V.

SPECIAL TORTS: HUMAN RELATIONS

DEFINE HUMAN RELATIONS.

It is the interaction or interrelation of one
person to another person or persons and vice versa, in
accordance with mores, habits, customs, and public policy
not contrary to laws. It refers to the rules needed to
govern the interrelationships of human beings in a society
for the purpose of maintaining social order

It is based on the old adage or golden rule: Do
not do unto others, what others dont do unto you, and
the Latin maxim: Sic uture tu ut alterium non laedas (So
use your property as not to injure others.

1. CATCH ALL PROVISIONS

WHAT ARE THE ARTICLES COVERED IN THE CATCH-ALL PROVISIONS ON
HUMAN RELATIONS?

1. Article 19: Every must, in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.

2. Article 20: Every person, contrary to law,
willfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latte for the same.

3. Article 21: Any person who willfully causes loss
or injury to another in a manner that is contrary
to morals, good customs, or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES/DISTINCTIONS OF THE THREE
ARTICLES?

1. Article 19 declares a principle of law and Article
21 gives flesh to its provisions, while Article 20
speaks of the general sanction for all other
provisions of law which do not especially provide
for their own sanction;
2. There is a common element under Articles 19
and 21, that is, the act must be intentional,
however, Article 20 does not distinguish, in that
the act may be done either willfully or
negligently;
3. Under any of the three articles, an act which
causes injury to another may be made the basis
for an award of damages;
4. Under Article 21, the act is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy; in Article 21, the
act is contrary to law. Under Article 21, the act is
done willfully, in Article 20, the act is done either
willfully or negligently.



A. ABUSE OF RIGHT (ARTICLE 19)

Article 19 is commonly referred to as the principle
of abuse of rights. The law recognizes the norms of human
on all rights: that in their exercise, the norms of human
conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed.

The article sets standards which may be observed
not only in the exercise of ones rights but also in the
performance of ones duties. These standards are: a) to act
with justice, b) to give everyone his due; and c) to observe
honesty and good faith.

Article 19 rejects the classical and traditional
theory that he who uses a right injures no one.

A right, though by itself legal because recognized
or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the
source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a
manner which does not conform with the norms
enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a
legal wrong is thereby committed for which the
wrongdoer must be held responsible.

Article 19 is intended to expand the concept of
torts by granting adequate remedy for the untold number
of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight
to provide specifically in statutory law.

Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the
regulation of human relations and for the maintenance of
social order. It does not provide a remedy for its violation.
Generally, an action for damages under either Articles 20
and 21 would be proper [(Globe Mackay vs/ CA, 176 SCRA
778 (1989).]

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF AN ABUSE OF RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19?

1. Exercise of a right which is objective and
apparently legal;
2. Damage or injury to an interest not specifically
protected by a legal precept; and
3. Immorality or anti-social character of the
damage or injury manifested either subjectively,
i.e., when the right is exercised with the intent to
injure or simply without legal or legitimate
purpose.

WHAT ARE THE EXTERNAL LIMITATIONS OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS?

1. Those in favor of third persons who acted in
good faith; and
2. Those arising from the concurrence or conflict
with the tight of others.

Exercise of right. The exercise of rights must be
done within certain limits.

The limitations in the exercise of a right are
classified into:

a. Intrinsic limitations that which emanate
from the right itself, that is, from its nature
and purpose.
b. Extrinsic limitations which are the following:

3. Those derived from the nature of the right itself
4. Limitations arising from good faith; and
5. Limitations imposed by the economic and social
ends for the right which require the holder of
the right to exercise it in accordance with the
end for which it was granted or created.

IN WHAT ARTICLES IS ACTING WITH JUSTICE AND GIVING
ANOTHER HIS DUE ELABORATED?

1. Article 20 indemnification of another due to
illegal acts
2. Article 21 indemnification due to immoral acts
3. Article 24 unfair competition
4. Article 22 unjust enrichment

IN WHAT ARTICLE IS OBSERVANCE OF HONESTY AND GOOD
FAITH ELABORATED?

1. Article 26 respect for the personality and
dignity of others
2. Article 25 restraint of due extravagance
3. Article 31 et seq. independent civil actions


B1. CONTRARY TO LAW (ARTICLE 20)

WHAT IS BEING PUNISHED UNDER ARTICLE 20?

