Professional Documents
Culture Documents
- Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, nor is it constitutionally
provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended. Non- objectionable.The reason is that, as a general rule, no vested right may attach to,
publication means violation of the due process clause guaranteed by the Constitution. nor arise from, procedural laws.
- All statutes, including those of local application and private laws or laws that name a
public place in favor of a favored individual or laws that exempt an individual from Carolino v Senga
certain prohibitions or requirement, shall be published as a condition for their - Principles of article 4 of NCC also applies to amendments of statutes. Every case
effectivity. must be resolved against the retrospective effect.
- EO 200 allows the publication of laws in a newspaper of general circulation due to
erratic releases of the Official Gazette and of its limited readership. VESTED RIGHT - the right to enjoyment has become the property of some particular person
- The word “LAW” in Article 2 of the NCC includes CIRCULARS and or persons as a present interest. Fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or
REGULATIONS which prescribe penalties. Publication is required to apprise the controversy
public of the contents of the regulations and make the said penalties binding on the
persons affected thereby. Famanila v CA
- There was no clear proof that the waiver was wrangled from an unsuspecting or
De Roy v CA gullible person, or the terms of settlement were unconscionable on its face.
- There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official - To be valid and effective, waivers must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms,
Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. leaving no doubt as to the intention of those giving up a right or a benefit that legally
- It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of pertains to them.
decisions of the Supreme Court. Guy v CA
- To be valid and effective, a waiver must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms
Atienza v Brilliantes which leave no doubt as to the intention of a party to give up a right or benefitwhich
Exception to Art 4 - when laws are remedial in nature legally pertains to him.
- Article 40 of the Family Code applies to remarriages entered into after the effectivity - A waiver may not be attributed to a person when its terms do not explicitly and
of the Family Code regardless of the date of the first marriage. clearly evince intent to abandon a right.
- Article 256 of the same Code is given retroactive effect insofar as it does not - Any inheritance left to minors or incapacitated persons may be accepted by
prejudice vested rights. their parents or guardians. Parents or guardians may repudiate the inheritance
- Article 40 is a rule of procedure and Brillantes has not shown any vested right that left to their wards only by judicial authorization.
was impaired by the application of Art. 40. - Parents and guardians may not therefore repudiate the inheritance of their wards
without judicial approval. This is because repudiation amounts to an alienation of
Carlos v Sandoval property that must pass the court’s scrutiny in order to protect the interest of the
Expressly provides for prospectivity despite being a rule of procedure ward.
- The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages does not apply to - Furthermore, it must be emphasized that waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a
cases already commenced before March 15, 2003 although the marriage involved is known right. Where one lacks knowledge of a right, there is no basis upon which
within the coverage of the Family Code. waiver of it can rest.
- This is so, as the new Rule which became effective on March 15, 2003 is prospective - Ignorance of a material fact negates waiver, and waiver cannot be established by a
in application. consent given under a mistake or misapprehension of fact.
Sesbreno v CA, VECO Balicha’s (a member of the Philippine Constabulary) presence and participation in the entry
- Sesbreno was one of VECO’s customers under the metered service contract they had did not make the inspection a search by an agent of the State within the ambit of the guaranty.
entered into in March 1982. He was part of the team by virtue of his mission order authorizing him to assist and escort the
- One of the stipulations found in paragraph 9 of the contract is the continuing team during its routine inspection.
authority from its clients as consumers of the violation of contract (VOC) inspectors
employed by VECO to enter their premises at all reasonable hours to conduct an The CA correctly observed that the inspection did not zero in on Sesbreno’s residence
inspection of the meter without being liable for trespass to dwelling. because the other houses within the area were similarly subjected to the routine inspection.
- On May 11, 1989, the VOC inspectors conducted a routine inspection of the houses This, we think, eliminated any notion of malice or bad faith. Clearly, Sesbreno did not
at La Paloma Village including that of Sesbreno. establish his claim for damages if the respondents were not guilty of abuse of rights.
