Pfr Human Rel & Indep Cases

8/18/2019 Pfr Human Rel & Indep Cases

1/110

HUMAN RELATIONS CASES

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 88694 January 11, 1993

ALENSON ENTERPRISES CORP., JESSE !AP, AN" ENJAMIN MEN"IONA, petitioners,vs.

THE COURT O# APPEALS AN" EUGENIO S. ALTAO, respondents.

Puruganan, Chato, Chato & Tan for petitioners.

Lino M. Patajo, Francisco Ma. Chanco, Ananiano Desierto and Segundo Mangohig for private

respondent.

I"IN, J.:

This petition assails the decision of respondent ourt of !ppeals in

!"#R V No. $%&%' entitled ()u*enio S. +altao, plaintiff"appellee vs. !lbenson )nterprises

orporation, et al, defendants"appellants(, hich -odified the ud*-ent of the Re*ional Trial ourt

of /ue0on it1, +ranch 2VIII in ivil ase No. /"%3&43 and ordered petitioner to pa1 privaterespondent, a-on* others, the su- of P533,333.33 as -oral da-a*es and attorne16s fees in the

a-ount of P53,333.33.

The facts are not disputed.

In Septe-ber, October, and Nove-ber $&'3, petitioner !lbenson )nterprises orporation 7!lbenson

for short8 delivered to #uaranteed Industries, Inc. 7#uaranteed for short8 located at 94:; V. Mapa

Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila, the -ild steel plates hich the latter ordered. !s part pa1-ent thereof,

!lbenson as *iven Pacific +anoodor


2/110

!fter obtainin* the fore*oin* infor-ation, !lbenson, throu*h counsel, -ade an e@traudicial de-and

upon private respondent )u*enio S. +altao, president of #uaranteed, to replace andCor -a


3/110

on the *round floor of +altao +uildin* located on V. Mapa Street, that the defendants -a1 have been

dealin* ith . . . .( 7Roo, pp. %$"%48.

The dispositive portion of the trial court 6s decision readsF

>H)R)?OR), ud*-ent is hereb1 rendered in favor of plaintiff and a*ainst

defendants orderin* the latter to pa1 plaintiff ointl1 and severall1F

$. actual or co-pensator1 da-a*es of P$99,953.33G

4. -oral da-a*es of P$,333,333.33 7$ -illion pesos8G

9. e@e-plar1 da-a*es of P433,333.33G

%. attorne16s fees of P$33,333.33G

5 costs.

Defendants6 counterclai- a*ainst plaintiff and clai- for da-a*es a*ainst Mercantile

Insurance o. on the bond for the issuance of the rit of attach-ent at the instance

of plaintiff are hereb1 dis-issed for lac< of -erit. 7Roo, pp. 9'"9&8.

On appeal, respondent court -odified the trial court6s decision as follosF

>H)R)?OR), the decision appealed fro- is MODI?I)D b1 reducin* the -oral

da-a*es aarded therein fro- P$,333,333.33 to P533,333.33 and the attorne16s

fees fro- P$33,333.33 to P53,333.33, said decision bein* hereb1 affir-ed in all its

other aspects. >ith costs a*ainst appellants. 7Roo, pp. 53"5$8

Dissatisfied ith the above rulin*, petitioners !lbenson )nterprises orp., esse Eap, and +ena-in

Mendiona filed the instant Petition, alle*in* that the appellate court erred inF

$. oncludin* that private respondent6s cause of action is not one based on

-alicious prosecution but one for abuse of ri*hts under !rticle 4$ of the ivil ode

notithstandin* the fact that the basis of a civil action for -alicious prosecution is

!rticle 44$& in relation to !rticle 4$ or !rticle 4$;: of the ivil ode . . . .

4. oncludin* that (hittin* at and in effect -ali*nin* 7private respondent8 ith an

unust cri-inal case as, ithout -ore, a plain case of abuse of ri*hts b1

-isdirection( and (as therefore, actionable b1 itself,( and hich (beca-e

inordinatel1 blatant and *rossl1 a**ravated hen . . . 7private respondent8 asdeprived of his basic ri*ht to notice and a fair hearin* in the so"called preli-inar1

investi*ation . . . . (

9. oncludin* that petitioner6s (actuations in this case ere coldl1 deliberate and

calculated(, no evidence havin* been adduced to support such a seepin*

state-ent.


4/110

%. Holdin* the petitioner corporation, petitioner Eap and petitioner Mendiona ointl1

and severall1 liable ithout sufficient basis in la and in fact.

5. !ardin* respondents

5.$. P$99,953.33 as actual or co-pensator1 da-a*es, even in the

absence of sufficient evidence to sho that such as actuall1

suffered.

5.4. P533,333.33 as -oral da-a*es considerin* that the evidence in

this connection -erel1 involved private respondent6s alle*ed

celebrated status as a business-an, there bein* no shoin* that the

act co-plained of adversel1 affected private respondent6s reputation

or that it resulted to -aterial loss.

5.9. P433,333.33 as e@e-plar1 da-a*es despite the fact that

petitioners ere dul1 advised b1 counsel of their le*al recourse.

5.%. P53,333.33 as attorne16s fees, no evidence havin* been

adduced to ustif1 such an aard 7Roo, pp. %":8.

Petitioners contend that the civil case filed in the loer court as one for -alicious prosecution.

itin* the case of Madera vs. Lope! 7$34 SR! ;33 $&'$J8, the1 assert that the absence of -alice

on their part absolves the- fro- an1 liabilit1 for -alicious prosecution. Private respondent, on the

other hand, anchored his co-plaint for Da-a*es on !rticles $&, 43, and 4$ $$ of the ivil ode.

!rticle $&, hen a ri*ht is e@ercised in a -anner hich

does not confor- ith the nor-s enshrined in !rticle $& and results in da-a*e to another, a le*al

ron* is thereb1 co--itted for hich the ron*doer -ust be held responsible. !lthou*h the

reBuire-ents of each provision is different, these three 798 articles are all related to each other. !s

the e-inent ivilist Senator !rturo Tolentino puts itF (>ith this article 7!rticle 4$8, co-bined ith

articles $& and 43, the scope of our la on civil ron*s has been ver1 *reatl1 broadenedG it has

beco-e -uch -ore supple and adaptable than the !n*lo"!-erican la on torts. It is no difficult to

conceive of an1 -alevolent e@ercise of a ri*ht hich could not be chec


5/110

The ele-ents of an abuse of ri*ht under !rticle $& are the folloin*F 7$8 There is a le*al ri*ht or dut1G

748 hich is e@ercised in "ad faithG 798 for the sole intent of preudicin* or inurin* another. !rticle 43

speae see no co*ent reason for such an aard of da-a*es to be -ade in

favor of private respondent.

ertainl1, petitioners could not be said to have violated the aforestated principle of abuse of ri*ht.

>hat pro-pted petitioners to file the case for violation of +atas Pa-bansa +ilan* 44 a*ainst private

respondent as their failure to collect the a-ount of P4,5;5.33 due on a bounced chec< hich the1honestl1 believed as issued to the- b1 private respondent. Petitioners had conducted inBuiries

re*ardin* the ori*in of the checoodor


6/110

In a letter dated Dece-ber $:, $&'9, counsel for petitioners rote private respondent de-andin*

that he -a


7/110

three 798 ele-ents -ust be present, to itF 7$8 The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that

the defendant as hi-self the prosecutor, and that the action as finall1 ter-inated ith an

acBuittalG 748 That in brin*in* the action, the prosecutor acted ithout probable causeG 798 The

prosecutor as actuated or i-pelled b1 le*al -alice 7=ao vs. ourt of !ppeals, $&& SR! 5',

$&&$J8.

Thus, a part1 inured b1 the filin* of a court case a*ainst hi-, even if he is later on absolved, -a1 file

a case for da-a*es *rounded either on the principle of abuse of ri*hts, or on -alicious prosecution.

!s earlier stated, a co-plaint for da-a*es based on -alicious prosecution ill prosper onl1 if the

three 798 ele-ents aforecited are shon to e@ist. In the case at bar, the second and third ele-ents

ere not shon to e@ist. It is ell"settled that one cannot be held liable for -aliciousl1 institutin* a

prosecution here one has acted ith probable cause. (Probable cause is the e@istence of such

facts and circu-stances as ould e@cite the belief, in a reasonable -ind, actin* on the facts ithin

the


8/110

?urther-ore, the adverse result of an action does not per se -ahere there is no evidence of the other part1 havin* acted in anton, fraudulent or recH)R)?OR), the petition is #R!NT)D and the decision of the ourt of !ppeals in .!. #.R. .V.

No. $%&%' dated Ma1 $9, $&'&, is hereb1 R)V)RS)D and S)T !SID). osts a*ainst respondent

+altao.

SO ORD)R)D.


9/110


10/110

S)OND DIVISION

%G.R. No. 1161&&. #'(ruary 9, 1996)

SPOUSES CRISTINO an* RIGI"A CUSTO"IO an* SPOUSES LITOan* MARIA CRISTINA SANTOS, petitioners, vs. COURT O#APPEALS, HEIRS O# PACI#ICO C. MAASA an* REGIONALTRIAL COURT O# PASIG, METRO MANILA, RANCH181, respondents.

" E C I S I O N

REGALA"O, J.:

This petition for revie on certiorari assails the decision of respondent

ourt of !ppeals in !"#.R. V No. 4&$$5, pro-ul*ated on Nove-ber $3,

$&&9, hich affir-ed ith -odification the decision of the trial court, as ell as

its resolution dated ul1 ', $&&%den1in* petitioners -otion for reconsideration.$J

On !u*ust 4:, $&'4, ivil ase No. %;%:: for the *rant of an ease-ent of

ri*ht of a1 as filed b1 Pacifico Mabasa a*ainst ristino ustodio, +ri*ida R.

ustodio, Rosalina R. Morato, =ito Santos and Maria ristina . Santos

before the Re*ional Trial ourt of Pasi* and assi*ned to +ranch 44 thereof. 4J

The *enerative facts of the case, as s1nthesi0ed b1 the trial court and

adopted b1 the ourt of !ppeals, are as follosF

Perusing the record, this Court finds that the original plaintiff Pacifico Mabasa died

during the pendency of this case and was substituted by Ofelia Mabasa, his surviving

spouse [and children].

The plaintiff owns a parcel of land with a two-door apartent erected thereon situated

at !nterior P. "urgos #t., Palingon, Tipas, Taguig, Metro Manila. The plaintiff was able

to ac$uire said property through a contract of sale with spouses Maerto %ayos and

Teodora &uintero as vendors last #epteber '()'. #aid property ay be described to

be surrounded by other iovables pertaining to defendants herein. Ta*ing P. "urgos

#treet as the point of reference, on the left side, going to plaintiffs property, the row of

houses will be as follows+ That of defendants Cristino and "rigido Custodio, then that

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn1


11/110

of ito and Maria Cristina #antos and then that of Ofelia Mabasa. On the right side

is that of defendant %osalina Morato and then a #eptic Tan* /0hibit 1. 2s an

access to P. "urgos #treet fro plaintiffs property, there are two possible

passageways. The first passageway is appro0iately one eter wide and is about 34

eters distant fro Mabasas residence to P. "urgos #treet. #uch path is passing in between the previously entioned row of houses. The second passageway is about 5

eters in width and length fro plaintiff Mabasas residence to P. "urgos #treet6 it is

about 37 eters. !n passing thru said passageway, a less than a eter wide path

through the septic tan* and with 5-6 eters in length has to be traversed.

When said property was purchased by Mabasa, there were tenants occupying the

premises and who were acknowledged by plaintiff Mabasa as tenants. However,

sometime in ebruary, !"#$. one of said tenants vacated the apartment and when

plaintiff Mabasa went to see the premises, he saw that there had been built an adobe

fence in the first passageway making it narrower in width. #aid adobe fence was first

constructed by defendants #antoses along their property which is also along the first

passageway. 1efendant Morato constructed her adobe fence and even e0tended said

fence in such a way that the entire passageway was enclosed /0hibit '-#antoses and

Custodios, /0h. 1 for plaintiff, /0hs. '-C, '-1 and ! -/ 2nd it was then that the

reaining tenants of said apartent vacated the area. 1efendant Ma. Cristina #antos

testified that she constructed said fence because there was an incident when her

daughter was dragged by a bicycle pedalled by a son of one of the tenants in said

apartent along the first passageway. #he also entioned soe other inconveniences

of having at the front of her house a pathway such as when soe of the tenants weredrun* and would bang their doors and windows. #oe of their footwear were even

lost. 0 0 09J !talics in original te0t6 corrections in parentheses supplied

On ?ebruar1 4;, $&&3, a decision as rendered b1 the trial court, ith this

dispositive partF

!ccordin*l1, ud*-ent is hereb1 rendered as follosF

' Ordering defendants Custodios and #antoses to give plaintiff peranent access -ingress and egress, to the public street6

3 Ordering the plaintiff to pay defendants Custodios and #antoses the su of /ight

Thousand Pesos P),444 as indenity for the peranent use of the passageway.

The parties to shoulder their respective litigation e0penses. %J



12/110

Not satisfied thereith, therein plaintiff represented b1 his heirs, herein

private respondents, ent to the ourt of !ppeals raisin* the sole issue of

hether or not the loer court erred in not aardin* da-a*es in their

favor. On Nove-ber $3, $&&9, as earlier stated, the ourt of !ppeals

rendered its decision affir-in* the ud*-ent of the trial court ith -odification,the decretal portion of hich disposes as follosF

89/%/:O%/, the appealed decision of the lower court is hereby 2::!%M/1 8!T9

MO1!:!C2T!O; only insofar as the herein grant of daages to plaintiffs-appellants.

The Court hereby orders defendants-appellees to pay plaintiffs-appellants the su of

#i0ty :ive Thousand %&65,'''(Pesos as 2ctual 1aages, Thirty Thousand P54,444

Pesos as Moral 1aages, and Ten Thousand P'4,444 Pesos as /0eplary 1aages.

The rest of the appealed decision is affired to all respects. 5J

On ul1 ', $&&%, the ourt of !ppeals denied petitioners -otion for reconsideration.:J Petitioners then too< the present recourse to us, raisin* to

issues, na-el1, hether or not the *rant of ri*ht of a1 to herein private

respondents is proper, and hether or not the aard of da-a*es is in order.

>ith respect to the first issue, herein petitioners are alread1 barred fro-

raisin* the sa-e. Petitioners did not appeal fro- the decision of the court a

'uo *rantin* private respondents the ri*ht of a1, hence the1 are presu-ed to

be satisfied ith the adudication therein. >ith the finalit1 of the ud*-ent of

the trial court as to petitioners, the issue of propriet1 of the *rant of ri*ht of a1 has alread1 been laid to rest.

?or failure to appeal the decision of the trial court to the ourt of !ppeals,

petitioners cannot obtain an1 affir-ative relief other than those *ranted in the

decision of the trial court. That decision of the court belo has beco-e final

as a*ainst the- and can no lon*er be revieed, -uch less reversed, b1 this

ourt. The rule in this urisdiction is that henever an appeal is ta


13/110

reversin* or -odif1in* the ud*-ent in the appellees favor and *ivin* hi-

other affir-ative reliefs.;J

Hoever, ith respect to the second issue, e a*ree ith petitioners that

the ourt of !ppeals erred in aardin* da-a*es in favor of private

respondents. The aard of da-a*es has no substantial le*al basis. ! readin*

of the decision of the ourt of !ppeals ill sho that the aard of da-a*es

as based solel1 on the fact that the ori*inal plaintiff, Pacifico Mabasa,

incurred losses in the for- of unreali0ed rentals hen the tenants vacated the

leased pre-ises b1 reason of the closure of the passa*ea1.

Hoever, the -ere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses does not *ive rise

to a ri*ht to recover da-a*es. To arrant the recover1 of da-a*es, there

-ust be both a ri*ht of action for a le*al ron* inflicted b1 the defendant, and

da-a*e resultin* to the plaintiff therefro-. >ron* ithout da-a*e, or da-a*eithout ron*, does not constitute a cause of action, since da-a*es are

-erel1 part of the re-ed1 alloed for the inur1 caused b1 a breach or ron*.'J

There is a -aterial distinction beteen da-a*es and inur1. Inur1 is the

ille*al invasion of a le*al ri*htG da-a*e is the loss, hurt, or har- hich results

fro- the inur1G and da-a*es are the reco-pense or co-pensation aarded

for the da-a*e suffered. Thus, there can be da-a*e ithout inur1 in those

instances in hich the loss or har- as not the result of a violation of a le*aldut1. These situations are often called da%nu% a"s'ue injuria.&J in order that a

plaintiff -a1 -aintain an action for the inuries of hich he co-plains, he -ust

establish that such inuries resulted fro- a breach of dut1 hich the defendant

oed to the plaintiff " a concurrence of inur1 to the plaintiff and le*al

responsibilit1 b1 the person causin* it. $3J The underl1in* basis for the aard of

tort da-a*es is the pre-ise that an individual as inured in conte-plation of

la. Thus, there -ust first be the breach of so-e dut1 and the i-position of

liabilit1 for that breach before da-a*es -a1 be aardedG it is not sufficient to

state that there should be tort liabilit1 -erel1 because the plaintiff suffered

so-e pain and sufferin*8$$J

Man1 accidents occur and -an1 inuries are inflicted b1 acts or o-issions

hich cause da-a*e or loss to another but hich violate no le*al dut1 to such

other person, and conseBuentl1 create no cause of action in his favor. In such

cases, the conseBuences -ust be borne b1 the inured person alone. The la

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn11


14/110

affords no re-ed1 for da-a*es resultin* fro- an act hich does not a-ount

to a le*al inur1 or ron*. $4J

In other ords, in order that the la ill *ive redress for an act causin*

da-a*e, that act -ust be not onl1 hurtful, but ron*ful. There -ust

be da%nu% et injuria.$9J If, as -a1 happen in -an1 cases, a person sustains

actual da-a*e, that is, har- or loss to his person or propert1, ithout

sustainin* an1 le*al inur1, that is, an act or o-ission hich the la does not

dee- an inur1, the da-a*e is re*arded as da%nu% a"s'ue injuria.$%J

In the case at bar, althou*h there as da-a*e, there as no le*al inur1.

ontrar1 to the clai- of private respondents, petitioners could not be said to

have violated the principle of abuse of ri*ht. In order that the principle of

abuse of ri*ht provided in !rticle 4$ of the ivil ode can be applied, it is

essential that the folloin* reBuisites concurF 7$8 The defendant should haveacted in a -anner that is contrar1 to -orals, *ood custo-s or public

polic1G 748 The acts should be illfulG and 798 There as da-a*e or inur1 to

the plaintiff.$5J

The act of petitioners in constructin* a fence ithin their lot is a valid

e@ercise of their ri*ht as oners, hence not contrar1 to -orals, *ood custo-s

or public polic1. The la reco*ni0es in the oner the ri*ht to eno1 and

dispose of a thin*, ithout other li-itations than those established b1 la. $:J It

is ithin the ri*ht of petitioners, as oners, to enclose and fence their propert1. !rticle %93 of the ivil ode provides that 7e8ver1 oner -a1

enclose or fence his land or tene-ents b1 -eans of alls, ditches, live or

dead hed*es, or b1 an1 other -eans ithout detri-ent to servitudes

constituted thereon.

