SET 1: (3) M.H. WYLIE and CAPT.

petitioners, vs. AURORA I. RARANG and THE HON. IAC, respondents. FACTS: Petitioner M.H. Wylie was the assistant administrative officer while petitioner Capt. James Williams was the commanding officer of the US Naval Base in Subic Bay, Olongapo City. Private Respondent (PR) Aurora Rarang was assigned as merchandise control guard in the Office of the Provost Marshal. M.H. Wylie, in his capacity as asst. admin. Officer, supervised the publication of the so-called “Plan of the Day” (POD), published daily by the US Naval Base Station. The POD featured important announcements, necessary precautions and general matters of interest to military personnel. One of the regular features of the POD was the “action line inquiry” (NAVSTA ACTION LINE INQUIRY), a telephone answering device in the Office of the Admin Asst intended to provide personnel access to the Commanding Officer on matters they feel should be brought to his attention for correction or investigation. On February 3, 1978, the POD under the (NAVSTA) action line inquiry, published and mentioned a certain “AURING” as “…a disgrace to her division and to the Office of the Provost Marshal. The same article explicitly implied that Auring was consuming and appropriating for herself confiscated items like cigarettes and foodstuffs. The PR was the only one who was named “Auring” in the Office of the Provost Marshal. As a result thereof, she was investigated by her superior. The PR commenced an ACTION FOR DAMAGES in the CFI of Zambales against M.H. Wylie, Capt. James Williams and the US Naval Base alleging that the article constituted false, injurious, and malicious defamation and libel tending to impeach her honesty, virtue and reputation exposing her to public hatred, contempt and ridicule. The TC ruled in favor of the PR and dismissed the suit against the US Naval Base. The IAC (now,CA) affirmed the judgment of the TC with modifications as to the amt. of damages awarded. ISSUE: W/N the American naval officers (such as Wylie and Capt. Williams) who commit a crime or tortious act while discharging official functions still covered by the principle of state immunity from suit. Does the grant of rights, power, and authority to the US under the RP-US Bases Treaty cover immunity of its officers from crimes and torts?

RULING: NO. The general rule is that public officials can be held personally accountable for acts claimed to have been performed in connection with official duties where they have acted ultra vires or where there is showing of bad faith (Chavez v. Sandiganbayan). It may be argued, as a general rule, that Capt. Williams as commanding officer of the naval base was far removed in the chain of command from the offensive publication and it would be asking too much to hold him responsible for everything which goes wrong on the base. However, in this particular case, the records show that the offensive publication was sent to the commanding officer for approval and that he approved it. ART. 2176, CC prescribes a civil liability for damages caused by a person’s act or omission constituting fault or negligence, stating that, “Whoever by act or omission, causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence,..” Moreover, ART. 2219(7), CC provides that moral damages may be recovered in case of libel, slander or any other form of defamation.” Indeed, the imputation of theft contained in the POD was a defamation against the character and reputation of the PR. Petitioner Wylie himself admitted that the Office of the Provost Marshal explicitly recommended the deletion of the name “Auring” if the article will be published. The petitioners, however, were NEGLIGENT because under their direction, they issued the publication without deleting the said name. Such act or omission was ULTRA VIRES and CANNOT be deemed part of official duty. It was a TORTIOUS ACT which ridiculed the PR. As a result of petitioners’ act, PR suffered besmirched reputation, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation, especially so, since the article was baseless and false. The petitioners, alone, in their personal capacities, are liable for the damages they caused the Private Respondent.