- The inspectors found Sesbreno’s meter, which was located at the garage, turned
upside down. They took photographs of it and in the presence of Sebreno’s maid Saldaga v Astorga
Baledio, one Chuchie Garcia and one Peter Sebreno, they removed said meter and - Regardless of whether the written contract between respondent and complainant is
replaced it with a new one. actually one of sale with pacto de retro or of equitable mortgage, respondent’s
- Plaintiff was in his office at that time and no one called to inform him of the actuations in his transaction with complainant, as well as in the present administrative
inspection. The VOC team then asked and received Garcia’s permission to enter the cases, clearly show a disregard for the highest standards of legal proficiency,
house itself to examine the kind and number of appliances and light and fixtures in morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing required from lawyers, for which
the household and determine its electrical load. respondent should be held administratively liable.
- Sesbreno sued VECO and VOC inspectors for damages contending that the - When respondent was admitted to the legal profession, he took an oath where he
inspection of his residence by the VOC team was unreasonable search for being undertook to “obey the laws,” “do no falsehood,” and “conduct [him]self as a lawyer
carried out without a search warrant and for being allegedly done with malice or bad according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion.”
faith. - If only respondent had been more circumspect and careful in the drafting and
preparation of the deed, then the controversy between him and complainant could
The constitutional guaranty against unlawful searches and seizures is intended to as a restraint have been avoided or, at the very least, easily resolved. His imprecise and misleading
against the Government and its agents tasked with law enforcement. It is to be invoked only wording of the said deed on its face betrayed lack of legal competence on his part. He
to ensure freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of State power. thereby fell short of his oath to “conduct [him]self as a lawyer according to the best
of [his] knowledge and discretion.”
In People v. Marti (193 S 57,67) it said: If the search is made upon the request of the law
enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. Coca cola Bottlers v Bernardo
However, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private According to the SC, the petitioner shall liable for damages for abuse of rights and unfair
establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the competition under the Civil Code. Both the RTC and the CA found that petitioner had
intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be employed oppressive and high-handed schemes to unjustly limit the market coverage and
invoked for only the act of the private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, diminish the investment returns of respondents. The CA summarized its findings as follows:
the protection againstunreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts
- This [cut-throat competition] is precisely what appellant did in order to take over the Buenaventura v CA
market: directly sell its products to or deal them off to competing stores at a price Is the aggrieved spouse in a marriage declared void by reason of psychological incapacity of
substantially lower than those imposed on its wholesalers. As a result, the the other spouse entitled to moral and exemplary damages under article 21 of the New Civil
wholesalers suffered losses, and in [respondents'] case, laid of a number of Code?
employees and alienated the patronage of its major customers including small-scale - It must be noted that Article 21 states that the individual must willfully cause loss or
stores. injury to another. There is a need that the act is willful and hence done in complete
- It must be emphasized that petitioner is not only a beverage giant, but also the freedom.
manufacturer of the products; hence, it sets the price. In addition, it took advantage of - It is contradictory to characterize acts as a product of psychological incapacity, and
the information provided by respondents to facilitate its takeover of the latter's usual hence beyond the control of the party because of an innate inability, while at the
business area. Distributors like respondents, who had assisted petitioner in its same time considering the same set of acts as willful.
marketing efforts, suddenly found themselves with fewer customers. Other - By declaring Noel as psychologically incapacitated, the possibility of awarding moral
distributors were left with no choice but to fold. damages on the same set of facts was negated.
- The award of moral damages should be predicated, not on the mere act of entering
Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code provide the legal bedrock for the award of damages into the marriage, but on specific evidence that it was done deliberately and with
to a party who suffers damage whenever another person commits an act in violation of some malice by a party who had knowledge of his/her disability and yet willfully concealed
legal provision; or an act which, though not constituting a transgression of positive law, the same.
nevertheless violates certain rudimentary rights of the party aggrieved.
Filinvest v Ngilay
In Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. CA, this Court held that under any of the above provisions - The sale of a homestead before the expiration of the 5-year prohibitory period
of law, an act that causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages. following the issuance of the homestead patent is null and void. The rule is settled
As explained by this Court in GF Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona: that the declaration of nullity of a contract which is void ab initio operates to restore
things to the state and condition in which they were found before the execution
The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears; and it disappears when it is abused, thereof.
especially to the prejudice of others. - Allowing respondents to keep the amount received from the petitioner is tantamount
to judicial acquiescence to unjust enrichment.
