the finding of the Court of Appeals of bad faith and malice
violation of such principle constitutes an abuse of rights, a tortuous conduct. on the part of petitioners has no factual basis. Good faith is presumed and he who
alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same.

“The principle of abuse of rights departs from the classical theory that “he who
uses a right injures no one.” The modern tendency is to depart from the classical VIII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
and traditional theory, and to grant indemnity for damages in cases where there is WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
an abuse of rights, even when the act is not illicit. Decision dated January 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 82610 is
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The award of moral and exemplary damages
made by the Court of Appeals in favor of respondent Ismael Veloso III is DELETED.
Article 19 was intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal The complaint of respondent Ismael Veloso III in Civil Case No. Q-02-48341 is
remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human hereby REINSTATED before Branch 227 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. If mere fault or negligence in one’s
acts can make him liable for damages for injury caused thereby, with more reason
should abuse or bad faith make him liable. The absence of good faith is essential to 12 H.L. Carlos Construction, Inc. v. Marina Properties, Corp.
abuse of right. Good faith is an honest intention to abstain from taking any
unconscientious advantage of another, even through the forms or technicalities of
the law, together with an absence of all information or belief of fact which would
render the transaction unconscientious. In business relations, it means good faith IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS:
as understood by men of affairs. Respondent Marina Properties Corporation (MPC) is engaged in the business of real
estate development. MPC entered into a contract with petitioner H.L. Carlos
construction, Inc. (HLC) to construct a condominium complex “Marina Bayhomes There is unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code when (1) a person is
Condominium Poject”, for P39M within a period of 365 days from receipt of ‘Notice unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with
to Proceed’. Completion date was on May 1989 but it was extended to October damages to another. Since petitioner had rendered services that were accepted by
1989. The contract was signed by Jovencio Cinco, president of MPC and Honorio MPC, then the former should be compensated for them. Labor cost escalation, in
Carlos, president of HLC. HLC instituted a case for sum of oney against not only this case, has already been earned by petitioner.
MPC but also against the president Typoso and Tan, seeking payment of vaious
sums with an aggregate amount of P14M for a) P7.1M for costs of labor escalation,
change orders and material price escalation; b) P2M as additional compensatory Since he Contract allows escalation only of the “labor component”. The implication
damages, exclusive of the cost of suit; c) P3M representing retention money is that material cost escalations are barred. There appears to be no provision,
allegedly withheld by MPC on HLC’s Progress Billings as of January 1990; and d) either in the original or in the amended contract, that would justify billing of
P2M representing the value of construction materials allegedly withheld/detained increased cost of materials. Furthermore, no evidence -- like official economic data
by MPC. showing an increase in the price index of construction materials -- was even
adduced by petitioner to prove that there had indeed been increases in material
Respondents alleged that they are not parties to the Construction Contract and
Amendatory Contract and therefor not liable to HLC. MPC on the other hand
alleged that petitioner has no cause of action against it and HLC is not entitled to its VIII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
various claims.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is partly GRANTED and the assailed Decision MODIFIED.
Petitioner is AWARDED labor cost escalation in the sum of P1, 196, 202 and cost of
V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE: extra work in the sum of P79, 340. 52. In all other respects, the appealed Decision is
RTC dismissed the case for lack of evidence and ruled in favor of petitioner HLC and
against MOC, Tan Yu and Typoco Sr., who are ordered to pay, jointly and severally.
CA held that respondents were not liable for escalations in the cost of labor and
construction materials because of the ff. reasone: (1) the contract between the
parties was for a lump sum consideration, which did not allow for cost escalation;
and (2) petitioner failed to show any basis for the award sought.

