You are on page 1of 10


G.R. No. L-63915
April 24, 1985
En Banc

FACTS: Petitioners asked for the issuance of the Writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to publish in the Official Gazette the unpublished
Executive Issuances such as; Presidential Decrees, Proclamations, Executive Orders, general orders, letters of implementation, and
administrative orders. In defense, respondents stated that the petitioners have no legal personality in the case citing sec. 3 of rule 65 of the Rules
of Court which lays-out the requirement for filing for a Writ of Mandamus. Petitioners contended that the issue touches the public and thereby
does not require any special circumstance to institute an action. On the other hand, respondents stated that publication of the mentioned issuances
is not a sine qua non requirement as the Law provides its own affectivity date as stated in Art. 2 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not publication affects the validity of the Executive Issuances.

RULING: The Supreme Court in its decision, ordered the respondents to publish the Executive Issuances of general application, and further stated
that failure for publication would render the Issuances no binding force and effect.

It was explained that such publication is essential as it gives basis to the legal maxim known as ignorantia legis non excusat. Thus, failure to
publish would make create injustice as would it would punish the citizen for transgression of the law which he had no notice.
The court declared that Presidential issuances with general application without publication would be inoperative and null and void. However, some
justices in their concurring opinions made a qualification stating that publication is not an absolute requirement for the publication. As Justice
Fernando stated that, publication is needed but it must not only confined in the Official Gazette because it would make those other laws not
published in the Official Gazette bereft of any binding force or effect.

G.R. No. L-63915 December 29, 1986 [Effectivity and Application of Laws]

FACTS: Petitioners Lorenzo M. Tanada, et. al. invoked due process in demanding the disclosure of a number of Presidential Decrees which they
claimed had not been published as required by Law. The government argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when
it was otherwise provided, as when the decrees themselves declared that they were to become effective immediately upon approval. The court
decided on April 24, 1985 in affirming the necessity for publication of some of the decrees. The court ordered the respondents to publish in the
official gazette all unpublished Presidential Issuances which are of general force and effect. The petitioners suggest that there should be no
distinction between laws of general applicability and those which are not. The publication means complete publication, and that publication must
be made in the official gazette.

ISSUE: Whether or not all laws shall be published in the official gazette.

RULING: The court held that all statute including those of local application shall be published as condition for their effectivity, which shall begin
15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

The publication must be full or no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the content of the laws. The clause “unless otherwise
provided” in Article 2 of the new Civil Code meant that the publication required therein was not always imperative, that the publication when
necessary, did not have to be made in the official gazette.

