This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Tuvera GR L-63915, 29 December 1986 (146 SCRA 446) Lorenzo M. Tanada and MABINI (petitioners) vs. Hon. Juan C. Tuvera et al. Facts: On 24 April 1985, the Court affirmed the necessity for the publication to the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect. Decision was concurred only by 3 judges. Petitioners move for reconsideration / clarification of the decision on various questions. Solicitor General avers that the motion is a request for advisory opinion. February Revolution took place, which subsequently required the new Solicitor General to file a rejoinder on the issue (under Rule 3, Section 18 of the Rules of Court). Issue: Whether publication is still required in light of the clause ³unless otherwise provided´. Held:The clause ³unless it is otherwise provided,´ in Article 2 of the Civil Code, refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date, without its previous publication. The legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended. Publication requirements applies to (1) all statutes, including those of local application and private laws; (2) presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or directly conferred by the Constitution; (3) Administrative rules and regulations for the purpose of enforcing or implementing existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation; (4) Charter of a city notwithstanding that it applies to only a portion of the national territory and directly affects only the inhabitants of that place; (5) Monetary Board circulars to ³fill in the details´ of the Central Bank Act which that body is supposed to enforce. Further, publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. Reasoning: The Supreme Court declared that all laws as above defined shall immediately upon their approval, or as soon thereafter as possible, be published in full in the Official Gazette, to become effective only after 15 days from their publication, or on another date specified by the legislature, in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code
20 in connection with Sec 34 of RA 265 sentencing him to suffer 6 months imprisonment. 20 was issued in the year 1949 but was published in the Official Gazette only on Nov. circular and regulations of the Central Bank in question prescribing a penalty for its violation should be published before becoming effective. in an en banc decision. US checks and US money orders amounting to about $7000 but failed to sell the same to the Central Bank as required under Circular No. that as a rule. with costs de oficio. 1954 FACTS: The appellant was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of US dollars.000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. pay fine of P1. regulation or circular must first be published for the people to be officially and specifically informed of such contents including its penalties. GARCIA vs. March 29.People of the Phils v Que Po Lay GR No. Que Po Lay appealed from the decision of the lower court finding him guilty of violating Central Bank Circular No. the Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and acquit the appellant. 1951 after the act or omission imputed to Que Po Lay. a law. Recio . Whether or not publication of Circular 20 in the Official Gazette is needed for it to become effective and subject violators to corresponding penalties. Thus. 20. 6791. This is based on the theory that before the public is bound by its contents especially its penal provisions. and to pay the costs. Circular No. HELD: It was held by the Supreme Court. ISSUE: 1.
that it had been validly dissolved by decree of divorce in 1989. was married to Editha Samson. and thus needs no further proof of authenticity and due execution. In this case. On May 18.R. petitioner. Rizal on March 1. which he said was a public document.GRACE J. a decree of divorce purportedly dissolving the marriage was issued by an Australian Family Court. Whether or not a Filipino. 1989. a written official act of an Australian family court. 2001 Facts: Rederick. Since October 22. No. GARCIA. respondent failed to prove his legal capacity to remarry even if he showed the Australian divorce decree. Recio-Garcia nuptial took place in Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church. 1994. Subsequently. and 52) of the Family Code is not necessary. vs.a. 1987. in Malabon. who became a naturalized Australian citizen. Held: 1. She claimed that she only learned of Recio’s marriage to Samson in November 1997. 138322 October 2. 3.March 3. Whether or not a former Filipino need not to present any document proving his divorced marriage with a foreigner which he obtained abroad. Compliance with the quoted articles (11.k. Recio averred that as of 1993. a Filipino. petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the trial court. A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima facie evidence of legal capacity to marry on the part of the alien applicant for a . respondent was declared as “single” and “Filipino”. GARCIA-RECIO. 2 . respondent became an Australian citizen. a. No. Whether or not the respondent has legal capacity to marry the petitioner after the Australian decree of divorce. he had revealed to petitioner his prior marriage to an Australian citizen. They lived together as husband and wife in Australia. respondent was no longer bound by Philippine personal laws after he acquired Australian citizenship in 1992. 2 . respondent G. No. Cabanatuan City on January 12. In his answer. While they were still in Australia. as shown by a “Certificate of Australian Citizenship” issued by an Australian government. Issues: 1. their conjugal assets were divided on May 1996. is still bound by Philippine Laws. 1998. making him legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994. on the ground of bigamy––respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her in 1994. On 26 June 1992. Naturalization is the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the political and civil rights belonging to a citizen. GRACE J. In their marriage application for marriage license. 1995 Garcia and Recio lived separately without prior dissolution of their marriage. REDERICK A. an Australian citizen. RECIO. 13. in accordance with their declaration secured in Australia.