13.Chua, et al. v. United Coconut Planters Bank, et al., G.R. No. 215999, 16 August
VI. ISSUE: 2017

Whether or not the acquisition of MPC of the partially accomplished project

without paying for labor escalation would constitute unjust enrichment
FACTS: It is undisputed that petitioners Spouses Chua and LGCTI as well as
respondents Jose Go, had existing loan obligations with UCPB prior to the March
1997 JVA. As an offshoot of the JVA, two deeds of trust were executed by the
VII. RULING: YES. parties involving petitioners’ 44-hectare property covered by 32 titles. The deeds of
trust were neither expressly cancelled not rescinded despite the fact that the
project under the JVA never came to fruition. On March 21, 2000, UCPB and ISSUE#2: Was the deed of assignment covering the deficiency in petitioner’s
petitioners entered into the MOA consolidating the outstanding obligations of the obligations to UPCB valid?
Spouses Chua and LGCTI.

Based on the foregoing, therefore, we conclude that the deed of assignment of

Petitioners exchanged their 30 parcels of land to effectively reduce their total liabilities covering the deficiency in its obligation to UCPB in the amount of
unpaid obligations to only P68,000,000.00. To settle the balance, they agreed to P68,000,000.00 was null and void. According to the apportionment of bid price
convert it into equity in LGCTI in case they would default in their payment. To executed by UCPB ‘s account officer, the bidamounting to P227,700,000.00 far
implement the MOA, they signed the REM drafted by UCPB, which included the exceeded the indebtedness of the Spouses Chua and LGCTI in the amount of
properties listed in the MOA as security for the credit accommodation of P204,597,177.04, which was inclusive of the P68,000,000.00 subject of the deed of
P404,597,177.04. Unknown to them, however, Jose Go, acting in behalf of Revere, assignment of liabilities as well as the P32,703,893,450.00 corresponding to the
likewise executed another REM covering the properties that Revere was holding in interests and penalties that UCPB waived in favor of petitioners.
trust for them. When UCPB foreclosed the mortgages, it applied about P75.09
million out of the P227,700,000.00 proceeds of the foreclosure sale to the
obligations of Revere and Jose Go. Moreover, UCPB pursued petitioners for their It can be further concluded that UCPB could not have validly assigned to Asset Pool
supposed deficiency amounting to P68,000,000.00, which was meanwhile assigned A any right or interest in the P68,000,000.00 balance because the proper
to respondent Asset Pool A by UCPB. application of the proceeds of the foreclosure sale would have necessarily resulted
in the full extinguishment of petitioners’ entire obligation. Otherwise, unjust
enrichment would ensue at the expense of petitioners. There is unjust enrichment
ISSUE#1: Did the REM subsist even after the foreclosure sale of the subject when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person
properties? retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice,
equity and good conscience. The principle of unjust enrichment requires the
HELD#1: NO. concurrence of two conditions, namely: (1) that a person is benefited without a
A review of the MOA dated March 21, 2000 would reveal that petitioners’ valid basis or justification; and (2) that such benefit is derived at the expense of
outstanding obligation referred to, after deducting the amount of the thirty another. The main objective of the principle against unjust enrichment is to prevent
properties, was reduced to only P68,000,000.00. To settle this balance, petitioners a person from enriching himself at the expense of another without just cause or
agreed to convert this into equity in LGCTI in case they defaulted in their payment. consideration. This principle against unjust enrichment would be infringed if we
In this case, what prompted the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged properties was were to uphold the decision of the CA despite its having no basis in law and in
petitioners’ failure to pay their obligations. When the proceeds of the foreclosure equity.
sale were applied to their outstanding obligations, the payment of the balance of
the P68,000,000.00 was deliberately left out, and the proceeds were conveniently
applied to settle P75,000,000.00 of Revere and/or Jose Go’s unpaid obligations 14.VICENTE ALMARIO vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.,
with UCPB. This application was in blatant contravention of the agreement that
Revere’s or Jose Go’s obligations would be paid only if there were excess in the
application of the foreclosure proceeds. Accordingly, the CA should have applied FACTS:
the proceeds to the entire outstanding obligations of petitioners, and only the
excess, if any, should have been applied to pay off Revere and/or Jose Go’s In 1998, Petitioner Almario was hired as a Boeing 747 Systems Engineer by
obligations. respondent Philippine Airlines (PAL). In 1995, Almario successfully bid for the
higher position of Airbus 300 (A-300) First Officer, for which he was given
additional training at Pal’s expense. He underwent more than 5 months of training
consisting of ground schooling in Manila and flight simulation in Melbourne, Whether or not Almario is obliged to reimburse the costs incurred by PAL for his
Australia. training