and 4. and that respondent was the proper party to file it. despite having imported food grade wheat. an action for declaratory relief (Rule 63. wheat is classified according to: a) Importer or consignee b) Country of origin. 5) Respondent contented that CMO 27-2003 was issued without following the mandate of the Revised Administrative Code on public participation. c) it is not limited to existing conditions only. The guarantee of equal protection of laws is not violated when there is a reasonable classification. it must be shown that a) it rests on substantial distinctions. We do not see how the quality of wheat is affected by who imports it. and d) it applies equally to all members of the same class. CMO 27-2003 was internal administrative rule not legislative in nature. COMMISIONER OF CUSTOMS VS HYPERMIX FEEDS CO. 2O12 FACTS 1) November 7 2003. . the rules on contested cases shall be observed. 6) Respondent also alleged that the regulation summarily adjudged it to be a feed grade supplier without the benefit of prior assessment and examination. 4) A month after the issuance of CMO 27-200 respondent filed a petition for declaratory for Relief with the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City. (2) In the fixing of rates. Filing. The RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 2 weeks before the first hearing thereon.  The Equal Protection Clause means that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place in the like circumstances. Depending on these factors wheat would be classified as either as food grade or food feed. b) it is germane to the purpose of the law.  Petitioners violated respondents right to equal protection of laws when they provided for unreasonable classification in the application of the regulation. for tariff purposes. 2. 9) RTC held that a petition for declaratory relief was proper remedy. an agency shall. 8) Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss. The claims of respondent were speculative and premature. as far as practicable. where it is discharged or which country it came from. c) 3.1 “who may file petition”) was improper. ISSUE WON Whether or not the CMO 27-2003 of the petitioner met the requirements for the Revised Administrative Code? Whether or not the content of the CMO 27-2003 met the requirement of the equal protection clause of the Constitution DECISION NO  The petitioners violated respondents’ right to due process in the issuance of CMO 27-2003 when they failed to observe the requirements under the Administrative Code which are: Sec 3. GR 179579 FEBRUARY 01. Public Participation. . They alleged that: 1. it would be subjected to the 7% tariff upon the arrival of the shipment.  For a classification to be reasonable. forcing to pay 133%. because the Bureau of Customs had yet to examine respondent’s products. 2) Under the memorandum. 7) Respondent also claimed that the equal protection clause of the Constitution was violated and asserted that the retroactive application of the regulation was confiscatory in nature. prior notice. Rules in force on the date of effectively of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the bases of any sanction against any party of persons. (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. 3) The corresponding tariff for food grade wheat was 3%. Sec 9. 3. Sec.(1) If not otherwise required by law. publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. for food feed grade 7%. and publication or registration with University of the Philippines Law Canter.(3) In case of opposition.  CMO 27-2003 is not constitutional because it failed to meet the equal protection clause. Petitioner Commissioner of Customs went beyond his powers of delegated authority when the regulation limited the powers of the customs officer to examine and assess imported articles. petitioner Commissioner of Customs issued CMO 27-2003 (Customs Memorandum Order). Port of discharge.

The case was about the validity of the subject ordinance as questioned by the petitioners. the instant petition. the same shall be presumed consistent with law and therefore valid. the subject ordinance was deemed approved1 upon failure of the SP to declare the same invalid within 30 days. In accordance with the presumption of validity in favor of an ordinance. in the absence of positive proof to the contrary.  On April 11 and May 20. it should be deemed approved and valid pursuant to Section 56 (d) of the Local Government Code.  Petitioners had the burden of proving their own allegations. NOTES  SB forwards the approved ordinance to SP within 3 days after approval  July 8. 2002. 2002. the Court finds on reversible error committed by the CA in upholding the validity of the subject ordinance. their constitutionality or legality should be upheld in the absence of evidence showing that the procedure prescribed by law was not observed in their enactment. petitioners had the burden of proving their own allegation. Acaac. PETAL built cottages on Capayas Island. and Building Official Marietes B. Jr. Jr. no action from SP). and it was not approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. 187378. GR No. September 30. was the founder of the NGO called PETAL. bears to note that more than 30 days have already elapsed from the time the subject ordinance was submitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for review by the Sangguniang Bayan. their constitutionality or legality should be upheld in the absence of evidence showing that the procedure prescribed by law was not observed in their enactment. however.” In this case. 2002 – respondents sent Notice of Voluntary Demolition to petitioners (more than 30 days after the adoption of ordinance.  On November 26. 59 of Republic Act No. which it rented out to the public and became the source of livelihood of its beneficiaries. 16 of the LGC). in the absence of positive proof to the contrary. petitioners maintain the subject ordinance cannot be deemed approved through the mere passage of time. the Sangguniang Bayan of Lopez Jaena adopted a subject ordinance. injunction. Hence. Likewise. according to the CA. While Sec. alleging that they have prior vested rights to occupy and utilize Capayas Island. while also assailing the validity of the subject ordinance on the grounds that it was adopted without public consultation. which prohibited the entry of any entity and the construction of any structures in the area of Capayas Island which Mayor Azcuna.  All the courts ruled that PETAL have no proprietary rights over the Capayas island due to absence of building permit and title. 2002 – SB adopted ordinance. The case lasted 11 years. MAIN DOCTRINE. All told.  On the same date. which they.  RTC added that the authority and control over Capayas Island belong to the DENR. while also assailing the validity of the subject ordinance adopted by the respondents that prohibits entry and building of structures in the disputed property. ISSUES 1. It.  The CA denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on March 9. It also gave credence to the respondent that the subject ordinance was posted and published and that public consultations were conducted before the subject ordinance was passed. 2002. We have a right to assume that officials have done that which the law requires them to do. Bonalos issued separate Notices of Illegal Construction against PETAL. In accordance with the presumption of validity in favor of an ordinance. failed to do. 2013 When laws take effect A petition for review on Certiorari assailing the ruling of the Court of Appeals. 2002.  On the contrary. August 23. the RTC declared the subject ordinance as invalid/void on the same grounds that the petitioners laid down. “if no action has been taken by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan within 30 days after submission of such an ordinance or resolution. petitioners filed an action against the respondents before the RTC alleging that they have prior vested rights to occupy and utilize Capayas Island. publication. however. 2009. Whether or not the subject ordinance is valid and enforceable against petitioners HELD Yes. adopted on July 12. based on grounds of adoption without public consultation. July12. adopted ordinance. Thus. 7160 or “The Local Government Code” required the main features of ordinances duly enacted or adopted be published in a newspaper of general circulation. FACTS  The petitioner. There was a third and final notice sent on July 8. ordering it to stop all illegal activities on the island due to the absence of a building permit. and approval by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. respondents Mayor Melquiades D. We also have a right to assume that officials have done that which the law requires them to do.  On October 29. a Notice of Voluntary Demolition was served upon PETAL directing it to remove the structures it built since it was a violation of the subject ordinance. JR. SUMMARY. Ramonito O. Azcuna. ACAAC VS AZCUNA. The petitioners filed an action praying for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. and damages against the respondents. Petitioners failed to present any evidence to show that no publication of the subject ordinance was made. On August 23. Jr. 1 Section 56 of the Local Government Code . Section 56 of the LGC (d) provides that. it was not published in a newspaper of general circulation. 2002 but the same remained unheeded. 2004. 2002 – Azcuna. but the appellate Court ruled that the Municipality of Lopez Jaena was vested with sufficient power and authority to pass and adopt the subject ordinance (Sec 447 in relation to Sec.