This article punishes illegal acts whether done
willfully or negligently. The article is broad enough to
cover all legal (not moral) wrongs in violation of law,
whether willfully or negligently. Thus, in the law of torts or
quasi-delict Whoever by act or omission causes
damages to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. (Article 2176) It
embraces the Spanish-Philippine concept of quasi-delict
which is based on negligence and the tort in Anglo-
Amercian jurisprudence which is based on malice.

This article serves as a sanction to all violations
of right which cause damage to another irrespective of
whether the particular law that is violated provides for
damages or not. The rule in Article 20 compliments the
principle of abuse of rights enumerated in Article 19.

The conduct may be both a crime and a quasi-
delict. Any person who willfully or negligently causes
damage to another in his person, his property, or in any
right shall be obliged to indemnify the latter. A felony may
be committed by means of deceit or by means of fault or
negligence (Article 3, Revised Penal Code). If the fault or
negligence does not constitute a penal offense, the actor is
liable only for quasi-delict under Article 2176. In either
case, it is essential that the act is voluntary for the
obligation to indemnify to arise.

B2. CONTRARY TO LAW (ARTICLE 21)

Article 21 seeks to remedy the countless gaps in the
statutes, which leave so may victims of moral wrongs
helpless, even though they have actually suffered material
and moral injury.

Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus.

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF ACTS CONTRA BONUS?

1. There is an act which is legal;
2. But which is contrary to morals, good customs,
public order, or public policy; and
3. It is done with intent to injure

Under this article, damages are recoverable even
though no positive law was violated.

Article 21 presupposes losses or injuries material or
otherwise, which one may suffer as a result of the
violation. Thus, the complaint must asks for damages.

EXAMPLES OF ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES:

1. Breach of promise to marry

As a general rule, breach of promise to marry by
itself is not actionable. However, it becomes actionable if
there are additional circumstances which make it fall
within the purview of Articles 19, 20, 21 or 2176 of the
Civil Code. In such cases, there is another act independent
of the breach of promise to marry which gives rise to
liability.

These include cases where:

1. If the breach of promise to marry is accompanied by a
tortuous act

2. If the breach of promise to marry is accompanied by a
quasi-contract as when on the strength of the
promise to marry, money or property is given. An
action will lie to recover such money or property

3. If the breach of promise to marry constitutes an
abuse of right.

4. There was financial damage;

5. Social humiliation was caused to one of the parties;
and

6. Where there was moral seduction

2. Seduction and sexual assault
Seduction, by itself, without breach of promise
to marry is an act which is contrary to morals, good
custom and public policy. The defendant is liable if he
employed deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of
confidence in successfully having sexual intercourse with
another.

The defendant would be liable for all forms of
sexual assault. These include the crimes defined under the
Revised Penal Code as rape, acts of lasciviousness and
seduction.

3. Desertion by a spouse

A spouse has a legal obligation to live with his or
her spouse. If a spouse does not perform his or her duty to
the other, he may be held liable for damages for such
omission because the same is contrary to law, morals and
good customs.

4. Trespass and deprivation of property

Trespass to real property is a tort that is
committed when a person unlawfully invades the real
property of another. The Revised Penal Code punishes
different forms of trespass. On the other hand, the Civil
Code provides that damages may be awarded to the real
owner if he suffered such damages because he was
deprived of possession of his property by a possessor in
bad faith or by a person who does not have any right
whatsoever over the property. (Article 451) Anybody who
builds, plants or sows on the land of another knowing full
well that there is a defect in his title is liable for damages.

Liability for damages under the provisions of the
revised Penal Code and the Civil Code requires intent or
bad faith.

With respect to personal property, the
commission of the crimes of theft or robbery is obviously
trespass. In the field of tort, however, trespass extends to
all cases where a person is deprived of his personal
property even in the absence of criminal liability.

5. Disconnection of electricity or gas service

A usual form of deprivation of access to property
is the unjustified disconnection of electricity service. The
right to disconnect and deprive the customer of electricity
should be exercised in accordance with law and rules.

6. Abortion and wrongful death

7. Illegal dismissal

The exercise of the right to terminate must be
consistent with the general principles provided for under
Articles 19 and 21. If there is non-compliance with the said
articles, the employer may be held liable for damages.

