INTENTIONAL TORTS

I. ELEMENTS OF ABUSE OF RIGHT AS A CAUSE OF ACTION

Abuse of a right under Article 19, following elements are present:
1) there is a legal right or duty;
2) which is exercised in bad faith;
3) for the sole purpose of prejudicing or injuring another

1. Grand Union Supermarket, Inc. v. Espino, G.R. No. L-48250, December 28, 1979
Facts:
While shopping with wifey he found a file which he had been wanting to buy. He stuck the file into the front breast
pocket of his shirt with a good part of the merchandise exposed. He forgot to pay for the file.
As he was leaving the supermarket, plaintiff was approached by a uniformed guard of the supermarket who said:
"Excuse me, Mr., I think you have something in your pocket which you have not paid for.", pointing to his left front
breast pocket. Plaintiff apologized and turned back toward the cashier to pay for the file. But the guard stopped
him and led him instead toward the rear of the supermarket for interrogation.
Issue: WON Espino is entitled to damages for the humiliation he experienced at the supermarket.
Ruling: Yes.
The false accusation charged against the private respondent after detaining and interrogating him by the
uniformed guards and the mode and manner in which he was subjected, shouting at him, imposing upon him a
fine, threatening to call the police and in the presence and hearing of many people at the Supermarket which
brought and caused him humiliation and embarrassment, sufficiently rendered the petitioners liable for
damages under Articles 19 and 21 in relation to Article 2219 of the Civil Code. Everyone must respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons (Article 26, Civil Code). However, the
damages claimed by Espino was reduced by the court due to his contributory negligence of forgetfulness.

2. University of the East vs. Jader

Facts:
The plaintiff's name appeared in the Tentative List of Candidates for graduation for the Degree of Bachelor of Laws
(LL.B) as of Second Semester (1987-1988). He thereafter prepared himself for the bar examination. Having learned
of the deficiency he dropped his review class and was not able to take the bar examination.
Issue: Whether or not an educational institution be held liable for damages for misleading a student into
believing that the latter had satisfied all the requirements for graduation when such is not the case?
Ruling: Yes.
The professors, teachers or instructors hired by the school are considered merely as agents and administrators
tasked to perform the school's commitment under the contract. Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform
the students of their academic status and not wait for the latter to inquire from the former. Want of care to the
conscious disregard of civil obligations coupled with a conscious knowledge of the cause naturally calculated to
produce them would make the erring party liable. Petitioner ought to have known that time was of the essence in
the performance of its obligation to inform respondent of his grade. Art. 19 was intended to expand the concept
of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for
human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. The modern tendency is to grant indemnity for damages
in cases where there is abuse of right, even when the act is not illicit. 14 If mere fault or negligence in one's acts
can make him liable for damages for injury caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or bad faith make
him liable. A person should be protected only when he acts in the legitimate exercise of his right, that is, when
he acts with prudence and in good faith, but not when he acts with negligence or abuse.

3. Uypitching v. Quiamco G.R. No. 146322

FACTS: The motorcycle (that was to be surrendered for an amicable settlement) in fact had been sold on
installment basis by petitioner Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc. To secure its payment, the motorcycle was mortgaged
to petitioner corporation. Due to the buyer’s failure to pay. Petitioner Uypitching, accompanied by
policemen, went to recover the motorcycle. The leader of the police team took the motorcycle without a warrant.

Ruling: ABUSE FOF RIGHT. Petitioners Abused Their Right of Recovery as Mortgagee(s) in enforcing the right to
foreclose. Petitioner corporation failed to bring the proper civil action necessary to acquire legal possession of the
motorcycle. Instead, petitioner ordered the seizure of the motorcycle without a search warrant or court order.
Worse, in the course of the illegal seizure of the motorcycle, petitioner Uypitching even mouthed a slanderous
statement.
No doubt, petitioner corporation, acting through its co-petitioner Uypitching, blatantly disregarded the lawful
procedure for the enforcement of its right, to the prejudice of respondent. Petitioners' acts violated the law as well
as public morals, and transgressed the proper norms of human relations.
Article 19, also known as the "principle of abuse of right," prescribes that a person should not use his right
unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise he opens himself to liability. It seeks to preclude the
use of, or the tendency to use, a legal right (or duty) as a means to unjust ends.
There is an abuse of right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure another.
4. PETROPHIL CORPORATION VS. CA
Petitioner Petrophil Corporation (Petrophil) entered into contract with private respondent Dr. Amanda Ternida-
Cruz, The contract provided among others, that Petrophil could terminate the contract for breach, negligence,
discourtesy, improper and/or inadequate performance or abandonment. Then, it advised Dr. Cruz that it was
terminating the contract. Dr. Cruz testified that the termination of her hauling contract was a retaliation against
her for allegedly sympathizing with the then striking Petrophil employees.
ABUSE OF RIGHT? YES.
While Petrophil had the right to terminate the contract, petitioner could not act purposely to injure private
respondents. In BPI Express Card Corporation vs. CA, 296 SCRA 260, 272 (1998), we held that there is abuse of a
right under Article 19 if the following elements are present: 1) there is a legal right or duty; 2) which is exercised
in bad faith; 3) for the sole purpose of prejudicing or injuring another. We find all these three elements present
in the instant case.
ISSUE2: Whether or not impose a tortious liability against petitioner
RULING: YES. As a consequence of its willful act directed against Dr. Cruz, respondent-drivers lost their jobs and
consequently suffered loss of income. Note that under Article 20, there is no requirement that the act must be
directed at a specific person, but it suffices that a person suffers damage as a consequence of a wrongful act of
another in order that indemnity could be demanded from the wrongdoer. The appellate court did not err, given the
circumstances of this case, in awarding damages to respondent-drivers.