2001 of R. and the Court of Appeals – all appear to have overlooked a single fact which dictates the outcome of the entire controversy. who was then instructed by the higher management of the bank to investigate the anomalous/highly irregular activities of the said officers. No. Actually. It does not matter if that such disclosure was necessary to establish Citibank’s case against Dante L. No. 9160 otherwise known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001. known as the “Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines. The complaint was attached with the affidavit of Vic Lim. with the authority of Reyes. would appear to belong to that species of criminal acts punishable by special laws. Some of the documents pertained to the dollar deposits of petitioners. A case for violation of Republic Act No. No. dollar deposits. Resort to the Court. petitioners filed respective motions for the exclusion and physical withdrawal of their bank records that were attached to Lim’s affidavit. Santos and Marilou Genuino. the Solicitor General. 1405. 1405. NO. referred the matter to the CA which then held that the disclosure was proper and falls under the exception under R. 6426 there is only a single exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits.A. Private respondents Lim and Reyes admitted that they had disclosed details of petitioners’ dollar deposits without the latter’s written permission. 2002 FACTS: Citibank filed a complaint for violation of the Corporation Code against 2 of its officers. disclosure is allowed only upon the written permission of the depositor. The finest legal minds in the country – from the parties’ respective counsel. A circumspect review of the record shows us the reason. INTENGAN V. Private respondents appealed before the DOJ which ruled in their favor. 1405. called malum prohibitum. No. 1405 but Republic Act (RA) No.” Thus. 6426 should have been the proper case brought against private respondents. the applicable law is not Republic Act No. VP of Citibank. the Provincial Prosecutor. 128996 FEBRUARY 15. RULING: NO. The filing of Informations against private respondents was recommended for alleged violation of Republic Act No. . Incidentally. Lim annexed bank records purporting to establish the deception practiced by the officers. The accounts in question are U. this case should have been studied more carefully by all concerned. ISSUE: Whether or not the disclosure falls under the exception under R. The action to assail the disclosure of herein private respondents for them to be liable for violating RA 6426 had already prescribed. under R. As evidence. COURT OF APPEALS G.A. the Department of Justice. the acts of private respondents complained of happened before the enactment on September 29.A. consequently. Lim’s act of disclosing details of petitioners’ bank records regarding their foreign currency deposits.S. 6426.R.A. As an incident to the foregoing. that is. *The decision however was still unfavorable to the petitioners since there is an issue as to prescription.