8. Malicious prosecution

A tort action for malicious prosecution has been
defined as An action for damages brought by one against
another whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other
legal proceedings has been instituted maliciously and
without probable cause, after the termination of such
prosecution, suit or proceeding in favor of the defendant
therein.

The statutory bases of the action are not only
Articles 19, 20 and 21 but also Articles 26, 32, 33 35, 2217
and 2219(8) of the Civil Code.

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION?

a. The fact of the prosecution and the further
fact that the defendant was himself the
prosecutor,
b. That the action was finally terminated with
an acquittal;
c. That in bringing the action, the prosecutor
acted without probable cause;
d. The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by
legal malice.

IN ORDER FOR THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION SUIT TO PROSPER, WHAT
MUST THE PLAINTIFF PROVE?

a. 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;
b. That in bringing the action, the prosecutor
acted without probable cause; and
c. That the prosecutor was actuated or
impelled by legal malice, that is by improper
or sinister motive. (Lao v. Court of Appeals,
199 SCRA 58 [1991]; Rehabilitation Finance
Corporation v. Koh, 4 SCRA 535 [1962];
Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban, 32 Phil. 363
[1915])

The foregoing requisites are necessary safeguards to
preserve a person's right to litigate which may otherwise
be emasculated by the undue filing of malicious
prosecution cases. Thus, as further held in the aforecited
case of Buchanan v. Viuda. de Esteban, supra: "Malice is
essential to the maintenance of an action for malicious
prosecution and not merely to the recovery of exemplary
damages. But malice alone does not make one liable for
malicious prosecution, where probable cause is shown,
even where it appears that the suit was brought for the
mere purpose of vexing, harassing and injuring his
adversary. In other words malice and want of probable
cause must both exist in order to justify the action." (see
also Rehabilitation Finance Corp. v. Koh, supra)

Probable cause is the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable
mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the
prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the
crime (or in this case, the wrongdoing) for which he was
prosecuted. (See Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban, supra).

The general rule is well settled that one cannot
be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a
prosecution where he acted with probable cause. In other
words, a suit will lie only in cases where a legal
prosecution has been carried on without probable cause.
(Id.)

9. Public humiliation

Example: slapping in public

Action In rem Verso and Liability Without Fault

Action in rem verso

Article 22: Every person who through an act or
performance by another, or by any other means, acquires
or comes into possession of something at the expense of
the latter without just cause or legal ground, shall return
the same to him

This article is designated as action in rem verso.

What are the requisites of action in rem verso?

a. One party must be enriched and the
other made poorer;
b. There must be a causal relation
between the two;
c. The enrichment must not be
justifiable;
d. There must be no other way to
recover; and
e. The indemnity can not extend the loss
of enrichment whichever is less


C. Unjust Enrichment

Art. 22. Every person who through an act or 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.

Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to
another's property was not due to the fault or negligence
of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if
through the act or event he was benefited.

Elements of Unjust Enrichment:

1. There must be enrichment on the part of the defendant.

2. There is a concomitant injury to the plaintiff.

3. There is no just cause or legal ground for the
enrichment.

LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT

The concept of liability without fault is introduced in this
article. It is based on equity.

D. Judicial Vigilance

Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations,
when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account
of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental
weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must
be vigilant for his protection.

JURISPRUDENCE:

PLDT v. PLDT Union

PLDT hired a blind man to show the world its political
correctness. After two years, PLDT terminated him on the
ground that he was blind.

HELD: He was illegally dismissed. The court exercised
judicial vigilance here in protecting the rights of the
handicapped, under Article 24.

E. Thoughtless Extravagance

Art. 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for
pleasure or display during a period of acute public want
or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at
the instance of any government or private charitable
institution.


F. Disrespect for Person

TORTS THAT INVOLVE THE RIGHT OF A PERSON TO DIGNITY,
PRIVACY AND PEACE OF MIND

Article 26 Every person shall respect the
dignity, personality, privacy and peace if mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and other
similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal
offense shall produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of anothers
residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private
life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be
alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on
account of his religious beliefs, lowly
station in life, place of birth, physical
defect, or other personal condition.

WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPAL RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THIS ARTICLE?

a. right to personal dignity;
b. right to personal security;
c. right to family relations;
d. right to social intercourse;
e. right to privacy and
f. right to peace of mind

WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THIS ARTICLE?

a. An action for damages
b. An action for prevention
c. Any other relief

A civil action may be instituted even if
no crime is involved, and moral
damages may be obtained

Scope:

a. Prying into the privacy of anothers residence
includes by implication respect for anothers
name, picture, or personality except insofar as is
needed for publication of information and
pictures of legitimate news value.
b. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another includes alienation
of the affection of the husband or the wife.
c. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from
his friends includes gossiping, and reliance on
hearsay.
d. Vexing or humiliating includes criticism of
ones health or features without justifiable legal
cause.

G. Dereliction of Duty

TORTS COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS UNDER HUMAN RELATIONS

Article 27 Any person suffering material or
moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or
neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty
may file an action for damages and other relief against the
latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative
action that may be taken.

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR ACTION UNDER THIS ARTICLE?

a. That the defendant be a public official
charged with the performance of official
duties;
b. That there be a violation of an official duty
in favor of an individual;
c. That there be willfulness or negligence in
the violation of such official duty;
d. That there be an injury to the individual


H. Unfair Competition

Article 28 Unfair competition in agricultural,
commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through
the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination, or any
other unjust, oppressive or high handed method shall give
rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffer
damage.

WHEN IS THERE UNFAIR COMPETITION?

Unfair competition consists in employing
deception or any other means contrary to good faith by
which any person shall pass off the goods manufactured
by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services to
those of the one having established goodwill, or
committing any acts calculated to produce such result.


WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION?

i. Agricultural enterprises
ii. Commercial enterprises
iii. Industrial enterprises
iv. Labor

b. Examples

i. Strike prematurely declared
ii. Strike for trivial, unjust or unreasonable cause
iii. Strike carried out thru force, intimidation or other
unlawful means
iv. Strike in order to circumvent valid obligations entered
into a collective bargaining contracts
v. Cut-throat competition
vi. The making of false statement in the course of trade to
discredit the goods, business or services of another
vii. The making of goods so as to deceive purchasers
viii. Selling of goods above the maximum prices set by the
state

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF UNFAIR COMPETITION?

1. That the offender gives his goods the general
appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or
dealer;
2. That the general appearance is shown in the (1)
goods themselves, or in the (2) wrapping of their
packages, or in the (3) device or words therein, or in
(4) any other feature of their appearance;
3. That the offender offers to sell or sells those goods or
gives other persons a chance or opportunity to do the
same with a like purpose;
4. That there is actual intent to deceive the public or
defraud a competition.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF A COMPLAINT FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION?

It is basically a suit for injunction and damages.

JURISPRUDENCE:

Habana v. Robles

HELD: Yes. Robles is guilty of copyright infringement.
Infringement of copyright consists in doing by any person,
without the consent of the owner of the copying, of
anything, the sole right to do which is conferred by statute
on said owner.

Said infringement is in fact a trespass on a private domain
owned by the owner of the copyright. With regard to
books and other literary works, the purpose of copywriting
is to give protection to the intellectual product of an
author. In such a case, copying alone is not what is
prohibited the copying must produce an injurious effect.

In this case, even if Habanas book, or even a large portion
of it, was not copied by Robles, if so much is taken that the
value of the original work is substantially diminished, then
Robles is indeed guilty of infringement. With regard to the
injurious effect, the least Robles could have done was to
acknowledge Habanas book as the source of the
contested portions of her own book.

To allow another to copy the book without appropriate
acknowledgment is injury enough, hence the requisite of
injurious effect is complied with.

More Examples:

A owns a hospital named St. Peters located in a small
town. B owns another hospital in the same town.

B puts up a funeral parlor across the street from St. Peters
Hospital and names it St. Peters Funeral Parlor. Is this
unfair competition under Article 28?

A: Yes. This is an unjust, oppressive, and highhanded
method of competing with A.

The ad for a product claims that Our product is number
one. Does this constitute unfair competition?

A: No.

The ad for a product claims that Our product is the only
good product. Does this constitute unfair competition?

A: Yes.