there being fault or negligence. and is an exchange student taking a medical course at the Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan. petitioner repudiated their marriage agreement and asked her not to live with him anymore and that the petitioner was already married to someone living in Bacolod City. It can even be said that petitioner committed such deplorable acts in blatant disregard of ARTICLE 19. beguile and deceive the poor woman into believing that indeed. His profession of love and promise to marry her were empty words directly intended to fool. *ART. Sometime in Aug. customs and traditions. She was a virgin before she began living with him. that 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. Filipino. ISSUE: W/N damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. was not at all moved by good faith and an honest motive. proof that he had. the Court holds. The petitioner. 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. She alleges in said complaint that she is 22 yrs old. As a result of such maltreatment. In view of the laudable purpose of Art. which is designed to expand the concept of torts or quasi-delict 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 statutes. 1987. The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. petitioner’s attitude towards her started to change. FACTS: Private Respondent (PR) filed with the RTC of Pangasinan a COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES against the petitioner for the alleged violation of their agreement to get married. During a confrontation with a representative of the Brgy. petitioner. the Civil Code contains a provision. he loved her and would want her to be his life’s partner. SET 1: . which defines a quasi-delict. in this instant case. 21. This notwithstanding. RULING: YES. Such fault or negligence…” is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes the notion of willfulness or intent. that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals. No foreigner must be allowed to make a mockery of our laws. agreed to get married after the end of the school semester. superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded. dupe. Petitioner then visited the PR’s parents in Pangasinan to secure their approval to the marriage. 21. His was nothing but pure lust which he wanted satisfied by a Filipina. The lower court rendered a decision favoring the PR ordering the petitioner to pay the former damages and attorney’s fees. 21. CA and MARILOU T. petitioner forced her to live with him in the Lozano Apts. no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act. 2176 CC. Petitioner clearly violated the Filipino’s concept of morality and defied the traditional respect Filipinos have for their women. It is essential. on the other hand.SET 1: (4) GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH. PR sustained injuries. ART. good customs or public policy. The latter courted and proposed to marry her and she accepted his love on the condition that they would get married. Art. HON. could justify the award of damages pursuant to Art. single. 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to marry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction – connoting essentially the idea of deceit. that is. enticement. obviously from the very beginning. and a pretty lass of good moral character and reputation duly respected in her community. thus: “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. respondents. of Guilig. He maltreated and threatened to kill her. is obliged to pay for the damage done. vs. entice. petitioner. Thus. They therefore. CC which directs every person to act with justice give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his obligations. is an Iranian citizen residing at Lozano Apts in Dagupan City. GONZALES. Capt. Marrying with a woman so circumstanced could not have even remotely occurred to him. in reality. A week before the filing of the complaint. The CA affirmed in toto the trial court’s ruling. however.

to prove the same. as to the purported waiver. went off the road. The TC dismissed the complaint. a “SNAPPING SOUND” was suddenly heard at one part of the bus and. petitioner boarded. on the other hand averred that the vehicular mishap was due to force majeure and that the petitioner had already been paid and had waived any right to institute an action against him and his driver upon signing the said Joint Affidavit. a statutory presumption arises that the common carrier was at fault or had acted negligently. shortly thereafter. et al. we must construe any such purported waiver most strictly against the common carrier. The terms of the Joint Affidavit. against the said driver and owner of the said Thames. Several passengers. must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a person to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. Adela Delim. petitioners. First. and that the scar diminished her facial beauty and deprived her of opportunities for employment. coupled with the driver’s refusal or neglect to stop the mini-bus after he had heard once again the “snapping sound” and the cry of alarm from one of the passengers. because it was an accident and the said driver and owner of the said Thames have gone to the extent of helping us to be treated upon our injuries. to be valid and effective. In case of death or injuries to passengers. good customs and public policy. She alleged that her injuries sustained from the vehicular mishap had left her with a conspicuous white scar on the forehead. ISSUE: W/N PR has successfully proved that he had exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent the mishap involving his mini-bus. during the trial. cannot be regarded as a waiver cast in “clear and unequivocal” terms. Curiously. La Union. ordered to pay petitioner compensatory and moral damages as well as attorney’s fees and costs. he did not even attempt. respondent’s “Thames” mini bus at a point in San Eugenio. CA. Respondent is thus. which stated in part. sign an already prepared Joint Affidavit.” Notwithstanding this document. The respondent.(6) REYNALDA GATCHALIAN. wife of respondent. tried to exculpate himself from liability by alleging that the mishap was the result of force majeure. The obvious continued failure of respondent to look after the roadworthiness and safety of the bus. that petitioner was still reeling from the effects of the vehicular accident when the purported waiver was presented to her for signing. constituted wanton disregard of the physical safety of the passengers. DELIM and the HON. ARSENIO respondents. the vehicle bumped a cement flower pot on the side of the road. in the instant case. The CA however. vs. petitioner. bound for Bauang. Delim left. morals. For a waiver to be valid and effective. There was substantial doubt whether she actually intended to waive any right of action against PR. she had the injured passengers. He however. “UNLESS it proves that it had observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in ARTICLES 1733 and 1755. Bauang. A DUTY TO EXERCISE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in protecting the safety of its passengers is imposed upon a common carrier. the Court held that no waiver of petitioner’s cause of action had been made. . while the bus was running along the highway in Barrio Payocpoc. including petitioner. before Mrs. the record yields affirmative evidence of fault or negligence on the part of respondent common carrier. of the same province. criminal or civil. While the injured passengers were still confined in the hospital. However. gross negligence on the part of respondent and his driver. Aringay. it must also be not contrary to law. as a paying passenger. and hence. A waiver. and as a result. They were promptly taken to Bethany Hosp at San Fernando. the circumstances under which it was signed by the petitioner need to be considered. generating mental suffering and an inferiority on her part. Upon the other hand. The records before the Court are bereft of any evidence showing that respondent had exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law. Moreover. visited them and later paid for their hospitalization and medical expenses. were injured. Considering that what is involved here is the liability of a common carrier for injuries sustained by passengers in respect of whose safety a common carrier must exercise EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE. FACTS: At noon time on July 1973. she had to retire in seclusion and stay away from her friends. RULING: NO. for medical treatment. petitioner Gatchalian filed with the then CFI of La Union an ACTION EXTRA CONTRACTU to recover compensatory and moral damages. including petitioner Gatchalian. On the way. among others: “That we are no longer interested to file a complaint. La Union. turned turtle and fell into a ditch. La Union. Mrs. SET 2: (4) VICENTE RELLOSA. vs. reversed the TC’s decision that there had been a valid waiver but affirmed the dismissal by denying the petitioner’s claim for damages. The Decisions appealed from are reversed and set aside.

