Topic/Artic Provision

Elements/Classific Exceptio Rationale/ Explanation Doctrine Juris SC Rulings

le ations/ ns pru
Requisites/ denc
General Rule e

General A lawmaking body enacts a law while customs are not. It is an Customs is something that is Civil law is a mass of precepts that regulates the
Discussion ordinance of reason promulgated by the authority for the welfare of the created. Customs is a rule of private relations existing between members of the
of laws, people. Laws are promulgated to promote peace and order in a society. conduct and is not binding society for the protection of private interests. It
customs It is founded on what is right and just therefore it should be observed by upon every citizen wherever provides private relations between and among
and civil everybody. one may be unlike laws. members of the society. It also provides for the
law determination of private rights and obligations
with reference to or in relation to persons, acts,
properties, things. It is Civil law that distinguishes
civil law from other branches of law.

Article 1 Provision: This Act shall be known as the Civil Code of the Philippines
Name

Article 2 Laws shall take effect General Rule: Exception: Newspaper of Publication of Jurisprudence All laws of general applicability
Effectivity after fifteen days Non-publication general laws cannot be must be published in the Official
of Law following the of the law circulation dispensed Tañada v Gazette before the law becomes
completion of their renders the law Doctrine of Operative Fact means with for it to Tuvera effective.
publication either in retroactively - The actual existence and nation-wide be effective.
the Official Gazette, ineffective. implementation of the readership
or in a newspaper of because the All laws must Tañada v All laws must be published even if
unpublished law can no
general circulation in longer be set aside and purpose of be published Tuvera it is not of general applicability
the Philippines, Note: the in its entirety because it would be of public
The ignored. The court will
unless it is otherwise unpublished law publication is (title, number, interest to know these laws even
decide it on a case-to-case
provided. to inform the signature and if it may not directly affect the
is not necessarily basis.
general text) for it to entirety of the citizens. There is
invalid or
be effective. no need to make a distinction
unconstitutional. public of the
new law that because all laws passed by
Therefore, it is no The phrase
will affect Congress are or should be of
necessarily “unless
them once it general application. While some
barred. otherwise
takes effect. laws may only be applicable to
provided” certain citizens, nevertheless it is

pertains to the of public interest, hence
Municipal effectivity everybody, as tax-payers, can
Ordinances still There is no clause of the
question the validity or legality of
need to be specific law rather such law.
published though period for the than the
not necessarily in Executive requirement of
Branch to publication.
the Official publish the This is due to
Gazette or a law for it to the fact that
newspaper of be deemed publication is
general effective and indispensible
circulation binding upon to the
because their the citizens of effectivity of
scope is limited the country. the law.
only to the The Executive
municipality Branch is Jurisprudence De Roy v De Roy questioned the 15-day
concerned. mandated to need not be Court of period/rule to file a motion for
enforce and published for Appeals reconsideration laid down in the
implement it to be binding Habaluya Case before De Roy’s
the law, among the case was filed. De Roy contested
Note: Once the
therefore, citizens. that jurisprudence is not binding
law is declared
they can take because it was not published. The
effective, then
their time as Only laws Supreme Court emphasized that it
there is no need
to when the need to be is a counsel’s duty to keep oneself
to apply the
publication of published in abreast of the recent decisions of
doctrine of
such law the Official the Supreme Court. Therefore, it
operative fact. Gazette or a is still binding even if it is not
becomes
effective. newspaper of published because the Civil Code
general only specifies that a law needs to
circulation in be published before it becomes
order for the effective.
said law to be
effective.

As a general rule, Unless the law itself Laws take Philippines The judge was incorrect when he
a law shall take provided for another day effect Veterans continued the liquidation of the
effect15 days of its effectivity. immediately Bank v Vega bank because the Executive Order
following the after the stated: This Act shall take effect
completion of its completion of upon its approval.” The Executive
publication. its publication Order complied with the required
if the law says: publication; it will take effect not
“The Act shall after the signing of the president
If a law is take effect but rather after the completion of
rendered upon its its publication.
ineffective due to approval.”
the failure to
Doctrine of Rieta v People The Doctrine of Operative Fact
publicize it, the
Operative Fact was used in order to sustain the
said law must be
- validity of the arrest of Rieta
withdrawn from
because the law upon which the
 circulation and The Arrest Search and Seizure Order
stop consequences (ASSO) was declared ineffective
implementation produced in since General Order No. 60 was
of it. In addition, the operation not published. In the case of
one needs to must be duly Tanada v Tuvera, the said General
come up with recognized. Order was deemed in effective.
certain legal
consequences
because there Laws are still CIR v San There can be no invocation of the
were people who binding to Roque Power doctrine of operative fact other
relied on the citizens even if Corp than what the law has specifically
ineffective law. the agency provided in Section 246. In the
does not present case, the rule or ruling
follow such subject to the operative fact
rules. doctrine in BIR Ruling No. DA-
489-03 dated December 10, 2003.
Prior to this date, there is no such
rule or ruling calling for the
application of the operative fact
doctrine in section 246. Section
246, being an exemption to the
statutory taxation, must be
applied strictly against the
taxpayers claiming such
exemption. Therefore, San Roque
Power Corporation is not entitle
to a tax refund for failure to
comply with the procedural
requirement of the BIR Ruling.

Article 3 Ignorance of the law Everyone (illiterate, incapacitated, and Rationale: Ignorance of People v There is no question that the
Ignorance excuses no one from children) is presumed to know the law. This the law Balbar victim was a teacher since she
of the law compliance Ignorance is a excuses no one was conducting class when the
provision is absolute.
excuses no therewith state of mind, from incident happened. Balbar knew
one Illiterate, incapacitated, and children can be therefore, compliance that he assaulted a person of
exempt because there are some specific laws evidence
therewith. authority.
that exempt them. Therefore they can be leading to it
exempted from the consequences of their illegal would be
action but it is not due to Article 3. difficult if not
almost
In the strict sense, one may excuse yourself in if impossible.
the mistake is due to a difficult question of law
and it lacks proper interpretation of that
 provision of the law in question.

Doctrine Doctrine Morales v The Supreme Court denied the

Skills petition of Morales because it is a
Question of Fact is an issue of truth or falsity of the facts, in order to Question of Law is an issue of law, Internation question of fact. The Court is only
answer it, one needs to look at the probative value of the evidence one has to look at the facts since al Company concerned with the question of
presented by both parties to the case. they are already established to be law and never of issues of fact.
truth as compared to question of
fact.

Doctrine In Re: Petition to Sign In The Honest mistake ceased the moment Atty. Medado
Roll of Attorneys found out that he has not signed the roll of
Mistake of Fact or Ignorance of Fact can lax the absolute rule that of attorney’s but still continued the unauthorized
Article 3, “Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance practice of law. Further mistake of law cannot be
therewith.” utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone
is presumed to know the law and its consequences

Article 4 Laws General Rule: Exception: Rationale/ Explanation:

Retroactive shall
have no Laws are applied prospectively. This is to protect the Unless the contrary is provided or
Effect
retroacti vested rights of the people. if the retrospective effect is
Certain law can be given retroactive effect
ve effect, expressly stated in the law itself.
Laws that can never have retroactive effect: because of the nature and purpose of the law.
unless Implied from the language used.
the (1) Making an ex-post facto law Note: Certain laws may still be applied
contrary (a) A law that aggravates the crime or Penal laws that are favorable to retroactively even if the law does not have a
is makes the crime graver than when it the accused who is not a habitual retroactive clause.
provided was committed. delinquent under Art. 62 (5) of
. (b) A law that changes the penalty to a the Revised Penal Code.
graver than what the law provides at the
time of the commission of the crime.
(c) A law that alters or changes the legal
rules of evidence and required a less or
a different testimony than required at
the time of the commission of the crime.
(d) A law that deprives the accused of a
crime of some lawful defense.

(2) Impairment of obligations and contracts

Article 5 Mandatory and General Rule: Acts executed against the provisions of Exceptions to the General Rule:
Prohibitory Provisions mandatory and prohibitory laws shall be void.
Acts executed against the Mandatory laws are positive laws, which demand If the law itself authorizes their validity.
provisions of mandatory compliance. Therefore, omission of which will result in
and prohibitory laws shall the nullity of the act. a) By expressly validating the contract;
be void, except when the b) By making the invalidity to depend on the will of the injured party;
law itself authorizes their Prohibitory laws are negative laws, which proscribes a
validity. person from performing an act. Most of the provisions c) By punishing it criminally but validating the act;
in the Revised Penal Code are prohibitory law.
d) By invalidating the act but recognizing the legal effect as flowing from the invalid
Directory provision are statements that suggest a act.
person to do something, therefore these provisions are
permissive.

Article 6 General Rule Waiver of Waivable RIGHT is a legally PRINCIPLE OF Gatchallian v Delim
Rights enforceable claim of one WAIVER is
Waiver of Rights can be waived person against another, generally SC REVERSED and SET
Rights Exemptions: that the other shall do a applicable to all ASIDE CA’s decision and
General Classification ordered Gatchalian to pay
1. If waiver is contrary given act, or shall not do rights and
moral damages and
1. Perfect - when the scope is clear, settled, and to law, public order, a given act. privileges to
Rights may determinate which a person attorney’s fees with
public policy, morals It is that which one interests at legal rate of
be waved, or good customs is legally
unless the 2. Imperfect - when the scope is vague and unfixed person ought to have or 6% per annum from the
entitled, whether
waiver is receive from another, it secured by promulgation of the
Passive subject of the Right 2. If the waiver is
contrary to being withheld from contract, decision.
prejudicial to a third
law, public 1. In Personam- one which imposes an obligation on a him, or not in his conferred by
party with a right Moral damages may be
order, public definite person possession. statute, or
recognized by law awarded where gross
policy, RIGHT has the force of guaranteed by negligence on the part of
2. In Rem -one which imposes an obligation on a
morals, or the Constitution,
definite person or persons generally; i.e., either on all 3. Alleged rights which “claim” properly the common carrier is
good are really not yet in expressed by the Latin provided such shown. Since we have
the world on all the world except certain determinate
customs, or existence, as in the “jus” rights and earlier concluded that
persons
prejudicial to case of future privileges rest in respondent common
a third Rights as Classified under the Constitution: inheritance RIGHT is a power, the individual carrier and his driver had
person with privilege, or immunity and are intended been grossly negligent in
a right 1. Natural rights - are those which grow out of the guaranteed under a for his sole connection with the bus
recognized nature of man and depend upon personality, as 4. If the right is a constitution, statutes, or benefit. Thus, it mishap which had injured
by law. distinguished from such as are created by law and natural right, such as decisional laws, or is competent petitioner and other
depend upon civilized society right to be claimed as a result of for a person to passengers, and recalling
supported long usage. waive a right the aggressive
2. Civil rights - are such as belong to every citizen of the
state or country, or in a wider sense, to all its guaranteed by maneuvers of
RIGHT v DUTY
inhabitants, and are not connected with the the respondent, through his
organization or administration of government RIGHT need not be Constitution, wife, to get the victims to
exercised and might and to consent waive their right to
3. Political rights - consists in the power to participate, even be waived to action which recover damages even as
directly or indirectly, in the establishment or would be they were still
 administration of government, such as the right of DUTY must be invalid if taken hospitalized for their
citizenship, that of suffrage, the right to hold public performed, and one against his will. injuries, petitioner must
office, and the right of petition. who does not discharge be held entitled to such
the same must moral damages.
“Personal rights”- a term of rather vague import, but necessarily be prepared Considering the extent of
generally it may be said to mean the right of personal to face the consequence pain and anxiety which
security, comprising those of life, limb, body, health, of his dereliction or petitioner must have
reputation, and the right of personal liberty omission suffered as a result of her
Waiver physical injuries including
the permanent scar on
- is the intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a petitioner’s forehead.
known right or such conduct as warrants an
interference of relinquishment of such right
- can be express or implied

Waivers, not presumed

- waivers are not presumed but must be clearly and

convincingly shown, either by express stipulation or
acts admitting no other reasonable explanation.

Waivable Rights

• right guaranteed by the Constitution

• rights granted by executive orders of a general
character may also be waived, for the same reason
exists as in the case of rights granted by law or the
Constitution
• fundamental rights
- right to counsel
- right to remain silent
- statutory right to preliminary investigation
- right to bail
- ordinary private rights

Unwaivable Rights

There are some rights which a person cannot waive and

any attempt at waiver is void and illegal. Instances of
unwaivable rights are:

• right to live
• right to future support

 The rights to personality and family rights are not
subject to waiver unlike patrimonial rights

Requirements for a Valid Waiver and Reasons

To make a waiver or renunciation of a right valid, the

following requisites must concur –

1) The waiving party must actually have the right he is

renouncing. The right must be in existence at the
time of the waiver.

2) He must have the full capacity to make the waiver.


3) The waiver must be clear and unequivocal.

4) The waiver must not be contrary to law, public
order, public policy, morals or good customs or
prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized
by law.

5) When formalities are required as in the case of an
express condonation of a debt (mandating the
formalities of a donation) the formalities must be
complied with.
Thomson v
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals to transfer the said Manila Polo Club Share to the nominee of the
CA
appellant is AFFIRMED.
COSTS against petitioner.
In this case, the petitioner was the nominee of the private respondent to hold the share and enjoy the privileges of the club. But upon the expiration of
petitioners employment as officer and consultant of AmCham, the incentives that go with the position, including use of the MPC share, also ceased to exist. It
now behooves petitioner to surrender said share to private respondents next nominee, another natural person. Obviously this arrangement of trust and
confidence cannot be defeated by the petitioners citation of the MPC rules to shield his untenable position, without doing violence to basic tenets of justice and
fair dealing.
However, we still have to ascertain whether the rights of herein parties to the trust still subsist. It has been held that so long as there has been no denial or
repudiation of the trust, the possession of the trustee of an express and continuing trust is presumed to be that of the beneficiary, and the statute of limitations
does not run between them. With regard to a constructive or a resulting trust, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the trustee clearly repudiates
or disavows the trust and such disavowal is brought home to the other party, cestui que trust. The statute of limitations runs generally from the time when the
act was done by which the party became chargeable as a trustee by operation of law or when the beneficiary knew that he had a cause of action, the absence of
fraud or concealment.

Article 7 How Laws Lose their Effectivity

Repealed No human positive law is perpetually permanent. Laws are subject to repeal, self-cancellation due to the lapse of their period of effectivity or declaration of
Laws nullity due to unconstitutionality.

Laws are Kinds of Repeal

repealed
only by 1) Express repeal - when repealing law provides for a provision or a repealing clause explicitly sating that a particular existing law or part of a law is thereby
subsequent repealed
ones, and
their 2) Implied repeal - when there is no repealing clause in the repealing law, but the prior law and the subsequent law could not reconcile being substantially
violation or inconsistent with one another
non- If both statues can reasonably stand together, there is no repeal.
observance Implied repeal is not looked upon with favor because it rests only on presumption that there is an intention to repeal. Following the rule that implied repeals
shall not be are not favored, statutes in pari materia should be harmonized if possible.
excused by
disuse, or Rule when there is a conflict between two laws and there is no repealing clause in the later law
custom or
When two laws (whether both general or special or a combination) are irreconcilable and there is a repealing clause in the later law expressly repealing the
practice to
prior law, there is no doubt on the intention to repeal the prior law.
the contrary.
When there is no repealing clause in the subsequent conflicting law
When the
courts in which case, reliance is made on presumption of the intention to repeal which in turn depends whether or not by reasonable construction, the two laws could
declare a law possibly stand together. If they could, there is no repeal. If they could not, there is an implied repeal.
to be
inconsistent If both laws are of same category and they cover the same subject matter, that which is later in point of time prevails over the prior one. This is so because the
with the later law manifests the legislator’s latest intention on the subject matter.
Constitution,
However, if one law is general and the other is special, stress should be placed on which law is prior in enactment in relation to the other –
the former
shall be void a) If the general law is PRIOR to the special law, the latter is considered merely an exception to the general law. Hence, the general law remains effective
and the subject to the exception. Insofar as the excepted subject matter is concerned, the special law prevails.
latter shall b) If the general law is LATER in enactment, the special law prevails except –
govern. 1. When there is a clear, necessary and irreconcilable conflict between the two.
2. The general law covers the whole subject (including the subject matter of the special law) and is clearly intended to replace the special law
Administrati

ve or Revival of a Repealed Law, Conditions
executive
acts, orders A repealed law may or may not be revived, when the repealing law which repealed it, is itself repealed. The revival depends on the manner how the first law
and was repealed.
regulations
shall be valid If the first law is repealed by IMPLICATION by the second law, and the second law is itself repealed by the third law, the first law is revived unless otherwise
only when provided in the third law.
they are not If the first law is repealed EXPRESSLY by the second law, and the second law is repealed by the third law, the first law is not revived, unless expressly so
contrary to provided (Sec. 14, Revised Administrative Code)
the laws or
the The general rule is, in case of implied repeal, there is revival and in case of express repeal, there is no revival.

Constitution. Self-Lapsing Laws

- laws which provide for their limited application.

- Once the period for their effectivity lapses, it automatically become ineffective without any need of further legislative action.
- examples of such law:
1) House of Rental Law;
2) Emergency Powers granted to President (C.A. No. 671);
3) Annual Appropriations Act;
4) Import Control Law

Disuse, Custom or Practices to the Contrary

- Violation or non-observance of law is not excused by reason of disuse, customs, or practices

- For instance, jueteng in the entire country in spite of Article 194, par. 1 of RPC and the government campaign against it. Filipinos kept playing this form of
gambling as a pastime without remorse. If caught violating the law, the offender, cannot use the widespread tolerance of jueteng or its “practice”, as a basis
for exoneration.

Supremacy of the Constitution Over All Laws

- The Constitution is the highest law of the land to which all other laws must abide, otherwise they will be void for being unconstitutional.
- The last paragraph of Article 7 echoes the majesty and supremacy of the Constitution – a universally accepted principle – is made part of the law as a
“constant reminder” to administrative officials to discourage abuse of power.

Laws are Superior to Administrative and Executive Acts, Orders and Regulations

- Next to the Constitution in authority are the laws. But, Congress cannot conceivably provide for all the details necessary in the enforcement of a particular
law such that administrative agencies authorized to implement law are empowered to issue the implementing rules and regulation to enforce the law.
- The department regulations issued must be in concordance with the provisions of the law.
- Rules or regulations so promulgated should not be allowed to expand or extend the law.

How to Attack the Constitutionality of a Law

- Until the law has been declared void by a competent authority, it remains valid and effective.
- The Supreme Court, composed of fifteen (15) members, is empowered by the Constitution to declare the unconstitutionality of a law and the vote required is
majority of the Justices who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and who voted thereon.
- The constitutionality of a law may not be attacked collaterally and shall be deemed valid unless declared null and void by competent authority.
- Action must be filed by the proper party who must show that his interests are or about to be adversely affected by the enforcement of the law.
- A law must be declared unconstitutional either because
1) its purpose or effect contravenes the Constitution or its basic principles,
2) arbitrary method may have been established, or
3) the enactment of the law is not within the power of legislative body to enact
Thus, Congress could not validly enact an Act (R.A. 972) admitting in mass to the practice of law bar flunkers whom the SC failed in the previous bar
examinations. Admission to the bar is a power which is exclusively given to the SC by the Constitution. The Bar Flunkers’ law is an encroachment on the
 prerogative of the SC to admit members to the practice of law.

Article 8 Judicial Decisions are not Laws but have the Force Limited Flexibility of Justification for Jurisprudence with SC Ruling
and Effect of Laws Stare Decisis Abandoning the
Judicial Principle of Stare Choy v Republic
Decisions and - Under the principle of separation of powers the - The doctrine of stare Decisis
Congress makes the laws, and the Judiciary merely decisis is a sound The applicant in this case failed to live up to
Stare Decis
applies or interprets them in given cases. And the principle which has - Abandonment of a such a rigorous standard. Hence, his petition
Judicial Executive Department executes the laws as been allowed in this principle or rule of ought to have been denied.
decisions interpreted by the Judiciary. jurisdiction. law established by the
applying or The decision of the lower court naturalizing
- Although not laws, the decisions of the SC applying - It has helped SC must be based only petitioner Fong Choy, also known as Carlos
interpreting and interpreting the laws or the Constitutions form maintain the stability on strong and
the laws or Yee, is reversed. Costs against petitioner.
part of the legal system in the country. of law and compelling reasons.
the - They have the force and effect of laws (People v jurisprudence and otherwise, the The Supreme Court sustain the appeal and
Constitution Jabinal) as they assume the same authority as the has guided lawyers becoming virtue of reverse the lower court. Its rather generous
shall form a statutes themselves (Floresca v Philex Mining Corp.) and judges in the predictability which is frame of mind in considering this application
part of the - The Court’s interpretation of a statute constitutes part exercise of their expected from the for citizenship, manifested in the decision
legal system of the laws as of the date it was originally enacted, respective line or Court would be appealed from, finds no support in the law.
of the since the Court’s construction merely established expertise. immeasurably affected The decision was rendered on March 24, 1965.
Philippines. contemporaneous legislative intent that the - The doctrine of stare and the public’s Approximately five months previously, on
interpreted law purports to effectuate. decisis does not mean confidence in the October 30, 1964, in Tio Tek Chai v.

- A decision of an administrative body made prior to blind adherence to stability of the solemn Republic, 3 this Court held that violation of the
the judicial declaration of the unconstitutionality of precedents. There pronouncements Price Tag Law "certainly renders [petitioner's]
the grant of authority to said administrative body, can are certain diminished. conduct anything but proper and
irreproachable."’
have no valid effect. exceptions when it
- It is the duty of the courts to interpret and apply the must be softened.
What this Court has ruled is binding on
low as they see it in accordance with said rules of • If a rule which has
inferior tribunals. The lower court, instead of
statutory construction. been followed as a
exhibiting deference and respect for a decision
precedent is found
of this Court, would in effect overrule the
contrary to law, it
Constitutional Requirements for Validity of same. It did not have such a power. What this
must be
Decisions Court had decreed must be obeyed. The lower
abandoned.
court's duty was plain. It failed to do it. Its
- The 1987 provides “No decision shall be rendered by • The law is higher
decision is tainted with the corrosion of
any court without expressing therein clearly and than a precedent.
substantial legal error. It cannot stand.
distinctly the facts and the law of which it is based” • The precedent may
(Article III, Sec. 14). also be abandoned,
- Courts are not hidebound to write in their decision if it has ceased to
Even if there were no binding Tio Tek
every bit and piece of evidence presented by one be beneficial and
useful to society in Chai ruling therefore, the lower court ought to
party and the other on the issues raised.
the light of the have been less generous in its indiscriminate
- It is sufficient that the decisions contain necessary
changing acceptance of explanations of such character. It
facts to warrant their conclusions.
conditions. ought to have shown greater awareness of the
- Resolutions are not decisions within the
trend of decisions of this Tribunal, which is
constitutional requirement. They merely resolve that
 the petition for review is not entertainable under the rightfully insistent on the rigorous observance
Rules of Court. of each and every requisite indispensable for
- A petition to review the decision of the CA is not a the acquisition of citizenship. Such should be
matter of right but of sound judicial discretion. the case if the boon of nationality which is the
- The facts and the law are already mentioned in the basis of political rights is to be accorded only
CA’s opinion. to those who, by their exemplary behavior and
conduct, have earned the title-deed to

membership in our political community.
Observation and Submission

PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS
The author agrees with the dissenting opinions. The SC

has previously held that there were two (2) different The Congress makes the laws, and the
titles, and one is a fake one. It reversed itself in violation Judiciary merely applies or interprets them in
of the rule of stare decisis. given cases. And the Executive Department
executes the laws as interpreted by the
Judicial precedents must not be disturbed. Judiciary

Judgments: A doctrine that should be abandoned Jurisprudence
must be abandoned
- The doctrines formulated by the decisions of
- SC re-examines previous rulings of the Court with a the SC constitutes jurisprudence.
view towards abandoning or modifying the same, - These doctrines amplify and supplement the

with careful reflection and deliberation on SC. written law
- The rule of stare decisis is entitled to respect because - Judicial decisions referred in the Article are
stability in jurisprudence is desirable. those of the Supreme Court
- Reverence for precedent, simply as precedent, cannot - Decisions of the CA which cover points of law
prevail when constitutionalism and the public interest still undecided in the Philippines may serve
demand otherwise. as judicial guides to the lower courts.
- Thus, a doctrine which should be abandoned or - And they may maintain the status of
modified should be abandoned or modified doctrines if after having been subjected to

accordingly. test in the crucible of analysis and revision,
- More important than anything else is that this Court the SC should find the same to have merits
should be right and qualities sufficient for their consecration
as rules of jurisprudence.
Citation of Abandoned Decision, unethical - Decisions of lower courts (like the RTCs and
MTCs) no matter how sound and wise do not
- It is unethical for lawyers to cite as authorities become part of the jurisprudence. They
decisions which have already been overruled and no cannot be cited as authorities.

longer controlling
Kinds of Stare Decisis Concept:
Difference between Stare Decisis and Res
- In Lambino v COMELEC, Justice Puno made the Judicata
following views in his dissenting opinion
- The doctrine of stare decisis is based upon
 the legal principle or rule involved and not
upon the judgment which results therefrom,
Two strains of stare decisis have been isolated by legal and in this particular sense, stare decisis
scholars differs from res judicata which is based upon

1) Vertical stare decisis the judgment.
- deals with duty of lower courts to apply the decisions - The doctrine of stare decisis is one of policy
of the higher courts to cases involving the same facts grounded on the necessity for securing

- has been viewed as an obligation certainty and stability of judicial decisions

2) Horizontal stare decisis Stare Decisis Doctrine

- requires that High Courts must follow their - The doctrine stare decisis (et non quieta
precedents. movere) refers to the principle of
- has been viewed as policy, imposing choice but not a adherence to precedents for reasons of
command stability in the law.
- The doctrine requires lower courts to follow

Two kinds of horizontal stare decisis the rules established in prevailing decision
of the SC.
2.1. Constitutional stare decisis - The latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta

movere means “stand by the thing and no
2.2. Statutory stare decisis not disturb the calm”

the distinction being important for court enjoy more - Stare decisis started with the English Courts
and later migrated to the US
flexibility in refusing to apply stare decisis in
constitutional litigations. - Where the SC had already resolved a
particular issue of jurisdiction in several
Facts of the Two or More Cases Must be Similar or cases, it is salutary and necessary judicial
Analogous to the Latest One practice to apply the rulings therein to the

subject petition
- In order that a case can be considered as precedent
- Once a case has been decided one way, any
to another case which is pending consideration, the
other case involving exactly the same point
facts of the first case should be similar or analogous
at issue should be decided in the same
to the second case
manner.

- The doctrine is based on the principle that
Obiter Dictum once a question of law has been decided in
one case, any other case, involving the same
- has been defined as opinion expressed by a court issues, must be resolved in accordance with
upon some question of law which is not necessary to the preceding decisions.
the decision of the case before it. - Stability is achieved in the process of
- A remark made, or opinion expressed, by a judge, in decision-making and cases shall not be
his decision upon a cause “by the way”, that is, decided based on the caprices and moods of
incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the judges.
question before him, or upon a point not necessarily
involved in the determination of the cause, or Stare decisis doctrine is firmly entrenched in
 introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or our jurisprudence
argument. Such are not binding as precedent.
- When a matter has been clearly questioned or raised
as an issue and the same was touched in the decision
when a conclusion was presumed, the adjudication
cannot be considered an obiter dictum but a factual
finding.

PEOPLE V. The judgment appealed was reversed, and the appellant was acquitted.
JABINAL
The doctrine laid down in lucero and Macarandang was part of the jurisprudence, hence, of the law, at the time appellant was found in possession of fire arm in
question and he was arraigned by the trial court. It is true that the doctrine was overruled in Mapa case in 1967, but when a doctrine of the Supreme Court is
overruled and a new one is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively, and should not apply to partres who had relied on the old doctrine and
acted on the faith thereof.

TING V. The premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are
VELEZ-TING accordingly REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence by lower courts to doctrinal rules established by this Court in its final decisions. It is based on the principle that
once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. Basically, it is a bar to any attempt to
relitigate the same issues, necessary for two simple reasons: economy and stability. In our jurisdiction, the principle is entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code.

This doctrine of adherence to precedents or stare decisis was applied by the English courts and was later adopted by the United States. Associate Justice (now
Chief Justice) Reynato S. Punos discussion on the historical development of this legal principle in his dissenting opinion in Lambino v. Commission on Elections.

To be forthright, respondents argument that the doctrinal guidelines prescribed in Santos and Molina should not be applied retroactively for being contrary to
the principle of stare decisis is no longer new. The same argument was also raised but was struck down in Pesca v. Pesca and again in Antonio v. Reyes. In these
cases, we explained that the interpretation or construction of a law by courts constitutes a part of the law as of the date the statute is enacted. It is only when a
prior ruling of this Court is overruled, and a different view is adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor of parties who have
relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith, in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of lex prospicit, non respicit.

CASTRO V. The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

DELORIA
A judicial interpretation of a statute, such as the Ombudsman Act, constitutes part of that law as of the date of its original passage. Such interpretation does not
create a new law but construes a pre-existing one; it merely casts light upon the contemporaneous legislative intent of that law. Hence, the March 20, 2001
Resolution of the Court in Uy interpreting the Ombudsman Act is deemed part of the law as of the date of its effectivity on December 7, 1989.

Where a judicial interpretation declares a law unconstitutional or abandons a doctrinal interpretation of such law, the Court, recognizing that acts may have
been performed under the impression of the constitutionality of the law or the validity of its interpretation, has consistently held that such operative fact cannot
be undone by the mere subsequent declaration of the nullity of the law or its interpretation; thus, the declaration can only have a prospective application. But
where no law is invalidated nor doctrine abandoned, a judicial interpretation of the law should be deemed incorporated at the moment of its legislation.

In the present case, the March 20, 2001 Resolution in Uy made no declaration of unconstitutionality of any law nor did it vacate a doctrine long held by the
Court and relied upon by the public. Rather, it set aside an erroneous pubescent interpretation of the Ombudsman Act as expressed in the August 9, 1999
Decision in the same case. Its effect has therefore been held by the Court to reach back to validate investigatory and prosecutorial processes conducted by the
Ombudsman, such as the filing of the Information against petitioner.
VIRTUCIO V. The Petition is DENIED.
ALEGARBES
Virtucio insists that the CA gravely erred in disregarding its decision in Custodio v. Alegarbes, CA-G.R. CV 26286, for Recovery of Possession and Ownership,
which involved the same factual circumstances and ruled against Alegarbes.

It must be noted that the subject property in the said case was Lot 139 allocated to Custodio and that Virtucio was not a party to that case. The latter cannot
enjoy whatever benefits said favorable judgment may have had just because it involved similar factual circumstances. The Court also found from the records
that the period of acquisitive prescription in that case was effectively interrupted by Custodio's filing of a complaint, which is wanting in this case.

Moreover, it is settled that a decision of the CA does not establish judicial precedent."The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence by lower courts to
doctrinal rules established by this Court in its final decisions. It is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should
be deemed settled and closed to further argument.”

The Court agrees with the position of Alegarbes that by Virtucio's insistence that it was erroneous for the CA to disregard its earlier decision in CA-G.R. CV
 26286, he, in effect, calls upon this Court to adhere to that decision by invoking the stare decisis principle, which is not legally possible because only final
decisions of this Court are considered precedents.

In view of the foregoing, the Court need not dwell on the complaint of Virtucio with regard to the deletion of the award of attorney's fees in his favor. It is
ludicrous for the CA to order Alegarbes to pay attorney's fees, as a measure of damages, and costs, after finding him to have acquired ownership over the
property by acquisitive prescription.

Since the true basic factual predicate concerning Original Certificate of Title (OCT) NO. 994 which is that there is only one such OCT differs from that expressed
in the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System and Gonzaga decisions, said rulings have become virtually functus officio except on the basis of the “law
of the case” doctrine, and can no longer be relied upon as precedents.

a) view of the final judgements – like those of MWSS v CA and Gonzaga v CA – deserved respect and should no longer be disturbed
b) View that his is a sad day for the Supreme Court – to ligate the findings of three trial courts and affirmed by the three divisions of the CA once again will
entirely change the settled jurisprudence of the SC, seriously disturbing the doctrine that should be an end to litigation.
CHED V. Apart from its mandated duty to take judicial notice of the resolution in the disbarment case, the CA is bound by this Court’s findings and conclusions in the said
DAIS resolution in accordance with the doctrine of stare decis et non quietra movere. Althought the administrative case is different from the disbarment case, the
parties are different and trials were conducted separately, there can only be one truth: Dasig had attempted to extort money from the students. For the sake of
certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to that which follows, if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be
different. Otherwise, one would be subscribing to the sophistry: truth on one side of the Pyrenees, falsehood on the other.

Article 9 Filling of Gaps in the Law, Authorized; Limitations There are limits in the CHU JAN V. BERNAS
filling of gaps in obscure
Duty of In view of the principle of separation of powers in our governmental or insufficient laws. The The grounds for the dismissal pronounced by the lower
Courts to system, the Courts shall not legislate, otherwise, they will be Judge is not free to court in the judgment appealed from ere that the court
Decide encroaching on the function of the Legislature. However, in situations decide according to his has always dismissed cases of this nature, that he is not
where cases are brought to court and there is no law exactly applicable whims and caprices. The familiar with the rules governing cockfights and the duties
No Judge or to them, or while there is law, it is obscure or vague, and insufficient in of referees thereof; that he does not know where to find
court shall its guidance, the JUDGE is, nevertheless, enjoined to render a decision. Judge must see to it that
the decision is just and the law on the subject and, finally, that he knows of no law
decline to He shall not abstain or decline in adjudging the case. The Judge is whatever that governs the rights to the plaintiff and the
render equitable, and not
somehow forced to “legislate” in a loose sense or to fill the existing contrary to law, public defendant in questions concerning cockfights.
judgment by vacuum in obscure or insufficient laws.
reason of the order, public policy, The ignorance of the court or his lack of knowledge
silence, Guidelines in the Rendition of Decision Under Article 9 morals, and good regarding the law applicable to a case submitted to him
obscurity or customs. for decision, the fact that the court does not know the
insufficiency - Unlike the old Civil Code, which provided leads to the judges, rules applicable to a certain matter that is the subject of
Article 9 is silent. In balancing conflicting
of the laws. solutions, the judge an appeal which must be decided by him and his not
- The old Code explicitly provided – “when there is no law exactly knowing where to find the law relative to the case, are not
applicable to the point in controversy, the custom of the place shall should favor that
solution which will best reasons that can serve to excuse the court for terminating
and in default thereof, the general principles of the law” (Article 6, the proceedings by dismissing them without deciding the
par. 2, old Civil Cod). promote the public
welfare issues. Such an excuse is the less acceptable because,
- This provision was not reproduced in Article 9 to give more foreseeing that a case might arise to which no law would
freedom and elbow room for the judge to find other factors where be exactly applicable, the Civil Code, in the second
to base and anchor his decision. paragraph of article 6, provides that the customs of the
- Aside from customs and general principles of law affecting the place shall be observed, and, in the absence thereof, the
 case, the judge may use as his guide – decision of foreign courts, general principles of law.
opinions of known authors and professors, applicable rules of
statutory construction and principles formulated in analogous Therefore the judgment and the order appealed from,
cases. hereinbefore mentioned, are reversed and to record of the
proceedings shall remanded to the court from whence
Duty of the Judge when Laws are clear they came for due trial and judgment as provided by law.
No special finding is made with regard to costs. So
- When the law is clear, the court cannot adopt a policy different ordered.
from that of the law.
- The judge should apply the law without fear or favor; he should
follow its mandate and not tamper with it.
- What the law grants, the court cannot deny.
- No matter how hard is the law, it must be applied; dura lex sed lex.
The court cannot fill gaps when no gaps exists.

Article 9 is Applicable Only to Civil Cases

-
The Article is not applicable to criminal cases because of the basic
principle “nullem cimen, nulla poena sine lege” which means that
when there is no law condemning the act, there is no crime. The
dismissal of the case is mandatory because conviction is
inconceivable.
FLORESCA Even the legislator himself, through Article 9 of the New Civil Code, recognizes that in certain instances, the court, in the language of Justice Holmes “do and
V. PHILEX must legislate” to fill in the law; because the mind of the legislator, like all human beings, is finite and therefore cannot envisage all possible cases tow which the
MINING law may apply. Nor has the human mind the infinite capacity to anticipate all situations.
CORP.

PHIL BANK While Act No. 3135 has no provision for the recovery of deficiency, unlike in judicial foreclosure of mortgage (Rule 70, Sec. 6, Rules of Court) nonetheless,
OF considering that the underlying principle is the same, that the mortgage is but a security and not a satisfaction of debt – by analogy, the mortgage has the right
COMMERCE to recover the deficiency from the mortgagor.
V. DE VERA
Where the law governing a particular matter is silent on a question at issue, the provision of another law governing another matter may be applied where the
underlying principle of reason is the same “Ubi cadem ratio ibi eadem disposito”
Article 10 In case of doubt in Articles Applies only if there is Doubt Reason behind the Article Some Fundamental Principles in Statutory
the interpretation Construction or Interpretation of Laws
or application of - If there is no doubt of the law, the court must - So it may tip the scales in
laws, it is presumed apply it without fear or favor. favor of right and justice - There are basic principles which must be
that the lawmaking - When the law is clearly worded, no when the law is doubtful or followed in the interpretation of doubtful laws
body intended right interpretation should be made. obscure. such as –
and justice to - In case of doubt, the judge should proceed on - It will strengthen the
prevail. “the presumption that the lawmaking body determination of the courts 1) A laws should be interpreted not by the letter
intended right and justice to prevail.” to avoid an injustice which that killeth but by the spirit that giveth life;
- Thus, if the law can be construed in two ways, may apparently be 2) When statutes are silent or ambiguous, the
that construction which will achieve the ends authorized by some way of courts should consider the vehement urge of
desired by Congress should be adopted. interpreting the law (Report the conscience;
- In the interpretation of doubtful laws , the of Code Commission) 3) When the reason for the law ceases, the law
judge should acquaint himself with the automatically ceases.
prevailing principles in statutory 4) Strict interpretation should be applied to laws
construction to guide and enlighten him which are in derogation of natural or basic
every now and then in arriving at what is rights;
reasonable, just, and lawful. 5) Criminal laws and tax laws should be
- All laws should receive a sensible interpreted strictly against the State;
construction, and when a literal 6) The judge should not apply equity if equity will
interpretation of general terms would lead to not serve the ends of justice. The judge should
injustice, oppression, or absurdity, it must be instead apply the law strictly;
presumed that the legislature intended 7) Equity follows the law. Justice is done according
exception to its language which would avoid to law;
such results. 8) Equity is justice tempered with mercy. Its
purpose is to soften the rigors of positive laws;
The Rules of Court must be liberally construed in
order to promote their object and to assist the
parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding
(Rule 1, Sec. 2, Revised Rules of Court)

Article 11 Customs which are contrary to law, public order, public policy shall not Customs cannot supplant laws
be countenanced.
The Court is duty-bound to resolve the instant case applying such laws and rights as
are in existence at the time the pertinent civil acts took place, and is unable to
supplant governing law with customs, albeit how widely observed.

Article 12 Custom

A custom - It is a rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts, uniformly observed (practiced) as social rule, legally binding and obligatory.
must be
proved as
fact, Usage distinguished from Custom
according to “Usage” is a repetition of acts, and differs from “custom” in that the latter is the law or general rule which arises from such repetition; while there may be usage
the rules of without custom, there cannot be a custom without a usage accompanying or preceding it.
evidence
Kinds of Customs

1) General customs
- Are such as prevail throughout a country and become the law of that country, and their existence is to be determined by the court.
- Applied to usages of trade and business, a general custom is one that is followed in all cases by all persons in the same business in the same territory, and
which has been so long established that persons sought to be charged thereby, and all others living in the vicinity, may be presumed to have known of it
and to have acted upon it as they had occasion.
2) Local customs
- Are such as prevail only in some particular district or locality, or in some city, country or town.
3) Particular customs
- Are nearly the same being such as affect only inhabitants of some particular district.

Customs of whatever classification, if contrary to law, public order, or public policy will not be abetted or tolerated. They cannot justify what is illegal.

Importance of Customs

Under article 9, where there is no law that is applicable to a case brought before a judge, or if the law is obscure or insufficient to provide clear guidance on the
resolution of the case, the judge who is mandated to make a decision may resort to customs as guide or criterion. However, no matter how strong is the
acceptability of a custom in the community, it cannot prevail over the existing law. Neither, will it be allowed to prevail if it is against public policy or odder.

Requisites to Make a Custom an Obligatory Rule

When a custom is not contrary to law, public order or public policy, it may be given the force of an obligatory rule provided the following requisites are
obtaining:

1) Plurality of acts or the acts have been repeatedly done;

2) It is generally practiced by the great mass of the social group;
3) The practice has been going on for a long period of time;
The community accepts it as a proper way of acting, such that it is considered obligatory upon all.

Article 13 Computation of Periods

When the 1 year – 365 days

laws speak
of years, 1 month – 30 days, unless month is identified, in which case the month will be computed according to the total number of days it contains
months, days 1 day – means 24 hours
or nights, it
shall be Night – sunset to sunrise
understood Week
that years
are of three A week has two meanings
hundred a) Computed in accordance with the calendar – it means seven successive days without regard to the day of the week when it shall begin; and
sixty0five b) When computed without reference to the calendar – it means beginning Sunday and ending on Saturday. In this second sense, the first day of the week
days each; is Sunday and the seventh day is Saturday.
months, of
thirty days; In legal matters, the first sense is the recognized method of computation unless otherwise agreed upon.
days, of
twenty-four Calendar (Solar) Month Distinguished from Lunar Month
hours; and
1) Calendar or Solar month is a month designated in the calendar without reference to the number of days it contains. It conforms with the Gregorian
nights from
calendar and these months are the 12 months known as January, February, etc. composing of unequal number of days
sunset to
2) Lunar month is composed of twenty-eight days. In some connections as in the determination of pregnancy, the lunar month consists of 28 and ½ day,
sunrise.
i.e., from phase of the moon to the recurrence of the same phase.
If months are We do not follow any of the above senses
designated
Mont contemplated, Legal Month
by their
name, they The Civil Code provision cannot be construed to refer to the calendar month, but to the “legal” month of thirty days created by law.
shall be
computed by Exclude the First and Include the Last Day Rule: Rationale
the number
The rule is found in two Articles of the New Civil Code, Article 13 and Article 1138.
of days
which they The rule is based on American legislation. The reason behind is that if the first day is not excluded, then that first day would be less than 24 hours and will run
respectively in conflict with the law which provides that a day has twenty-four hours.
have.
Basis of the Rule

The Rule is based on Rule 28 of the Old Rules of Court
In computing
a period, the Dr. Tolentino’s observation
first day The present article of the Code does not contain the exception referring to Sundays and legal holidays mentioned in the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court,
shall be however, applies only to period of time ‘prescribed or allowed by the Rules of Court, by order of a court, or any applicable statute’. It seems logical to conclude
excluded, that when the act and the period are contractual, not required by law, court order, or rule of court, the exception refereeing to Sundays and holidays does not
and last day apply, and the act must be done on the last day, even if the latter should be a Sunday or holiday. This is in consonance with the rule that the contract is the law
included. between the contracting parties. This without prejudice to special laws on the particular contract involved, such as in the case of negotiable instruments.

Computation of Period when Las Day Falls on a Sunday or Holiday

As to whether the Sunday or holiday shall be considered in the computation, will depend upon the nature of the act performed or done:

1. If the act to be performed within the period is prescribed or allowed

(1) By rules of Court
(2) By an order of the court or
 (3) By any other applicable statute, the Sunday or holiday will not be considered as the last day. The last day will automatically be the next working
day. The period is extended.
2. If the act to be performed within the period arises from a contractual relationship, the act will become due notwithstanding the fact that the last day
falls on a Sunday or holiday. The period is not extended. This is so because the contract is the law between the parties.

Rule is Applicable to Criminal Cases

The rule exclude the first day and include the last day is applicable to the RPC, although Article 91 thereof provides that prescription “shall commence to run
from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party”

Computation if there is a Leap Year

In a case involving an issue of prescription of action, the computation of the number of days in a year (1964) which happened to be a leap year, February 29 was
counted separately from February 28. It must be so since they are two different days.

Rule on Filing Pleadings through the Post Office

The post office is considered an agent of the Government. The date of mailing has always been considered as the date of filing of any petition, motion or paper
addressed to a court, tribunal or administrative body. The mail must be registered for evidentiary purposes on the date of mailing.

Technique of Computation

If a complaint was received January 10 and defendant is required to answer 15 days after – just add 15 to 10. The answer will be due on January 25, unless it is
a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, in which case the deadline will be the next working day.

Rule on “Next-Working Day” does not Apply to Public Sales or Foreclosure of Mortgages nor to Trial Dates Fixed by the Court.

If the date fixed by the sheriff or notary public for the auction sale of properties (pursuant to a published notice of public sale or foreclosure of mortgage) is
declared a holiday, the sale is not automatically moved to the next working day. There is a need for the republication of the notice of public auction sale or
foreclosure.

Similarly, if the date fixed for the trial of a case has been declared a holiday, the trial is not automatically transferred to the next working day. The next working
day rule applies only to periods fixed by law or by the Rules of Court.
Article 14 Article 14 refers to Penal Laws and to those of Exception to the Principle Doctrine US v Wong Cheng
Public Security and Safety of Territoriality
Applicability The Principle of territoriality
The order appealed from is
of Penal - Generally, our civil laws do not apply to aliens The law provides two
- Article 14 revoked and the cause ordered
Laws who are governed by their national laws. exceptions
underlines the principle of remanded to the court of origin
- However, our Penal laws equally apply to aliens
Penal laws territoriality under which for further proceedings in
who live or sojourn in the Philippines based on
and those of any offense committed by accordance with law, without
the principle that during their stay, they owe 1. Those, who under
public anyone within the territory special findings as to costs.
allegiance to the country tough temporary in principles of public
security and nature. of the country is an offense
safety shall international law enjoy against the State. In this appeal the Attorney-
- Aliens who live or sojourn in the country enjoy diplomatic immunities - The sovereign state has the
be obligatory General urges the revocation of
the civil rights (not exclusive to Filipinos) (from suit) such as
upon all who power to prosecute and the order of the Court of First
guaranteed by the Constitution to all heads of states, foreign
live or punish the offender, be Instance of Manila, sustaining the
inhabitants of the country. ambassadors or
sojourn in national or foreigner demurrer presented by the
diplomats provided - The principle of territoriality
Philippine defendant to the information that
territory, they do not travel is also expressed in the first initiated this case and in which
Consuls do not have immunities
subject to incognito. Also, under portion of Article 2 of the the appellee is accused of having
the - A consul is not entitled to the privileges and the principles of public RPC illegally smoked opium, aboard
principles of immunities of an ambassador. international law, a the merchant vessel Changsa of
public - He is subject to the laws and regulations of the foreign army is exempt English nationality while said
international country to which he is accredited. from civil and criminal Philippine Constitution vessel was anchored in Manila
law and to - He is not exempt from criminal prosecution for jurisdiction of the Bay two and a half miles from the
treaty violation of the laws of the country where he place, where it was Article I shores of the city.
resides permitted to march or
stipulations.
to station therein, by The National Territory
The demurrer alleged lack of
permission of its
Immunity from Suit may be Granted to International jurisdiction on the part of the
government or The national territory
Agencies lower court, which so held and
sovereign comprises the Philippine dismissed the case.
- By treaty stipulations, an international agency 2. Those expressly archipelago, with all the islands
like the SEAFDEC may be granted immunity from excluded from our and waters embraced therein,
The question that presents itself
suit jurisdiction due to and all other territories over
for our consideration is whether
treaty stipulations such which the Philippines has
such ruling is erroneous or not;
as American citizens sovereignty or jurisdiction,
and it will or will not be
Philippine Territory; What it Includes mentioned in the consisting of its terrestrial,
erroneous according as said court
Philippine-United fluvial and aerial domains,
- The Constitution of the Philippines, Article I, has or has no jurisdiction over
States Military Bases including its territorial sea, the
defines the boundaries of the territory of the said offense.
Agreement dated seabed, the subsoil, the insular
Philippines.
March 14, 1974. This shelves, and other submarine
The point at issue is whether the
Agreement was not areas. The waters around,
extended following its between, and connecting the courts of the Philippines have
Extraterritoriality Jurisdiction of the Philippines
termination in 1991. islands of the archipelago, jurisdiction over crime, like the
- For the enforcement of the RPC, the Philippines has This in effect is a regardless of their breadth and one herein involved, committed
aboard merchant vessels
 jurisdiction over certain cases committed outside its waiver of our dimensions, form part of the anchored in our jurisdiction
territory. jurisdiction over internal waters of the waters.
certain cases. Philippines.
We have seen that the mere
Crimes Committed on Board of Vessels of Foreign
Revised Penal Code possession of opium aboard a
Registry
foreign vessel in transit was held
- Crimes perpetrated on board foreign merchant Article 2. Application of its by this court not triable by or
vessels found within the 3-mile limit of the Philippine provisions. - Except as provided courts, because it being the
territorial waters are tirable in Philippine courts in the treaties and laws of primary object of our Opium Law
under English rule (People v Wong Cheng). This 3- preferential application, the to protect the inhabitants of the
mile limit will be changed if the United Nations provisions of this Code shall be Philippines against the disastrous
approves the proposal to extend it up to 200 miles enforced not only within the effects entailed by the use of this
from the shores of archipelagic countries. Philippine Archipelago, drug, its mere possession in such
including its atmosphere, its a ship, without being used in our
interior waters and maritime territory, does not being about in
zone, but also outside of its the said territory those effects
jurisdiction, against those who: that our statute contemplates
avoiding. Hence such a mere
1. Should commit an offense possession is not considered a
while on a Philippine ship or disturbance of the public order.
airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit But to smoke opium within our
any coin or currency note of territorial limits, even though
the Philippine Islands or aboard a foreign merchant ship, is
obligations and securities certainly a breach of the public
issued by the Government of order here established, because it
the Philippine Islands; causes such drug to produce its
3. Should be liable for acts pernicious effects within our
connected with the territory. It seriously contravenes
introduction into these the purpose that our Legislature
islands of the obligations has in mind in enacting the
and securities mentioned in aforesaid repressive statute.
the presiding number; Moreover, as the Attorney-
4. While being public officers General aptly observes:
or employees, should
commit an offense in the The idea of a person smoking
exercise of their functions; opium securely on board a
or foreign vessel at anchor in the
5. Should commit any of the port of Manila in open defiance of
crimes against national the local authorities, who are
security and the law of impotent to lay hands on him, is
nations, defined in Title One simply subversive of public order.
 of Book Two of this Code. It requires no unusual stretch of
This is what is known as the imagination to conceive that a
extraterritorial jurisdiction – a foreign ship may come into the
juridical power extending port of Manila and allow or solicit
beyond the physical limits of a Chinese residents to smoke
particular state or country. opium on board.

Public and merchant vessels as

well as airships of Philippine
registry are also considered
parts of the Philippine territory.
Crimes committed within these
vessels and airships are triable
by Philippine court although
said vessels or airships are in
international waters or space.
Article 15 Laws relating to These rights and duties refer to A former Filipino is no “Man’s activity is Nationality Tenchavez v. Escano
family rights and rights and duties provided in the longer bound by Philippine not limited an or
Family duties, or to the Family Code, and other special personal laws after he circumscribed citizenship The divorce decree obtained by
Rights and status, condition, laws relating to family law. acquires another state’s within his native theory – the Escano is not valid. At the time
Duties and legal capacity of citizenship. country”. Laws Philippines the divorce was obtained, Escano
persons are binding relating to family follow such was still a Filipino citizen. Hence,
upon citizens of the rights and theory in she is still bound by the laws of
Status – the circumstances
Philippines, even obligations, and which the the Philippines.
affecting the legal situation of a
though living person in view of his age, nation, status, national Under Article 15 of the Civil Code,
abroad. and his family membership. conditions, and law of the the divorce is not valid as the
legal capacity of person is Philippine law does not allow
persons applied in absolute divorce. It only allows
accompany a the matters for annulment and legal
Condition – a mode or state of
person even involving separation.
being
when he moves personal
to a foreign relations.
country because
Legal capacity – the legal power such laws are
to enter into binding obligations more suited to
or to enjoy the privileges of a his personal
legal status affairs.
Article 16 Real property as Lex Situs or Lex Rei Sitae – the Exception to Lex Situs: Property is Renvoi Bellis v. Bellis
well as personal principle which provides that stated in the second governed by the Doctrine –
Personal property is subject property shall be governed by paragraph of Art. 16; law of the place arises Bellis was a citizen of Texas, USA.
Property to the law of the the law of the place where it is incidents of successions – where it is where our Since the intrinsic validity of the
country where it is situated. It generally applies to whether intestate or situated. law refers a provision of the will and the
lands and immovable in testamentary. Incidents case to amount of successional rights are
situated.
transactions. governed by the national another to be determined under Texas
law of the deceased: country for law, the Philippine law on
The second legitimes cannot be applied on
However, intestate paragraph of Art. solution,
1. Order of succession in but the law the testacy of Bellis.
and testamentary ⇒ Personal property can now intestacy 16 only applies
successions, both of that
be separated from the owner 2. Amount of successional when a legal or country

with respect to the thereof. rights testamentary
order of the refers it Under Art 16, it shall be regulated
3. Intrinsic validity of the succession has back to our by the national law of the person
succession and to provisions of the will taken place in
the amount of the Philippines country for whose succession is under
4. Capacity to succeed determinati consideration, whatever may be
successional rights in accordance
and to the intrinsic with the on. the nature of the property and
validity pf Philippine laws. regardless of the country wherein
• Remissi said property may be found.
testamentary
on –
provisions, shall be
single
regulated by the
renvoi
national law of the Aznar v. Garcia
• Transm
person whose
ission – Art. 16 states that successional
succession is under
double rights are determined by the
consideration,
renvoi national laws of the country
whatever may be
where the deceased is a citizen –
the nature of the
the California law. The California
property and
law states that for Californians
regardless of the
residing outside of its jurisdiction,
country wherein
the law of the said country must
said property may
be applied. Christensen, being
be found.
domiciled in the Philippines, must
follow the law of the Philippines.
Art. 17. The forms and The rule of DOCTRINE:
solemnities of lex loci celebrationis insofar as
contracts, wills, extrinsic validity (forms and Insular Gov’t. v. Frank
and other public solemnities) is concerned.
instruments shall be FACTS:
governed by the Mr. Frank, an American citizen from Illinois,
laws U.S.A., entered into a contract with the Philippine
Doctrine of Lex Loci government to serve as a stenographer for a period of two
of the country in
which they are Celebrationis years. He served for only six months, and, therefore, the
executed. government sued for damages. Frank presented minority
When the acts as a defense. The contract was entered into in Illinois; in
referred to are said State, Frank was considered an adult; under Philippine
executed before the laws, Frank was a minor.
diplomatic
or consular officials HELD:
of the Republic of The contract is valid because at the time and
the Philippines place (Illinois) of the making of the contract (loci celebrationis),
in a foreign country, Frank was of age and fully capacitated. Therefore,
the solemnities Frank can be held liable for damages.
established by the
Philippine Miciano v. Brimo
laws shall be FACTS:
observed in their An alien testator (Turk) who made his will
execution. in the Philippines stated in the will that his property
Prohibitive laws should be distributed in accordance with Philippine law,
concerning persons, and not that of his nation. Is the provision valid?
their acts or
property, HELD: No, for Turkish law should govern the disposition
and those which of his property. This is clear under Art. 16.
have for their object
public order, pub lic Van Dorn vs. Romillo
policy and good Facts
customs shall not be Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino Citizen and private respondent, Richard Upton, a US citizen, was
rendered ineffective married in Hong Kong in 1979. They established their residence in the Philippines and had 2
by laws or children. They were divorced in Nevada, USA in 1982 and petitioner remarried, this time with
judgments Theodore Van Dorn. A suit against petitioner was filed on June 8, 1983, stating that petitioner’s
promulgated, or by business in Ermita Manila, the Galleon Shop, is a conjugal property with Upton and prayed therein
determi-nations or that Alice be ordered to render an accounting of the business and he be declared as the
conventions agreed administrator of the said property.
upon in a foreign ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign divorce between the petitioner and private respondent in Nevada
country. is binding in the Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino citizen.

HELD:
Private respondent is no longer the husband of the petitioner. He would have no standing to sue
petitioner to exercise control over conjugal assets. He is estopped by his own representation before
the court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property. Furthermore, aliens may
 obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid
according to their national law. Petitioner is not bound to her marital obligations to respondent by
virtue of her nationality laws. She should not be discriminated against her own country if the end of
justice is to be served.

Art. 18. In matters which Rule in Case of Confl ict Between the Civil Code and
are governed by the Other Laws
Code of In case of confl ict with the Code of Commerce or special
Commerce and laws, the Civil Code shall only be suppletory, except if otherwise
special laws, their provided for under the Civil Code. In general, therefore,
defi ciency shall be in case of confl ict, the special law prevails over the Civil Code,
supplied which is general in nature.
by the provisions of
this Code.
Article 19 Every person must, EXCEPTION: Salvador vs. Garcia
in the exercise of his
rights and in the If one does not follow the mandate of Article 19, The foregoing provision [Art. 20] provides the legal basis for the award of damages to
performance of his which is a rule of human conduct, then he is a party who suffers damage whenever one commits an act in violation of some legal
duties, act with said to have abused. Every performance which provision
justice, give is said to be abnormal because it is contrary to
Article 19 is considered as abused. It injures the The SC found the decision of the Court of Appeals in awarding moral damages as
everyone his due, reasonable under the circumstances bearing in mind the mental trauma suffered by
and observe right of others. So in the exercise of duty, it is
necessary that you assure that you do not respondent Ranida who thought she was afflicted by Hepatitis B, making her "unfit or
honesty and good unsafe for any type of employment."
faith. prejudice or injure the rights of others.

DOCTRINE:

PRINCIPLE OF ABUSE - The duty of a person
who is exercising the right of performing an
obligation: acts with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith

Article 20 Every person who, When is a person liable in Article 20? Diaz vs. Encanto
contrary to law,
willfully or If a person willfully or negligently caused The Court held that the respondents did not act in bad faith. Diaz’s complaint for
negligently causes damage recovery of damages before the RTC was based on the alleged bad faith of the
damage to another, respondents in denying her application for sabbatical leave vis-à-vis Article 19 and 20
of the Civil Code. The Ombudsman and all three courts, starting from the RTC to this
shall indemnify the
Court, have already established that a sabbatical leave is not a right and therefore
latter for the same
petitioner Diaz cannot demand its grant.

Article 21 Any person who When is a person liable in Article 21? Cebu Country Club, Inc., vs. Elizaque
Remedies to wilfully causes loss
Article 19 or injury to another If a person willfully causes loss or injury that is In rejecting respondent’s application for proprietary membership, the Court found
in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public that petitioners violated the rules governing human relations, the basic principles to
 contrary to morals, policy. be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability
good customs or of social order. The trial court and the Court of Appeals aptly held that petitioners
public policy shall committed fraud and evident bad faith in disapproving respondent’s applications.
compensate the This is contrary to morals, good custom or public policy. Hence, petitioners are liable
latter for the for damages pursuant to Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the same Code.
damage.

Custodio vs. CA

The award of damages has no substantial legal basis. A reading of the decision of the Court of Appeals will show that the award of damages was based solely on the fact that the
Pacifico Mabasa, incurred losses in the form of unrealized rentals when the tenants vacated the leased premises by reason of the closure of the passageway. However, the mere
fact that the Mabasa suffered losses does not give rise to a right to recover damages. To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong
inflicted by the defendant, and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. In order that the law will give redress for an act causing damage, that act must be not only hurtful,
but wrongful. There must be damnum et injuria. In the case at bar, although there was damage, there was no legal injury. The act of petitioners in constructing a fence within
their lot is a valid exercise of their right as owners, hence not contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
Valley Golf Country Club, Inc., vs. Caram

SC proceeded to declare the sale invalid. SC found that Valley Golf acted in bad faith when it sent the final notice to Caram under the pretense they believed him to still be alive.,
when in fact they had very well known that he had already died. The reason alone, evocative as it is of the absence of substantial justice in the sale of the Golf Share, is sufficient
to nullify the sale and sustain the rulings of the SEC and the CA.
Ardiente vs. Pastorfide

In the instant case, the intention to harm was evident on the part of the petitioner when she requested for the disconnection of the water supply without warning or informing
Pastorfide of such request. Similarly, the COWD undertook the disconnection also without prior notice and even failed to reconnect the water supply despite the payment of the
arrears. There was clearly and abuse of right on the part of the petitioner, the COWD, and Gonzales. They are guilty of bad faith.

Drilon vs. CA

In order for a malicious prosecution suit to prosper, the plaintiff must prove three (3) elements: (1) the fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was
himself the prosecutor and that the action finally terminated with an acquittal; (2) that in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (3) that the
prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice, that is by improper or sinister motive. All these requisites must concur.

The Court held that the petitioners did not commit malicious prosecution with respect to the criminal cases filed against Azada and the other individuals.

Article 22 Every person who There is just enrichment when: Even if something is voluntarily Nemo cum alteris detriment potest - No person
Unjust through an act of delivering, but you know that may unjustly enrich oneself at the expense of
Emrichmen performance by (1) a person is unjustly benefited and you are not entitled to own that another.
t another, or any other something or you know that
means, acquires or (2)such benefit is derived at the expense of or you are not entitled to possess
comes into such while knowing that the
with damages to another.
possession of acquisition of the thing,
something at the somebody is prejudiced, then
expense of the latter you have to return said thing.
without just or legal Otherwise, you become unjustly
 ground, shall return enriched at the expense of the
the same to him. actual owner of that possession.

CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITEDvs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

The court ruled that while petitioner filed its administrative and judicial claims during the period of applicability of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, it cannot claim the benefit of the
exception period as it did not file its judicial claim prematurely, but did so long after the lapse of the 30-day period following the expiration of the 120-day period. Again, BIR
Ruling No. DA-489-03 allowed premature filing of a judicial claim, which means non-exhaustion of the 120-day period for the Commissioner to act on an administrative claim,
but not its late filing.

As this Court enunciated in San Roque, petitioner cannot rely on Atlas either, since the latter case was promulgated only on 8 June 2007. Moreover, the doctrine in Atlas which
reckons the two-year period from the date of filing of the return and payment of the tax, does not interpret expressly or impliedly the 120+30 day periods. Simply stated, Atlas
referred only to the reckoning of the prescriptive period for filing an administrative claim.

For failure of petitioner to comply with the 120+30-day mandatory and jurisdictional period, petitioner lost its right to claim a refund or credit of its alleged excess input VAT.

With regard to petitioner’s argument that Aichi should not be applied retroactively, we reiterate that even without that ruling, the law is explicit on the mandatory and
jurisdictional nature of the 120+30-day period.

As a final note, the SC stressed:

“X x x, equity, which has been aptly described as "a justice outside legality," is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure.
Section 112 is a positive rule that should preempt and prevail over all abstract arguments based only on equity. Well-settled is the rule that tax refunds or credits, just like tax
exemptions, are strictly construed against the taxpayer. The burden is on the taxpayer to show strict compliance with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit.”

Republic vs. Lacap

Article 22 of the Civil Code which embodies the maxim Nemo ex alterius incommode debet lecupletari (no man ought to be made rich out of another’s injury) states:
Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter
without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
The rules thereon apply equally well to the Government. Since respondent had rendered services to the full satisfaction and acceptance by petitioner, then the former
should be compensated for them. To allow petitioner to acquire the finished project at no cost would undoubtedly constitute unjust enrichment for the petitioner to the
prejudice of respondent. Such unjust enrichment is not allowed by law.

Uy vs. PEA

The court held that by grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not
enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility; and such abuse must be so patent and so gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.

The CA granted PEAs prayer for the injunctive writ not without reason.

Indeed, the assailed resolution shows no patent or gross error amounting to grave abuse of discretion. Neither does it show an arbitrary or despotic exercise of power arising
from passion or hostility.

As we held in Villanueva v. Court of Appeals.

A party, by varying the form or action or by bringing forward in a second case additional parties or arguments, cannot escape the effects of the principle of res judicata when the
facts remain the same at least where such new parties or matter could have been impleaded or pleaded in the prior action.

Grandtec Idustrial Steel Productions Vs Edna Marcallo

The principle that no person may unjustly enrich oneself at the expense of another (Nemo cum alteris detriment potest) is embodied in Article 22 of the New Civil Code. There
is just enrichment when (1) a person is unjustly benefited and (2)such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another. The principle against unjust enrichment
obliges Grandtec and Gonzales to refund to Margallo the car loan payments she had made since she has not actually acquired the car. The Constitution and the Labor Code
mandate the protection of labor.

Republic vs. CA

The Court ruled that consequential damages are awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining property of the owner suffers from an impairment or decrease in
value. Thus, there is a valid basis for the grant of consequential damages to the property owner, and no unjust enrichment can result therefrom. An award of consequential
damages for property not taken is not tantamount to unjust enrichment of the property owner. There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss
of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Article 22 of the Civil Code
provides that [e]very person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter
without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. The principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22 requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a
valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at anothers expense or damage. There is no unjust enrichment when the person who will benefit has a valid claim
to such benefit.

Article 23 Even when an act or The extent of liability for compensation is: RATIONALE:
event causing damage
to another's property 1) When the benefit is less than the actual Although the defendant did not cause the injury, he or she is still liable for
was not due to the damage it will be the amount of the benefit. compensation because of the mere fact that he/she has benefitted at the expense of
fault or negligence of another person’s property.
the defendant, the REASON: It is presumed that the benefit
latter shall be liable received by the defendant is less than the The purpose of Article 23 is simply to alleviate the conditions of the person who
for indemnity if damage sustained by the other party. suffered from the act or event.
through the act or
2) When the benefit is greater than the actual Remember, the person benefitted had nothing to do with the act or event, he was not
event he was
damage, it will be the amount of the actual at fault or negligent, therefore he should not be punished.
benefited.
damage only.
Reason: This is simply to alleviate/compensate Therefore, by way of compensation, he should return everything he/she has gained if
the person whose property was destroyed but there is the necessity to do so.
not at the expense of the person who benefitted
from it. For the reason that if you require that
person who benefitted to pay something
beyond what he/she actually received, then you
are punishing that person.
Article 24 In all contractual, Parens Patriae - The State has the duty to take care of its citizens.
Parens property or other
relations, when one of Nature of the contract when there is vitiated consent or when an incapacitated enters into a contract - The contract is voidable because
Patriae
the parties is at a the contract is still valid until it is declared void even though there is a defect. Therefore, the protection of the court is not needed.
disadvantage on
account of his moral Who are morally dependent, ignorant, indigent, mental weakness, tender age or any other handicap people?
dependence, Example: There is a valid contract except one of the party has a weak mind or is of tender years (just turned 28, therefore still
ignorance, indigence,
immature), the court is mandated to help such persons.
mental weakness,
tender age or other Can an illiterate person enter into a contract? Yes.
handicap, the courts
must be vigilant for The contract of adhesion happens when a contract is fully drafted only by one party; therefore there is no negotiation among the parties.
his protection. The other party must conform to the terms and conditions stipulated by the party drafting the contract.

If there is ambiguity or vagueness in the stipulations and provisions of the contract of adhesion, the court must resolve it strictly against
the person drafting the terms and conditions of the contract and in favor of the party, who never participated in the drafting the terms
and conditions of the contract (disadvantaged party).

Even an airplane ticket is a contract of adhesion.

Devigilant - people that needs to be protected.

Article 25 Thoughtless How can this act be stopped? EXPLANATION:

Thoughtles extravagance in
s expenses for pleasure It may be stopped through a court order at the To avoid any social unrest or anxiety on the person deprived because they will take it
Extravagan or display during a instance of any government or private as an insult against them if a person flaunts his/her wealth in front the parties who
period of acute public charitable institutions. are deprived of the basic necessities in life during acute public want or emergency
ce
want or emergency (calamities).
may be stopped by The government cannot limit/restrict a private
order of the courts at individual on how to spend his/her money even
the instance of any if it is unwisely spent. The
government or
private charitable The display of that extravagant spending is
institution. sought to be stopped and not the extravagant
spending.

Article 26 Every person shall (1) Prying into the privacy of another’s Other This article mainly Castro v. People
respect the dignity, residence example talks about
personality, privacy s of the RESPECT to the The court held that no person shall be twice put in
and peace of mind of Any act of intrusion into, peeping or peering invasion dignity, personality, jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. This
his neighbors and inquisitively into the residence of another of privacy and peace constitutional mandate is echoed in Section 7 of
other persons. The WITHOUT THE CONSENT of the latter. privacy: of mind of his Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. Thus, an acquittal,
following and similar whether ordered by the trial or appellate court, is
The Test of Reasonable Expectation of Privacy - neighbors and other
acts, though they may
not constitute a Hee v Chuy (I am not super sure, can’t find it Z persons. final and unappealable on the ground of double
criminal offense, shall online.) intercep jeopardy.
produce a cause of ted the Examples found in
action for damages, love the provision In this case, the OSG merely assailed the
prevention and other though they are not RTCs finding on the nature of petitioners
relief: Requisites of Reasonable Expectation of letter of criminal offenses,
Privacy: his best statement, that is, whether it constituted grave or
friend they are still being slight oral defamation. Because the OSG did not
(1) Prying into the (1) Through the conduct of one person, there is and punished simply raise errors of jurisdiction, the CA erred in taking
privacy of another's this expectation of privacy on his part; he copied because they are cognizance of its petition and, worse, in reviewing
residence: exhibits the expectation of privacy that others it. offensive to a the factual findings of the RTC. We therefore
must respect person’s dignity, reinstate the RTC decision so as not to offend the
(2) Meddling with or W took personality, privacy constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
disturbing the private (2) That expectation of privacy must be photos and peace of mind.
life or family reasonable taking into consideration standards of Q. W At most, petitioner could have been liable
of the society, taking into consideration the then for damages under Article 26 of the Civil Code:
(3) Intriguing to practices of a community or the customs of the bought a Article 26. Every person shall respect the
cause another to be community. space in
alienated from his dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of
the
friends; (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life his neighbors and other persons. The following
newspa
or relations of another and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
per
(4) Vexing or criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
humiliating another One person would come in between the column damages, prevention and other relief:
relationship of couple. and
on account of his
placed Petitioner is reminded that, as an
religious beliefs, It depends on the act if it is actionable on the Q’s
lowly station in life, educator, he is supposed to be a role model for the
part of the child in law. photos youth. As such, he should always act with justice,
place of birth,
physical defect, or there give everyone his due and observe honesty and
Not Actionable Meddling - Permissible
other personal without good faith.
interference: What dish to be cooked for the
condition. any
husband or how to press the clothes of the
legitima
husband.
te news
Actionable Meddling - When there are very value to
serious matters that only the husband and wife it.
can settle and the meddling is persistent and

aggressive.
Exceptio
n: If the
photo in
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated line with
from his friends the
article is
It happens when there is a gossip to malign a has
person from his friends or other people. legitima
te news
 value.
If the gossip is true, is it actionable? Yes. The
truthfulness of the claim does not matter as
long as it is a gossip and it is intrigued.

Note: Public officials and celebrities are usually
not actionable that are ordinarily actionable.
Public figures have a different standard.

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of

his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place
of birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.

For the purpose of vexing or humiliating a

person.

Gregorio vs. CA

A scrutiny of Gregorio’s civil complaint reveals that the averments thereof, taken together, fulfill the elements of Article 2176, in relation to Article 26 of the Civil Code. 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.

Article 27 Any person suffering Under Article 27, what is important is just the Zulueta v. Nicolas
material or moral loss right of a person to file an action against public
because a public officer or employee who fails to perform a No. The present action is based on article 27 of the new Civil Code, which provides
servant or employee ministerial duty. that "any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or
refuses or neglects, employee refuses or neglects without just cause, to perform his official duty may file
without just cause, to Ministerial - a duty which a person cannot an action for damages and other relief against the latter." But as we said in
perform his official refuse to do. Something he is required to do Bangalayvs. Ursal,* 50 Off. Gaz. 4231, this article "contemplates a refusal or neglect
duty may file an whether he agrees or not. There is only one without just cause by a public servant or employee to perform his official duty."
action for damages way, therefore he does not have a choice. Refusal of the fiscal to prosecute when after the investigation he finds no sufficient
and other relief evidence to establish a prima facie case is not a refusal, without just cause, to perform
Example: There is an ordinance requiring the an official duty. The fiscal has for sure the legal duty to prosecute crimes where there
against the latter, mayor to implement the said ordinance.
without prejudice to is no evidence to justify such action. But it is equally his duty not to prosecute when
any disciplinary Discretionary duty - a duty that a person will do after the investigation he has become convinved that the evidence available is not
administrative action or not do depending on his reasonable enough to establish a prima facie case. The fiscal is not bound to accept the opinion of
that may be taken. judgement. So he has the discretion or choice the complainant in a criminal case as to whether or not a prima facie case exists.
on which way to go. Vested with authority and discretion to determine whether there is sufficient
evidence to justify the filing of corresponding the information and having control of
the prosecution of a criminal case, the fiscal cannot be subjected to dictation from the
offended party (People vs. Liggayu, et al., 97 Phil., 865, 51 Off Gaz., 5654; People vs.
 Natoza, 100 Phil., 533, 53 Off Gaz., 8099). Having legal cause to refrain from filing an
information against the person whom the herein plaintiff wants him to charge with
libel, the defendant fiscal cannot be said to have refused or neglected without just
cause to perform his official duty. On the contrary, it would appear that he performed
it.

Article 28 Unfair Competition Any kind of act that is perceived to be deceitful, Willaware vs. Jesichris
unjust, oppressive or highhanded or there is
Unfair competition in agricultural, force, intimidation or machination if the The concept of "unfair competition" under Article 28 is very much broader than that
commercial or industrial objective is to prejudice the interest of one’s covered by intellectual property laws. Under the present article, which follows the
enterprises or in labor through the competitor. extended concept of "unfair competition" in American jurisdictions, the term covers
use of force, intimidation, deceit, even cases of discovery of... trade secrets of a competitor, bribery of his employees,
machination or any other unjust, Art. 28 is entirely different from RA 8293 misrepresentation of all kinds, interference with the fulfillment of a competitor's
oppressive or highhanded method contracts, or any malicious interference with the latter's business.
Note: There are non-compete clauses in
shall give rise to a right of action by
the person who thereby suffers modern day employment contract. The hiring In order to qualify the competition as "unfair," it must have two characteristics: (1) it
damage. party cannot immediately hire an employee of a
must involve an injury to a competitor or trade rival, and (2) it must involve acts
competitor after his/her resignation. which are characterized as "contrary to good conscience," or "shocking to judicial
Cut-throat competition is done by deliberately sensibilities," or... otherwise unlawful; in the language of our law, these include force,
intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed
lowering the prices of goods which will force
method. The public injury or interest is a minor factor; the essence of the matter
the competitors to close shop.
appears to be a private wrong perpetrated by unconscionable means.

In order to qualify the competition as "unfair,"

it must have two characteristics:

(1) it must involve an injury to a competitor or

trade rival, and

(2) it must involve acts which are characterized

as "contrary to good conscience," or "shocking
to judicial sensibilities," or... otherwise
unlawful; in the language of our law, these
include force, intimidation, deceit, machination
or any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed
method.

The public injury or interest is a minor factor;

the essence of the matter appears to be a
private wrong perpetrated by unconscionable
means.
Art 29 When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground Quantum of Evidence: Preponderance of RATIONALE:
that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil Evidence
action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such To draw a clear line between criminal
action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the liability and civil responsibility. One
defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for which affects social order while the
Kinds of Acquittal other affects private rights. Hence,
damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
1. The guilt of the accused had not one imposes punishment for
been proven beyond reasonable correction of the offender while the
doubt other imposes penalty for reparation
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable
doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to 2. The accused is not the author of the for damages suffered by the aggrieved
crime party.
that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or
not the acquittal is due to that ground. 3. The crime complained of do not
exist
As a rule, if you are acquitted by reasonable
doubt, you may still be charged by civil case.

Acquittal which does not bar Civil Action

1. Liability of the offender is not

criminal, only civil
2. Civil liability is NOT DERIVED from
the criminal act.
3. Civil Action is based on Quasi-delict
Acquittal is based on reasonable doubt

Article 30 When a separate civil action is When a civil action by reservation is brought, there can be separate civil action. Failure to make Prevent the
brought to demand civil liability (the civil action is related to the crime) reservation,the offended party
arising from a criminal offense, civil case will be from recovering
and no criminal proceedings are If the criminal action is instituted after the civil action has been instituted, the deemed twice
instituted during the pendency of latter SHALL BE SUSPENDED in whatever stage it may be found before the instituted with
the civil case, a preponderance of judgement on merits. The suspension shall last only until final judgement is the criminal
evidence shall likewise be rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment is rendered in the action. It is
sufficient to prove the act civil action, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal already barred.
complained of. action. XPN:
If civil action is instituted but no criminal action, it may proceed independently Art 31
and a preponderance of evidence is sufficient.