I. Violation of Civil/Political Rights

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,
violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another person shall be
liable to the latter for damages:

1. Freedom of religion;
2. Freedom of speech;
3. Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a
periodical publication;
4. Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
5. Freedom of suffrage;
6. The right against deprivation of property without due
process of law;
7. The right to a just compensation when private property
is taken for public use;
8. The right to the equal protection of the laws;
9. The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
10. The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
11. The privacy of communication and correspondence;
12. The right to become a member of associations or
societies for purposes not contrary to law;
13. The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to
petition the government for redress of grievances;
14. The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any
form;
15. The right of the accused against excessive bail;
16. The right of the accused to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial,
to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in
his behalf;
17. Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against
one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from
being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to
make such confession, except when the person confessing
becomes a State witness;
18. Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual
punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in
accordance with a statute which has not been judicially
declared unconstitutional; and
19. Freedom of access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or
not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal
offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an
entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and
for other relief.

Such civil action shall proceed independently of any
criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may
be proved by a preponderance of evidence.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary
damages may also be adjudicated. The responsibility
herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his
act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or
other penal statute.

NOTES:

If you will notice, the rights enumerated in Article 32 are
the same as the rights protected under Article III of the
Constitution in the Bill of Rights. Is Article 32 a surplussage
then?

A: No. The Constitution protects citizens from violations of
their civil rights by the State. Article 32 covers violations
committed even by private individuals.

Moreover, Article 32 covers not only direct violations of
civil rights, but also INDIRECT violations. For example,
under Article 32, even a witness for the application of a
search warrant who lies in his testimony may be liable for
damages to the aggrieved party.

JURISPRUDENCE:

MHP Garments, Inc vs. CA

THEY ARE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,
violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another person shall be
liable to the latter for damages.

(9) The rights to be secure in one's person, house, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary
damages may also be adjudged.

The very nature of Article 32 is that the wrong may be civil
or criminal. It is not necessary therefore that there should
be malice or bad faith. To make such a requisite would
defeat the main purpose of Article 32 which is the
effective protection of individual rights.

Public officials in the past have abused their powers on the
pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the
performance of their duties.

Precisely, the object of the Article is to put an end to
official abuse by plea of the good faith.

In the United States this remedy is in the nature of a tort.


VI. INTERFERENCE IN CONTRACTUAL RELATION

Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to
violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the
other contracting party.

JURISPRUDENCE:

Daywalt v. La Corporacion

Article 1902 of the Civil Code declares that any person who
by an act or omission, characterized by fault or negligence,
causes damage to another shall be liable for the damage
so done.

Ignoring so much of this article as relates to
liability for negligence, we take the rule to be that a
person is liable for damage done to another by any
culpable act; and by "culpable act" we mean any act which
is blameworthy when judged by accepted legal standards.

The idea thus expressed is undoubtedly broad
enough to include any rational conception of liability for
the tortious acts likely to be developed in any society.

The fact that the officials of defendant La
Corporacion may have advised Endencia not to carry the
contract into effect would not constitute actionable
interference with such contract.

It may be added that when one considers the
hardship that the ultimate performance of that contract
entailed on the vendor, and the doubt in which the issue
was involved to the extent that the decision of the
Court of the First Instance was unfavorable to the plaintiff
and the Supreme Court itself was divided the attitude of
the defendant corporation, is not difficult to understand.

To our mind a fair conclusion on this feature of
the case is that father Juan Labarga and his associates
believed in good faith that the contract could not be
enforced and that Teodorica would be wronged if it should
be carried into effect. Any advice or assistance which they
may have given was, therefore, prompted by no mean or
improper motive.
It is not, in our opinion, to be denied that
Teodorica would have surrendered the documents of title
and given possession of the land but for the influence and
promptings of members of the defendants corporation.

But we do not credit the idea that they were in
any degree influenced to the giving of such advice by the
desire to secure to themselves the paltry privilege of
grazing their cattle upon the land in question to the
prejudice of the just rights of the plaintiff.

GILCHRIST v CUDDY

The only motive for the interference with the Gilchrist -
Cuddy contract on the part of the appellants was a desire
to make a profit by exhibiting the film in their theater.

There was no malice beyond this desire; but this fact does
not relieve them of the legal liability for interfering with
that contract and causing its breach.

It is, therefore, clear, that they are liable to Gilchrist for
the damages caused by their acts.

The liability of the Espejo and Zaldriagga arises from
unlawful acts and not from contractual obligations, as
they were under no such obligations to induce Cuddy to
violate his contract with Gilchrist.