Meanwhile, the use of unjust, oppressive, or high-handed business methods resulting in unfair - Unjust enrichment exists “when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of
competition also gives a right of action to the injured party. another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the
fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
Petitioner cites Tolentino, who in turn cited Colin and Capitant. According to the latter, the - There is unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code when
act of "a merchant [who] puts up a store near the store of another and in this way attracts 1) a person is unjustly benefited, and
some of the latter's patrons" is not an abuse of a right. 2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.
- The principle of unjust enrichment essentially contemplates payment when there is
The scenario in the present case is vastly different: the merchant was also the producer who, no duty to pay, and the person who receives the payment has no right to receive it.
with the use of a list provided by its distributor, knocked on the doors of the latter's customers
and offered the products at a substantially lower price. Unsatisfied, the merchant even sold its Gonzalo v Tarnate
products at a preferential rate to another store within the vicinity. - Both parties were found to be in pari delicto by the court when they knowingly
entered into a void contract and as such no affirmative relief of any kind will be
Jurisprudence holds that when a person starts an opposing place of business, not for the sake given to one against the other.
of profit, but regardless of Joss and for the sole purpose of driving a competitor out of - Nonetheless, the application of the doctrine of in pari delicto is not always rigid. An
business, in order to take advantage of the effects of a malevolent purpose, that person is accepted exception arises when its application contravenes well-established public
guilty of a wanton wrong. policy. In this jurisdiction public policy is defined as “that principle of the law which
holds that no subject or citizen can lawfully do that which has the tendency to be Where the civil liability does not exist independently of the criminal responsibility, the
injurious to the public or against the public good.” extinction of the latter by death, ipso facto extinguishes the former, provided that death
- Unjust enrichment exists, according to Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc. (532 S 74), when a supervenes before final judgement.
person unjustly retains a benefit at the loss of another, or when a person retains
money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity Frias v San Diego (Art 31)
and good conscience.” Although petitioner was acquitted in the false testimony and perjury cases filed by respondent
- The prevention of unjust enrichment is a recognized public policy of the State. It is against her, those actions are entirely distinct from the collection of sum of money with
well to note that Article 22 “is part of the chapter of the Civil Code on Human damages filed by respondent against her.
Relations, the provisions of which were formulated as basic principles to be observed
for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of social Madeja v Caro (Art 33)
order; designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good The court allowed the prosecution of the civil action for damages arising from homicide with
conscience; guides for human conduct that should run as golden threads through reckless imprudence independently of the criminal action.
society to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal which is the sway and
dominance of justice.” Tuanda v Sandiganbayan
Two essential elements of prejudicial question
Castro v People 1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
- The SC however, enunciated that “At most Castro could have been liable for criminal action
damages under Article 26 (3) of the Civil Code. 2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed
- As an educator, he is supposed to be a role model for the youth. As such, he should
always act with justice, give everyone his due and honesty and good faith.” Beltran v People
For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to the criminal action as to cause the suspension
Ledesma v CA and Delmo of the latter pending the final determination of the civil case, it must appear not only that the
- Ledesma, then President of the West Visayas College, was adjudged liable for said civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based,
damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code for failure to graduate a student with but also that in the resolution of the issus raised in the aforesaid civil action, the guilt or
honors. Ledesma’s behavior relative to Miss Delmo’s case smacks of contemptuous innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
arrogance, oppression and abuse of power.
- It cannot be disputedthat Violeta Delmo went through a painful ordeal that was In the present case, the accused need not present a final judgment declaring his marriage void
brought about by Ledesma’s neglect of duty and callousness. for he can adduce evidence in the criminal case of the nullity of his marriage other than the
proof of a final judgment. More importantly, parties to a marriage should not be allowed to
Campugan v Tolentino judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the competent courts. So
long as there is no such final judgment the presumption is that the marriage exists for all
People v Bayotas (Art 30, dependent civil actions) intents and purposes. Therefore he who cohabits with a woman not his wife risks being
In the Castillo case, the Court said that civil liability is extinguished only when death of the prosecuted for concubinage.
accused occurred before the final judgement. There will be no civil liability if criminal
liability does not exist. Further, the Court stated “it is, thus, evident that… the rule established PASI v Lichauco
was that the survival of the civil liability depends on whether the same can be predicated on The civil case against Lichauco involves three causes of action:first, injunction of awarding
the sources of obligations other than delict. the orbital slot, second declaration of nullity of award and damages arising from Lichauco’s
questioned acts.