and failing in that. No costs. as above discussed. Yes. vs. WHEREFORE. Inc. of declaring the parties’ marriage on the ground of bigamy.M. SO ORDERED D. The Court ruled that presentation solely of the divorce decree. The Court still stands that compliance with the rules on evidence must be demonstrated. is insufficient.” Since the divorce was a defense raised by the respondent. 3 . Court of Appeals (and Maria J. which is what the respondent did.marriage license. the burden of proving the pertinent Australian law validating it falls squarely upon him. we REMAND the case to the court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which conclusively show respondent’s legal capacity to marry petitioner. The burden of proof lies with “the party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. Juego) respondents . in the interest of orderly procedure and substantive justice. Consunji.
filed in the RTC of Pasig a compalint for damages against the deceased´s employer. fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower. Jose Juego´s widow. Consunji. On appeal by D. On May 9. The deision of the CA is affirmed. During his last semester of his fourth year. Ratio: The claims for damages sustained by workers in the course of their employment could be filed only under the Workmen´s Compensation Law.M. Issue: WON the petitioner (Consunji) is negligent and should be liable. he left the defendant university and enro lled at Abad . Inc. Arellano University (2 SCRA 205) Facts: Plaintiff Emeterio Cui. 1991. the widow´s prior availment of the benefits from the State Insurance Fund. Inc.M. received scholarship grants for scholastic merit at Arellano University. Consunji. The employer raised.Facts: On Nov. Ruling. Pasig City to his death. Hence. 2. ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff. Jose Juego. a construction worker of D. The CA held that the case at bar came under exception because private resppondent was unaware of petitioner´s negligence when she filed her claim for death benefits from the State Insurance Fund. 1990. among other defenses. D. the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto. Cui vs. to the exclusion of all further claims under other laws.. this petition. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the widow Maria Juego. Consunji.M. studying law.
Brimo 50 Phil. Issue: Whether or not the contract between plaintiff and defendant. November 1. Romualdez Facts: Joseph G. After graduating. 867. he needed the transcript of records from the defendant university. a citizen of Turkey. whereby the former waived his right to transfer to another school without refunding to the latter the equivalent of his scholarship in cash valid or not? Held: The contract between plaintiff and defendant is not binding since the memorandum made by the Director of Private Schools is not a law. 1924 J. wherein he finished his law degree. Brimo. According to the contract signed by the plaintiff. scholarships are good only if the student should continue in the same school. The provisions are only advisory and not mandatory in nature. Juan Miciano. This contract was followed fromMe morandu m No. the judicial administrator of the estate left . the said officer had not authority to issue such memorandum and that provisions were not published in the Official Gazette. To secure to take the bar examinations. he applied for the bar examinations.Santos University. Minciano vs. Furthermore. 38 made by the Director of Private Schools. died and left a partition of the estate. Defendant refused to give him a transcript until he paid back the tuition that the university returned when he was granted scholarship.