So that if the action of Gilchrist had been one for
damages, it would be governed by chapter 2, title 16,
book 4 of the Civil Code.

Article 1902 of that code provides that a person who, by
act or omission, causes damages to another when there
is fault or negligence, shall be obliged to repair the
damage so done.

There is nothing in this article which requires as a
condition precedent to the liability of a tort-feasor that
he must know the identity of a person to whom he
causes damages.

In fact, the chapter wherein this article is found clearly
shows that no such knowledge is required in order that
the injured party may recover for the damage suffered.

Interference in Contractual Relation

Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to
violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the
other contracting party.

Elements of Interference in Contractual Relation:

1. Valid contract;
2. Outsider knows of the existence of the contract;
3. The third party induces one party to breach his
obligation under the contract;
4. Damage.

Is malice an element of interference in contractual
relation?

A: There are variances in opinion. Some cases say that it is
not, while other cases say that it is (So Ping Bun v. CA).

So if youre the lawyer for the plaintiff, you should try to
prove it anyway just to be sure.

What are the defenses available to the defendant?

(1) Business competition & the purpose is:

(i) furtherance of the business; &
(ii) lawful means are used. Note that there is no
intent to cause damage. (So Ping Bun v. CA)

(2) Honest advice made:

(i) in good faith and
(ii) in performance of his duty as adviser

(3) Innocence of breaching party; Element of inducement
lacking Cite Daywalt that the third party cannot be
more liable than the party on whose behalf he
intermeddles.


VII. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM CRIME (ROC)

A. Remedies

1. Civil Action with Criminal Action

RULE 111 - PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.

(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for
the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal
action unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the
civil action prior to the criminal action.

The reservation of the right to institute separately the
civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts
presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording
the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such
reservation.

2. Separate Civil Action

RULE 111, Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended.
After the criminal action has been commenced, the
separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted
until final judgment has been entered in the criminal
action.

If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has
already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in
whatever state it may be found before judgment on the
merits.

The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered
in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on
the merits rendered in the civil action, the same may,
upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with
the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action.

In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in
the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced
in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the
prosecution to cross-examine the witness presented by
the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties
to present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal
and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly.

During the pendency of the criminal action, the running
period of prescription of the civil action which cannot be
instituted separately or whose proceeding has been
suspended shall be tolled.

The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action
based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a
finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the
act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did
not exist.

3. Independent Civil Action

WHAT IS THE BASIS OF TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS?

Article 31 When the civil action is based on an
obligation not arising from the act or omission complained
of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently
of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of
the later.

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 31?

This article refers to a civil action based not on
the act or omission charged as a felony in a criminal case,
but to one based on an obligation arising from other
sources, such as law or contract (Example: Breach of
contract of carriage. Reason: The civil action based on
contractual liability of a common carrier is distinct from
the criminal action instituted against the carrier or its
employee based on the latters negligence).

Meaning of independent civil actions
An independent civil action is one that
is brought distinctly and separately
from a criminal case allowed for
considerations of public policy,
because the proof needed for civil
cases is less than that required for
criminal cases; but with the injunction
in general that success in financially
recovering in one case should prevent
a recovery of damages in the other.

Note that the bringing of the
independent civil action is permissive,
not compulsory

WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES OF INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS?

Article 21 Acts contra bonus mores

Article 32 breach of constitutional and other rights

Article 33 Defamation, fraud, physical injuries

Article 34 Refusal or failure of city or municipal police to
give protection

Article 2177 Quasi-delict

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL IN THE CIVIL CASE?

The dismissal of the civil action cannot constitute
a bar to the criminal suit for the two actins are entirely
distinct from each other, and may therefore be litigated
independently.

PROSECUTION OF INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION [RULE 111, RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE]

What are the general rules in institution of criminal and
civil actions?

When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged
shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless :

(1) the offended party waives the civil action,
(2) reserves the right to institute it separately or
(3) institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

[The reservation of the right to institute separately the
civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts
presenting evidence and under circumstances affording
the offended party reasonable opportunity to make such
reservation. Section 1, Rule 111]

When the civil action has been filed
separately and trial thereof has not yet
commenced, it may be consolidated
with the criminal action upon
application with the court trying the
latter case. If the application is
granted, the trial of both actions shall
proceed in accordance with section 2
of this Rule governing consolidation if
the criminal and civil action.