II. NO Abuse of Right

5. Dart Philippines vs. Spouses Francisco Calogcog
Facts: Petitioner entered into a Distributorship Agreement with respondesnts Sps. Dart subjected the spouses to
audit review by an auditing firm. However, spouses Calogcog disallowed the auditing firm from inspecting their
books and records. As a result, Dart only accepted the spouses’ purchase order on a prepaid basis.
ABUSE OF RIGHT?
NO. Bad faith cannot be attributed to the acts of Dart which was supported by legitimate reasons principally to
protect its own business. His rights exercised in accord with the terms and conditions of the distributorship
agreement, which has the force of law between them. It may not be amiss to state at this juncture that a complaint
based on Article 19 of the Civil Code must necessarily fail if it has nothing to support it but innuendos and
conjectures. The law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal wrong.
Situations like this have been appropriately denominated damnum absque injuria.
6. Andrade vs CA
Petitioner Virginia M. Andrade was appointed as permanent teacher. Before the opening of classes, petitioner
inquired from the English Department Head, Virginia E. Fermin, about her teaching load, and in response thereto,
she was referred to private respondent Dominador Wingsing, Principal of the Araullo High School. In an
endorsement addressed to Superintendent Coronel, private respondent Wingsing cited three (3) reasons why
petitioner Andrade was not given any teaching load: (1) drastic drop of enrollment; (2) she was declared an excess
teacher; and (3) she ranked lowest in her performance rating. Hence, Superintendent Coronel informed the
petitioner, through private respondent Wingsing, that the petitioner would be designated to a non-teaching
position in the meantime that arrangements were being made for her eventual reassignment to other schools
where her services may be needed. Thereafter, petitioner discovered that her name has been deleted from the
regular monthly payroll and transferred to a special voucher list.
NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES
The evidence reveals that respondent Wingsing was guided by the following factors: qualification to teach,
seniority, teaching performance and attitude towards the school community. For two (2) consecutive years
petitioner received an unsatisfactory rating, the lowest. Petitioner knew about her poor rating, but she refused to
acknowledge it. Entrenched is the rule that bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it
imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty
through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.

7. COGEO-CUBAO OPERATORTS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION VS CA

FACTS: A certificate of public convenience to operate a jeepney service was ordered to be issued in favor of
Lungsod Silangan to ply the Cogeo-Cubao route. The Association, led by Romeo Oliva decided to form a human
barricade on November 11, 1985 and assumed the dispatching of passenger jeepneys. This development as
initiated by Association gave rise to the suit for damages.
IS THE ASSOCIATION LIABLE FOR DAMAGES? NOOO
Petitioner association forcibly took over the operation of the jeepney service in the Cogeo-Cubao route without
any authorization from the Public Service Commission and in violation of the right of respondent corporation to
operate its services in the said route under its certificate of public convenience. What the association did was
merely to protect their right to their franchises as jeepney franchise holders deprived of working.
8. NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN v REYES
FACTS: Respondent was invited to a party by person who was also invited. At the venue, hotel’s executive
secretary, allegedly asked him to leave in a loud voice enough to be heard by the people around them. Insisting he
was invited to the party, the Makati policemen escorted him out of the hotel. During the cross-examination of the
Respondent’s narration, he was asked how close was Ms. Lim when she approached him at the buffet table. While,
Ms. Ruby Lim admitted asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party but not in the manner he claimed. She asked Reyes to
leave because the celebrant specifically ordered that the party be intimate, consisting only of those in the list. She
asked Reyes politely to finish his food then leave the party. Accordingly, it was Reyes who made a scene causing
everybody to know what happened.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ruby Lim acted abusively in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party and is liable.
RULING: NO. Ms. Lim, not having abused her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party to which he was not invited.
Neither can her employer, Hotel Nikko, be held liable as its liability springs from that of its employee. SC explained
that when “a right is exercised in a manner which doesn’t conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and
results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be
responsible.” Its elements are the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith;
(3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another

III. ACTS BONUS MORES (ART. 21)

9. Constantino vs Mendez, (BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY)
FACTS: Petitioner, an illegitimate child, filed an action for acknowledgement, support, and damages against
Respondent Ivan Mendez (married). Ivan and Amelita met at Tony’s Restaurant where the latter is working as
waitress. Ivan invited her at Hotel Enrico where the former was staying and due to the promise of marriage
succeeded in having sexual intercourse and repeated even after Ivan confessed that he is already married.
Ivan denied having sexual intercourse with her and prayed for the dismissal of the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contention of petitioner is valid.
RULING: No. Petitioner cannot claim for damages based on Articles 19 and 21. Amelita was not able to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that Ivan is actually the father. Petitioner who was already 28 years old admitted
that she was attracted to respondent and she merely testified that she had sexual intercourse with respondent.
She actually admitted that she was attracted with Ivan and their repeated sexual intercourse indicated that
passion and not alleged promise to marry was the moving factor to have sexual intercourse with Ivan. Had
petitioner been induced or deceived because of a promise of marriage, she could have ended her relationship after
learning of his marriage. “Damages could only be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a product of voluntariness
and mutual desire.” Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to claim for damages.
9.1 Pe vs Pe
Facts:
Lolita Pe unmarried. Defendant is a married man and works as agent at a factory. He used to stay in the town of
Gasan, Marinduque, in connection with his aforesaid occupation. Lolita was staying with her parents in the same
town. Defendant was an adopted son of a Chinaman named Pe Beco, a collateral relative of Lolita's father. Because
of such fact and the similarity in their family name, defendant became close to the plaintiffs who regarded him as a
member of their family. Defendant frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him
how to pray the rosary. The two eventually fell in love with each other and conducted clandestine trysts. They
exchanged love not. Parents heard the rumors about their love affairs and since then defendant was forbidden
from going to their house and from further seeing Lolita. Lolita was staying with her brothers and sisters but then
she disappeared from said house. Plaintiffs found a note on a crumpled piece of paper inside Lolita's aparador. Said
note, written on a small slip of paper, was in a handwriting recognized to be that of defendant's saying he was
supposed to leave at a certain time and place.
Issue: W/N Defendant should be liable for damages
Ruling: Yes. The circumstances under which defendant tried to win Lolita's affection cannot lead, to any other
conclusion than that it was he who, thru an ingenious scheme or trickery, seduced the latter to the extent of
making her fall in love with him. This is shown by the fact that defendant frequented the house of Lolita on the
pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. Because of the frequency of his visits to the
latter's family who was allowed free access because he was a collateral relative and was considered as a member
of her family, the two eventually fell in love with each other and conducted clandestine love affairs