Meanwhile. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. This report however expressly stated that further investigation was still to be conducted. malicious. HELD: Supreme Court held that petitioners have indeed abused the right that they invoke. CA G. then the employer is liable for damages to the employee. petitioners hired a private investigator. On the other side. Jose Fernandez who submitted a report finding Tobias guilty. oppressive. not to communicate with the office. Respondent was the one who discovered the anomalies and reported them to his immediate superior Ferraren and to petitioner Herbert C.Art 19 GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP V. and abusive acts of petitioners. The imputation of guilt without basis and the pattern of harassment during the investigations of Tobias transgress the standards of human conduct set forth in Article 19 of the New Civil Code. Secretary of Labor reinstated the labor arbiter’s decision. Metro Manila Police Chief Document Examiner. petitioners and respondent Tobias entered into a compromise agreement regarding the complaint for illegal dismissal. Tobias sought employment with the Republic Telephone Company (RETELCO). ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are liable for damages to respondent in relation to Article 19 of the New Civil Code. act with justice. may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another. signatures. Tobias filed a complaint for illegal dismissal which has been dismissed by the labor arbiter.R. Dioscoro Tagle. without being asked by RETELCO. later amended to just estafa. If the dismissal is done abusively. the petitioner must indemnify him for the damage that he had suffered. five other criminal complaints were filed against Tobias. Furthermore. the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the labor arbiter’s decision. Tobias received a notice from petitioners that his employment has been terminated. Tobias appealed the Secretary of Labor’s order with the Office of the President. Petitioner Hendry issued a memorandum suspending Tobias from work preparatory to the filing of criminal charges against him. and initials appearing in the checks and other documents were not those of Tobias. petitioner Hendry went up to him and called him a “crook” and a “swindler. . globe Mackay discovered fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions for which it lost several thousands of pesos. a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. A day after respondent Tobias made the report. to leave his table drawers open and to leave the office keys.” Tobias was then ordered to take a lie detector test. lie detector tests conducted on Tobias also yielded negative results. A right. However. During the pendency of the appeal. Manila police investigators submitted a laboratory crime report clearing private respondent of participation in the anomalies. Not satisfied with the police report. causing damage to Tobias and for which the respondent must be indemnified. All of the six criminal complaints were dismissed by the fiscal. and initials for examination by the police investigators to determine his complicity in the anomalies. the petitioners clearly failed to exercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias. Notwithstanding the two police reports. though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such. When respondent Tobias returned to work after the forced leave. On appeal. wrote a letter to the latter stating that Tobias was dismissed by Globe Mackay due to dishonesty. after investigating other documents pertaining to the alleged anomalous transactions. Tobias was confronted by Hendry who said that respondent Tobias was a ‘crook’ and a ‘swindler’ to the company. Article 19 of the New Civil Code provides that. he was instructed to submit specimen of his handwriting. submitted a report reiterating his previous finding that the handwritings. sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties. In 1972. 1989 FACTS: Respondent Restituto Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay in a dual capacity. Subsequently. giving the latter the right to recover damages under Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code. Respondent Tobias filed a civil case for damages anchored on alleged unlawful. as a purchasing agent and administrative assistant to the engineering operations manager. Hendry who was then the Executive Vice President and General Manager of Globe Mackay. petitioner Hendry confronted him by stating that he was the number one suspect and ordered him to take one week forced leave. petitioners filed with the City Fiscal of Manila a complaint for estafa through falsification of commercial documents. signature. Considering that the first report made by the police investigators was yet to be submitted. 81262 August 25. Unemployed. Petitioners contend that they could not be made liable for damages in the lawful exercise of their right to dismiss respondent. the statement made by Hendry was baseless. Moreover. “Every person must. and observe honesty and good faith.” This article. Also. known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights. The Court has already ruled that the right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised and the effect flowing therefrom. Under the circumstances of this case. petitioner Hendry. Upon reporting for work. respondent contends that because of petitioners’ abusive manner in dismissing him as well as for the inhuman treatment he got from them. NO. give everyone his due.