The couple lived together for some time in . 1989 On September 7. a Filipino citizen. and private respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling. Andre Brimo. one of the brothers of the deceased. Pilapil VS. though he declared in his will that Philippine laws must govern the disposition of his estate. Ibay-Somera G. 80116 June 30. Brimo¶s opposition is based on the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the provisions of Joseph Brimo¶s will which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality. 1979.filed a scheme of partition. a German national.R No. opposed it. the testator’s national law must govern in accordance with Article 10 of the Civil Code. however. it must not prejudice the heir or legatee of the testator. Issue: Whether or not the national law of the testator is the one to govern his testamentary disposition. were married before the Registrar of Births. for which reason they are void as being in violation of Article 10 of the Civil Code. However. a Turkish citizen . Therefore. marriage and deaths in Friedensweiler in the Federal Republic of Germany. Held: Joseph Brimo. petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil.
On March 29. He claimed that there was failure of the marriage and they had been living apart since 1982. to move to defer further proceedings” and to elevate the entire record of the cases to his office for review. The marriage was ratified in Tayasan. the fact that the private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country is admitted. The Secretary of justice.While petitioner filed an action for Legal separation. five months after the issuance of the divorce decree. After corresponding investigation. Manila where they had a daughter. Ruling: Yes. Private respondent filed a petition for the declaration . is of no legal significance or consequence in this case. The allegations of the private respondent that he could not have brought this case befor the decree of divorce for lack of knowledge even if true. private respondent. In the present case.Malate. 142820 June 20. However upon review of the respondent City fiscal a resolution was approved and the cases were raffled to two branches of the RTC of Manila. On January 15. Pilapil filed a motion in both criminal cases to defer arraignment and to suspend further proceedings. the Secretary of Justice issued a resolution directing the respondent city fiscal to move for the dismissal of the complaints against the petitioner. promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. one of the criminal cases was suspended. Said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is concern in view of the nationality principle on our civil law on the matter of the status of persons. She later entered a plea of not guilty. private respondent Geiling initiated divorce proceedings against petitioner in his native Germany. support and separation of property before the Regional Trial Court in Manila. During the arraignment of the criminal case. Carmen Rodriguez in Germany. After three and a half years of disharmonic marriage. the Schoneberg local Court of Germany. The petitioner was then held in contempt and was detained until she submitted herself for arraignment. through the Chief State Prosecutor. Garcia GR No. the divorce decree is valid in the Philippines. while the date of arraignment of the other was merely reset. On June 27. The severance of the marital bond had the effect of dissociating the former spouses from each other. the William Chia pleaded not guilty while the petitioner refused not to be arraigned. a German citizen.. 2003 Facts: Petitioner Wolfgang Roehr. On March 14. private respondent filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that during the marriage Pilapil had an affair with a certain William Chia and another man named Jesus Chua. 1987 petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction to decide and try the case. petitioner filed a petition with the Secretary of Justice that the cases be dismissed. Negros Oriental. Under this consideration. 1988. As a result. married a Filipina. Roehr vs. gave due course to both petitions and directed city fiscal to inform the DOJ “if the accused have already been arraigned and if not. 1986. Issue: Whether or not the divorce decree is valid in the Philippines and if the private respondet can file a complaint of adultery against the petitioner. had no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed the suit. 1987. the assistant fiscal recommended the dismissal of the cases on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. being no longer the husband of the petitioner. 1986. On October 27.
ROBERTO REYES. In order to take effect.k." respondent. The petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from the Cout of First Instance of HamburgBlankenese and granting the custody of the children to the father. therefore. 2005 NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM.R. Facts: The cause of action before the trial court was one for damages brought under the human relations provisions of the New Civil Code. Issue: Whether or not the legal effects of a divorce obtained from a foreign country such as support and custody of the children can be determined in our courts Held: Yes. vs. . the respondent was not given the opportunity to challenge the judgement of the German Court. Accoringly.a. a. legal effects of divorce must be determined in our courts. No. a foreign judgement must clearly show that the opposing party has been given ample opportunity to do so under the Rules of Civel Procedure. "AMAY BISAYA.of nullity of marriage before the RTC of Makati. The court held that the trial court has jurisdiction over the issue between the parties as to who has parental costudy Topic: DEFENSES: ASSUMPTION OF RISK Digested by: Aubrey Case #7 G. 154259 February 28. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss but was denied by the trial court. petitioners.