Indeed, no other conclusion can be drawn from this chain of events than that defendant not only deliberately, but
through a clever strategy, succeeded in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the extent of having illicit
relations with her. The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he
is a married man. Verily, he has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code.
IV. OTHER IMMORAL ACTS
10. Manila Electric v CA
Facts: Plaintiff Isaac Chaves became a customer of defendant MERALCO in Manila. In connection with the contract
for electrical service, he deposited a sum with defendant MERALCO. Defendant Pedro Yambao went to the
residence of plaintiffs and presented two overdue bills. Isaac Chaves paid only one of the bill leaving the other bill
unpaid. MERALCO cut off his power line. Petitioners dispute the finding that there was no notice given to herein
respondent. The failure to give a notice of disconnection to private respondents might have been a breach of duty
or breach of contract, but by itself does not constitute bad faith or fraud.
Issue: Whether or not the lack of notice prior the disconnection made by Meralco is tortious
Ruling: Yes. Electricity has become a necessity to most people in these areas, justifying the exercise by the State of
its regulatory power over the business of supplying electrical service to the public, in which petitioner ME-RALCO is
engaged. Thus, the state may regulate the conditions under which and the manner by which a public utility such as
MERALCO may effect a disconnection of service to a delinquent customer. Among others, a prior written notice to
the customer is required before disconnection of the service. Failure to give such prior notice amounts to a tort
under article 21. Without prior notice constitutes breach of contract amounting to an independent tort. The
prematurity of the action is indicative of an intent to cause additional mental and moral suffering to private
respondent. This is a clear violation of Article 21 of the Civil Code, reiterated by Article 2219.
V. MALICIOUS FILING OF CIVIL CASES
12. Gregorio vs CA
A complaint was filed for violation of B.P. 22 by against petitioner Zenaida R. Gregorio and one Vito Belarmino, as
proprietors allegedly for delivering insufficiently funded bank checks as payment for the numerous appliances
bought by Alvi Marketing from Sansio. The MeTC issued a warrant for her arrest. Gregorio alleged that she could
not have issued the bounced checks, since she did not even have a checking account with the bank on which the
checks were drawn, as certified by the branch manager of the Philippine National Bank, Sorsogon Branch. She also
alleged that her signature was patently and radically different from the signatures appearing on the bounced
checks.

Gregorio claimed damages for the embarrassment and humiliation she suffered when she was suddenly arrested at
her city residence in Quezon City while visiting her family. She was, at the time of her arrest, a respected Kagawad
in Oas, Albay. Gregorio anchored her civil complaint on Articles 26, 2176, and 2180 of the Civil Code. Noticeably,
despite alleging either fault or negligence on the part of Sansio and Datuin, Gregorio never imputed to them any
bad faith in her complaint.
It appears that Gregorio’s rights to personal dignity, personal security, privacy, and peace of mind were infringed
by Sansio and Datuin when they failed to exercise the requisite diligence in determining the identity of the
person they should rightfully accuse of tendering insufficiently funded checks. Basic is the legal principle that the
nature of an action is determined by the material averments in the complaint and the character of the relief
sought. Undeniably, Gregorio’s civil complaint, read in its entirety, is a complaint based on quasi-delict under
Article 2176, in relation to Article 26 of the Civil Code, rather than on malicious prosecution.

In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of
evidence: (1) the damages suffered by him; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person to
whose act he must respond; (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the
damages incurred; and (4) that there must be no preexisting contractual relation between the parties.

On the other hand, Article 26 of the Civil Code grants a cause of action for damages, prevention, and other relief in
cases of breach, though not necessarily constituting a criminal offense, of the following rights: (1) right to personal
dignity; (2) right to personal security; (3) right to family relations; (4) right to social intercourse; (5) right to privacy;
and (6) right to peace of mind.
VI. PUBLIC HUMILIATION
13. Maria Ford v. CA and Sulpicia Fabrigar [GR. 51171, June 4, 1990]
FACTS: Fabrigar is one of the public school teachers assigned to assist the COMELEC in the conduct of the National
Referendum. She saw Elmo Uy (son of Vicente Uy, the barrio captain) take a remark sheet of a voter (Regalado
Firmalino) and began writing on it. She took the initiative to advise him not to write anything on the voter’s remark
sheet. Elmo tore his appointment paper as an observer in the referendum and left the precinct to report the
incident to his father. Vicente then approached her, shouted at her and asked her why she interfered with what his
son was doing. She responded that she was merely advising Elmo.
Ford arrived at the precinct and told Fabrigar that she was informed by Vicente that Fabrigar was shouting and
causing trouble in the polling place. She slapped Fabrigar. Fabrigar reported the incident to the police authorities.
ISSUE: WON Ford is liable for public humiliation after slapping Fabrigar.
HELD: Yes. A slap on the face is an unlawful aggression. The face personifies one's dignity and slapping it is a
serious personal affront. It is a physical assault coupled with a willful disregard of the integrity of one's person. This
is especially true if the aggrieved party is a school teacher who, in penal law, is a person in authority. Respect for a
teacher is required of all, if we are to uphold and enhance the dignity of the teaching profession. The act of Ford in
slapping private respondent on the face in public is contrary to morals and good customs and under the
circumstances, could not but have caused the latter mental anguish, moral shock, wounded feelings and social
humiliation. There can be no circumstance more humiliating for a headteacher of a barrio school than to be seen
by the barrio folks being slapped in her face. Further, private respondent was in the performance of her duty
when the incident took place and she had every right to stay in her post.
*Note that Ford slapped Fabrigar due to misinformation.

14. Rafael Patricio V. Hon. Oscar Leviste G.R. No. L-51832 April 26, 1989
FACTS:] During a benefit dance in celebration of the town fiesta Rafael Patricio, an ordained Catholic priest
together with policemen were posted check on the assigned watchers of the gate. Bienvenido Bacalocos, was
drunk and was also at the same gate struck a bottle of beer on the table which injured and caused his own hand to
bleed. Bacalocos then approached Patricio and asked him if he has seen his wounded hand and before Patricio
could respond he hit Patricio's face with his bloodied hand.

Patricio filed for damages against Bacalocos which was granted. According to Patricio, being slapped in public
causing him physical suffering and social humiliation, entitles him to damages.
ISSUE: WON Patricio is entitled to moral damages?
HELD: YES. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (10) Acts and actions referred
to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. The hitting on the face is contrary to morals and good customs
and causing mental anguish, moral shock, wounded feelings and social humiliation. Drunkenness is definitely no
excuse and does not relieve Bacalocos of his liability. Pursuant to Art. 21 of the Civil Code in relation to par. (10) of
Art. 2219 of the same Code, "any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary
to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damages under Art. 21 of the Civil
Code is to compensate the injured party for the moral injury caused upon his person.