!t the ti-e of the construction of the fence, the lot as not subect to an1

servitudes. There as no ease-ent of a1 e@istin* in favor of private

respondents, either b1 la or b1 contract. The fact that private respondents

had no e@istin* ri*ht over the said passa*ea1 is confir-ed b1 the ver1decision of the trial court *rantin* a co-pulsor1 ri*ht of a1 in their favor after

pa1-ent of ust co-pensation. It as onl1 that decision hich *ave private

respondents the ri*ht to use the said passa*ea1 after pa1-ent of the

co-pensation and i-posed a correspondin* dut1 on petitioners not to

interfere in the e@ercise of said ri*ht.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/116100.htm#_edn16


15/110

Hence, prior to said decision, petitioners had an absolute ri*ht over their

propert1 and their act of fencin* and enclosin* the sa-e as an act hich

the1 -a1 lafull1 perfor- in the e-plo1-ent and e@ercise of said ri*ht. To

repeat, hatever inur1 or da-a*e -a1 have been sustained b1 private

respondents b1 reason of the ri*htful use of the said land b1 petitionersis da%nu% a"s'ue injuria.$;J

! person has a ri*ht to the natural use and eno1-ent of his on propert1,

accordin* to his pleasure, for all the purposes to hich such propert1 is

usuall1 applied. !s a *eneral rule, therefore, there is no cause of action for

acts done b1 one person upon his on propert1 in a laful and proper

-anner, althou*h such acts incidentall1 cause da-a*e or an unavoidable loss

to another, as such da-a*e or loss is da%nu% a"s'ue injuria.$'J >hen the

oner of propert1 -a


16/110

THIRD DIVISION

%G. R. No. 16486. #'(ruary 9, 1998)

ARONS MAR-ETING CORP., petitioner, vs. COURT O# APPEALSan* PHELPS "O"GE PHILS., INC. respondents.

" E C I S I O N

-APUNAN, J .

The instant petition raises to issuesF 7$8 hether or not private respondent is *uilt1

of abuse of ri*htG and 748 hether or not private respondent is entitled to interest and

attorne1s fees.

The facts are undisputedF

On !u*ust 9$, $&;9, plaintiff Phelps Dod*e, Philippines, Inc. private

respondent hereinJ appointed defendant petitioner +arons Mar


17/110

plus $L interest per -onth co--encin* on October $5, $&'; until full

pa1-ent 7)@h. O and O"%8. Plaintiff, hoever, reected defendants offer and

accordin*l1 reiterated its de-and for the full pa1-ent of defendants account

7)@h. P8.4J

On 4& October $&';, private respondent Phelps Dod*e Phils., Inc. filed a co-plaint

before the Pasi* Re*ional Trial ourt a*ainst petitioner +arons Mar


18/110

On the other hand, petitioner reiterated its clai-s for da-a*es as a result

of creditors abuse. It also alle*ed that private respondent failed to prove its cause of

action a*ainst it.

On 45 une $&&:, the ourt of !ppeals rendered a decision -odif1in* the decision

of the trial court, thusF

>H)R)?OR), fro- all the fore*oin* considerations, the ourt finds Phelps

Dod*e Phils., Inc. to have preponderantl1 proven its case and hereb1 orders

+arons Mar


19/110

Tolentino concedes that the ri*ht has its li-itationsF

Par/0a Pr'2/a/0on2. Since the creditor cannot be co-pelled to accept partialperfor-ance, unless otherise stipulated, the creditor ho refuses to accept partial

prestations does not incur in dela1 or %ora accipiendi , e@cept hen there is abuse of

ri*ht or if *ood faith reBuires acceptance. :J

Indeed, the la, as set forth in !rticle $& of the ivil ode, prescribes a pri-ordial

li-itation on all ri*hts b1 settin* certain standards that -ust be observed in the e@ercise

thereof .;J ThusF

!RT. $&. )ver1 person -ust, in the e@ercise of his ri*hts and in the

perfor-ance of his duties, act ith ustice, *ive ever1one his due, and observe

honest1 and *ood faith.

Petitioner no invo


20/110

action in court to co-pel the debtor to settle his obli*ation in full in a sin*le

pa1-ent.

@@@.

@@@. >h1 then did private respondent elect to file a suit for collection ratherthan accept petitioners offer of settle-ent, supported b1 post"dated chec


21/110

>e hold in the ne*ative. It is an ele-entar1 rule in this urisdiction that *ood faith is

presu-ed and that the burden of provin* bad faith rests upon the part1 alle*in* the

sa-e.$4J In the case at bar, petitioner has failed to prove bad faith on the part of private

respondent. Petitioners alle*ation that private respondent as -otivated b1 a desire to

ter-inate its a*enc1 relationship ith petitioner so that private respondent itself -a1

deal directl1 ith Meralco is si-pl1 not supported b1 the evidence. !t -ost, suchsupposition is -erel1 speculative.

Moreover, e find that private respondent as driven b1 ver1

le*iti-ate reasons for reectin* petitioners offer and institutin* the action for collection

before the trial court. !s pointed out b1 private respondent, the corporation had its on

cash position to protect in order for it to pa1 its on obli*ations. This is not such a la-e

and poor rationali0ation as petitioner purports it to be. ?or if private respondent ere to

be reBuired to accept petitioners offer, there ould be no reason for the latter to reect

si-ilar offers fro- its other debtors. learl1, this ould be ini-ical to the interests of an1

enterprise, especiall1 a profit"oriented one li


22/110

It -a1 not be a-iss to state that petitioners contract ith private respondent has the

force of la beteen the-.$%J Petitioner is thus bound to fulfill hat has been e@pressl1

stipulated therein.$5J In the absence of an1 abuse of ri*ht, private respondent cannot be

alloed to perfor- its obli*ation under such contract in parts. Otherise, private

respondents ri*ht under !rticle $4%' ill be ne*ated, the sanctit1 of its contract ith

petitioner defiled. The principle of autono-1 of contracts $:J -ust be respected.

II

Ander said contract, petitioner is liable to private respondent for the unpaid balance

of its purchases fro- private respondent 7u2 1 0n/'r'2/. Private respondents salesinvoices e@pressl1 provide thatF

@@@. Interest at $4L per annu- ill be char*ed on all overdue account plus

45L on said a-ount for attorne1s fees and collection. @@@. $;J

It -a1 also be noted that the above stipulation, insofar as it provides for the

pa1-ent of 45L on said a-ount for attorne1s fees and collection 7sic 8, constitutes hat

is


23/110

there has been no perfor-ance, the penalt1 -a1 also be reduced b1 the

courts if it is iniBuitous or unconscionable. 7Anderscorin* supplied.8

The senti-ents of the la are echoed in !rticle 444; of the sa-e odeF

!RT. 444;. =iBuidated da-a*es, hether intended as an inde-nit1 or apenalt1, shall be eBuitabl1 reduced if the1 are iniBuitous or unconscionable.

It is true that e have upheld the reasonableness of penalties in the for- of

attorne1s fees consistin* of tent1"five percent 745L8 of the principal debt plus interest.43J In the case at bar, hoever, the interest alone runs to so-e four and a half -illion

pesos 7P%.5M8, even e@ceedin* the principal debt a-ountin* to al-ost four -illion

pesos 7P%.3M8. Tent1 five percent 745L8 of the principal and interest a-ounts to

rou*hl1 to -illion pesos 7P4M8. In real ter-s, therefore, the attorne1s fees and

collection fees are -anifestl1 e@orbitant. !ccordin*l1, e reduce the sa-e to ten

percent 7$3L8 of the principa .

Private respondent, hoever, ar*ues that petitioner failed to Buestion the aard of

attorne1s fees on appeal before respondent court and raised the issue onl1 in its -otion

for reconsideration. onseBuentl1, petitioner should be dee-ed to have aived its ri*ht

to Buestion such aard.

Private respondents atte-pts to dissuade us fro- reducin* the penalt1 are

futile. The ourt is clothed ith a-ple authorit1 to revie -atters, even if the1 are not

assi*ned as errors in their appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessar1 in

arrivin* at a ust decision of the case.4$J

+HERE#ORE, the decision of the ourt of !ppeals is hereb1 MODI?I)D in that theattorne1s and collection fees are reduced to ten percent 7$3L8 of the principal but is

!??IRM)D in all other respects.

SO OR"ERE".



24/110


SUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 816 Auu2/ , 1989

GLOE MAC-A! CALE AN" RA"IO CORP., an* HERERT C. HEN"R!, petitioners,vs.

THE HONORALE COURT O# APPEALS an* RESTITUTO M. TOIAS, respondents.

Atencia & Arias La# )ffices for petitioners.

Ro%uo C. Fei!%ena for private respondent.

CORTES, J.:

Private respondent Restituto M. Tobias as e-plo1ed b1 petitioner #lobe Mac


25/110

On Dece-ber $&,$&;4, =t. Dioscoro V. Ta*le, Metro Manila Police hief Docu-ent )@a-iner, after

investi*atin* other docu-ents pertainin* to the alle*ed ano-alous transactions, sub-itted a second

laborator1 cri-e report 7)@h. (+(8 reiteratin* his previous findin* that the handritin*s, si*natures,

and initials appearin* in the chechereupon, Tobias filed a co-plaint

for ille*al dis-issal. The labor arbiter dis-issed the co-plaint. On appeal, the National =abor

Relations o--ission 7N=R8 reversed the labor arbiter6s decision. Hoever, the Secretar1 of

=abor, actin* on petitioners6 appeal fro- the N=R rulin*, reinstated the labor arbiter6s decision.

