Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
The breach of promise to marry made by Velez FACTS: The petitioner Don Vicente Perez filed before the
Court of First Instance of Laguna a complaint asking the court
prompted Wassmer to file a civil suit against the
to determine the amount due to him for the services he
former. Velez never filed an answer, thus, rendered in the Tabacalera Company and that the defendant
awarding moral and exemplary damages to Eugenio Pomar be condemned to the payment of damages
Wassmer. amounting to $3,200, gold, together with the costs of suit. Prior
to this event, the petitioner was asked to be an English
interpreter between the defendant and the military authorities
Velez appealed on the court and stated that he and that after that incident, the petitioner continued to render
failed to attend the wedding day because of his services to the respondent and that he obtained passes
fortuitous events. He also insisted that he and accompanied Pomar upon his journeys to some of the
cannot be civilly liable for there is no law that towns in Province of Laguna( e.g conferences between the
acts upon the breach of promise to marry. He respondent and the colonel commanding the local garrison,
also contested the award of moral and exemplary conferences with Captain Lemen in the town of Pilar, major in
damages. command in Pagsanjan about the shipment of goods from
Manila) and that the plaintiff was assured by the respondent
that in every rendered service to the said company, there
would be such payment. Thus, caused him to abandon his
soap business and suffered damages in the sum of $3,200.
The defendant filed for dismissal of the complaint denying the
allegations stated by the petitioner. He also stated that Perez 'l. Second Hand AUTOMATICKET Machine
borrowed from time to time money amounting to $175 for his
soap business, that Perez purposes in accompanying him is to No. MG-31833;and
extend his business and mercantile relations, free
transportation, and that Perez had acted as interpreter of his
own free will without any offer of payment and therefore no '2. Cinema Projectors Complete,
legal relation between them existed. trademark SIMPLEX PEERLESS MAGNARC
NOS. 52625 and 62387' which items
ISSUE: WON the respondent is oblige to pay the were advertised for sale on March 2,
continued service rendered by the petitioner. 1963, copy of Notice of sale attached as
ANNEX 'B' to the Complaint;
HELD: YES. The Court decision is that the judgement should
be rendered against Don Eugenio Pomar for the payment to
the plaintiff of the sum of 200 Mexican pesos. 3. That Atty. Greg V. Pajarillo was
appointed on March 2, 1963 as Receiver
The Court ruled out that if there is a tacit and mutual consent of all the assets, properties and
as to the rendition of the services, the defendant is still obliged equipment of Paris Theatre, olwrated by
to pay such compensation to the petitioner even if there is no
written contract entered between the two parties on the basis Leo Enterprises, Inc. under Civil Case No.
of quasi-contract. When one party knowingly receives 50201 entitled Gregorio V. Pajarillo vs.
something for nothing, the courts may impose a quasi
contract. Under a quasi contract, neither party is originally
Leo Enterprises, Inc.;
intended to create an agreement. Instead, an arrangement is
imposed by a judge to rectify an occurrence of unjust
enrichment. On the services rendered by the petitioner in the
4. That the sale at public auction of the
province of Laguna, it follows that there was a bilateral above described properties was
obligation on the part of both parties because the defendant postponed and was later cancelled due
accepted the benefit of the service rendered by the petitioner
and that in turn the petitioner expected him to pay his rendition to thc representation of Atty. Greg V.
of service. Provided in Article 22 of the Civil Code, Every Pajarillo as Receiver of Paris Theatre
person who through an act of performance by another, or any operated by Leo Enterprises, Inc. in
other means, acquires or comes into possession of something
at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall which he undertook the 1anient of the
return the same to him. The fact that the defendant consented judgment rendered in favor of the
to accept an interpreter's services on various occasions, plaintiff against Leo Enterprises, Inc. as
rendered in his behalf and not considered as free, it is just
that he should pay the reasonable payment because it is well- Ier undertaking dated March 11, 1963,
known principle of law that no one should be permitted to copy of which is attached as ANNEX 'C'
enrich himself to the damage of another. to the complaint;
In the case at bar, appellant Pajarillo As the trial court aptly observed "... it is
does not dispute the fact that he never only simple justice that Pajarillo should
secured the court's approal of either the pay for the said claim, otherwise he
agreement of March 11, 1963, with would be enriching himself without
Pacific Merchandising Corporation or of paying plaintiff for the cost of certain
his Indemnity Agreement with the materials that went into its
Consolacion Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. construction. ... It is argLicd however,
on March 14, 1963, in consideration of that he did so only as a receiver of Leo
the performance bond submitted by the Pajarillo by virtue of the judgment in Civil
latter to Pacific Merchandising Case No. 50201 all of the properties of
Corporation to guarantee the payment of Leo Enterprises, Inc. passed on to
the obligation. As the person to whom Pajarillo by virtue of the judgment in Civil
the possession of the theater and its Case No. %201 ...". This Roman Law
equipment was awarded by the court in principle of "Nemo Cum alterious
Civil Case No. 50201, it was certainly to detrimento locupletari protest" is
his personal profit and advantage that embodied in Article 22 (Human
the sale at public auction of the Relations), 14 and Articles 2142 to 2175
liquipment of the theater was prevented (QuasiContracts) of the New Civil Code.
by his execution of the aforesaid Long before the enactment of this Code,
agreement and submission of the afore- however, the principle of unjust
mentioned bond. In order to bind the enrichment which is basic in every legal
property or fund in his hands as receiver, system, was already expressly
he should have applied for and obtained recognized in this jurisdiction.
from the court authority to enter into the
aforesaid contract. Unauthorized
contracts of a receiver do not bind the
court in charge of receivership. They are
the receiver's own contracts and are not (11) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
recognized by the courts as contracts of REVENUE, petitioner, vs. FIREMAN'S
the receivership. Consequently, the FUND INSURANCE COMPANY and the
aforesaid agreement and undertaking COURT OF TAX
entered into by appellant Pajarillo not APPEALS, respondents. G.R. No. L-
having been approved or authorized by 30644 March 9, 1987
the receivership court should, therefore,
be considered as his personal Private respondent is a resident foreign
undertaking or obligation. Certainly, if insurance corporation organized under
such agreements were known by the the laws of the US, authorized and duly
receivership court, it would not have licensed to do business in the
terminated the receivership without due Philippines. It is a member of the
notice to the judgment creditor as American Foreign Insurance Association.
FACTS: From January, 1952 to or to such other paper as may be
December, 1958, herein private indicated by law or regulations as the
respondent Fireman's Fund Insurance proper recipient of the stamp, and by
Company entered into various insurance the subsequent cancellation of same,
contracts involving casualty, fire and such cancellation to be accomplished
marine risks, for which the corresponding by writing, stamping, or perforating
insurance policies were issued. From the date of the cancellation across
1952 to 1956, documentary stamps were the face of each stamp in such
bought and affixed to the monthly manner that part of the writing,
statements of policies issues; and from impression, or perforation shall be on
1957 to 1958 documentary stamps were the stamp itself and part on the
bought and affixed to the corresponding paper to which it is
pages of the policy register, not on the attached; Provided, That if the
insurance policies issued. In 1959, cancellation is accomplished by
respondent company discovered that its writing or stamping the date of
monthly statements of business and cancellation, a hole sufficiently large
policy register were lost. The loss was to be visible to the naked eye shall be
reported to the Building Administration punched, cut or perforated on both
of Ayala Building and the NBI. Herein the stamp and the document either
petitioner CIR was also informed of such by the use of a hand punch, knife,
loss by respondent company. After perforating machine, scissors, or any
investigation, petitioner's examiner other cutting instrument; but if the
ascertained that respondent company cancellation is accomplished by
failed to affix the required documentary perforating the date of cancellation,
stamps to the insurance policies issued no other hole need be made on the
by it and failed to preserve its stamp. (Now Sec. 249.)
accounting records within the time
prescribed by the Revenue Code. As a see SEC. 210 (Now. Sec. 222); SEC.
consequence, petitioner assessed and 232, (220) (As amended by PD 1457);
demanded from the insurance company (Rev. Regs. No. 26); SEC. 237; SEC.
the payment of documentary stamp 221 (Now Sec. 233); SEC. 239 (Now
taxes for the years 1952 to 1958 Sec. 250).
(P79,806.87) plus compromise penalties,
a total of P81,406.87.
As correctly pointed out by respondent
CTA, documentary tax is deemed paid
Respondent company contested the by: (a) the purchase of documentary
assessment. After petitioner denied the stamps; (b) affixture of documentary
protest, respondent company appealed stamps to the document or instrument
to the CTA. Respondent court reversed taxed or to such other paper as may be
the decision of the CIR. Hence, this indicated by law or regulations; and (c)
petition. cancellation of the stamps as required by
law.
ISSUE: W/N there is an unjust
enrichment on the part of the CIR in It will be observed however, that the
requiring the respondent company over-riding purpose of these provisions of
to pay again the documentary law is the collection of taxes. The three
stamps it has actually purchased, steps above-mentioned are but the
affixed and cancelled. means to that end. Thus, the purchase of
the stamps is the form of payment
HELD: YES. The petition is devoid of made; the affixture thereof on the
merit. document or instrument taxed is to
insure that the corresponding tax has
The relevant provisions of the NIRC been paid for such document, while the
provide: cancellation of the stamps is to obviate
the possibility that said stamps will be
reused for similar documents for similar
SEC. 237. Payment of documentary purposes.
stamp tax. Documentary stamp
taxes shall be paid by the purchase
and affixture of documentary stamps In the case at bar, there appears to be
to the document or instrument taxed no dispute on the fact that the
documentary stamps corresponding to There appears to be no question that the
the various policies were purchased and purpose of imposing documentary stamp
paid for by the respondent Company. taxes is to raise revenue and the
Neither is there any argument that the corresponding amount has already been
same were cancelled as required by law. paid by respondent and has actually
In fact such were the findings of become part of the revenue of the
petitioner's examiner Amando Melgar government. In the same manner, it is
who stated x x x that it has, since July, evident that the affixture of the stamps
1959, been using a "HASLER" franking on documents not authorized by law is
machine, Model F88, which stamps the not attended by bad faith as the practice
documentary stamps on the duplicates was adopted from the authority granted
of the policies issued. Prior to the to Wise & Company, one of respondent's
acquisition of the said machine, the general agents. Indeed, petitioner
company buys its stamps by allowing argued that such authority was not given
the Manager to issue a Manager's check to respondent company specifically, but
drawn against the National City Bank of under the general principle of agency,
New York and payable to the City where the acts of the agents bind the
Treasurer of Manila. It was also found out principal, the conclusion is inescapable
that during this period (1952 to 1958), that the justification for the acts of the
the total purchases of documentary agents may also be claimed for the acts
stamps amounted to P77,837.67, while of the principal itself.
the value of the used stamps lost
amounted to P65,901.11. x x x The Be that as it may, there is no justification
taxpayer was found to be negligent in for the government which has already
the preservation and keeping of its realized the revenue which is the object
records. Although the loss was found by of the imposition of subject stamp tax, to
the company's private investigator was require the payment of the same tax for
not an "Inside Job," still the company the same documents. Enshrined in our
should be held liable for its negligence, x basic legal principles is the time honored
x x. doctrine that no person shall unjustly
enrich himself at the expense of another.
Such findings were confirmed by the It goes without saying that the
Memorandum of the Acting CIR Jose government is not exempted from the
Lingad to the Chief, Business Tax application of this doctrine (Ramie
Division. Later, respondent CTA correctly Textiles, Inc. v. Mathay Sr. [1979]).
observed that the purchase of
documentary stamps and their being
affixed to the monthly statements of
business and policy registers were also
(12) VELAYO VS SHELL
admitted by counsel for the Government.
FACTS: Prior to 1948, Commercial
Thus, all investigations made by the Airlines (CALI) owed P170k (abt. $79k) to
petitioner show the same factual findings Shell Company. CAL offered its C-54
that respondent company purchased plane as payment to Shell Company (the
documentary stamps for the various plane was in California) but Shell at that
policies it has issued for the period in time declined as it thought CALI had
question although it has attached the sufficient money to pay its debt. In 1948
same on documents not authorized by however, CALI was going bankrupt so it
law. called upon an informal meeting of its
creditors. In that meeting, the creditors
It is a general rule in the interpretation of agreed to appoint representatives to a
statutes levying taxes or duties, that in working committee that would determine
case of doubt, such statutes are to be the order of preference as to how each
construed most strongly against the creditor should be paid. They also agreed
government and in favor of the subjects not to file suit against CALI but CALI did
or citizens, because burdens are not to reserve that it will file insolvency
be imposed, nor presumed to be proceedings should its assets be not
imposed beyond what statutes expressly enough to pay them up. Shell Company
and clearly import (Manila Railroad Co. v. was represented by a certain Fitzgerald
Collector of Customs [1929]). to the three man working committee.
Later, the working committee convened said insolvent's property depriving the latter and
to discuss how CALIs asset should be the Assignee that was latter appointed, of the
opportunity to recover said plane.
divided amongst the creditors but while
such was pending, Fitzgerald sent a
telegraph message to Shell USA advising Chapter 2 of the PRELIMINARY TITLE of the Civil
Code, dealing on Human Relations, provides the
the latter that Shell Philippines is following:
assigning its credit to Shell USA in the
amount of $79k, thereby effectively
"Art 19. Any person must, in the exercise of his
collecting almost all if not the entire rights and in the performances of his duties, act
indebtedness of CALI to Shell Philippines. with justice, give everyone his due and observe
Shell USA got wind of the fact that CALI honesty and good faith".
has a C-54 plane is California and so
Shell USA petitioned before a California It may be said that this article only contains a
court to have the plane be the subject of mere declaration of principles and while such
a writ of attachment which was granted. statement may be is essentially correct, yet We
find that such declaration is implemented by
Article 21 and sequence of the same Chapter
Meanwhile, the stockholders of CALI which prescribe the following:
were unaware of the assignment of
credit made by Shell Philippines to Shell "Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or
USA and they went on to approve the injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
sale of CALIs asset to the Philippine morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage".
Airlines. In September 1948, the other
creditors learned of the assignment
made by Shell. This prompted these Another rule is expressed in Article 24 which
compels the return of a thing acquired 'without
other creditors to file their own just or legal grounds'. This provision embodies
complaint of attachment against CALIs the doctrine that no person should unjustly
assets. CALI then filed for insolvency enrich himself at the expense of another, which
proceedings to protect its assets in the has been one of the mainstays of every legal
Philippines from being attached. Alfredo system for centuries. It is most needful that this
ancient principle be clearly and specifically
Velayos appointment as CALIs assignee consecrated in the Civil Code to the end that in
was approved in lieu of the insolvency cases not foreseen by the lawmaker, no one may
proceeding. In order for him to recover unjustly benefit himself to the prejudice of
the C-54 plane in California, it filed for a another.
writ of injunction against Shell
Philippines in order for the latter to Now, if Article 23 of the Civil Code goes as far as
restrain Shell USA from proceeding with to provide that:
the attachment and in the alternative
that judgment be awarded in favor of "Even if an act or event causing damage
CALI for damages double the amount of to another's property was not due to the
the C-54 plane. The C-54 plane was not fault or negligence of the defendant, the
recovered. Shell Company argued it is latter shall be liable for indemnity if
not liable for damages because there is through the act or event he was
nothing in the law which prohibits a benefited." with much more reason the
company from assigning its credit, it Defendant should be liable for indemnity
being a common practice. for acts it committed in bad faith and
with betrayal of confidence.
ISSUE: Whether or not Shell is liable
for damages considering that it did
not violate any law.
D. JUDICIAL VIGILANCE
RULING:
Article 25. Thoughtless extravagance in Ernesto Magtoto, an officer of St. Louis Realty in charge of
expenses for pleasure or display during advertising received the letter. He stopped publication of the
a period of acute public want or advertisement. contacted Doctor Aramil and offered his
apologies but no rectification or apology was published.
emergency may be stopped by order of
the courts at the instance of any
February 20, 1969: Aramil's counsel demanded from St. Louis
government or private charitable Realty actual, moral and exemplary damages of P110,000.
institution.
March 10: t. Louis Realty claimed that there was an honest
mistake and that if Aramil so desired, rectification would be
published in the Manila Times.
F. RIGHT TO PRIVACY March 18, 1969: new advertisement with the Arcadio family
and their real house was published in the Manila Times but
there was no apology to Doctor Aramil and an explanation of
Article 26. Every person shall respect the error.
the dignity, personality, privacy and
peace of mind of his neighbors and other March 29: Aramil filed his complaint for damages.
persons. The following and similar acts,
though they may not constitute a April 15, 1969: St. Louis Realty published in the issue of the
criminal offense, shall produce a cause Manila Times a "NOTICE OF RECTIFICATION" in a space 4
of action for damages, prevention and by 3 inches.
other relief:
trial court: awarded Aramil P8,000 as actual damages,
P20,000 as moral damages and P2,000 as attorney's fees.
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's
residence; St. Louis Realty's mistake, magnified by its utter lack of
sincerity, Doctor Aramil suffered mental anguish and his
income was reduced by about P1,000 to P1,500 a month.
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the Moreover, there was violation of Aramil's right to privacy.
private life or family relations of another;
CA: Affirmed - St. Louis Realty committed an actionable quasi-
delict under articles 21 and 26 of the Civil Code.
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be
alienated from his friends;
ISSUE: WON St. Louis Realty should be held liable under
Art. 21 and 26.
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on
account of his religious beliefs, lowly HELD: YES. Affirmed.
station in life, place of birth, physical
defect, or other personal condition. St. Louis Realty's employee was grossly negligent in mixing up
the Aramil and Arcadio residences in a widely circulated
publication like the Sunday Times. To suit its purpose, it never
made any written apology and explanation of the mix-up. It just
contented itself with a cavalier "rectification ".
Aggrieved, Tan filed a complaint in the On April 19, 2007, the Office of the
Department of Education (Dep-Ed) for Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition
violation of the Manual of Regulation of for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA)
Private Schools, Education Act of 1982 assailing the decision of the RTC. It
and Article 19 of the Civil Code against contended that the RTC acted with grave
RIS. He alleged that the dismissal of his abuse of discretion when it downgraded
son was undertaken with malice, bad petitioners offense to slight oral
faith and evident premeditation. After defamation. The RTC allegedly
investigation, the Dep-Ed found that RIS misappreciated the antecedents which
code violation point system allowed the provoked petitioner to utter the allegedly
summary imposition of unreasonable defamatory statement against Tan.
sanctions (which had no basis in fact and
in law). The system therefore violated The CA found that the RTC committed
due process. Hence, the Dep-Ed nullified grave abuse of discretion when it
it. misapprehended the totality of the
circumstances and found petitioner
Meanwhile, on November 20, 2002, the guilty only of slight oral defamation.
Dep-Ed ordered RIS to readmit Justin Thus, the CA reinstated the MeTC
Albert without any condition. Thus, he decision.
was able to graduate from RIS and
participate in the commencement ISSUES: WON double jeopardy has
ceremonies held on March 30, 2003. attached when the RTC acquitted
him? YES, double jeopardy has
After the graduation ceremonies, Tan attached.
met Bernice C. Ching, a fellow parent at
RIS. In the course of their conversation, WON may be held liable for
Tan intimated that he was contemplating damages? YES.
a suit against the officers of RIS in their
personal capacities, including petitioner
who was the assistant headmaster. HELD: But No person shall be twice put
in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense. This constitutional mandate is
Ching telephoned petitioner sometime echoed in Section 7 of Rule 117 of the
the first week of April and told him that Rules of Court.
Tan was planning to sue the officers of
RIS in their personal capacities. Before
they hung up, petitioner told Ching: Under this provision, double jeopardy
occurs upon (1) a valid indictment (2)
before a competent court (3) after
Okay, you too, take care and be careful arraignment (4) when a valid plea has
talking to [Tan], thats dangerous. been entered and (5) when the accused
was acquitted or convicted or the case
Ching then called Tan and informed him was dismissed or otherwise terminated
that petitioner said "talking to him was without the express consent of the
dangerous." accused. Thus, an acquittal, whether
ordered by the trial or appellate court, is
Insulted, Tan filed a complaint for grave final and unappealable on the ground of
oral defamation in the Office of the City double jeopardy.
Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City against
petitioner. The only exception is when the trial court
acted with grave abuse of discretion or,
the MeTC found petitioner guilty beyond as we held in Galman v. Sandiganbayan,
reasonable doubt of grave oral when there was mistrial. In such
defamation. instances, the OSG can assail the said
judgment in a petition for certiorari
establishing that the State was deprived Article 27. Any person suffering
of a fair opportunity to prosecute and material or moral loss because a public
prove its case. servant or employee refuses or neglects,
without just cause, to perform his official
What the OSG therefore questioned were duty may file an action for damages and
errors of judgment (or those involving other relief against the latter, without
misappreciation of evidence or errors of prejudice to any disciplinary
law). However, a court, in a petition for administrative action that may be taken.
certiorari, cannot review the public
respondents evaluation of the evidence
and factual findings. Errors of judgment
cannot be raised in a Rule 65 petition as (15) THE HON. EXPEDITO B. PILAR, in his
a writ of certiorari can only correct errors capacity as Vice-Mayor and concurrently
of jurisdiction (or those involving the presiding officer protempore of the
commission of grave abuse of Sanguniang Bayan of Dasol,
Pangasinan, Petitioner, v. THE SANGUNIANG
discretion). BAYAN OF DASOL, PANGASINAN, composed
of the HON. LODOVICO ESPINOSA, Municipal
Because the OSG did not raise errors of Mayor and presiding officer of said body
and the following members of that body:
jurisdiction, the CA erred in taking HON. AVELINO N. NACAR, HON. LUZ B.
cognizance of its petition and, worse, in JIMENEZ, HON. GERARDO B. RIVERA, HON.
reviewing the factual findings of the RTC. JUAN M. BONUS, HON. APOLONIO G.
We therefore reinstate the RTC decision ABELLA, HON. ABRAHAM BALAOING, HON.
so as not to offend the constitutional JAIME ABELLA, HON. LAURENTINO
BALAOING, HON. MA. LINDA BUSTRIA, HON.
prohibition against double jeopardy. CEFERINO QUINITIO, HON. ELIFAS VIDAL,
and MR. VICTORIANO BUAGA, Municipal
At most, petitioner could have been Treasurer of Dasol,
Pangasinan, Respondents. [G.R. No. 63216.
liable for damages under Article 26 of March 12, 1984.]
the Civil Code :
AQUINO, J., concurring:
Article 26. Every person shall respect the
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of 1. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; MORAL DAMAGES;
mind of his neighbors and other persons. RESPONDENT MAYOR IN CASE AT BAR
The following and similar acts, though PERSONALLY LIABLE THEREFORE; BASIS. As
they may not constitute a criminal respondent mayor acted in bad faith in not
offense, shall produce a cause of action performing his legal duty to appropriate the
requisite amount for the payment of petitioners
for damages, prevention and other relief: salaries, he becomes personally liable for
damages. The governing law is found in article
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be 27 of the Civil Code which makes a public servant
or employee liable for damages for his refusal or
alienated from his friends; neglect, without just cause, to perform his official
duty (Javellana v. Tayo, 116 Phil. 1342, where a
Petitioner is reminded that, as an municipal mayor was adjudged liable to pay P100
as moral damages and P100 as attorneys fees
educator, he is supposed to be a role for failure to sign the payrolls for the per diems
model for the youth. As such, he should of certain councilors). Article 2219(10) of the Civil
always act with justice, give everyone Code allows moral damages in an action under
his due and observe honesty and good article 27. x x x
faith.
FACTS: Petitioner was elected vice mayor of
Dasol, Pangasinan in 1980 local elections.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby Elected with him were Lodovico Espinosa as the
GRANTED. The resolution of the Court of municipal mayor and the following members of
Appeals in are REVERSED and SET the Sanguniang Bayan (SB).
ASIDE. The decision of the Regional Trial
Court is REINSTATED. Petitioner Jerome On March 4, 1980, the SB adopted Resolution No.
Castro is ACQUITTED of slight oral 1 which increased the salaries of the mayor and
defamation as defined and penalized in municipal treasurer to P18,636.00 and
Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code. P16,044.00 per annum respectively. The said
resolution did not provide for an increase in
salary of the vice mayor despite the fact that
such position is entitled to an annual salary of
P16,044.00 (Circular No. 9-A).
G. DERELICTION OF DUTY
Petitioner questioned the failure of the SB to authority in an arbitrary manner when he vetoed
appropriate an amount for the payment of his the resolution since there exists sufficient
salary. He wrote letters to the proper authorities municipal funds from which the salary of the
complaining about the matter and asking that petitioner could be paid. Respondent Mayors
something should be done to correct it. The refusal, neglect or omission in complying with the
proper provincial and national officials endorsed directives of the Provincial Budget Officer and the
compliance with Circular 9-A of the Joint Director of the Bureau of Local Government that
Commission on Local Government and Personnel the salary of the petitioner be provided for and
Administration in giving the revised rate of salary paid the prescribed salary rate, is reckless and
for petitioner. In fact, the mayor was sent a letter oppressive, hence, by way of example or
by the Executive Secretary of the Commission correction for the public good, respondent Mayor
advising him that the Municipality should pay the is liable personally to the petitioner for
Vice-Mayor the salary due him equivalent to that exemplary or corrective damages (P5,000.00).
of the Municipal Treasurer per Circular No. 15.
Petitioner is likewise entitled to actual damages
On December 12, 1980, the SB enacted a and costs of litigation which We reduce from
resolution appropriating the amount of P500.00 P13,643.50 to P5,000.00 and for mental anguish,
per month as the salary of the petitioner. This serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock,
amount was increased to P774.00 per month in social humiliation and similar injury, We hold that
December, 1981. petitioner is entitled to P5,000.00 as moral
damages.
On October 26, 1982, the SB enacted a
resolution appropriating the amount of All the above sums as damages including
P15,144.00 as payment of the unpaid salaries of attorneys fees in the amount of
the petitioner from January 1, 1981 to December
31, 1982. The resolution was vetoed by the
P5,000.00 shall be paid personally by
respondent mayor resulting into the filing by the respondent Mayor Lodovico Espinosa
petitioner of this petition for a writ of mandamus from his private funds.
on February 16, 1983.