ART. 23. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

15. CALIFORNIA CLOTHING, INC. vs. QUIÑONES

Facts: Respondent bought a pair of black jeans from Guess USA Boutique. While she was on her way to Mercury
Drug Store, a Guess employee approached her and said that she failed to pay for the black jeans. Nevertheless, she
presented an official receipt and suggested that they should talk about the matter in the Cebu Pacific Office located
within the mall. While they were in the office, the Guess employees allegedly humiliated her in front of the clients
of Cebu Pacific, repeatedly demanded payment and even searched the respondent’s wallet to check how much
money she had. Another argument ensued and after that, respondent went home. Respondent filed a complaint
for damages against the petitioners.
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.
Issue: Whether or not petitioners acted in bad faith .
Ruling: Yes, The principle of abuse of rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code is present in the case. 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. The elements of abuse of rights were enumerated. “The elements of
abuse of rights are as follows: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole
intent of prejudicing or injuring another.” First, petitioners continued to insist that there was no payment made
despite presented with the original receipt. Second, they accused the respondent of intentionally stole it and
quickly left the shop. Third, the letters sent to the respondent’s employer was also to ruin the.

VII. HUMAN DIGNITY (ART. 26

WHAT ARE PROTECTED?
16. Pollo vs David
Facts: CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David received an unsigned complaint letter which was marked
“Confidential” and was sent through a courier service (LBC) containing allegations that the petitioner have been
helping many who have pending cases in the CSC and the letter sender pleas that the CSC should investigate this
problem.
Chairperson David immediately formed a team and issued a memo directing them to conduct an investigation and
specifically “to back up all the files in the computers. After some briefing, the team proceeded at once to the CSC-
ROIV office. The backing-up of all files in the hard disk of computers was witnessed by several employees, together
with Directors Castillo and Unite who closely monitored said activity. Director Unit sent text messages to petitioner
and the head of LSD, who were both out of the office at the time, informing them of the ongoing copying of
computer files.
Issue: Legality of the search conducted in the petitioner’s office computer and the copying of his personal files
without his knowledge and consent, alleged as a transgression of his constitutional right to privacy.
Ruling: Yes. In sum, we conclude that the “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement make
the…probable-cause requirement impracticable,” x x x for legitimate, work-related noninvestigatory intrusions as
well as investigations of work-related misconduct. A standard of reasonableness will neither unduly burden the
efforts of government employers to ensure the efficient and proper operation of the workplace, nor authorize
arbitrary intrusions upon the privacy of public employees. Public employer intrusions on the constitutionally
protected privacy interests of government employees for noninvestigatory, work-related purposes, as well as for
investigations of work-related misconduct, should be judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the
circumstances. Under this reasonableness standard, both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be
reasonable: “Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider
‘whether the…action was justified at its inception,’ x x x ; second, one must determine whether the search as
actually conducted ‘was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the
first place,’” x x x
The search will be permissible in its scope when “the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of
the search and not excessively intrusive in light of …the nature of the [misconduct].”
The Commission effected the warrantless search in an open and transparent manner. Petitioner’s claim of violation
of his constitutional right to privacy must necessarily fail. His other argument invoking the privacy of
communication and correspondence under Section 3(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution is also untenable
considering the recognition accorded to certain legitimate intrusions into the privacy of employees in the
government workplace under the aforecited authorities.

17. Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board

FACTS: In these kindred petitions, the constitutionality of Section 36 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, insofar as it requires mandatory drug testing of
candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and
private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, among other
personalities, is put in issue.
Issue: Is there a violation on the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, and the
equal protection clause?
Ruling: In context, the right to privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or
from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities;
and while there has been general agreement as to the basic function of the guarantee against unwarranted
search, “translation of the abstract prohibition against ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ into workable broad
guidelines for the decision of particular cases is a difficult task,”. Authorities are agreed though that the right to
privacy yields to certain paramount rights of the public and defers to the state’s exercise of police power.
As the warrantless clause of Sec. 2, Art III of the Constitution is couched and as has been held, “reasonableness” is
the touchstone of the validity of a government search or intrusion. While every officer and employee in a private
establishment is under the law deemed forewarned that he or she may be a possible subject of a drug test, nobody
is really singled out in advance for drug testing. The goal is to discourage drug use by not telling in advance anyone
when and who is to be tested. And as may be observed, Sec. 36(d) of RA 9165 itself prescribes what, is a narrowing
ingredient by providing that the employees shall be subjected to “random drug test as contained in the company’s
work rules and regulations x x x for purposes of reducing the risk in the work place.”

18. Fernando vs. St Scholastica College

Facts: Respondents are educational institutions. Respondent SSC is the owner of parcels of land that within are the
formation house of the novices, and the retirement house for the elderly sisters. The property is enclosed by a tall
concrete perimeter fence made years before.
The petitioners are the officials of the City Government of Marikina. The City enacted an ordinance "Regulating the
Construction of Fences and Walls in the Municipality of Marikina then sent a letter to the respondents ordering
them to demolish and replace the fence of their Marikina property to make it 80% see-thru, and, at the same time,
to move it back about 6 meters to provide parking space for vehicles to park. The respondents argued that the
petitioners were acting in excess of jurisdiction in enforcing the ordinanceas such contravenes Section 1, Article III
of the 1987 Constitution.
Issue: W/n requiring the exposure of the property via a see-thru fence is violative of their right to privacy.
Ruling: Yes. Considering that the residence of the Benedictine nuns is also located within the property. The right to
privacy has long been considered a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution that must be protected from
intrusion or constraint. The right to privacy is essentially the right to be let alone, as governmental powers should
stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of its citizens. It is inherent in the concept of liberty, enshrined
in the Bill of Rights. Said enforcement would result in an undue interference with the respondents’ rights to
property and privacy.
Issue. Is Marikina Ordinance No.192, a valid exercise of police power?
Ruling: No. Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make statutes and ordinances to promote
the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people. Two tests have been
used by the Court-the rational relationship test and the strict scrutiny test:
Under the rational relationship test, an ordinance must pass the following requisites:
1. The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require its exercise
and
2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals.
The real intent of the setback requirement was to make the parking space free for use by the public and not for the
exclusive use of the respondents. This would be tantamount to a taking of private property for public use without
just compensation.