Quiñones. besmirched reputation. Respondent filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners. Excelsis Villagonzalo. petitioners acted in bad faith and the award for moral damages and attorney’s fees to respondent was proper. The principle of abuse of rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code is present in the case. The Regional Trial Court dismissed both the complaint and counterclaim stating that the petitioners acted in good faith and the respondent was the one who put herself in that situation by inviting the Guess employees to the Cebu Pacific Office to discuss about the issue of payment. as well as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. 175822 (October 23. They sought payment for moral and exemplary damages. . Thus. moral shock and humiliation.00 as attorney’s fees. sleepless nights.00 as moral damages and P20.. LEGAL ISSUE Whether or not petitioners acted in bad faith which resulted to the Court of Appeals awarding moral damages and attorney’s fees to respondent. (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Shirley G. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision.R. alleging that due to the incident. Since petitioners acted in bad faith. attorney’s fees and litigation expenses as counterclaim. serious apprehension. “The elements of abuse of rights are as follows: (1) there is a legal right or duty. the Guess employees allegedly humiliated her in front of the clients of Cebu Pacific. Did the Guess employees violate Articles 20 and 21 of Civil Code of the Philippines? RULING Yes. The Guess employees submitted two letters to the Director of Cebu Pacific narrating the incident but the said letters were not received. The exercise of rights is subject to limitations. respondent went home. it must be in accordance with the purpose of its establishment and not abused. petitioners continued to insist that there was no payment made when respondent already presented the black jeans with the original receipt. and exemplary damages. she presented an official receipt and suggested that they should talk about the matter in the Cebu Pacific Office located within the mall. Second. Quiñones. fright. The court cited the case of Carpio vs. INC. CALIFORNIA CLOTHING.” The elements stated are complete in the present case. First. (2) which is exercised in bad faith. Nevertheless. a Guess employee approached her and said that she failed to pay for the black jeans. nominal. the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the Regional Trial Court decision stating that there was preponderance of evidence showing the petitioners acted in bad faith but. Petitioners stated that they approached the respondent to clarify whether or not payment was made and that they approached and talked to the respondent in a gentle and polite manner. respondent was entitled to damages and attorney’s fees. QUIÑONES G. bought a pair of black jeans worth P2. mental anguish. a ticketing agent of Cebu Pacific Air. she suffered physical anxiety. Ybañez. vs. Inc. She demanded payment for moral. Imelda Hawayon and Michelle S.00 from Guess USA Boutique. While they were in the office.000. Another argument ensued and after that.098. No. Respondent was awarded P50. Hawayon and Villagonzalo were absolved from liability due to good faith. Shirley G.000. the letters sent to the respondent’s employer was not only intended to ask for assistance in collection of the payment but also to ruin the respondent’s reputation. While she was on her way to Mercury Drug Store. 2013) LEGAL FACTS Respondent. Third. Respondent complained when petitioners embarrassed her and insisted that she did not pay for the black jeans despite the issuance of an official receipt in her favor. repeatedly demanded payment and even searched the respondent’s wallet to check how much money she had. Valmonte in which the elements of abuse of rights were enumerated. However. California Clothing. they accused the respondent that not only did she fail to pay for the black jeans but she intentionally stole it and quickly left the shop.