After completing the training course, Almario served as A-300 First Officer of PAL, HELD:
but after 8 months of service, he tendered his resignation for personal reasons. PAL Yes. The rationale of the three-year period is the prohibitive training costs. At an
then wrote him a letter, stating that they invested heavily on his professional earlier time, when the CBA between PAL and its employees were still negotiated,
training in the estimated amount of P786,713 on the basis that he continue to the Secretary of Labor basically ruled that PAL should be allowed a return on
serve the Company for a definite period of time which is approximately 3 yrs. PAL investment for their pilots’ training expenses. Thus, the provisions that pilots 57
wanted Almario to reconsider his resignation, otherwise they would be compelled years of age shall be frozen and pilots less than 57, provided they have previously
to ask reimbursement for the training costs from him. Despite this, Almario pushed qualified in any company’s turbo-jet aircraft, shall be permitted to occupy any
through with his resignation. position in the company’s turbo-jet fleet, were incorporated in later incarnations of
PAL filed a complaint against Almario for reimbursement of P851,107 worth of the CBA.
training costs, attorney’s fees and costs of litigation. PAL invoked the existence of
an innominate contract of do ut facias (I give that you may do) with Almario in that
by spending for his training, he would render service to it until the costs of training When Almario took the training course, he was about 39 yrs old, 21 yrs away from
were recovered in at least 3 yrs. They based the period of 3 yrs to a decision of the the retirement age of 60. Hence, with the maturity, expertise and experience he
Secretary of Labor concerning PAL’s CBA with its employee-union. gained from the training course, he was expected to serve PAL for at least three yrs
to offset “the prohibitive costs” thereof.
Almario denied the existence of any agreement with PAL that he would have to
render service to it for 3 years after his training. He pointed out that the CBA
between PAL and the Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP), of which
he was a member, carried no such agreement. Article 22 of the Civil Code applies. This provision on unjust enrichment recognizes
the principle that one may not enrich himself at the expense of another.
RTC finding no provision in the CBA between PAL and ALPAP stipulating that a pilot
who underwent a training course for the position of A-300 First Officer must serve
PAL for at least three years failing which he should reimburse the training Enrichment of the defendant consists in every patrimonial, physical, or moral
expenses, rendered judgment in favor of Almario. advantage, so long as it is appreciable in money. It may consist of some positive
pecuniary value incorporated into the patrimony of the defendant, such as: (1) the
enjoyment of a thing belonging to the plaintiff; (2) the benefits from service
CA reversed the decision of the trial court. It found Almario liable under the CBA rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant; (3) the acquisition of a right, whether
between PAL and ALPAP and under Article 22 of the Civil Code. Almario was real or personal; (4) the increase of value of property of the defendant; (5) the
ordered to pay PAL the sum of P559, 739.90. improvement of a right of the defendant, such as the acquisition of a right of
preference; (6) the recognition of the existence of a right in the defendant; and (7)
the improvement of the conditions of life of the defendant.

The enrichment of the defendant must have a correlative prejudice, disadvantage, Johnny L. Tan, then sent a letter to the President of Benguet informing the latter
or injury to the plaintiff. This prejudice may consist, not only of the loss of property that it was terminating the RAWOP on the following grounds:
or the deprivation of its enjoyment, but also of non-payment of compensation for a
prestation or service rendered to the defendant without intent to donate on the
part of the plaintiff, or the failure to acquire something which the latter would have a. The fact that your company has failed to perform the obligations set forth in
obtained. The injury to the plaintiff, however, need not be the cause of the the RAWOP, i.e., to undertake development works within 2 years from the
enrichment of the defendant. It is enough that there be some relation between execution of the Agreement; b. Violation of the Contract by allowing high
them, that the enrichment of the defendant would not have been produced had it graders to operate on our claim. c. No stipulation was provided with respect to
not been for the fact from which the injury to the plaintiff is derived. the term limit of the RAWOP. d. Non-payment of the royalties thereon as
provided in the RAWOP.