VIII. FORMS OF INTRUSION

19. SPOUSES HING v. CHUACHUY
Facts: Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. (owned by Choachuy’s) filed a case against the Hing’s claiming that the
Hing’s constructed a fence without a valid permit and that it would destroy the walls of their building. In order to
get evidences for the case, Choachuy illegally set-up two video surveillance cameras facing the Hing’s property.
Their employees even took pictures of the said construction of the fence. The Hing’s then filed a case against the
Choachuy’s for violating their right to privacy. The RTC issued an orderdirecting the Choachuy’s to remove the two
video surveillance cameras they installed.
Issue: Whether or not the installation of two video surveillance cameras violated the Hing’s right to privacy.
Ruling: YES.
Such act of the Choachuy’s violated the right of privacy of the Hing’s under Article 26(1) prohibiting the “prying into
the privacy of another’s residence.” Although it is a business office and not a residence, the owner has the right to
exclude the public or deny them access.

20. Angeles vs Sison

Facts: Petitioner Jose Angeles, a professor of FEU file an administrative case against his two students: Edgardo Picar
and Wilfredo Patawaran before Dean of the Institute for allegedly assaulting him outside the campus.
Dean Mercado, immediately created a committee headed by him to investigate the complaint. The two
respondents, Picar and Patawaran questioned the authority to conduct an investigation on the basis of jurisdiction
since the incident happened outside the premises of the university campus.
The respondents filed a complaint to restrain the petitioners from proceeding with the administrative investigation
for which the judge granted
Issue: Whether or not the school has the jurisdiction to investigate its student or students for an alleged
misconduct committed outside the school premises and beyond school hours?
Held: Yes. A college or any school for that matter, has a dual responsibility to its students. One is to provide
opportunities for learning and the other is to help them grow and develop into mature, responsible, effective and
worthy citizens of the community. Discipline is one of the means to carry out the second responsibility. The general
rule is that the authority of the school is co-extensive with its territorial jurisdiction, or its school grounds, so that
any action taken for acts committed outside the school premises should, in general, be left to the police
authorities, the courts of justice, and the family concerned. It is the better view that there are instances when the
school might be called upon to exercise its power over its student or students for acts committed outside the
school and beyond school hours in the following:
a) In cases of violations of school policies or regulations occurring in connection with a school sponsored
activity off-campus; or
b) In cases where the misconduct of the student involves his status as a student or affects the good name
or reputation of the school.
There can be no doubt that the establishment of an educational institution requires rules and regulations
necessary for the maintenance of an orderly educational program and the creation of an educational environment
conducive to learning. The power of school officials to investigate, an adjunct of its power to suspend or expel, is a
necessary corollary to the enforcement of such rules and regulations and the maintenance of a safe and orderly
educational environment conducive to learning. Hence, when as the case at bar, the conduct complained of
directly affects the suitability of the alleged violators as students, there is no reason why the school cannot impose
the same disciplinary action as when the act took place inside the campus.

21. Erlinda Ilusorio vs Erlinda Bildner

Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio is the wife of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio. Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age
possessed of extensive property valued at millions of pesos. They separated from bed and board for undisclosed
reasons. Out of their marriage, the spouses had 6 children. Upon Potenciano’s arrival from the US, he stayed with
Erlinda for about five (5) months. The children, alleged that during this time, their mother gave an overdose of an
antidepressant drug = Potenciano’s health deteriorated. Erlinda filed a petition for guardianship over the person
and property of Potenciano Ilusorio condition. After attending a corporate meeting Potenciano Ilusorio did not
return to Antipolo City and instead lived at Makati.

Erlinda filed a petition for habeas corpus to have the custody of Potenciano Ilusorio alleging respondents refused
petitioner’s demands to see and visit her husband and prohibited Potenciano from returning to Antipolo City.
Granted.Court of Appeals ordered for humanitarian consideration and upon petitioner’s manifestation,
respondents to allow visitation rights and to recall the writ of habeas corpus previously issued be recalled and the
herein be DENIED DUE COURSE for lack of unlawful restraint or detention of the subject of the petition.”
Issue: W/N the CA’s decision was valid
Ruling: No. As heretofore stated, a writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention,
or by which the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled thereto. It is available where a person
continues to be unlawfully denied of one or more of his constitutional freedoms, where there is denial of due
process, where the restraints are not merely involuntary but are unnecessary, and where a deprivation of freedom
originally valid has later become arbitrary. To justify the grant of the petition, the restraint of liberty must be an
illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and
effective, not merely nominal or moral.
The evidence shows that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of lawyer Potenciano
Ilusorio’s liberty that would justify the issuance of the writ. The fact that lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86
years of age, or under medication does not necessarily render him mentally incapacitated. In this case, the crucial
choices revolve on his residence and the people he opts to see or live with. The choices he made may not appeal to
some of his family members but these are choices which exclusively belong to Potenciano. He made it clear before
the Court of Appeals that he was not prevented from leaving his house or seeing people.
No court is empowered as a judicial authority to compel a husband to live with his wife. Coverture cannot be
enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by sheriffs or by any other mesne process. That is
a matter beyond judicial authority and is best left to the man and woman’s free choice.