through Dir III Cesar Mejia.A. Nonetheless. or use an expired or revoked certificate or license. Office of the Dist. Eng. respondent filed the complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against petitioner before the RTC. Lacap won the bid for concreting of a certain baranggay. 1995. No. Eng sought the opinion of DPWH legal. shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor. without first securing a license to engage in the business of contracting in this country. Thus. and shall. Republic v. commission.R. ruling by the RTC granting the complaint for Specific Performance and damages filed by Lacap against RP • Dist. G. as void contracts entered into by a contractor whose license had already expired. with modifications. The "plain meaning rule" or verba legis in statutory construction is that if the statute is clear. and thereafter undertook the works and purchased materials and labor in connection with • On Oct 29. Lacap thereafter sought the payment of the DPWH • DPWH withheld payment on the grounds that the CoA disapproved final release of funds due to Lacap’s license as contractor having expired • Dist. . Any contractor who. plain and free from ambiguity. Eng conducted final investigation of end product and fount it 100% completed according to specs. 4566 are clear. 1992. and the costs of the suit • CA affirmed the decision but lowered interest to 6% ISSUE WON a contractor with an expired license is entitled to be paid for completed projects RULING A contractor with an expired license is entitled payment for completed projects. Such payment. • Following the submission of respondent’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.14 • On September 14. it must be given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation. 12% interest from demand until fully paid. 1996. 1995. No. No. issued First Indorsement on July 20 1994 recommending that payment be made to Lacap. the OSG filed its Answer invoking the defenses of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and the doctrine of non-suability of the State • Following trial. Penalties. 1996 denying the Motion to Dismiss. upon conviction. but does not exonerate him from corresponding fines thereof. submits or attempts to submit a bid to construct. or contracts to or undertakes to construct. Lacap. 4566 explicitly provides: “SEC. filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the complaint states no cause of action and that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the nature of the action since respondent did not appeal to the COA the decision of the District Auditor to disapprove the claim. • On August 5.the RTC issued an Order dated March 11. through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). 35. however. or assumes charge in a supervisory capacity of a construction work within the purview of this Act. give false evidence of any kind to the Board. Despite such recommendation. be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than five hundred pesos but not more than five thousand pesos. petitioner. Of Pampanga issued an invitation to bid dated Jan 27. fee or wage. for a price. respondent should be paid for the projects he completed. 1996. The wordings of R. no payment was issued • On July 3. 158253 March 2. the RTC rendered on February 19. assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed. 1997 a decision ordering DPWH to pay Lacap for the contract of the project. or who shall present or file the license certificate of another. 2007 FACTS • Case is a petition for certoriari. It does not declare. expressly or impliedly. impersonate another. 1992 where Lacap and two other contractors were pre-qualified • Being the lowest bidder. Legal then responded to Dist. The OSG filed a Motion for Reconsideration18 but it was likewise denied by the RTC in its Order dated May 23. is without prejudice to the payment of the fine prescribed under the law. or any member thereof in obtaining a certificate or license. such contractor is liable for payment of the fine prescribed therein.A. Eng that the Contractors License Law (RA 4566) does not provide that a contract entered into by a contractor after expiry of license is void and that there is no law that expressly prohibits or declares void such a contract • DPWH Legal Dept. Section 35 of R.

No. 19. It recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights. In this case. the connection of water supply as well as other utilities remained in the name of Ardiente which was never questioned. JAVIER. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. and in the performance of his duties. a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. The decision being contested sprouted from the cutting off of water supply of Pastorfide by the Cagayan de Oro Water District as requested by Ardiente. that in their exercise. and observe honesty and good faith. . act with justice. The principle of abuse of Rights in the enshrined Article 19 of the civil Code provides that every person must. (Art. Ardiente owned a piece of property. coupled with her failure to warn or at least notify respondent spouses of such intention. 2013 [Civil Law: human relations. and observe honesty and good faith. ET AL G. Petitioner's acts which violated the abovementioned provisions of law is her unjustifiable act of having the respondent spouses' water supply disconnected. may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. ARDIENTE VS. New Ciivil Code of the Philippines) FACTS: A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the then decision of the RTC regarding its judgment sums of money for moral damages. July 17. RULING: No. give everyone his due. until such time that Pastorfide became delinquent in paying the water bill. give everyone his due. which was subsequently sold and conveyed to Pastorfide. act with justice. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another. in the exercise of his right. principle of abuse of rights. 161921. Article 19 of the Civil Code] Every person must. the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such. however. ISSUE: Whether or not it was proper for Ardiente together with Cagayan De Oro Water district to cut off the water supply of Pastorfide owing to the fact that Ardiente has already conveyed ownership of property to Pastorfide. A right.R. it was not proper.