Tobias appealed the Secretar1 of =abor6s order ith the Office of the President. Durin* the pendenc1

of the appeal ith said office, petitioners and private respondent Tobias entered into a co-pro-ise

a*ree-ent re*ardin* the latter6s co-plaint for ille*al dis-issal.

Ane-plo1ed, Tobias sou*ht e-plo1-ent ith the Republic Telephone o-pan1 7R)T)=O8.

Hoever, petitioner Hendr1, ithout bein* as


26/110

On the other hand, private respondent contends that because of petitioners6 abusive -anner in

dis-issin* hi- as ell as for the inhu-an treat-ent he *ot fro- the-, the Petitioners -ust

inde-nif1 hi- for the da-a*e that he had suffered.

One of the -ore notable innovations of the Ne ivil ode is the codification of (so-e basic

principles that are to be observed for the ri*htful relationship beteen hu-an bein*s and for the

stabilit1 of the social order.( R)PORT ON TH) OD) OMMISSION ON TH) PROPOS)D IVI=

OD) O? TH) PHI=IPPIN)S, p. 9&J. The fra-ers of the ode, see


27/110

In deter-inin* hether or not the principle of abuse of ri*hts -a1 be invohile the ourt has not hesitated to appl1 !rticle $& hether the le*al and

factual circu-stances called for its application See for e.*., Vela1o v. Shell o. of the Phil., =td., $33

Phil. $': 7$&5:8G PN+ v. !, supra/#rand Anion Super-ar


28/110

The ne@t tortious act co--itted b1 petitioners as the ritin* of a letter to R)T)=O so-eti-e in

October $&;%, statin* that Tobias had been dis-issed b1 #=O+) M!K!E due to dishonest1.

+ecause of the letter, Tobias failed to *ain e-plo1-ent ith R)T)=O and as a result of hich,

Tobias re-ained une-plo1ed for a lon*er period of ti-e. ?or this further da-a*e suffered b1 Tobias,

petitioners -ust li


29/110

docu-ent and one for violation of !rt. 4&3 of the Revised Penal ode (discoverin*

secrets thru sei0ure of correspondence,( and all ere dis-issed for insufficienc1 or

lac< of evidence.( The dis-issal of four 7%8 of the cases as appealed to the Ministr1

of ustice, but said Ministr1 invariabl1 sustained the dis-issal of the cases. !s above

adverted to, to of these cases ere refiled ith the ud*e !dvocate #eneral6s

Office of the !r-ed ?orces of the Philippines to railroad plaintiffs arrest and detention

in the -ilitar1 stoc


30/110

da-a*esG fift1 thousand pesos 7P53,333.338 as e@e-plar1 da-a*esG ei*ht hundred thousand pesos

7P'33,333.338 as -oral da-a*esG fift1 thousand pesos 7P53,333.338 as attorne16s feesG and costs.

The trial court, after -a


31/110

SO ORD)R)D.


32/110


SUPREME COURTManila

S)OND DIVISION

G.R. No. L:44;48 Auu2/ 9, 1986

RA"IO COMMUNICATIONS O# THE PHILS., INC. IR) !RRIV!= O? H)K ?)R

=OR)TO DION)=!"!+!N#!N">IR) !RRIV!= O? H)K"P)R

$$5 PM

S! IEO >!=!N# P!KIN!+!N# DAM!TIN# K! DIE!N">!=!"K!N# P!D!=!

DITO K!HIT +A=+A= MO

7p. $&, !nne@ (!(8

Plaintiff"respondent =oreto Dionela alle*es that the defa-ator1 ords on the tele*ra- sent to hi-not onl1 ounded his feelin*s but also caused hi- undue e-barrass-ent and affected adversel1 his

business as ell because other people have co-e to


33/110

The said tele*ra- as detached fro- the -achine and placed inside a sealed envelope and

delivered to plaintiff, obviousl1 as is. The additional ords in Ta*alo* ere never noticed and ere

included in the tele*ra- hen delivered.

The trial court in findin* for the plaintiff ruled as follosF

There is no Buestion that the additional ords in Ta*alo* are libelous. The1 clearl1

i-pute a vice or defect of the plaintiff. >hether or not the1 ere intended for the

plaintiff, the effect on the plaintiff is the sa-e. !n1 person readin* the additional

ords in Ta*alo* ill naturall1 thin< that the1 refer to the addressee, the plaintiff.

There is no indication fro- the face of the tele*ra- that the additional ords in

Ta*alo* ere sent as a private o


34/110

The clai- that there as no publication of the libelous ords in Ta*alo* is also

ithout -erit. The fact that a carbon cop1 of the tele*ra- as filed a-on* other

tele*ra-s and left to han* for the public to see, open for inspection b1 a third part1 is

sufficient publication. It ould have been otherise perhaps had the tele*ra- been

placed and


35/110

Petitioner is a do-estic corporation en*a*ed in the business of receivin* and trans-ittin*

-essa*es. )ver1ti-e a person trans-its a -essa*e throu*h the facilities of the petitioner, a contract

is entered into. Apon receipt of the rate or fee fi@ed, the petitioner underta


36/110


SUPREME COURTManila

?IRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 13344 #'(ruary 1;, &&&

UNI>ERSIT! O# THE EAST, petitioner,vs.

ROMEO A. JA"ER, respondent.

!NARES:SANTIAGO, J.:

Ma1 an educational institution be held liable for da-a*es for -isleadin* a student into believin* that

the latter had satisfied all the reBuire-ents for *raduation hen such is not the case This is the

issue in the instant petition for revie pre-ised on the folloin* undisputed facts as su--ari0ed b1

the trial court and adopted b1 the ourt of !ppeals 7!8,$ to itF

Plaintiff as enrolled in the defendants6 olle*e of =a fro- $&'% up to $&''. In the first

se-ester of his last 1ear 7School 1ear $&';"$&''8, he failed to ta


37/110

The plaintiff attended the investiture cere-onies at ?. dela ru0 /uadran*le, A.)., Recto

a-pus, durin* the pro*ra- of hich he ent up the sta*e hen his na-e as called,

escorted b1 her 7sic 8 -other and his eldest brother ho assisted in placin* the Hood, and his

Tassel as turned fro- left to ri*ht, and he as thereafter handed b1 Dean eledonio a

rolled hite sheet of paper s1-bolical of the =a Diplo-a. His relatives too< pictures of the

occasion 7)@hibits (( to (":(, (D"9( to (D"$$(8.

He tendered a blo"out that evenin* hich as attended b1 nei*hbors, friends and relatives

ho ished hi- *ood luc< in the forthco-in* bar e@a-ination. There ere pictures ta


38/110

Apon the denial of its -otion for reconsideration, petitioner A) elevated the case to this ourt on a

petition for revie under Rule %5 of the Rules of ourt, ar*uin* that it has no liabilit1 to respondent

Ro-eo !. ader, considerin* that the pro@i-ate and i--ediate cause of the alle*ed da-a*es

incurred b1 the latter arose out of his on ne*li*ence in not verif1in* fro- the professor concerned

the result of his re-oval e@a-.

The petition lachen a student is enrolled in an1 educational or learnin* institution, a contract of education is

entered into beteen said institution and the student. The professors, teachers or instructors hired

b1 the school are considered -erel1 as a*ents and ad-inistrators tas


39/110

onsiderin* further, that the institution of learnin* involved herein is a universit1 hich is en*a*ed in

le*al education, it should have practiced hat it inculcates in its students, -ore specificall1 the

principle of *ood dealin*s enshrined in !rticles $& and 43 of the ivil ode hich statesF

!rt. $&. )ver1 person -ust, in the e@ercise of his ri*hts and in the perfor-ance of his duties,

act ith ustice, *ive ever1one his due, and observe honest1 and *ood faith.

!rt. 43. )ver1 person ho, contrar1 to la, ilfull1 or ne*li*entl1 causes da-a*e to another,

shall inde-nif1 the latter for the sa-e.

!rt. $& as intended to e@pand the concept of torts b1 *rantin* adeBuate le*al re-ed1 for the untold

nu-ber of -oral ron*s hich is i-possible for hu-an foresi*ht to provide specificall1 in statutor1

la.' In civili0ed societ1, -en -ust be able to assu-e that others ill do the- no intended inur1

that others ill co--it no internal a**ressions upon the-G that their fello-en, hen the1 act

affir-ativel1 ill do so ith due care hich the ordinar1 understandin* and -oral sense of the

co--unit1 e@acts and that those ith ho- the1 deal in the *eneral course of societ1 ill act in

*ood faith. The ulti-ate thin* in the theor1 of liabilit1 is ustifiable reliance under conditions of

civili0ed societ1.&

Schools and professors cannot ust ta


40/110

Petitioner cannot pass on its bla-e to the professors to ustif1 its on ne*li*ence that led to the

dela1ed rela1 of infor-ation to respondent. >hen one of to innocent parties -ust suffer, he

throu*h hose a*enc1 the loss occurred -ust bear it.$9 The -odern tendenc1 is to *rant inde-nit1

for da-a*es in cases here there is abuse of ri*ht, even hen the act is not illicit. $% If -ere fault or

ne*li*ence in one6s acts can -a


41/110

/; "2;C

[G.R. No. 131136. February 28, 2001]

CONRADO L. DE RAMA, petitioner, vs. THE CORT OF A!!EAL"#N$NTH D$%$"$ON, THE C$%$L "ER%$CE COMM$""$ON&, ELAD$O

MART$NE', D$%$NO DE (E"", MORELL A)ALA, AR$"TEO

CATALLA, DA$") !ORTA, FLORDEL$'A OR$A"EL, GRAC$ELA

GLOR), FELEC$DAD OR$NDA), MA. !ETRA MFFET LCE,

EL"A MAR$NO, *ERNARD$TA MENDO'A, (ANE MACATANGA),

ADELFO GLODO%$'A a+ FLOR$NO RAMO", respondents.

D E C $ " $ O N

)NARE"-"ANT$AGO, J .

uly '5, '((? to the Civil #ervice

Coission or C#C, see*ing the recall of the appointents of fourteen '@

unicipal eployees, naely+

;2M/ PO#!T!O; 12T/ O:

2PPO!;TM/;T

/ladio Martine= %egistration Officer ! >une ', '((?

1ivino de >esus "oo*binder !!! >une ', '((?

Morell 2yala 2ccounting Cler* !!! >une '7, '((?

1aisy Porta Cler* !A >une 3B, '((?

2risteo Catalla en. #ervices Officer >une '(, '((?

/lsa Marino Mun. 2griculturist >une '(, '((?

racella lory "oo**eeper !! >une 3B, '((?

Ma. Petra Muffet ucce 2ccounting Cler* !!! >une 3B, '((?


42/110

:elicidad Orindag 2ccounting Cler* !! >une 3B, '((?

"ernardita Mendo=a 2gricultural Technologist >une 3B, '((?

:lordeli=a Oria=el Cler* ! >une 3B, '((?

>ane Macatangay 1ay Care 8or*er ! >une 3B, '((?

2dolfo lodovi=a une 3B, '((?

:lorencio %aos une 3B, '((?[']

Petitioner de %aa Dustified his recall re$uest on the allegation that the

appointents of the said eployees were idnight appointents of the forer ayor,

Ma. /velyn #. 2beDa, done in violation of 2rticle A!!, #ection '? of the '()B

Constitution, which provides+

#ection '?. Two onths iediately before the ne0t presidential elections and up to

the end of his ter, a President or 2cting President shall not a*e appointents,

e0cept teporary appointents to e0ecutive positions when continued vacancies

therein will preDudice public service or endanger public safety. udicial 1ivision ruled

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn3


43/110

that the said eployees cannot be deprived of their salaries and benefits by the

unilateral act of the newly-assued ayor.

On 2pril 54, '((7, the C#C denied petitioners re$uest for the recall of the

appointents of the fourteen eployees, for lac* of erit. The C#C also cited %ule A,

#ections ( and '4 of the Onibus %ules, and declared that the appointents of the

said eployees were issued in accordance with pertinent laws. Thus, the sae were

effective iediately, and cannot be withdrawn or revo*ed by the appointing

authority until disapproved by the C#C. The C#C also disissed petitioners allegation

that these were idnight appointents, pointing out that the Constitutional provision

relied upon by petitioner prohibits only those appointents ade by an outgoing

President and cannot be ade to apply to local elective officials. Thus, the C#C

opined, the appointing authority can validly issue appointents until his ter has

e0pired, as long as the appointee eets the $ualification standards for the position.[@]

The C#C upheld the validity of the appointents on the ground that they had

already been approved by the 9ead of the C#C :ield Office in ucena City, and for

petitioners failure to present evidence that would warrant the revocation or recall of

the said appointents.

Petitioner oved for the reconsideration of the C#Cs %esolution, as well as the

Order of the C#C egal and &uasi->udicial 1ivision, averring that the C#C was

without Durisdiction+ ' to refuse to revo*e the subDect appointents6 and 3 to

uphold the validity of said appointents, even assuing that there was failure to present evidence that would prove that these appointents contravened e0isting laws

or rules. 9e also posited that the C#C erred in finding the appointents valid despite

the e0istence of circustances showing that the sae were fraudulently issued and

processed.

On ;oveber 3', '((7, the C#C denied petitioners otion for

reconsideration. The C#C reiterated its ruling that+

!n the absence of any showing that these alleged idnight appointents were

defective in for and in substance, nor is there evidence presented to show that

subDect appointents were issued in contravention of law or rules, these appointents

are deeed valid and in effect.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn4


44/110

Mayor de %aa failed to present evidence that subDect appointents should be

revo*ed or recalled because of any of the aboveentioned grounds enuerated. 2s a

atter of fact, said appointents were even approved by the 9ead, Civil #ervice :ield

Office, ucena City when subitted for attestation. !n the absence of a clear showing

that these appointents were issued in violation of any of these grounds, theCoission has no other recourse but to uphold their validity.


45/110

b There shall be established in every province, city or unicipality a personnel

selection board to assist the local chief e0ecutive in the Dudicious and obDective

selection of personnel for eployent as well as for prootion, and in the

forulation of such policies as would contribute to eployee welfare.

c The personnel selection board shall be headed by the local sanggunian

concerned. 2 representative of the Civil #ervice Coission, if any, and the

personnel officer of the local governent unit concerned shall be e0 officio ebers

of the board.[B]

i*ewise, neither did the C#Cs own Circular Order ;o. 3B, #ection B, #eries of

'((', re$uire that vacant positions published in a governent $uarterly ust be filled

up before the advent of the succeeding $uarter.

On the basis of all the foregoing findings, the Court of 2ppeals denied for lac* of erit the petition for review.

Petitioner filed a otion for reconsideration arguing that the appellate court erred

in upholding the C#Cs resolutions despite the following defects+

!. ;o screening process and no criteria were adopted by the Personnel #election "oard

in noinating the respondents6

!!. ;o posting in three 5 conspicuous public places of notice of vacancy as re$uired

by the rules and the law6

!!!. Merit and fitness re$uireents were not observed by the selection board and by

the appointing authority as re$uired by the Civil #ervice rules6

!A. Petitioner has valid grounds to recall the appointents of respondents.[)]

!n a %esolution dated October 34, '((B, the Court of 2ppeals denied the otion

for reconsideration.

9ence, the instant petition for review on certiorari on the following assigned

errors+

!. T9/ P


46/110

2PPO!;TM/;T# O: P%!A2T/ %/#PO;1/;T# !; T9/ :2C/ O: :%2


47/110

/ven in petitioners consolidated appeal and otion for reconsideration, he did not

a*e any assertion that these appointents were violative of civil service rules and

procedures. !ndeed, he harped on the C#Cs alleged lac* of Durisdiction to refuse to

recall the subDect appointents. 2fter first invo*ing the authority of the C#C to

approve or affir his act, he then contradicted hiself by arguing that the C#C had no Durisdiction to do so, but only after the C#C had ruled that the recall was without legal

basis. 9e ephasi=ed that he alone has sole discretion to appoint and recall the

appointent of unicipal eployees, an authority which, he stressed, the C#C cannot

usurp. Eet, nowhere in said pleading did he cite any other ground, uch less present

proof that would warrant the recall of said appointents.

Perhaps reali=ing the wea*ness of his arguents, albeit belatedly, petitioner filed a

suppleent to the appeal and otion for reconsideration where, for the very first tie,

he alleged that the appointents were fraught with irregularities for failing to coply

with C#C rules and regulations.;evertheless, the C#C overruled petitioners

assertions, holding that no new evidence had been presented to warrant a reversal of

its earlier resolution.

Thus, in a petition for review before the Court of 2ppeals, petitioner $uestioned

the C#Cs conclusion because it had ignored the allegations and docuents he

presented in the suppleent to his earlier consolidated appeal and otion for

reconsideration. 9e argued that these for part of the records of the case and that the

C#C erred in failing to consider the assertions he raised therein. The appellate court,

however, agreed with the C#C when it ruled that the docuents presented by petitioner in the suppleental pleading did not constitute new evidence that would

convince the C#C to reverse its earlier ruling. !n fine, the Court of 2ppeals, as did the

C#C, siply disissed petitioners allegations and docuents attached to the

suppleental pleading for they did not constitute new evidence that a court, board or

tribunal ay entertain.

9erein lies the inconsistency of petitioners arguents. 9e faults the Court of

2ppeals and the C#C for ignoring his suppleental pleading, while at the sae tie

arguing that the grounds for recall such as violations of laws and regulations onissuance of appointents are not new issues because he had tiely raised the before

the C#C.

There is no $uestion that parties ay file suppleental pleadings to supply

deficiencies in aid of an original pleading, but which should not entirely substitute the


48/110

latter .[(] The propriety and substance of suppleental pleadings are prescribed under

%ule '4, #ection 7 of the '((B %ules of Civil Procedure, which provides+

#ec. 7. upplemental &leadings. -


49/110

The grounds for the recall of the appointents that petitioner raised in his

suppleental pleading to the consolidated appeal and otion for reconsideration are

that+ ' the rules on screening of applicants based on adopted criteria were not

followed6 3 there was no proper posting of notice of vacancy6 and 5 the erit and

fitness re$uireents set by the civil service rules were not observed. These aregrounds that he could have stated in his order of recall, but which he did not. ;either

did he raise said grounds in his original appeal, but only by way of a suppleental

pleading.:ailure of the petitioner to raise said grounds and to present supporting

docuents constitute a waiver thereof, and the sae arguents and evidence can no

longer be entertained on appeal before the C#C, nor in the Court of 2ppeals, and

uch less in a petition for review before the #upree Court. ['5] !n fine, the raising of

these factual issues for the first tie in a pleading which is suppleental only to an

appeal is barred by estoppel.['@]

Petitioner as*s this Court to appreciate and consider these factual issues. !t ust

be recalled that the Durisdiction of the #upree Court in a petition for review on

certiorari under %ule @? of the %evised %ules of Court is liited to reviewing only

errors of law, not of fact. ['?] That is, of course, unless the factual findings assailed by

petitioner are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the ipugned Dudgent

is based on a isapprehension of facts. ['7]

2 thorough perusal of the records reveal that the C#Cs ruling is supported by the

evidence and the law. The fourteen '@ eployees were duly appointed following

two eetings of the Personnel #election "oard held on May 5' and >une 37,'((?. There is no showing that any of the private respondents were not $ualified for

the positions they were appointed to. Moreover, their appointents were duly attested

to by the 9ead of the C#C field office at ucena City. "y virtue thereof, they had

already assued their appointive positions even before petitioner hiself assued his

elected position as town ayor. Conse$uently, their appointents too* effect

iediately and cannot be unilaterally revo*ed or recalled by petitioner.