22. St. Louis Realty Corp vs CA

Facts: St. Louis Realty caused to be published with the permission of Arcadio S. Arcadio (but without permission of
Doctor Aramil an advertisement misrepresenting the house of Doctor Conrado J. Aramil belonged to Arcadio S.
Arcadio. Doctor Aramil noticed the mistake and wrote a letter of protest. No rectification or apology was published.
It was only when Dr. Aramil demanded for damages did St. Louis Realty published in the issue of the new
advertisement with the Arcadio family and their real house. But it did not publish any apology nor an explanation.
Both the trial and appellate courts found that there was a violation of Dr. Aramil’s right to privacy.
Issue: Whether or not the case at bar is covered by Art. 26 of the Civil Code.
Ruling: Yes, it is covered. St. Louis Realty's employee was grossly negligent in mixing up residences in a widely
circulated publication. To suit its purpose, it never made any written apology and explanation of the mix-up. It just
contented itself with a cavalier "rectification ". Persons, who know the residence of Doctor Aramil, were confused
by the distorted, lingering impression that he was renting his residence or it was leased. Either way, his private life
was mistakenly and unnecessarily exposed. He suffered diminution of income and mental anguish.
IX. WIRETAPPING AND OTHER SIMILAR MEANS
23. Socorro Ramirez vs CA
Facts: Petitioner Socorro D. Ramirez alleges that the private respondent, Ester S. vexed, insulted and humiliated her
and produced a verbatim transcript of the event. As a result of petitioner's recording of the event and alleging that
the said act of secretly taping the confrontation was illegal, private respondent filed a criminal case. Petitioner
argues that the applicable provision of Republic Act 4200 does not apply to the taping of a private conversation by
one of the parties to the conversation but to the unauthorized taping by a party other than those involved in the
communication and the content of the conversation must be alleged in the Information.
Issue: W/N R.A. 4200 applies to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties to a conversation.
Ruling: Yes. Section 1 of R.A. 4200 clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all
the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder
(mere allegation suffices). The law makes no distinction. The nature of the conversations is immaterial to a
violation. The substance need not be specifically alleged. R.A. 4200 penalizes the acts of secretly overhearing,
intercepting or recording private communications by means of the devices enumerated. “Communication”
includes verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive communications of "meanings or thoughts" which includes the
emotionally-charged exchange between petitioner and private respondent.
24. Gaanan vs IAC 145 SCRA 112
Facts: Complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon were in the living room of complainant’s
residence discussing the terms for the withdrawal of the complaint for direct against Leonardo Laconico. After they
had decided on the proposed conditions, complainant made a telephone call to Laconico. When complainant
called, Laconico requested appellant to secretly listen to the telephone conversation through a telephone
extension so as to hear personally the proposed conditions for the settlement. This eventually led to complainant’s
arrest. Since appellant listened to the telephone conversation without complainant’s consent, complainant charged
appellant and Laconico with violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
Issue: W/N an extension telephone is covered by the term “device or arrangement” under Rep. Act No. 4200
Held: No. The law refers to a “tap” of a wire or cable or the use of a “device or arrangement” for the purpose of
secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication. There must be either a physical interruption
through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or
record the spoken words. An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone,
dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered
as “tapping” the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that
purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use.
X. INTRUSION IN PUBLIC RECORDS
25. Valmonte vs Belmonte
FACTS: Petitioner wrote a letter to Hon. Feliciano Belmonte, GSIS General Manager, requesting that he be
furnished with the list of the names of the certain party list members who were able to secure clean loans
immediately before the election thru the marginal note of the then Imelda Marcos; and/or (b) to furnish
petitioners with certified true copies of the documents evidencing their respective loans; and/or (c) to allow
petitioners access to the public records for the subject information. Belmonte replied through the Deputy General
Counsel of the GSIS whose opinion is that is that a confidential relationship exists and that it would not be proper
for the GSIS to breach this confidentiality unless so ordered by the courts.
ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners are entitled to the documents sought through their right to information
HELD: Yes. The information sought by petitioners is the truth of reports that certain were able to secure "clean"
loans from the GSIS. The GSIS is a trustee of contributions from the government. Undeniably, its funds assume a
public character. It is therefore the legitimate concern of the public to ensure that these funds are managed
properly. The public nature of the loanable funds and the public office held by the alleged borrowers make the
information sought clearly a matter of public interest and concern. The transactions with the GSIS are within the
ambit of the people's right to be informed pursuant to the constitutional policy of transparency in government
dealings. However the Constitution does not accord them a right to compel custodians of official records to
prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire information on matters of public concern.
 XI. INTRUSION IN THE INTERNET
26. VIVARES vs. ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE
Facts: Nenita Julia V. Daluz (Julia) and Julienne Vida Suzara (Julienne), both minors, were graduating high school
students. While changing into their swimsuits for a beach party they took digital pictures of themselves clad only in
their undergarments. Which were uploaded by Angela Lindsay Tan (Angela) on her Facebook profile. Escudero, a
computer teacher, learned from her students that some seniors posted pictures online dressed only in brassieres.
Escudero reported the matter and showed the photos to STC’s Discipline-in-Charge, for appropriate action. The
school informed their parents the following day that, as part of their penalty, they are barred from joining the
commencement exercises. Angela’s motherfield for damages and prayed that defendants therein be enjoined from
precluding Angela from joining the commencement exercises. Rhonda Ave Vivares (Vivares), the mother of Julia,
joined the fray as an intervenor. Despite the issuance of the TRO, STC, nevertheless, barred the sanctioned
students from participating in the graduation rites.
Issue: whether or not a writ of habeas data should be issued
Ruling: No. STC did not violate petitioners’ daughters’ right to privacy. Before one can have an expectation of
privacy in his or her OSN activity, it is first necessary that said user manifest the intention to keep certain posts
private, through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. No special means
to be able to view the allegedly private posts were ever resorted to by Escudero’s students, and that it is
reasonable to assume, therefore, that the photos were viewable either by (1) their Facebook friends; or (2) by the
public at large. Considering that the default setting for Facebook posts is “Public,” it can be surmised that the
photographs in question were viewable to everyone on Facebook, absent any proof that petitioners’ children
positively limited the disclosure of the photograph. As such, they can’t invoke the protection to the right to
informational privacy.
XII. CYBERLIBEL
27. Disini v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014
Facts: Petitioners lament that libel provisions of the penal code and, in effect, the libel provisions of the cybercrime
law carry with them the requirement of "presumed malice" even when the latest jurisprudence already replaces it
with the higher standard of "actual malice" as a basis for conviction. Petitioners argue that inferring "presumed
malice" from the accused’s defamatory statement by virtue of the penal code infringes on his freedom of
expression. They contend that laws on libel should be stricken down as unconstitutional for good jurisprudence
requiring "actual malice" could easily be overturned. They point out that penal defamation laws should include the
defense of truth.
Issue: WON Cybercrime Prevention Act on cyberlibel is unconstitutional for violating the freedom of expression.
Ruling: No. Libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and that the government has an obligation to
protect private individuals from defamation. Indeed, cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in
relation to Article 355 of the penal code, already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that
online defamation constitutes "similar means" for committing libel.But the Court’s acquiescence goes only
insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes the author of the libelous statement or article. Whether these reactions to
defamatory statement posted on the internet constitute aiding and abetting libel, acts that the cybercrime law
punishes, is another matter that the Court will deal with next in relation to Section 5 of the law.
XIII. PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC FACTS AND LIBEL
28. AYER PRODUCTIONS PTY. LTD. vs. CAPULONG
FACTS: Petitioner envisioned, for commercial viewing and for Philippine and International Release, the historic
peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. The proposed Motion picture entitled "The Four Day Revolution" was
endorsed by the MTRCB and other government agencies consulted. Ramos also signified his approval of the
intended film production. It is designed to be viewed in a six-hour mini-series television play, presented in a "docu-
drama" style, creating four fictional characters interwoven with real events, and utilizing actual documentary
footage as background.
Private Respondent Ponce Enrile declared that he will not approve the use, appropriation, reproduction and/or
exhibition of his name, or picture, or that of any member of his family in any cinema or television production, film
or other medium for advertising or commercial exploitation. Petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of
Enrile was deleted from the movie script, and petitioners proceeded to film the projected motion picture.
However, a complaint was filed by Enrile invoking his right to privacy is unlawfully intruded.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Right to Privacy of Respondent Enrile is violated by “Four Day Revolution”.
RULING: NO. In the case at bar, the interests observable are the right to privacy asserted by respondent and the
right of freedom of expression invoked by petitioner taking into account the interplay of those interests
considering the obligations assumed in the Licensing Agreement entered into by petitioner, the validity of such
agreement will have to be upheld particularly because the limits of freedom of expression are reached when
expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern." Whether the “balancing of interest test” or the
“clear and present danger test” be applied. The subject matter of “The Four Day Revolution” relates to the non-
bloody change of government which took place at EDSA. Clearly such subject matter is one of public interest and
concern or even international interest. The subject matter relates to a highly critical state in the history of this
country and thus passed into the public domain and as an appropriate subject for speech and expression and
coverage by any form of mass media.
The production and filming by petitioners of the projected motion picture "The Four Day Revolution" does not,
in the circumstances of this case, constitute an unlawful intrusion upon private respondent's "right of privacy."
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE – that words are used in such a circumstance and are of such a nature as to
create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantial evils that a lawmaker has a right to
prevent.
BALANCING OF INTERESTS TEST- the courts should balance the public interest served by legislation on one hand
and the freedom of speech (or any other constitutional right) on the other. The courts will then decide where the
greater weight should be placed.
29. Cordero vs Buigasco
The right to privacy, as the term is employed with respect to the determination of whether the cause of action in
damages exists for an unwarranted invasion of such right or whether it may be protected by injunctive relief, may
be defined as the right to be let alone, or live a life of seclusion or to live without unwarranted publicity, or to live
without unwarranted interference by the public about matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned,
or to be respected from any wrongful intrusion into an individual’s private life which would outrage or cause
mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
XIV. DEFAMATION
30. RODRIGO CONCEPTION VS. CA ( DEFAMATION)
FACTS:
Spouses Nicolas resided in an apartment leased to them by the owner Florence Concepcion. Nestor Nicolas was
then engaged in the business of supplying government agencies and private entities with office equipment.
Sometime Rodrigo Concepcion, brother of the deceased husband of Florence, angrily accosted Nestor at his
apartment and accused him of having an adulterous relationship with Florence.
Rodrigo threatened Florence over the telephone that should something happen to his sick mother; in case the
latter learned about the affair, he would kill Florence. As a result of this incident, Nestor Nicolas felt extreme
embarrassment and shame to the extent that he could no longer face his neighbors. Consequently, he was forced
to write Rodrigo demanding public apology and payment of damages. Rodrigo pointedly ignored the demand, for
which reason the Nicolas spouses filed a civil suit against him for damages
ISSUE: Whether or not damages be granted to Nestor Nicolas and his spouse.
RULING: No. The testimonies of all the witnesses for the respondents are unanimous that the defamatory incident
happened in the afternoon at the front door of the apartment of the Nicolas spouses in the presence of some
friends and neighbors, and later, with the accusation being repeated in the presence of Florence, at the terrace of
her house.
The incident complained of neither falling under Art. 22, 19, nor Art. 26 of the Civil Code. Damages therefore
are allowable for actions against a person’s dignity, such as profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous
or abusive language. As stated in the Civil Code, moral damages which include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and
similar injury, although incapable of pecuniary computation, may be recovered if they are the proximate result of
the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. There is no question that Nestor Nicolas suffered mental anguish,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation as a proximate result of petitioner’s abusive,
scandalous and insulting language.