Filart’s version: According to her. However. she reminded Reyes to go down as he was not properly dressed and was not invited. Filart. Lim that she was discreet in asking Mr. Reyes was a great crasher. When the buffet dinner was ready. When Reyes went to a corner and started to eat. RTC Ruling: After trial on the merits. and in a loud voice w/in the presence and hearing of the other guests. however. she decided to wait. Filart. hindo ho kayo dapat nandito. the Court of Appeals affirmed its earlier decision as the argument raised in the motion had "been amply discussed and passed upon in the decision sought to be reconsidered. Reyes tried to explain that he was invited by Dr. Lim inquired Dr Filart’s sister about Reyes and the sister said the latter was not invited by Dr. but to her surprise. Pero total nakakuha na ho kayo ng pagkain. CA Ruling: On appeal. Not long after. Petitioners Lim and Hotel Nikko contend that pursuant to the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria. She was embarrassed and did not want the celebrant to think that she invited him. Filart. When Lim spotted Reyes by the buffet table. (2) moral damages in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200." The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria ("to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury" ) 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. she decided to speak to him herself as there were no guest in the immediate vicinity. When they reached the penthouse. the court a quo dismissed the complaint.000). shame and embarrassment. Lim’s version: At the party she noticed Reyes at the bar counter ordering a drink. Filart invited and assured that she can vouched for him in the birthday party of the hotel’s manager. Hotel Nikko and Ruby Lim contend that the Court of Appeals seriously erred in not applying the Doctrine of Volenti Non Fit Injuria considering that by its own findings. Sec. Batung asked Reyes to leave. Mindful of Mr. even if he is not negligent in doing so. Filart the solidary obligation to pay Reyes (1) exemplary damages in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200. The waiter said that he saw Reyes came in w/ the group of Dr. they cannot be 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-crasher. Mr. Then there was a commotion and she saw Reyes shouting. and even threatened to dump food on her. giving more credence to the testimony of Ms. Lim requested the sister to tell Reyes to leave but the latter just lingered. Tsuruoka’s wishes to keep the party intimate. he was stopped by Lim (Exec. He now claims P1M for actual damagaes.Respondent Reyes’ Version: Mrs. he began screaming and making a big scene." She then turned around trusting that Reyes would show enough decency to leave. Reyes lined up but. to his great shock. but the latter completely ignored him adding to his shame and humiliation. this doctrine does not find application to the case at bar because even . told him to leave the party. Issue and Ruling: 1) Won the Doctrine of Volenti Non Fit Injuria is applicable in the case at bar. CA reversed the ruling of the trial court as it found more commanding of belief the testimony of Reyes that Lim ordered him to leave in a loud voice within hearing distance of several guests. As formulated by petitioners. Lim approached him and said: "alam ninyo. Consequently. Masakazu at the penthouse. The trial court likewise ratiocinated that Mr. The same happened when one Capt. Reyes to leave the party. not to the penthouse but to Altitude 49. it was Reyes who volunteered to carry the basket of fruits intended for the celebrant as he was likewise going to take the elevator. She ignored Reyes. policemen approached him and asked him to step out of the hotel. she approached the captain waiter to inquire as to the presence of Reyes who was uninvited. as Reyes was already helping himself to the food. It likewise ruled that the actuation of Lim in approaching several people to inquire into the presence of Reyes exposed the latter to ridicule and was uncalled for as she should have approached Dr. All the while. she thought that Reyes already left the place. of Nikko Hotel). Lim and Dr. CA imposed upon Hotel Nikko. ubusin na lang ninyo at pagkatapos kung pwede lang po umalis na kayo . and (3) attorney’s fees in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10. Reyes assumed the risk of being thrown out of the party as he was uninvited. Filart first and both of them should have talked to Reyes in private. P1M moral and/or exemplary damages and P200k for atty’s fees. Dr. On motion for reconsideration.000).000).