they had until Dec. 1989) ordering the demolition of the houses of resps. Evidently. the said Resolution was not yet final and executory. 22. give everyone his due. 19989 within which to perfect an administrative appeal and until such time.) RULING: YES. a legal wrong is committed for which the actor can be held accountable. hired workers to commence the aforesaid demolition but it did not take place. The said Order was not yet final and executory. Ortega (on Dec. since they received a copy of the Resolution on Dec. 1989 Resolution of the Office of the Building Official. and not in disregard of. the standard set by Art. However. requires every person to act with justice. ISSUE: W/N petitioners are liable for damages. After the demise of Marta. 7.. CC.GONZALO PELLOSIS. Victor informed the resps that. 19 of the CC. . over the years. as well as attorney’s fees. Malate. together with her father and co-petitioner Rellosa. Petitioner might verily be the owner of the land. with right to enjoy and to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. for the untimely demolition of the houses. and not in disregard of. they did not! The petitioners implemented the order of demolition barely five days after resps received a copy thereof. 27. The TC dismissed the complaint but on appeal. 12). being the parties adversely affected by the Nov. the resps filed with the RTC of Manila a suit for the Declaration of Nullity of the Sale of the land to Ortega predicated upon their right of first refusal. FACTS: Respondents were lessees of a parcel of land. 27. The appellate court ruled that pursuant to paragraph 23 of the IRR of PD 1096 (Building Code). et al. The resps filed their appeal (on Dec. without the respondents’ knowledge. located at San Pascual St. 11) contesting the said Order but the petitioners once again hired workers and proceeded with the demolition of resps’ houses (on Dec. As a result. the same was not yet final and executory. 12. They built their houses on the land which. when appellees commenced to demolish appellants’ houses as early as Dec. 1989. On the other hand. Victor Reyes. sometime in 1989. Thus. City of Manila. underwent continuous improvements. (W/N petitioners have acted in conformity with. they are liable for damages. The ABUSE OF RIGHTS RULE under ARTICLE 19. Notably. the CA reversed the same. The latter received copies of the same on Dec. owned by one Marta Reyes. 8. the land was inherited by her son. 8. respondents. appellants. bur the exercise of these rights is not without limitations. but whether or not petitioners have acted in conformity with. However. Ortega filed a Petition for Condemnation with the Office of the Building Official. The issue is not existence of the right or validity of the order of demolition. neither the Resolution of the Building Official nor the Demolition Order itself were final and executory. the standard set by Article 19 of the Civil Code. The Office of the Building Official issued a resolution (Nov. The action of petitioners up to the point where they were able to secure an order of demolition was not condemnable BUT IMPLEMENTING THE ORDER UNDMINDFUL OF THE RIGHTS OF RESPS TO CONTEST THE RULING WAS A DIFFERENT MATTER AND COULD ONLY BE HELD UTTERLY INDEFENSIBLE. the said land was sold to petitioner Cynthia Ortega who was able to secure title to the property in her name. When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in damage to another. had 15 days from receipt of the copy of the same to perfect an administrative appeal. 1989. 1989. Sometime in 1986. 7. 1989 and eventually on Dec. and observe honesty and good faith. the resps filed a Civil Case praying that petitioners be ordered to pay moral and exemplary damages. for being lessees of the land for more than 20 years. Manila. of the structures on the land. 1989). they would have the right of first refusal to buy the land.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful