Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Doctrine: To hold public officers personally liable for moral and exemplary
damages and for attorney’s fees for acts done in the performance of official Rationale for independent civil action
functions, the plaintiff must prove that these officers exhibited acts characterized
by evident bad faith, malice, or gross negligence. But even if their acts had not been This provision creates an independent civil action for the offenses provided, which
so tainted, public officers may still be held liable for nominal damages if they had may be filed even if no reservation was made when the criminal action was filed. This
violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. allows the injured individual to enforce his rights and recover the damages due him,
regardless of the fiscal’s acts.
C. Neglect of Duty
MVRS v. Islamic (2003), supra – Bellosillo Concept: Defamation, Fraud and
Physical Injuries Art. 34 When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render
aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace
Brief Facts: Article in Bulgar stated that pigs were sacred and idolized as gods by officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be
members of the Muslim religion. Respondents filed a class suit. SC said that since subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be
no particular individual was identified, there was no cause of action and it was not independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall
an intentional tortious act causing mental distress. suffice to support such action.
Doctrine: Libel or defamation, when directed against a large group, will not lie Art. 35 When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges
because “then the all then the alleged libelous statement is considered to have no another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code
application to anyone in particular, since one might as well defame all mankind.” or any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to
“As the size of these groups increases, the chances for members of such groups to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails
recover damages on tortious libel become elusive. This principle is said to embrace to institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action for damages
two (2) important public policies: first, where the group referred to is large, the against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance
courts presume that no reasonable reader would take the statements as so literally of evidence. Upon the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file
applying to each individual member; and second, the limitation on liability would a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be
satisfactorily safeguard freedom of speech and expression, as well as of the press, malicious.
effecting a sound compromise between the conflicting fundamental interests
involved in libel cases.” If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by
the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of
the criminal proceedings.
Capuno v. Pepsi Cola (1965) – Makalintal Concept: Defamation, Fraud and
Physical Injuries
Brief Facts: In Jan 1953, vehicular collision occurred in Apalit, Pampanga, Art. 35 provides that a member of a city or municipal police force shall be
involving the truck of Pepsi and driven by Jon Elordi, and a private car driven by primarily liable for damages if he refuses or fails to render aid or protection
Capuno. The collision killed Cipriano Capuno as well as his two passengers, the to any person in case of danger to life or property. In such case, the city or
Sps. Buan. The driver of Pepsi was later charged with triple homicide through municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible. The civil action shall be
reckless imprudence in the CFI of Pampanga. The information was later amended independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence
to include claims for damages in favor of the heirs of the three victims. While the shall suffice to support such action.
criminal action was pending, the heirs of the Sps. Buan filed a civil case for damages
Article 34 is intended to afford a remedy against police officers “who connive
with bad elements, are afraid of them or are simply indifferent to duty.” (1
Capistrano 38).
A policeman is an agent of a person in authority and is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and
property. If a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails,
without just cause, to perform his duty he is primarily liable, and the city or
municipality subsidarily, in case of insolvency of the guilty peace officer.
The local government unit cannot invoke the defense of due diligence in
the selection and supervision of its policemen since this defense is allowed
only to private employers. But this is true only where the function involved
is strictly public or governmental (e.g., preservation of peace and order,
collection of taxes, establishment of schools). The defense would be
available if the function involved is performed by the city or municipality
in its private or corporate aspect (similar to a business corporation) like
when it operates, for instance, public utilities (e.g., electric, waterworks) and
public markets.
A peace officer guilty of non-performance of duty is already liable for
damages under Article 27 but Article 34 authorizes the bringing of a separate
civil action to enforce that liability independent of any criminal proceedings.
A preponderance of evidence shall also suffice to such action.