Its antithesis. the lower court was correct in observing that – Considering the closeness of defendant Lim to plaintiff when the request for the latter to leave the party was made such that they nearly kissed each other. Ms. "Amay Bisaya. neither can her employer. we cannot put our imprimatur on the appellate court’s declaration that Lim’s act of personally approaching Mr. Reyes. another problem with Reyes’s version of the story is that it is unsupported. Its elements are the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty. Pepito Guerrero and Alexander Silva . It was plaintiff’s reaction to the request that must have made the other guests aware of what transpired between them. which calls not only protection of human dignity but respect of such dignity. were still under obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary ridicule and shame. give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. When Article 19 is violated. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. The object of this article. an action for damages is proper under Articles 20 or 21 of the Civil Code. had not presented any witness to back his story up. Lim to humiliate Mr. Lim. It is a basic rule in civil cases that he who alleges proves. necessarily. is to set certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties. is not a panacea for all human hurts and social grievances. Art. if done with good intentions.a. No. is any act evincing bad faith or intent to injure. Reyes) gave rise to a cause of action "predicated upon mere rudeness or lack of consideration of one person. All his witnesses – Danny Rodinas. however. Reyes (without first verifying from Filart if indeed she invited. (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.k. . These standards are the following: act with justice. (2) which is exercised in bad faith. the manner by which Lim asked Reyes to leave was likewise acceptable and humane under the circumstances. therefore. Filart who invited him to the party. Reyes and expose him to ridicule and shame. Lim having been in the hotel business for twenty years wherein being polite and discreet are virtues to be emulated. act with justice. there was no need for the police to take him out. under Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code. Lim is guilty only of bad judgment which. Hotel Nikko. Parenthetically. known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights." to leave the party where he was not invited by the celebrant thereof thereby becoming liable under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. If at all. Necessarily. Not being liable for both actual and moral damages. In this regard. a. the request was meant to be heard by him only and there could have been no intention on her part to cause embarrassment to him. give everyone his due. be held liable as its liability springs from that of its employee. the testimony of Mr. Reyes that she acted to the contrary does not inspire belief and is indeed incredible. Filart’s companion who told her that Filart did not invite Reyes. In the absence of any proof of motive on the part of Ms. Reyes to leave the party to which he was not invited. Every person must. cannot be made liable to pay for damages under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Article 19." Without proof of any ill-motive on her part. Article 20 pertains to damages arising from a violation of law which does not obtain herein as Lim was perfectly within her right to ask Mr.if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party. Moreover. cannot amount to bad faith. neither can petitioners Lim and Hotel Nikko be made answerable for exemplary damages especially for the reason stated by the CA. it is highly unlikely that she would shout at him from a very close distance. Reyes to leave. 19. Lim’s act of by-passing Filart cannot amount to abusive conduct especially because she did inquire from Mrs. not having abused her right to ask Mr. Thus. and observe honesty and good faith.proved only that it was Dr. petitioners. Had plaintiff simply left the party as requested. 2) Won Lim acted abusively in asking Reyes.
MERALCO’s inspectors headed by Emmanuel C. MERALCO 's inspectors discovered that the terminal seal of the meter was missing. Quisumbing is a member of the Rotary Club.Sps. Lorna Quisumbing. The spouses were advised by MERALCO . and Director of Chamber of Furniture. Quisumbing vs MERALCO gr no 142943 april 3 2002 Spouses Quisumbing are owners of a house and lot located at No. On March 3. Mrs. Quisumbing is a member of the Innerwheel Club while Mr. Orlino were assigned to conduct a routine-on-the-spot inspection of all single phase meters at Greenmeadows Avenue it is a standard operating procedure of asking permission from the spouses. 94 Greenmeadows Avenue. the meter dials of the meter was mis-aligned and there were scratches on the meter base plate. The secretary witnessed the inspection. through their secretary which was granted. After the inspection. Quezon City. 1995. who was outraged of the result of the inspection and denied liability as to the tampering of the meter. Chairman of Cebu Chamber of Commerce. the meter cover seal was deformed. They alleged to be business entrepreneurs engaged in the export of furnitures under the business name 'Loran Industries' and recipient of the 1993 Agora Award and 1994 Golden Shell Award.