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon. Therefore, Bayotas’s death extinguished his There is a prejudicial question because if the award to the undisclosed bidder is declared valid
criminal and civil liability based solely on the act complained of. for being within Lichauco’s scope of authority, there would be no prohibited act to speak of
and no basis for damages, therefore freeing her from liability.
Yap v Cabales There is no prejudicial question if the civil and criminal action can proceed independently of
If the resolution of the issue raised in the civil action is not determinative of the guilt or one another. (Art 31, 32, 33, 34 and 2176)
innocence of the accused in the criminal cases against him, there is no necessity that the civil
case be determined first before taking up the criminal case. Quimiging v Icao
Whether or not the unborn child is entitled to support
Dreamwork v Janiola - A conceived child, although as yet unborn, is given by law a provisional personality
The civil action must precede the filing of the criminal action for a prejudicial question to of its own for all purposes favorable to it, as explicitly provided in Article 40 of the
exist. Civil Code.
- Even if the child is only just conceived and unborn, may receive donations as
“before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed” – motion to suspend may prescribed by Art 742 of the Civil Code. Donations made to conceived or unborn
be filed during the preliminary investigation with the public prosecutor or during the trial children may be accepted by those persons who would legally represent them if they
with the court hearing the case. were already born.
- It is true that Article 40 prescribing that “the conceived child shall be considered born
The second element required for the existence of a prejudicial question is absent in this case. for all purposes favorable to it” adds further “provided it be born later with the
Even if the trial court declares that the construction agreement between the parties is void, conditions specified in the following article” (i.e. that the fetus be alive at the time it
this would not affect the prosecution of the private respondent in the criminal case. is completely delivered from the mother’s womb). This proviso, however, is not a
condition precedent to the right of the conceived child; for if it were, the first part of
Pimentel v Pimentel Article 40 would entirely useless and ineffective.”
Whether the decision in the civil case of declaration of nullity due to psychological incapacity
poses a prejudicial question to the criminal case of parricide wherein the relationship of the Continental Steel v Montano
offender and the victim is a key element for such crim. Whether or not Hortillano can claim paternity leave, bereavement leave and death and
accident insurance for his unborn child who died in the maternal womb in the 38th week of
There is no prejudicial question because the declaration of nullity of the marriage is not pregnancy.
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. While the Civil Code expressly provides that civil personality may be extinguished by death,
Capili v People it does not explicitly state that only those who acquired juridical personality could die.
Whether or not the subsequent declaration of nullity of the second marriage is a ground for
dismissal of the criminal case of bigamy. Life is not synonymous with civil personality. One need not acquire civil personality first
before she/he could die. Even a child inside the womb already has life.
No prejudicial question because the crime of bigamy was already consummated prior to the If the unborn already has life, then the cessation thereof even prior to the child being
declaration of nullity. Under the law, a marriage, whether void or voidable, shall be deemed delivered, qualifies as death.
valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.
The CBA did not provide a qualification for the child dependent, such that the child must
In this case, even if the petitioner eventually obtained a declaration that his first marriage was have been born or must have acquired civil personality, as Continental avers. Without such
void ab initio, both the first and second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage qualification then child shall be understood in its more general sense, which includes the
was annulled. All that is required for bigamy to prosper is that the second marriage was unborn fetus in the mother’s womb.
contracted while the first marriage was still subsisting. Hortillano is entitled to all the benefits
Mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the
capital stocks of a corporation is not of itself a sufficient reason for disregarding the fiction of
separate corporate personalities.
Dee v People
Caterpillar v Samson
The civil case filed by Caterpillar in the RTC in Quezon City, was for unfair competition,
damages and cancellation of trademark, while Criminal Cases Nos. Q-02-108043-44 were the
criminal prosecution of Samson for unfair competition. A common element of all such cases
for unfair competition — civil and criminal —was fraud. Under Article 33 of the Civil Code,
a civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the
injured party in cases of fraud, and such civil action shall proceed independently of the
criminal prosecution.
Under Article 33 of the Civil Code, a civil action entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action may be brought by the injured party in cases of fraud, and such civil action
shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution.
At any rate, there is no prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according
to law, proceed independently of each other. Under Rule 111, Section 3 of the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure, in the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Code, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed
independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.