!t has been held that upon the issuance of an appointent and the appointees

assuption of the position in the civil service, he ac$uires a legal right which cannot be ta*en away either by revocation of the appointent or by reoval e0cept for cause

and with previous notice and hearing. ['B]Moreover, it is well-settled that the person

assuing a position in the civil service under a copleted appointent ac$uires a

legal, not Dust an e$uitable, right to the position. This right is protected not only by

statute, but by the Constitution as well, which right cannot be ta*en away by either

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/131136.htm#_edn17


50/110

revocation of the appointent, or by reoval, unless there is valid cause to do so,

provided that there is previous notice and hearing.[')]

Petitioner adits that his very first official act upon assuing the position of town

ayor was to issue Office Order ;o. (?-4' which recalled the appointents of the

private respondents. There was no previous notice, uch less a hearing accorded to

the latter. Clearly, it was petitioner who acted in undue haste to reove the private

respondents without regard for the siple re$uireents of due process of law. !n

doing so, he overstepped the bounds of his authority. 8hile he argues that the

appointing power has the sole authority to revo*e said appointents, there is no

debate that he does not have blan*et authority to do so. ;either can he $uestion the

C#Cs Durisdiction to affir or revo*e the recall.

%ule A, #ection ( of the Onibus !pleenting %egulations of the %evised

2dinistrative Code specifically provides that an appointent accepted by theappointee cannot be withdrawn or revo*ed by the appointing authority and shall

reain in force and in effect until disapproved by the Coission. Thus, it is the

C#C that is authori=ed to recall an appointent initially approved, but only when such

appointent and approval are proven to be in disregard of applicable provisions of the

civil service law and regulations.['(]

Moreover, #ection '4 of the sae rule provides+

#ec. '4. 2n appointent issued in accordance with pertinent laws and rules shall ta*eeffect iediately upon its issuance by the appointing authority, and if the appointee

has assued the duties of the position, he shall be entitled to receive his salary at once

without awaiting the approval of his appointent by the Coission. The

appointent shall reain effective until disapproved by the Coission. !n no case

shall an appointent ta*e effect earlier than he date of its issuance.

#ection 34 of %ule A! also provides+

#ec. 34. ;otwithstanding the initial approval of an appointent, the sae ay be

recalled on any of the following grounds+

a ;on-copliance with the proceduresFcriteria provided in the agencys Merit Prootion Plan6

b :ailure to pass through the agencys #electionFProotion "oard6

c Aiolation of the e0isting collective agreeent between anageent and eployees relative

to prootion6 or



51/110

d Aiolation of other e0isting civil service law, rules and regulations.

2ccordingly, the appointents of the private respondents ay only be recalled on

the above-cited grounds. 2nd yet, the only reason advanced by the petitioner to Dustify

the recall was that these were idnight appointents. The C#C correctly ruled,

however, that the constitutional prohibition on so-called idnight appointents,

specifically those ade within two 3 onths iediately prior to the ne0t

presidential elections, applies only to the President or 2cting President.

!f ever there were other procedural or legal re$uireents that were violated in

ipleenting the appointents of the private respondents, the sae were not

seasonably brought before the Civil #ervice Coission. These cannot be raised for

the first tie on appeal.

/HEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition for review is1/;!/1 and the %esolution of the Court of 2ppeals in C2-.%. #P ;o. @3)(7

affiring C#C %esolutions ;os. (7-3)3) and (7-B?3B is hereby 2::!%M/1 in toto.

;o pronounceent as to costs.

"O ORDERED.


52/110


SUPREME COURTManila

)N +!N

G.R. No. L:1;396 May 3&, 196

CECILIO PE, ET AL., plaintiffs"appellants,vs.

AL#ONSO PE, defendant"appellee.

Ceciio L. Pe for and in his o#n "ehaf as paintiff8appeant.

Leodegario L. Mogo for defendant8appeee.

AUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

Plaintiffs brou*ht this action before the ourt of ?irst Instance of Manila to recover -oral,co-pensator1, e@e-plar1 and corrective da-a*es in the a-ount of P&%,333.33 e@clusive of

attorne16s fees and e@penses of liti*ation.

Defendant, after den1in* so-e alle*ations contained in the co-plaint, set up as a defense that the

facts alle*ed therein, even if true, do not constitute a valid cause of action.

!fter trial, the loer court, after findin* that defendant had carried on a love affair ith one =olita Pe,

an un-arried o-an, bein* a -arried -an hi-self, declared that defendant cannot be held liable for

-oral da-a*es it appearin* that plaintiffs failed to prove that defendant, bein* aare of his -arital

status, deliberatel1 and in bad faith tried to in =olita6s affection. So it rendered decision dis-issin*

the co-plaint.9#ph:.-;t

Plaintiffs brou*ht this case on appeal before this ourt on the *round that the issues involved are

purel1 of la.

The facts as found b1 the trial court areF Plaintiffs are the parents, brothers and sisters of one =olita

Pe. !t the ti-e of her disappearance on !pril $%, $&5;, =olita as 4% 1ears old and un-arried.

Defendant is a -arried -an and or


53/110

So-eti-e in !pril, $&5;, =olita as sta1in* ith her brothers and sisters at their residence at 5%"+

)spaa )@tension, /ue0on it1. On !pril $%, $&5;, =olita disappeared fro- said house. !fter she

left, her brothers and sisters chece cannot be un-indful of the uncertainties and so-eti-es ine@plicable

-1steries of the hu-an e-otions. It is a possibilit1 that the defendant and =olita si-pl1 fell in love

ith each other, not onl1 ithout an1 desire on their part, but also a*ainst their better ud*-ent and

in full consciousness of hat it ill brin* to both of the-. This is speciall1 so ith respect to =olita,

bein* an un-arried o-an, fallin* in love ith defendant ho is a -arried -an.(

>e disa*ree ith this vie. The circu-stances under hich defendant tried to in =olita6s affection

cannot lead, to an1 other conclusion than that it as he ho, thru an in*enious sche-e or tric


54/110


55/110


SUPREME COURTManila

)N +!N

G.R. No. L:1468 S'7/'('r 3&, 196&

#RANCISCO HERMOSISIMA, petitioner,vs.

THE HON. COURT O# APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

Regino 4er%osisi%a for petitioner.

F.P.


56/110

the it1 of ebu, here inti-ac1 developed a-on* her and the petitioner, since one evenin* in

$&59, hen after co-in* fro- the -ovies, the1 had se@ual intercourse in his cabin on board MCV

()scao,( to hich he as then attached as apprentice pilot. In ?ebruar1 $&5%, Soledad advised

petitioner that she as in the fa-il1 a1, hereupon he pro-ised to -arr1 her. Their child, hris

Her-osisi-a, as born on une $;, $&5%, in a private -aternit1 and clinic. Hoever, subseBuentl1,

or on ul1 4%, $&5%, defendant -arried one Ro-anita Pere0. Hence, the present action, hich as

co--enced on or about October %, $&5%.

Referrin* no to the issue above referred to, it ill be noted that the ivil ode of Spain per-itted

the recover1 of da-a*es for breach to -arr1. !rticle %9 and %% of said ode providesF

!RT. %9. ! -utual pro-ise of -arria*e shall not *ive rise to an obli*ation to contract

-arria*e. No court shall entertain an1 co-plaint b1 hich the enforce-ent of such pro-ise

is sou*ht.

!RT. %%. If the pro-ise has been in a public or private instru-ent b1 an adult, or b1 a -inor

ith the concurrence of the person hose consent is necessar1 for the celebration of the

-arria*e, or if the banns have been published, the one ho ithout ust cause refuses to-arr1 shall be obli*ed to rei-burse the other for the e@penses hich he or she -a1 have

incurred b1 reason of the pro-ised -arria*e.

The action for rei-burse-ent of e@penses to hich the fore*oin* article refers -ust be

brou*ht ithin one 1ear, co-puted fro- the da1 of the refusal to celebrate the -arria*e.

Inas-uch as these articles ere never in force in the Philippines, this ourt ruled in De =esus vs.

S$'uia 75' Phil., '::8, that (the action for breach of pro-ises to -arr1 has no standin* in the civil

la, apart fro- the ri*ht to recover -one1 or propert1 advanced . . . upon the faith of such pro-ise(.

The ode o--ission char*ed ith the draftin* of the Proposed ivil ode of the Philippines dee-

it best, hoever, to chan*e the la thereon. >e Buote fro- the report of the ode o--ission on

said Proposed ivil odeF

!rticles %9 and %% the ivil ode of $''& refer to the pro-ise of -arria*e. +ut these articles

are not enforced in the Philippines. The subect is re*ulated in the Proposed ivil ode not

onl1 as to the aspect treated of in said articles but also in other particulars. It is advisable to

furnish le*islative solutions to so-e Buestions that -i*ht arise relative to betrothal. !-on*

the provisions proposed areF That authori0in* the adudication of -oral da-a*es, in case of

breach of pro-ise of -arria*e, and that creatin* liabilit1 for causin* a -arria*e en*a*e-ent

to be bro


57/110


58/110

The o--ission perhaps thou*h that it has folloed the -ore pro*ression trend in

le*islation hen it provided for breach of pro-ise to -arr1 suits. +ut it is clear that the

creation of such causes of action at a ti-e hen so -an1 States, in conseBuence of 1ears of

e@perience are doin* aa1 ith the-, -a1 ell prove to be a step in the ron* direction.