ISSUE: Is a breach of promise to marry an actionable wrong? Is Article 21 of the Civil Code applicable in the case? . Whether MERALCO observed the requisites of law when it disconnected the electric supply of the spouses? Under the law. the prima facie authority to disconnect granted to MERALCO by RA 7832 can’t apply. An adjusted bill shall be prepared and only upon failure to pay the company disconnect or discontinue service. Hence. However. MERALCO can’t be prosecutor and judge in imposing the penalty of disconnection due to alleged meter tampering. feelings. COURT OF APPEALS. Orlina informed the spouses that they were just following their standard operating procedure. she allowed herself to be deflowered by him. malicious and malevolent manner in disconnecting their power supply which was done without due process. BAKSH VS. social and business reputation. and without due regard for their rights. According to Marilou. Because of his persuasive promise to marry her. 1 of the former public service commission which requires a 46 hour written notice before the disconnection may be justified. their electric supply would be disconnected. Gashem courted and proposed to marry her.01 representing the differential billing. they may do only in the presence of an officer of law or by a duly authorized representative of the energy regulatory board where they can personally witnessed and attested the discovery of the tampering. capricious. The presence of government agents who may authorize immediate disconnection goes into the essence of due process. An action for damages by the spouses alleging that MERALCO acted with wanton. This alo true in regard with the provision of the revised order no.875. If there’s no government representative.'s inspectors that they had to detach the meter and bring it to their laboratory for verification/confirmation of their findings. MERALCO may immeadiately disconnect any electric services on the ground of meter tampering. MERALCO had to temporarily disconnect the electric services of the spouses unless they pay the amount of P178. 219 SCRA 115 FACTS: Gashem Shookat Baksh is an Iranian enrolled in a medical school while Marilou Gonzales works in the cafeteria of said school. MERALCO can’t rely on the contractual right to disconnect if there is non-payment of bills. No marriage came hence an action for breach of promise to marry. this case is partially granted wherein both of the parties are to pay each other. In the event the meter turned out to be tampered. peace of mind.
Article 21. good customs or public policy. the vice president and general manager of the company confronted him stating that he was a number one suspect concerning the matter and ordered him to take one week off. Where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress. Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp vs. which is designed to expand the concept of torts or quasi-delicts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books. that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals. no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept his and to obtain her consent to the sexual act. It is essential however. the said Code contains a provision. could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. When a fictuitious purchase was discovered. proof that he had. Congress deliberately eliminated from the draft of the New Civil Code the provisions that would have made it so. leaving . henry. This notwithstanding.HELD: [I]The existing rule is that breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. CA GR No 81262 august 25 1989 Facts: Resitituto Tobias was employed by Globe mackay cable and radio corp as a purchasing agen and aadministrative assistant to the engineering operations managers. in reality.
