47 ALBURO

People v Rogelio Ligon; G.R. No.74041

FACTS: Rogelio Ligon together with Fernando Gabat was riding a Volkswagen kombi – jeep variant
popular during 80s through Espana going Quiapo. In an intersection, they were halted by the traffic
light. Fernando Gabat called upon a 17- year old cigarette vendor named Jose Rosales Ortiz whom
complied to sell his cigarette. Upon Jose’s giving of the two cigarette sticks, he was handed over a
five peso bill in which he hurried to grasp coins in his pocket to give back the changes for Gabat; in
which during the course, the traffic light was beaming the green color which then was followed by the
fast moving of cars around them. Unbeknown to Ligon of the existence of transaction, he too drove
the kombi forward. Jose’s cigarette box was placed in the window sill of the kombi and was stuck at
the movement on the jeep; Jose quickly grasped the window sill of the kombi while it was raging in
full speed, that unfortunately, he lost his grasp and fell head first in the pavement; he was rushed to
the hospital but few days later died. The autopsy reports revealed that the primary cause of death
was complications in the pulmonary system of Jose while the head trauma is only secondary to the
cause – which the defendant’s counsel used in its defense. Plaintiff insisted that Gabat was seen
prying off the window sill the hands of the Jose while trying to grab of him the cigarette box, thus they
filed a criminal charge of robbery with homicide. The court acquitted the defendants by reasonable
doubt. The defendants appealed for the civil liabilities to be upheld by the court.

ISSUE:

W/N the petitioner’s prayer for indemnification of the civil liabilities is tenable?

RULING:

Yes. The petitioner has merit in his instance. Art. 29 of the Civil Code explains that acquittal in
criminal liability does not automatically extinguish civil liability; it is upon the verdict of the court to
present the absolute cause or material evidence which pre determines the matters whether that guilt
is proven beyond reasonable doubt or mere preponderance of evidence can be established; such
only can civil liability can be attached. If a defendant is exonerated beyond reasonable doubt, there
must be no criminal and civil liability.

In the case at bar, Gabat’s act of entering in a transaction in a venue in which it is not proper to
purchase products, his reluctance to aid Jose to grasp the window sill nor command Ligon to slow
down beside the road to dispatch Jose, and their eventual getting away upon Jose’s hitting on the
pavement instead of helping him projects that they could have done better in ensuring his safety in
which the turn of events was their proximate cause.
24 ALBURO

PHILAMGEN v Mutuc

FACTS: Manuel Mutuc is applied as a crewmember in of the ships of Maersk Lines in which he was
successfully employed. As part of the agreement to ensure his full commitment to his job, they were
made to secure sureties bond in which it is stipulated that they promised to never abandon their post
in time of duties and that they will be fervently present in the premises of the ship at most times. Part
of the provisions was stipulated that the surety company has the power to redact, revise improve and
reform the provisions as to be compatible to the nature of the employment demands are whatsoever
that the sureties can be legally enforced and transacted. For the matter of Manuel Mutuc, he was full
aware of the circumstances that involved his responsibility as well the nature of agreement. The Bond
has sum amount of Php. 1000.00 which he paid in full. During the effective period of the bond, it was
discovered that mutuc has abandoned his post on a Maersk ship which departed from the New York
harbor, bound for Charleston, South Carolina. Manuel Mutuc pleaded unto the honorable court that
the execution of the bond be nullified, explaining that his period of absence has reasons that
ultimately begs for understanding.

ISSUES: Can the execution bond be nullified through Manuel Mutuc’s petition?

RULING: NO. Manuel Mutuc‘s petition cannot be granted. He is full aware and well informed to the
nature of the obligations as decreed by the execution bond as well the reasons for the strict
provisions which almost restrict him in his living in the US.

Mutuc is a sailor of Maersk Lines, one of the most profitable shipping companies in the world.
Demands ran 24/7 and he is well informed about the nature of his job and his civil status in the
foreign land. His failure to comply to the contract prescribed consequences in which he signed unto
that he will take hold of the consequences if he fails to uplift his undersigned obligations. The
execution bond is explicit and retains no ambiguous provisions. He cannot elude responsibility.
1 Alburo

Ang Yu v CA

FACTS: Petitioner Ang Yu Ascuncion and her colleagues are lessees of the residential and
commercial property of the Unjiengs since 1935. Somewhere 1986 the Unjiengs through the patriarch
Bobby Cu Unjieng offered to sell the property for permanent ownership of the Ascuncions. The initial
offer was 6 million pesos in which in the instant, the Ang Yu invoked her right to first refusal. Ang Yu
pleaded that she could only give 5 million pesos in which the Unjiengs acceded. Ang Yu then
demanded from the Unjiengs a written term of conditions to initiate the contract of sale which no reply
came back even after the second sending of letter. Ang Yu later learned that the property they were
occupying for 50 years is about to be sold, thus prompting Ang Yu to file a civil action against Bobby
Cu Unjieng in which the lower court and the appellate court dismissed her petition for the reason that
there was no actual contract of sale between them. In 1991, the property was actually sold unto Buen
Realty in which the third party sent Ang Yu eviction letters which then prompted Ang Yu to file a
petition for civil action to order that the Buen Realty perform an execution sale of the property to her.
She invokes that her right to first refusal was never honored in the first place.

ISSUE: Can the execution sale be granted given the execution order deprives of Ang Yu dwelling
which is practically her family home?

RULING: No. The Unjiengs never had perfected the contract of sale with Ang Yu. The Unjiengs do
not have liability to sell solely the property to Ang Yu when on the instance of her invocation to her
right of refusal; Ang Yu did not follow up the terms of conditions.

While the Right to First Refusal is an innovative juridical relation, in its core, it consist the
characteristics of a perfected sale in which, there must be meeting of minds, willful consent, mutual
concession to the terms of agreement of the method of sale as well the fixed value of the sale for the
determinate subject.

Writ of execution cannot be the proper course of action for Ang Yu but Civil Action for Damages is the
proper case to file in the instant.