31.Castro v. People GR no. 180832, 23, July 2008

Facts: Reedley International School (RIS) dismissed Albert Tan’s son, Justin Albert for violating the terms of his
disciplinary probation. RIS imposed that Justin is prevented from participating in the graduation ceremonies. Albert
eventually brought a complaint to Dep-Ed. Dep- Ed found out that RIS code violation point system allowed the
summary imposition of unreasonable sanctions which has no basis in fact and in law. Therefore, the system
violated the due process. Hence, the Dep- Ed nullified RIS’s imposition and allowed Justin to attend the graduation.
ceremonies. After the graduation, Albert met Bernice C. Ching, a fellow parent in RIS. In course of their
conversation, Albert was contemplating a suit against the officers of RIS. Bernice telephoned Jerome Castro
sometime the first week of April and told him about Albert’s plan on suing the officers in their personal capacities.
Before ending the call, Jerome told Bernice: “Okay, you too, take care and be careful talking [ Tan], that’s
dangerous. Bernice then called albert and informed him that Jerome said talking to him was dangerous”. Feeling
insulted, Albert filed a complaint for grave oral defamation Tan testified that petitioner’s statement shocked him as
it portrayed him as someone capable of committing undesirable acts. He added that petitioner probably took
offense because of the complaint he filed against RIS Although he admitted having conversation with Ching on the
telephone a few days after RIS 2013 commencement exercises.
Issue: Is Castro Liable for grave oral defamation?
Held: No, Castro is not liable for grave oral defamation but he may be liable for damages under Article 26 of the
Civil Code because the OSG did not raise errors of jurisdiction. The CA erred in taking cognizance of its petition and
worse, in reviewing the factual findings of the RTC decision so as not to offend the constitutional prohibition
against double jeopardy. Petitioner could have been liable for damages under Article 26 of the Civil Code: Article
26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other
persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of
action for damages, prevention and other relief: 3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
Petitioner is reminded that, 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 observe honesty and good faith.