Issues: Whether or not Gobe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp can be held liable for damages resulting to abuse of right? Held: It is expected from the employer to be firm and to resolve to uncover the truth but the treatment they have given to resituto during his employment weas uncalled for. oppressive and abusive acts of Globe mackay cable and radio corp. The Globe mackay cable and radio corp said they can’t be held liable because they have conducted the an a lawful dismissal while the restituto contended that because of their abusive manner is dismissing him and inhuman treatment. they accused restituto guilty without a basis and harass him which are the standard of human conduct under art 19 of the civil code. henry went to him again and caleed him a “crook” and “swindler” and ordering him to take a lie detector and other test which the results are negative. If the dismissal is done abusicelt.R. The right of the employer to dismiss an employee should bot be confused with the matter in which the right is ecercised and the effects flowing form it. 132344 Febuary 7 2000 Romeo A. No. the lower court rebered the judgement in his favour as well as the ca. Jadar is a law student in the university of the east. he applied to retelco and without the request of the company. For the tortuous acts committed by the corporation such as calling him name which held no basis and the letter sent by them to retelco alleging resitituto was dismissed due to dishonesty. they are held liable for damges. he was sued for estafa but was dismissed. When he was terminated. hence this appeal. Despite of the evidence held. malicious. they are held liable for damages under article 21 of the civil code which render the remedies for article 19. subsequently he was suspeneded and despite the reports. It is clearly indicated that the Globe mackay cable and radio corp failed to ecervise in a legitimate manner their right to dimiss Resituto. This event lead restituto to file a case for damages against Globe mackay cable and radio corp alleging the unlawful.his drawer open and his office keys. as result. After one week has elapsed. then the employer is liable for damages to the employee. He had one subject deficit in his 1st semester of 4th year which he takes in 2nd semester and filed an . henry gave a character evaluation stating that Restituto was dismissed from their company due to dishonesty. they are also held liable for art 2176 of the civil code University of the East vs Jader G.
The professors or teachers are considered as agents and administrations. He filed a suit for damages on UE alleging that the it is the school negligence on why he did not able to take the bar examination when he already graduated. The absence of good faith must be sufficiently established fro a successful prosecution in article 19 and a remedy for article 20. The school contended that it doesn’t mean that his name appears in the list of graduate he has completed his requirements. The school is not in good faith wherein they belatedly inform the student of the result of the removal examination. Hence this appeal. The school can’t pass the liability to the professors or teachers because of their negligence to submit or delayed report of the information. he was expected to graduate and was especially happy when his name was in the list of graduating student that year.application fro removal for his incomplete grade which was approved by their dean after they payment of the required fees. The trial court rendered the judement in his favour as well as the CA with modifictaiton. a contract was formed between the institution and the student. He took the exam and was given a grade of 5. As a 4th year student. Hence. After that. particularly at the time when he had already commenced preparing for the bar exam. The negligent act of a professor who fails to oneserve the rule of the school is not imputable to the professor but it is an act of the school being the employer. It is the contractual duty of the school to informed the students of their status. he went to celebrate and blow-out all his friends. A graduation ceremony is not an ordinary occasion it is considered as a special occasion where the school is declaring to the whole world that these students are graduated and has completed all the requirements to attain a certain degree. . He went to the graduate rite. the school is liable for the damages as a result to their negligence act of informing the student of their academic status. Can a school be held laible for damages when their wrongful acts of negligence result injury to another? When a student enrolled in a school. went up to the stage when his name was called together with his mother and brother and was handed by the dean his rolled diploma certifying him as a graduate and alleging that he finish the course of law. relative and nighbhors but was shock having to learned that he has a deficiency subject when he enrolled in FEU for review classes thus failing him to take the bar examination. whther or not they have completed their requirements to conferment of a decree or whether they would be included among those who will graduate.