While it is true that Judge Maceda did not In this situation, the petitioner could not
submit his counter-affidavit as required have, as a mere complaining witness,
in the order of Judge Misajon dated appealed the dismissal of the criminal
March 23, 1990, Judge Misajon declared action even on its civil aspect only. The
in her order dismissing the criminal civil action was deemed dismissed with
complaint that she had received and the criminal action. The criminal aspect
considered the order of Judge Maceda of the order could have been appealed
dated March 23, 1990, in Civil Case No. since double jeopardy had not yet
2405, entitled "Rolly R. Mijares v. attached because the accused had not
Province of Antique, et al." She treated yet been arraigned. But only the
this as the respondent judge's counter- prosecutor could have done this because
affidavit required in the aforecited rule. he had complete direction and control of
We agree that this was sufficient the prosecution of the case, as we have
compliance with the said rule. Judge held in several cases. No appeal having
Maceda's defense against the criminal been filed by him, the order of dismissal
charge was after all embodied in that became final and unappealable after the
order and it would have been a useless lapse of the reglementary 15-day period.
formality to simply reproduce it as a
counter-affidavit. The above ruling renders the fourth issue
irrelevant or moot. Not having the right
On the third issue, the petitioner's to appeal, the petitioner cannot invoke
contention is that since he had not his notice of appeal on April 27, 1990, or
waived or reserved his right to file the protest the withdrawal of its approval by
civil action arising from the criminal Judge Misajon on May 16, 1990. The
charge, his right to appeal from the civil notice of appeal should not have been
aspect of the case was not extinguished approved in the first place, and the recall
of the order of May 16, 1990, was issued ISSUE: May the petitioner still file for civil action?
only to rectify the error. The rectification
was a valid act. In any event, neither the HELD: YES.
notice of appeal nor its initial approval
would have been effectual because of Our Revised Penal Code provides that every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable.13 Such civil liability may
the petitioner's lack of legal standing to consist of restitution, reparation of the damage caused and
prosecute the appeal. indemnification of consequential damages. When a criminal
action is instituted, the civil liability arising from the offense is
impliedly instituted with the criminal action, subject to three
We do not deal here with the merits of notable exceptions: first, when the injured party expressly
the order of Judge Maceda dated March waives the right to recover damages from the
accused; second, when the offended party reserves his right
16, 1990, declaring the small town to have the civil damages determined in a separate action in
lottery conducted in the Province of order to take full control and direction of the prosecution of his
Antique illegal and enjoining its cause; and third, when the injured party actually exercises the
right to maintain a private suit against the offender by
continued operation. That order is still instituting a civil action prior to the filing of the criminal case.
under motions for reconsideration that
remain unresolved to date. It is not Petitioners expressly made a reservation of their right to file a
challenged in this petition. We here limit separate civil action as a result of the crime committed by
ourselves to the issues raised in the Sibayan. On account of this reservation the MCTC did not
make any pronouncement as to the latters civil liability.
proceedings at bar as above discussed Although there were allegations of negligence on the part of
and resolved, and only to those issues. Sibayan and Viron Transit, such does not necessarily mean
that petitioners were pursuing a cause of action based on
quasi delict, considering that at the time of the filing of the
complaint, the cause of action ex quasi delicto had already
prescribed. Besides, in cases of negligence, the offended
party has the choice between an action to enforce liability
(20) arising from crime under the Revised Penal Code and an
action for quasi delict under the Civil Code.
2. From what has been shown by the The latter amount included the five
accused, his failure to record his items involved in the criminal action, as
collections, was for a good purpose and well as the additional sum of P7,170.31
not to defraud the government. He kept representing the income of the school
the cash collections in his possession in from its various projects for which the
order that he may have the ready accused failed to issue official receipts.
amount to spend for emergency needs of At least insofar as the recovery of the
the school This might be against the aforesaid amount is concerned,
instructions to him or offensive to rules therefore, the private respondent cannot
and regulations of the General Auditing place in defense his acquittal in the
Office but it is patent that criminal intent criminal action which did not involve said
cannot be inferred from such actuation. amount.
(24)