In the present case, PAL invested for the training of Almario on the expectation that
they may recover by availing of Almario’s services for at least three years. This On June 7, 2000, J.G. Realty filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity/Cancellation
expectation was not fully realized, however, due to Almario’s resignation after only of the RAWOP with the Legaspi City MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD-PANEL OF
eight months of service following the completion of his training course. He cannot, ARBITRATORS (POA), Region V, docketed as DENR Case No. 2000-01 and entitled
therefore, refuse to reimburse the costs of training without violating the principle J.G. Realty v. Benguet.
of unjust enrichment.

Almario must pay PAL the sum of P559,739.90, to bear the legal interest rate of 6%
per annum from the filing of PALs complaint on February 11, 1997 until the finality DECISION OF LOWER COURTS: *POA: declared the RAWOP cancelled. *MAB:
of this decision. affirmed POA.


ISSUES: (1) Should the controversy have first been submitted to arbitration before
the POA took cognizance of the case?; (2) Was the cancellation of the RAWOP
FACTS: supported by evidence?; and (3) Did the cancellation of the RAWOP amount to
unjust enrichment of J.G. Realty at the expense of Benguet?

On June 1, 1987, Benguet and J.G. Realty entered into a Royalty Agreement with
Option to Repurchase (RAWOP), wherein J.G. Realty was acknowledged as the HELD: PETITION WAS DISMISSED OUTRIGHT. Petitioner having failed to properly
owner of four mining claims respectively named as Bonito-I, Bonito-II, Bonito-III, appeal to the CA under Rule 43, the decision of the MAB has become final and
and Bonito-IV, with a total area of 288.8656 hectares, situated in Barangay executory. On this ground alone, the instant petition must be denied.
Luklukam, Sitio Bagong Bayan, Municipality of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte.

(1) YES, the case should have first been brought to voluntary arbitration before the
Thus, on August 9, 1989, the Executive Vice-President of Benguet, Antonio N. POA.
Tachuling, issued a letter informing J.G. Realty of its intention to develop the
mining claims. However, on February 9, 1999, J.G. Realty, through its President,
Secs. 11.01 and 11.02 of the RAWOP pertinently provide: In other words, in the event a case that should properly be the subject of voluntary
arbitration is erroneously filed with the courts or quasi-judicial agencies, on motion
of the defendant, the court or quasi-judicial agency shall determine whether such
11.01 Arbitration contractual provision for arbitration is sufficient and effective. If in affirmative, the
court or quasi-judicial agency shall then order the enforcement of said provision.

Any disputes, differences or disagreements between BENGUET and the OWNER

with reference to anything whatsoever pertaining to this Agreement that cannot be In sum, on the issue of whether POA should have referred the case to voluntary
amicably settled by them shall not be cause of any action of any kind whatsoever in arbitration, we find that, indeed, POA has no jurisdiction over the dispute which is
any court or administrative agency but shall, upon notice of one party to the other, governed by RA 876, the arbitration law.
be referred to a Board of Arbitrators consisting of three (3) members, one to be
selected by BENGUET, another to be selected by the OWNER and the third to be
selected by the aforementioned two arbitrators so appointed. HOWEVER, ESTOPPEL APPLIES. the Court rules that the jurisdiction of POA and that
of MAB can no longer be questioned by Benguet at this late hour. What Benguet
should have done was to immediately challenge the POA's jurisdiction by a special
xxxx civil action for certiorari when POA ruled that it has jurisdiction over the dispute.
To redo the proceedings fully participated in by the parties after the lapse of seven
years from date of institution of the original action with the POA would be
anathema to the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
11.02 Court Action

(2) The cancellation of the RAWOP was supported by evidence.

No action shall be instituted in court as to any matter in dispute as hereinabove
stated, except to enforce the decision of the majority of the Arbitrators

(3) There is no unjust enrichment in the instant case. There is no unjust enrichment
when the person who will benefit has a valid claim to such benefit.
A contractual stipulation that requires prior resort to voluntary arbitration before
the parties can go directly to court is not illegal and is in fact promoted by the
The principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22 requires two conditions: (1)
that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such
benefit is derived at another's expense or damage.
To reiterate, availment of voluntary arbitration before resort is made to the courts
or quasi-judicial agencies of the government is a valid contractual stipulation that Jurisprudence has defined unjust enrichment as when a person unjustly retains a
must be adhered to by the parties. benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of
another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
Article 22 of the Civil Code provides that [e]very person who through an act of
performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of
something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the
same to him. The principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22 requires two the installation of sonic pipes to be used to conduct load tests on the bored piling
conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and works.
(2) that such benefit is derived at anothers expense or damage. There is no unjust
enrichment when the person who will benefit has a valid claim to such benefit. AFCSC claimed that these works were not part of the original contract, thus, should
be treated as extra work. Almost a year later, New World informed AFCSC of the
rejection of the latter’s proposal regarding the exclusions. The construction of the
bored piles was completed more than eight months after the original date of 24
Clearly, there is no unjust enrichment in the instant case as the cancellation of the February 1997 contemplated in the contract.
RAWOP, which left Benguet without any legal right to participate in further
developing the mining claims, was brought about by its violation of the RAWOP. To check the board piles’ structural integrity, New World conducted sonic logging
Hence, Benguet has no one to blame but itself for its predicament. test, dynamic pile test, and pile integrity test. Results showed that five piles were
found defective.

When it came time to settle the accounts, the parties’ respective records of
16.Advance Foundation Systems Corp. v. New World Properties & Ventures, Inc accounts were at variance econciled the amount due to AFCSC and arrived at the
sum of P6,326,318.72 as the unpaid balance of the original contract price and
II. FULL TITLE: ADVANCE FOUNDATION SYSTEMS CORP. v. NEW WORL P2,133,658.46 as the cost of the change orders after deducting the liquidated
PROPERTIES & VENTURES, INC., G.R. No. 143154, G.R. No. 143177, June 21, 2006, J. damages due to New World for the delay incurred by AFCSC.
Chico-Nazario New World, however, refused to pay its outstanding obligations consisting of the
III. TOPIC: Solutio Indebiti reconciled amount of P8,515,396.63 and the cost of removing the underground
obstructions, sonic pipe installation, build up of pile test cap, soil investigation and
crane rental.