Because of such fact and the similarity in their family name. Lolita was staying with her parents in the same town. good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code. a collateral relative of Lolita's father. The defendant continues to have a relationship with Lolita until the day the disappeared. petitioners appealed. When Lolita was staying with her brother and sister in quezon city. The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man. Sometime in 1952. The two eventually fell in love with each other and conducted clandestine trysts not only in the town of Gasan but also in Boac where Lolita used to teach in a barrio school. He used to stay in the town of Gasan. Verily. They exchanged love notes with each other the contents of which reveal not only their infatuation for each other but also the extent to which they had carried their relationship. An action for damages was filed by the parents and brothers and sisters. public policy and good customs? Held: Trying to win the affection of Lolita don’t constitute to trickery to seduced the latter to the extent of making her fall in love with him. he has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals. Lolita was 24 years old and unmarried. Issue: Can the petitioners recovered damages based on article 21 of the civil code where the defendant cause injury in manner contrary to moral. The family of Lolita prohibited such relationship and since then defendant was forbidden from going to their house and from further seeing Lolita. Therefore. in connection with his aforesaid occupation.Pe vs Pe G. There is no other conclusion to lead that the defendant did not deliberately but through a clever strategy. she disappeared. l-17396 may 30 1962 Facts: Plaintiffs are the parents. No. defendant was order to pay for damages to the plaintiffs. defendant frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. . its based on article 21 of the civil code but it was dismissed by the lower court. Marinduque. succeeding in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the extent of having illicit affair with her. brothers and sisters of one Lolita Pe. the defendant frequented the house Lolita on pretext that he wanted to teach him to pray the rosary and because he was a collateral relative and was considered as a member of the family. Defendant is a married man and works as agent of the La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory. As the fact shown. defendant became close to the plaintiffs who regarded him as a member of their family.R. Defendant was an adopted son of a Chinaman named Pe Beco.
1950. in she filled in the on a verified second of ground left for the states without informing against Pastor the District Court Nevada extreme cruelty. they asked for the recelebration of the matrimony which did not took place. Issues: Whether or not the divorce and the second marriage October 21. When Escaño’s parents learned about it. Whether or not sexual infidelity of Escaño may be invoked by Tenchavez as a ground for legal separation.TENCHAVEZ VS. 1948. divorce 1950. On issued. Held: The Supreme Court held that the divorce is not valid. entirely mental in character. making the second marriage void since marriage ties of Escaño and Tenchaves is existing. Tenchavez can file a petition for legal separation because Escaño committed sexual infidelity because of the fact that she had children with the American. Marries Pastos Tenchavez. 1954. 32. 27. On September 13. ESCAÑO Facts: On February 24. The marriage was kept secret to the parents of Escaño. a decree of divorce was of Escaño were valid. Vicenta Escaño. Sexual infidelity of a spouse is one of the grounds for legal separation. Vicenta Pastor. On complaint Judicial August for 22. . Escaño married an American and had children and later acquired American Citizenship.
.St. Aramil. the house featured was Dr Aramil’s house and not Mr. the judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed. This prompted Dr. Louis Realty committed an actionable quasi-delict under articles 21 and 26 of the Civil Code because the questioned advertisements pictured a beautiful house which did not belong to Arcadio but to Doctor Aramil who. he wrote a letter to St. Louis is liable to pay damages to Dr. a neuropsychiatrist and member of the faculty of UE Ramon Magsaysay Medical Center. ISSUE: Whether St. 1969. moral and exemplary damages. Louis Realty appealed to the Court of Appeals.000 as attorney's fees. Arcadio’s real house but nothing on the apology or explanation of the error. On March 18. it never made any written apology and explanation of the mix-up. the notice of rectification was published. naturally. St. Costs against the petitioner. Conrado Aramil. Dr Aramil filed a complaint for damages on March 29. In the advertisement. seek to recover damage for a wrongful advertisement in the Sunday Times where St Louis Realty Corp. St Louis published an ad now with Mr. No rectification or apology was published despite that it was received by Ernesto Magtoto. P20. Louis Realty Corp. 1968 with the heading “where the heart is”. When St. vs. was annoyed by that contretemps”.000 as actual damages. It just contented itself with a cavalier "rectification ". CA 133 SCRA 179 FACTS: Dr. the officer in charge of the advertisement. This was republished on January 5. Arcadio with whom the company asked permission and the intended house to be published. CA affirmed the judgement for the reason that “St. The trial court awarded Aramil P8. Arcadio. WHEREFORE. 1969. Louis published an ad on December 15. misrepresented his house with Mr. Louis demanding an explanation 1 week after such receipt. Furthermore. After Dr Aramil noticed the mistake. Aramil’s counsel to demand actual. HELD: St Louis was grossly negligent in mixing up residences in a widely circulated publication.000 as moral damages and P2. During the April 15 ad.