7on*ressional Record, Vol. IV, No. ;&, Thursda1, Ma1 $&, $&%&, p. 4954.8

The vies thus e@pressed ere accepted b1 both houses of on*ress. In the li*ht of the clear and

-anifest intent of our la -a


59/110


60/110

>hile the a-ount of the e@e-plar1 da-a*es need not be proved, the plaintiff -ust sho that

he is entitled to -oral, te-perate or co-pensator1 da-a*es "efore the court %a$

consider the Buestion of hether or not e@e-plar1 da-a*es should be aarded. 7!rt. 449%,

Ne ivil ode8 7)-phasis supplied.8

Therefore, as plaintiff is not entitled to an1 da-a*es at all, there is no reason to reBuire Piansa1, r.

to satisf1 attorne16s fees.

ud*-ent reversed, defendant absolved fro- all liabilit1. No costs.


61/110


SUPREME COURTManila

)N +!N

G.R. No. L:&&89 "'@'('r 6, 1964

EATRI? P. +ASSMER, plaintiff"appellee,vs.

#RANCISCO . >ELE?, defendant"appellant.

=aandoni & =a%ir for defendant8appeant.

Sa%son S. Acantara for paintiff8appeee.

ENG?ON, J.P., J.:

The facts that cul-inated in this case started ith drea-s and hopes, folloed b1 appropriateplannin* and serious endeavors, but ter-inated in frustration and, hat is orse, co-plete public

hu-iliation.

?rancisco 2. Vele0 and +eatri0 P. >ass-er, folloin* their -utual pro-ise of love, decided to *et

-arried and set Septe-ber %, $&5% as the bi* da1. On Septe-ber 4, $&5% Vele0 left this note for his

bride"to"beF

Dear +et

>ill have to postpone eddin* M1 -other opposes it. !- leavin* on the onvair

toda1.

Please do not as< too -an1 people about the reason h1 That ould onl1 create

a scandal.

PaBuin*

+ut the ne@t da1, Septe-ber 9, he sent her the folloin* tele*ra-F

NOTHIN# H!N#)D R)ST !SSAR)D R)TARNIN# V)RE SOON !PO=O#I)

M!M! P!P! =OV) .

P!KIN#

Thereafter Vele0 did not appear nor as he heard fro- a*ain.

Sued b1 +eatri0 for da-a*es, Vele0 filed no anser and as declared in default. Plaintiff adduced

evidence before the cler< of court as co--issioner, and on !pril 4&, $&55, ud*-ent as rendered

orderin* defendant to pa1 plaintiff P4,333.33 as actual da-a*esG P45,333.33 as -oral and

e@e-plar1 da-a*esG P4,533.33 as attorne16s feesG and the costs.


62/110

On une 4$, $&55 defendant filed a (petition for relief fro- orders, ud*-ent and proceedin*s and

-otion for ne trial and reconsideration.( Plaintiff -oved to strie pointed out that on*ress deliberatel1

eli-inated fro- the draft of the ne ivil ode the provisions that ould have it so.


63/110

It -ust not be overlooill have to postpone eddin* M1 -other opposes it ... ( He

enplaned to his ho-e cit1 in Mindanao, and the ne@t da1, the da1 before the eddin*, he ired

plaintiffF (Nothin* chan*ed rest assured returnin* soon.( +ut he never returned and as never heard

fro- a*ain.

Surel1 this is not a case of %ere breach of pro-ise to -arr1. !s stated, -ere breach of pro-ise to-arr1 is not an actionable ron*. +ut to for-all1 set a eddin* and *o throu*h all the above"

described preparation and publicit1, onl1 to al< out of it hen the -atri-on1 is about to be

sole-ni0ed, is Buite different. This is palpabl1 and unustifiabl1 contrar1 to *ood custo-s for hich

defendant -ust be held anserable in da-a*es in accordance ith !rticle 4$ aforesaid.

Defendant ur*es in his afore"stated petition that the da-a*es aarded ere e@cessive. No Buestion

is raised as to the aard of actual da-a*es. >hat defendant ould reall1 assert hereunder is that

the aard of -oral and e@e-plar1 da-a*es, in the a-ount of P45,333.33, should be totall1

eli-inated.

Per e@press provision of !rticle 44$& 7$38 of the Ne ivil ode, -oral da-a*es are recoverable in

the cases -entioned in !rticle 4$ of said ode. !s to e@e-plar1 da-a*es, defendant contends thatthe sa-e could not be adud*ed a*ainst hi- because under !rticle 4494 of the Ne ivil ode the

condition precedent is that (the defendant acted in a anton, fraudulent, rec


64/110


65/110

On Septe-ber $, $&;5, !-elita onstantino filed a -otion for leave to a-end the co-plaint i-pleadin* as co"plaintiff

her son Michael onstantino ho as born on !u*ust 9, $&;5. In its order dated Septe-ber %, $&;5, the trial court

ad-itted the a-ended co-plaint.

On Septe-ber $$, $&;5, Ivan Mende0 filed his anser to the a-ended co-plaint reiteratin* his previous anser

den1in* that Michael onstantino is his ille*iti-ate son.

!fter hearin*, the trial court rendered a decision dated une 4$, $&;:, the dispositive portion of hich reads, vi! F

>H)R)?OR), in vie of the fore*oin*, ud*-ent is hereb1 rendered in favor of plaintiff !-elita

onstantino and a*ainst defendant Ivan Mende0, orderin* the latter to pa1 !-elita onstantino the

su- of P',333.33 b1 a1 of actual and -oral da-a*esG and, the su- of P9,333.33, as and b1 a1

of attorne16s fees. The defendant shall pa1 the costs of this suit.

SO ORD)R)D.

?ro- the above decision, both parties filed their separate -otion for reconsideration. Ivan Mende0 anchored his

-otion on the *round that the aard of da-a*es as not supported b1 evidence. !-elita onstantino, on the other

hand, sou*ht the reco*nition and support of her son Michael onstantino as the ille*iti-ate son of Ivan Mende0.

In its resolution dated October 4$, $&;:, the trial court *ranted !-elita onstantino6s -otion for reconsideration, and

a-ended the dispositive portion of its decision dated une 4$, $&;: to read as follos, vi! F

>H)R)?OR), in vie of the fore*oin*, ud*-ent is hereb1 rendered in favor of plaintiff !-elita

onstantino and plaintiff"-inor Michael onstantino, and a*ainst defendant Ivan Mende0 orderin*

the latter to pa1 !-elita onstantino the su- of P',333.33 b1 a1 of actual and -oral da-a*es

and the su- of P433.33 as and b1 a1 of pa1-ent of the hospital and -edical bills incurred durin*

the deliver1 of plaintiff"-inor Michael onstantinoG to reco*ni0e as his on ille*iti-ate child the

plaintiff"-inor Michael onstantino ho shall be entitled to all the ri*hts, privile*es and benefits

appertainin* to a child of such statusG to *ive a per-anent -onthl1 support in favor of plaintiff

Michael onstantino the a-ount of P933.33G and the su- of P5,333.33 as and b1 a1 of attorne16s

fees. The defendant shall pa1 the costs of this suit.

=et this Order for- part of the decision dated une 4$, $&;:.

SO ORD)R)D.

On appeal to the ourt of !ppeals, the above a-ended decision as set aside and the co-plaint as dis-issed.

Hence, this petition for revie.

+asicall1, the issue to be resolved in the case at bar is hether or not the ourt of !ppeals co--itted a reversible

error in settin* aside the decision of the trial court and in dis-issin* the co-plaint.

Petitioners contend that the ourt of !ppeals erred in reversin* the factual findin*s of the trial and in not affir-in* the

decision of the trial court. The1 also pointed out that the appellate court co--itted a -isapprehension of facts hen it

concluded that Ivan did not have se@ual access ith !-elita durin* the first or second ee< of Nove-ber, $&;:7should be $&;%8, the ti-e of the conception of the child.

It -ust be stressed at the outset that factual findin*s of the trial court have onl1 a persuasive and not a conclusive

effect on the ourt of !ppeals. In the e@ercise of its appellate urisdiction, it is the dut1 of the ourt of !ppeals to

revie the factual findin*s of the trial court and rectif1 the errors it co--itted as -a1 have been properl1 assi*ned

and as could be established b1 a re"e@a-ination of the evidence on record. It is the factual findin*s of the ourt of

!ppeals, not those of the trial court, that as a rule are considered final and conclusive even on this ourt 7Her-o v.

Hon. ourt of !ppeals, et al., $55 SR! 4% $&';J8. This bein* a petition for certiorari under Rule %5 of the Rules of


66/110

ourt, this ourt ill revie onl1 errors of la co--itted b1 the ourt of !ppeals. It is not the function of this ourt to

re"e@a-ine all over a*ain the oral and docu-entar1 evidence sub-itted b1 the parties unless the findin*s of facts of

the ourt of !ppeals is not supported b1 the evidence on record or the ud*-ent is based on -isapprehension of

facts 7Re-alante v. Tibe, et al., $5' SR! $9' $&''JG Hernande0 v. ourt of !ppeals, et al., $%& SR! &; $&';J8.

It is the conclusion of the ourt of !ppeals, based on the evidence on record, that !-elita onstantino has not

proved b1 clear and convincin* evidence her clai- that Ivan Mende0 is the father of her son Michael onstantino.