XV. FICTIONALIZED ACCOUNT OF PRIVATE LIFE

32. Lagunzad vs Vda. de Gonzales
FACTS: Petitioner Manuel Lagunzad, a newspaperman, began the production of a movie entitled "The Moises
Padilla Story" under the name of his own business outfit, the "MML Productions." It was based mainly on the
copyrighted but unpublished book of Atty. Ernesto Rodriguez, Jr., entitled "The Long Dark Night in Negros" the
rights to which petitioner had purchased from Atty. Rodriguez. The book narrates the events which culminated in
the murder of Moises Padilla. Padilla was then a mayoralty candidate. Governor Rafael Lacson then in power and
his men were tried and convicted for that murder. Petitioner received a telephone call from one Mrs. Nelly
Amante, half-sister of Moises Padilla, objecting to the filming of the movie and the "exploitation" of his life. Mrs.
Amante demanded in writing for certain changes, corrections and deletions in the movie. After some bargaining as
to the amount to be paid petitioner and private respondent executed a "Licensing Agreement.” Petitioner takes the
position that he was pressured into signing the Agreement because of private respondent's demand, through Mrs.
Amante, for payment for the "exploitation" of the life story of Moises Padilla, otherwise, she would "call a press
conference declaring the whole picture as a fake, fraud and a hoax.”

Because petitioner refused to pay any additional amounts pursuant to the Agreement, on December 22, 1961,
private respondent instituted the present suit against him. Petitioner contended in his Answer that the episodes in
the life of Moises Padilla depicted in the movie were matters of public knowledge and occurred at or about the
same time that the deceased became and was a public figure; that private respondent has no property right over
those incidents; that the Licensing Agreement was without valid cause or consideration and that he signed the
same only because private respondent threatened him with unfounded and harassing action which would have
delayed production.
Issue: W/N Petitioner should be liable for damages
Ruling: Yes. While it is true that petitioner had purchased the rights to the book entitled "The Moises Padilla
Story," that did not dispense with the need for prior consent and authority from the deceased heirs to portray
publicly episodes in said deceased's life and in that of his mother and the family members. "A privilege may be
given the surviving relatives of a deceased person to protect his memory, but the privilege exists for the benefit of
the living, to protect their feelings and to prevent a violation of their own rights in the character and memory of
the deceased."

Being a public figure ipso facto does not automatically destroy in toto a person's right to privacy. The right to
invade a person's privacy to disseminate public information does not extend to a fictional or novelized
representation of a person, no matter how public a figure he or she may be. A contract is valid even though one of
the parties entered into it against his own wish and desires, or even against his better judgment. The Licensing
Agreement has the force of law between the contracting parties and since its provisions are not contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy (Art. 1306, Civil Code), petitioner Should comply with it in good
faith.

INTERFERENCE WITH FAMILY AND OTHER RELATIONS

XVI. DISTURBING FAMILY RELATIONS
33.1 Jose B. Ledesma vs Court of Appeals 160 SCRA 449 (1988) (ARTICLE 27, NCC)
Facts: A student was not able to graduate as Magna Cum Laude, because the president, herein petitioner neglected
his duty to inform the student on the result of a case against the student which has, as its punishment, the removal
of awards or citations of the student. Said case was the extension of loans to students, which the president
contends to be against the school rules and regulations. The student appealed to the Bureau of Public Schools and
was found to be in good faith and that her awards be reinstituted. The president, upon receiving said decision,
delayed action and even e-mailed the director to reverse his decision. The student therefore graduated as a plain
student.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is liable for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Ruling: Yes. The president’s failure to graduate a student with honors and blatant disregard of the student’s rights
on the account of him being embarrassed shows neglect of duty without just cause, rendering him liable for
damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code. Undoubtedly, the student and the student’s parents went through a
painful ordeal brought about by such neglect. Thus, moral and exemplary damages under Article 27 are but proper.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN

34. RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA vs. CA and IRISH SAGUD
FACTS:
Irish Sagudand accused Rustan were on-and-off. Irish broke up with him. Despite changing her cellphone number,
Rustan somehow managed to get hold of it and sent her text messages. Irish then received through MMS a picture
of a naked woman her face edited in. The sender’s cellphone number was one Rustan’s. She got other text
messages threatening to create similarly scandalous pictures of her and to spread them through the internet.
Rustan alleges that today’s women, like Irish, are so used to obscene communications that her getting one could
not possibly have produced alarm in her or caused her substantial emotional or psychological distress. He claims
having previously exchanged obscene pictures with her such that she was already desensitized by them.
ISSUE: Whether or not accused Rustan sent Irish by cellphone message the picture with her face pasted on the
body of a nude woman, inflicting anguish, psychological distress, and humiliation on her in violation of R.A.
9262.
RULING: YES The Court cannot measure trauma experienced based on Rustan’s low regard for the alleged moral
sensibilities. What is obscene and injurious to an offended woman can of course only be determined based on
the circumstances of each case. The naked woman on the picture was clearly an obscene picture and, to Irish a
revolting and offensive one. Surely, any woman who is not in the pornography trade, would be scandalized and
pained if she sees herself in such a picture. What makes it further terrifying is that there is a threat to post it in the
internet for all to see.

XVII. VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

35. Aberca vs Ver et al (their AFP men), GR No. 69865, April 15, 1988
FACTS: A task force was ordered to conduct pre-emptive strikes against known communist-terrorist underground
houses or disturbances. It raided several places without a valid search warrants, arrested without proper warrants
… the people claim that all violations of their constitutional rights were part of a deliberate plan to forcibly extract
information and … to terrorize, harass and punish them. Respondent claimed that they were immune from liability
or that they are covered by the mantle of state immunity from suit for acts done in the performance of official
duties.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent committed violation of constitutional rights.
RULING: Yes. The doctrine of state immunity from suit is not proper. The cases invoked by respondents involved
acts done by officers in the performance of official duties. Respondents were merely doing their duties to prevent
or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion, and subversion in accordance with a Proclamation. This can’t
be construed as a blanket license to disregard or transgress upon the rights and liberties of the individual citizen
protected by the Constitution as this remains the supreme law of the land to which all owe obedience and
allegiance at all times. Article 32 of the Civil Code, renders any public officer or employees, or any private
individual, liable in damages for violating the constitutional rights and liberties, does not exempt the
respondents from responsibility. Only judges are excluded from liability under the said article, provided their
acts or omission do not violate the Revised Penal Code or penal statute.