there is no more need for a reservation of the right to file independent civil actions under Articles 32. §1 quite clearly requires that a reservation must be made to institute separately all civil actions for the recovery of civil liability. Now. No. 129282. otherwise they will be deemed to have been instituted with the criminal case. CA affirmed the trial court’s decision. 2176 of the Civil Code must be reserved otherwise they will be deemed instituted with the criminal action.” as originally provided in Rule III before the amendment of the Rules of Court in 1988. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the civil action could proceed independently of the criminal action. In other words the right of the injured party to sue separately for the recovery of the civil liability whether arising from crimes (ex delicto) or from quasi delict under Art. 2001) . November 29. NO. 104392 JANUARY 29. §1. figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger jeepney owned by respondent Boado along Loakan Road. Baguio City. CA G. Velez. A month later. 33. Such civil actions are not limited to those which arise “from the offense charged.R. G.R. ISSUE: Whether or not the civil action may proceed independently of the criminal action when no reservation of right to bring it separately was made. respondent Boado filed a civil case for damages against petitioner Maniago himself. 2001 FACTS: One of the shuttle buses owned by petitioner Ruben Maniago. *We have reached the conclusion that the right to bring an action for damages under the Civil Code must be reserved as required by Rule III. RULING: NO. To begin with. and driven by Herminio Andaya. otherwise it should be dismissed. petitioner reiterated his contention adding that the civil action could not proceed because no reservation to bring it separately was made in the criminal case. MANIAGO V. *NOTA BENE: This case is decided under the old rules on criminal procedure. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. On appeal to CA. The reservation and waiver referred to refers only to the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense charged (Case on Point: DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative v. Petitioner moved that the civil case be suspended citing that a criminal case was already pending. A criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries was filed against petitioner’s driver.

. ISSUE: Whether or not Ruby Lim acted abusively in asking Roberto Reyes to leave the party where he was not invited by the celebrant thereof.ART 19 NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN & RUBY LIM VS. Absent such intention and as the Court observed the conduct of Lim of asking Reyes to leave was in an exemplary manner. However. HELD: No. It was plaintiff’s reaction to the request that must have made the other guests aware of what transpired between them. 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. had plaintiff simply left the party as requested.R. Lim to humiliate Mr. FEBRUARY 28. Reyes did not leave the party as was instructed but created a scene thereby he was escorted out the party by the policeman. Reyes to leave the party to which he was not invited. Lim. neither can her employer. thereby. it is highly unlikely that she would shout at him from a very close distance. the testimony of Mr. Violeta Filart. NO. Ms. 2005 FACTS: Robeto Reyes known as “Amay Bisaya” was seen in a hotel lobby by his friend Dr. cannot be made liable to pay for damages under Articles 19 and 21of the Civil Code. Lim having been in the hotel business for twenty years wherein being polite and discreet are virtues to be emulated. Reyes and expose him to ridicule and shame. the coordinator of the party asked him to leave since it is an exclusive party and he is not one of those invited. Ruby Lim. Reyes that she acted to the contrary does not inspire belief and is indeed incredible. Necessarily. In the absence of any proof of motive on the part of Ms. who he identified to have invited him to the party of the hotel’s outgoing manager. 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. there can be no damages to be awarded. 154259. Thus. Any damage suffered by Reyes must be borne by him alone. He sued the hotel and Ruby Lim for damages. becoming liable under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. REYES G. be held liable as its liability springs from that of its employee. Ms. there was no need for the police to take him out. not having abused her right to ask Mr. Hotel Nikko.