Such conclusion based on the evaluation of the evidence on record is controllin* on this ourt as the sa-e is

supported b1 the evidence on record. )ven the trial court initiall1 entertained such posture. It ordered the reco*nition

of Michael as the ille*iti-ate son of Ivan onl1 hen actin* on the -otions for reconsideration, it reconsidered, on

October 4$, $&;:, its earlier decision dated une 4$, $&;:. !-elita6s testi-on1 on cross"e@a-ination that she had

se@ual contact ith Ivan in Manila in the first or second ee< of Nove-ber, $&;% 7TSN, Dece-ber ', $&;5, p. $3'8 is

inconsistent ith her response that she could not re-e-ber the date of their last se@ual intercourse in Nove-ber,

$&;% 7"id , p. $3:8. Se@ual contact of Ivan and !-elita in the first or second ee< of Nove-ber, $&;% is the crucial

point that as not even established on direct e@a-ination as she -erel1 testified that she had se@ual intercourse ith

Ivan in the -onths of Septe-ber, October and Nove-ber, $&;%.

Michael onstantino is a full"ter- bab1 born on !u*ust 9, $&;5 7)@hibit :8 so that as correctl1 pointed out b1 private

respondent6s counsel, citin* -edical science 7>illia-s Obstetrics, Tenth )d., p. $&'8 to the effect that (the -ean

duration of actual pre*nanc1, countin* fro- the da1 of conception -ust be close to 4:; da1s(, the conception of the

child 7Michael8 -ust have tahile !-elita testified that she had se@ual contact ith Ivan in Nove-ber, $&;%, nevertheless said

testi-on1 is contradicted b1 her on evidence 7)@h. ?8, the letter dated ?ebruar1 $$, $&;5, addressed to Ivan

Mende0 reBuestin* for a conference, prepared b1 her on counsel !tt1. Roberto Sarenas to ho- she -ust have

confided the attendant circu-stances of her pre*nanc1 hile still fresh in her -e-or1, infor-in* Ivan that !-elita is

four 7%8 -onths pre*nant so that appl1in* the period of the duration of actual pre*nanc1, the child as conceived on

or about October $$, $&;%.

Petitioner6s assertion that Ivan is her first and onl1 bo1friend 7TSN, Dece-ber ', $&;5, p. :58 is belied b1 )@hibit 4,

her on letter addressed to Mrs. Mende0 here she revealed the reason for her attach-ent to Ivan ho possessed

certain traits not possessed b1 her bo1friend. She also confided that she had a Buarrel ith her bo1friend because of

*ossips so she left her orH)R)?OR), the instant petition is Dis-issed for lac< of -erit.

SO ORD)R)D.


67/110


68/110


SUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 9;336 #'(ruary 19, 1993

GASHEM SHOO-AT A-SH, petitioner,vs.

HON. COURT O# APPEALS an* MARILOU T. GON?ALES, respondents.

Pu"ic Attorne$@s )ffice for petitioner.

Coreto R. Castro for private respondent.

"A>I"E, JR., J.:

This is an appeal b1 certiorari under Rule %5 of the Rules of ourt see


69/110

In his !nser ith ounterclai-, 3 petitioner ad-itted onl1 the personal circu-stances of the parties asaverred in the co-plaint and denied the rest of the alle*ations either for lac< of


70/110

pretenses, pro-ised to -arr1 private respondent, d8 because of his persuasive pro-ise to -arr1

her, she alloed herself to be defloered b1 hi-, 7e8 b1 reason of that deceitful pro-ise, private

respondent and her parents in accordance ith ?ilipino custo-s and traditions -ade so-e

preparations for the eddin* that as to be held at the end of October $&'; b1 loo


71/110

Petitioner appealed the trial court6s decision to the respondent ourt of !ppeals hich docould defendant have left Da*upan

it1 here he as involved in the serious stud1 of -edicine to *o to plaintiff6s

ho-eton in +aa*a, +u*allon, unless there as 7sic 8 so-e


72/110


73/110

)Buall1 settled is the rule that onl1 Buestions of la -a1 be raised in a petition for revie

on certiorari under Rule %5 of the Rules of ourt. It is not the function of this ourt to anal10e or

ei*h all over a*ain the evidence introduced b1 the parties before the loer court. There are,

hoever, reco*ni0ed e@ceptions to this rule. Thus, inMedina vs. Asistio, =r ., 16 this ourt too< the ti-e,a*ain, to enu-erate these e@ceptionsF

@@@ @@@ @@@

7$8 >hen the conclusion is a findin* *rounded entirel1 on speculation, sur-ises or

conectures 7oaBuin v. Navarro, &9 Phil. 45; $&59J8G 748 >hen the inference -ade

is -anifestl1 -istahen the ud*-ent is based on a -isapprehension of facts 7ru0 v. Sosin*,

="%';5, Nov. 4;, $&598G 758 >hen the findin*s of fact are conflictin* 7asica v.

Villaseca, ="&5&3 !p. 93, $&5;G unrep.8 7:8 >hen the ourt of !ppeals, in -a


74/110

!s the ode o--ission itself stated in its ReportF

+ut the ode o--ission had *one farther than the sphere of ron*s defined or

deter-ined b1 positive la. ?ull1 sensible that there are countless *aps in the

statutes, hich leave so -an1 victi-s of -oral ron*s helpless, even thou*h the1

have actuall1 suffered -aterial and -oral inur1, the o--ission has dee-ed it

necessar1, in the interest of ustice, to incorporate in the proposed ivil ode the

folloin* ruleF

!rt. 49. !n1 person ho ilfull1 causes loss or inur1 to another in a

-anner that is contrar1 to -orals, *ood custo-s or public polic1 shall

co-pensate the latter for the da-a*e.

!n e@a-ple ill illustrate the purvie of the fore*oin* nor-F (!( seduces the

nineteen"1ear old dau*hter of (2(. ! pro-ise of -arria*e either has not been -ade,

or can not be proved. The *irl beco-es pre*nant. Ander the present las, there is no

cri-e, as the *irl is above nineteen 1ears of a*e. Neither can an1 civil action for

breach of pro-ise of -arria*e be filed. Therefore, thou*h the *rievous -oral ron*has been co--itted, and thou*h the *irl and fa-il1 have suffered incalculable -oral

da-a*e, she and her parents cannot brin* action for da-a*es. +ut under the

proposed article, she and her parents ould have such a ri*ht of action.

Thus at one stro


75/110

o-an and his representation to fulfill that pro-ise thereafter beco-es the pro@i-ate cause of the

*ivin* of herself unto hi- in a se@ual con*ress, proof that he had, in realit1, no intention of -arr1in*

her and that the pro-ise as onl1 a subtle sche-e or deceptive device to entice or invei*le her to

accept hi- and to obtain her consent to the se@ual act, could ustif1 the aard of da-a*es pursuant

to !rticle 4$ not because of such pro-ise to -arr1 but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and

the illful inur1 to her honor and reputation hich folloed thereafter. It is essential, hoever, that

such inur1 should have been co--itted in a -anner contrar1 to -orals, *ood custo-s or public

polic1.

In the instant case, respondent ourt found that it as the petitioner6s (fraudulent and deceptive

protestations of love for and pro-ise to -arr1 plaintiff that -ade her surrender her virtue and

o-anhood to hi- and to live ith hi- on the honest and sincere belief that he ould


76/110

pro%ise or other induce%ent . If she consents -erel1 fro- carnal lust

and the intercourse is fro- -utual desire, there is no seduction 7%9

ent. Di*. tit. Seduction, par. 5:8 She -ust be induced to depart fro-

the path of virtue b1 the use of so-e species of arts, persuasions and

iles, hich are calculated to have and do have that effect, and

hich result in her person to ulti-atel1 sub-ittin* her person to the

se@ual e-braces of her seducer 74; Phil. $498.

!nd in !-erican urisprudence e findF

On the other hand, in an action b1 the o-an, the entice-ent,

persuasion or deception is the essence of the inur1G and a -ere

proof of intercourse is insufficient to arrant a recover1.

!ccordin*l1 it is not seduction here the illin*ness arises out of

se@ual desire of curiosit1 of the fe-ale, and the defendant -erel1

affords her the needed opportunit1 for the co--ission of the act. It

has been e-phasi0ed that to allo a recover1 in all such casesould tend to the de-orali0ation of the fe-ale se@, and ould be a

reard for unchastit1 b1 hich a class of adventuresses ould be

sift to profit. 7%; !-. ur. ::48

@@@ @@@ @@@

Over and above the partisan alle*ations, the fact stand out that for one hole 1ear,

fro- $&5' to $&5&, the plaintiff"appellee, a o-an of adult a*e, -aintain inti-ate

se@ual relations ith appellant, ith repeated acts of intercourse. Such conduct is

inco-patible ith the idea of seduction. Plainl1 there is here voluntariness and

-utual passionG for had the appellant been deceived, had she surrendered

e@clusivel1 because of the deceit, artful persuasions and iles of the defendant, sheould not have a*ain 1ielded to his e-braces, -uch less for one 1ear, ithout

e@actin* earl1 fulfill-ent of the alle*ed pro-ises of -arria*e, and ould have cut

short all se@ual relations upon findin* that defendant did not intend to fulfill his

defendant did not intend to fulfill his pro-ise. Hence, e conclude that no case is

-ade under article 4$ of the ivil ode, and no other cause of action bein* alle*ed,

no error as co--itted b1 the ourt of ?irst Instance in dis-issin* the co-plaint. ;

In his annotations on the ivil ode, 8 !ssociate ustice )d*ardo =. Paras, ho recentl1 retired fro-this ourt, opined that in a breach of pro-ise to -arr1 here there had been carnal


77/110

around, there can be no recover1 of -oral da-a*es, because here -utual lust has

intervened8. . . .

to*ether ith (!TA!= da-a*es, should there be an1, such as the e@penses for the

eddin* presentations 7See Do-ala*on v. +olifer, 99 Phil. %;$8.

Senator !rturo M. Tolentino 9 is also of the sa-e persuasionF

It is sub-itted that the rule in ?atarra vs. Marcos, 3& still subsists, notithstandin* theincorporation

Pfr Human Rel & Indep Cases

Documents

Transcript of Pfr Human Rel & Indep Cases