AFCSC was the highest bidder for the construction of 69 bored piles which would
form the foundation of the 36-storey World Trade Exchange Building. A Notice to
Proceed Work was then issued to AFCSC – the work to commence on 27 November AFCSC filed a Request for Adjudication before the CIAC, raising the issue of whether
1996 and to be complete by 24 February 1997. Under said notice, in case of delay or not the removal of underground obstructions, installation of sonic pipes, build
in the completion of the project, AFCSC would pay New World liquidated damages up of pile test cap, soil investigation, and crane rental constitute additional works
in the amount of P36,000.00 per calendar day of delay. Before the signing of the which will entitle AFCSC to its claim of additional pay; and whether or not AFCSC
contract, AFCSC proposed an amendment to the contract conditions which was in delay, thus making it liable for liquidated damages.
provided for some exclusion in the contractor scope of work like removal of
underground obstruction. New World did not respond to said proposal but instead
directed AFCSC to proceed with the construction. CIAC ruled in favor of AFCSC stating that the controversy could have been avoided
if the owner’s designers had clearly stated the contractor’s scope of work; that
During the subsistence of the contract, New World directed AFCSC to make the removal of underground obstructions by the claimant falls under Clause 56.2 of the
following changes and additional works. AFCSC billed New World the costs of the General Conditions which should therefore be treated as extra work.
change orders in addition to the original contract price. Included in said billing is
the cost of the removal of underground obstructions in the project site as well as
Also, CIAC held that the claimant is not entitled to extension of time for the extra
works performed and is accordingly liable to the respondent for liquidated
damages in accordance with the contract. The removal of the underground obstructions was not covered by the scope of
work in the contract. It is not disputed though that the same was a major work
entailing additional expenses and extra working time. Neither was it denied that
such major work was indeed necessary for the successful completion of the project.
Dissatisfied, New World filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals, Indeed, to deny AFCSC relief for the expenses it incurred in removing said
which modified the decision of the CIAC. obstructions would result in allowing New World to unjustly enrich itself at the
expense of AFCSC. Equity necessarily dictates that New World be held liable for the
expenses incurred for the extra work conducted for its sole benefit.
It is not disputed that the removal of the underground obstructions was a major
work entailing additional expense and extra working time. The experts and CIAC
agreed that such work was not covered by the scope of work in the contract. Further, it cannot be said that New World was not made aware of the existence of
To deny respondent any relief for the expenses it incurred and the extra time that the underground obstruction nor of the additional expense that would be
it spent in removing the underground obstructions is to allow the petitioner to necessary for its removal. As heretofore stated, AFCSC, on 21 November 1996, sent
unjustly enrich itself at the expense of the respondent. a proposal to New World regarding the additional expenses that would be incurred
in the instance that the contractor shall encounter underground obstructions;
however, New World never responded to said proposal until 9 September 1997,
when it informed AFCSC of the rejection of said proposal or almost ten (10) months
Invoking its equity jurisdiction and in order to prevent unjust enrichment and after said proposal was first offered, and after all the necessary extra work had
manifest injustice, holds that respondent should be accorded a relief. But then been accomplished.
respondent should not expect for a full recovery of its claim for it should realize
that it had been contractually negligent not just once but several times. Article 22 of the Civil Code which embodies the maxim, Nemo ex alterius
incommode debet lecupletari (no man ought to be made rich out of another’s
The Motion for Partial Reconsideration of both parties having been denied, both injury) states:
New World and AFCSC filed their respective Petitions for Review before this Court.
Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other
VI. ISSUE: means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter
(1) Which between New World and AFCSC should shoulder the expenses without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
incurred for the removal of the underground obstructions and the conduct of the
pile tests; and
Hence, to allow New World to acquire the finished project at a price far below its
(2) Whether or not AFCSC is liable for liquidated damages for its failure to actual construction cost would undoubtedly constitute unjust enrichment for the
complete the construction work by 24 February 1997. bank to the prejudice of AFCSC. Such unjust enrichment, as previously discussed, is
VII. RULING: not allowed by law.

(1) New World should bear the expenses incurred for the removal (2) YES.
of the underground obstructions and the conduct of the pile tests.
AFCSC never sent notice to New World regarding a request for extension of time to
finish the work despite the existence of circumstances fairly entitling it to an
extension of the contract period. Thus, AFCSC, must bear some consequences for
the delay in the completion of the project and for disregarding the owner’s right to
determine the length of extension to be given to the contractor and to
consequently adjust the period to finish the extra work.


WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 31

January 2000, which modified the Decision dated 8 December 1998 of the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, is hereby MODIFIED in that New
World Properties and Ventures, Inc is hereby ordered to pay Advanced Foundation
Construction Systems Corporation the following amounts:

1. P8,025,836.37 as cost of additional work consisting of the removal of the

underground obstructions;

2. P336,683.48 as costs for the various test conducted consisting of P157,681.15 for
sonic pipe installation; P104,002.33 for build up of pile test cap; and P75,000.00 for
crane rental.

The remainder of the same Decision of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.
No costs.