After the criminal action has been
commenced, the separate civil action
arising therefrom cannot be instituted
until final judgment has been entered
in the criminal action.

If the criminal action is filed after the
said civil action has already been
instituted, the latter shall be
suspended in whatever stage it may be
found before judgment on the merits.
The suspension shall last until final
judgment is rendered in the criminal
action. Nevertheless, before judgment
on the merits is rendered in the civil
action, the same may, upon motion of
the offended party, be consolidated
with the criminal action in the court
trying the criminal action. [Section 2,
Ibid.]

WHAT ARE THE RULES ON INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS?

In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176
of the Civil Code, the independent civil action may be
brought by the offended party. It shall proceed
independently of the criminal action and shall require
only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
however, may the offended party recover damages
twice for the same act or omission charged in the
criminal action. [Section 3, Ibid.]

The independent civil actions contemplated in the
present Rule 111 include quasi-delicts provided for in
Article 2176, in addition to Articles 32, 33 and 34. It is
necessary, however, that the civil liability under the
said articles arise from the same act or omission of
the accused. Further, a reservation of the right to
institute these separate actions are impliedly
instituted with the criminal action, unless the former
are waived or filed ahead of the criminal action.

Where an independent civil action is permitted, the
result of the criminal action, whether of acquittal or
conviction is entirely irrelevant to the civil action.
Thus under Article 31 of the Civil Code, the civil action
may proceed independently of the criminal action
regardless of the result of the latter.

Prior to the case of Roa vs. De la Cruz (101 Phil. 8), it
was held that where the law authorizes a separate
and independent civil action, there was no need for
making a reservation, however, in subsequent cases,
the Supreme Court has decided that reservation is
needed because of the specific provision of Section 3,
Rule 111 requiring such reservation to be made even
where the law provides for independent civil actions.


What are the kinds of independent civil actions?

a. Article 21 [Supra]

b. Article 32 Any public officer or employee, or
any private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
impedes or impairs any of the following rights
and liberties of another person shall be liable to
the latter for damages:
x x x x

In any of the cases referred to in this
article, whether or not the defendants
act or omission constitutes a criminal
offense, the aggrieved party has a right
to commence an entirely separate and
distinct civil action for damages, and
for other relief. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of any criminal
prosecution, and may be proved by a
preponderance of evidence.

The indemnity shall include moral and
exemplary damages.

Where a public officer is charged with
violation of any of the basic rights of
an individual provided for in this
article, it is deemed that the action is
against him in his private capacity and
not a suit against the state which
requires its consent.

c. Article 33 In cases of defamation, fraud, and
physical injuries, a civil action for damages,
entirely separate and distinct from the civil
action, may be brought by the injured party.
Such civil action shall proceed independently of
the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.

This article speaks of independent civil
action in cases of:

defamation, libel or slander or
intriguing against honor fraud,
including estafa and swindling, and
physical injuries, including attempted
and frustrated homicide so long as
there was injury.

d. Article 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 officer shall be
primarily liable for damages, and the city or
municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible
therefore. The civil action recognized shall be
independent of any criminal proceedings, and a
preponderance of evidence shall suffice to
support such action.

The liability of the city or municipality
being subsidiary can only be enforced
when the guilty officer is insolvent.
However, it can not be avoided by
proving that the city or municipality
has exercised due diligence in the
selection and supervision of its
policemen. This defense, allowed
under Article 2180, in favor of
employers for the fault or negligence
of their employees, is available only to
private employers; it would be
available to the city or municipality if
the function involved is a corporate
function, but not when, as
contemplated by the present article, it
is a governmental function.

e. Article 2177 Responsibility for fault or
negligence under Article 2176 is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability
arising form negligence under the penal code.
But the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the
same act or omission of the defendant.


B. EFFECTS:

1. Civil Action After Acquittal In a Criminal Case

Article 29 When the accused in a criminal
prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action
for damages for the same act or omission may be
instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of
evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may
require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages
in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.

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 that effect, it may be
inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the
acquittal is due to that ground.

WHAT ARE THE REASONS OF THE PROVISION IN ALLOWING THE FILING
OF A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES EVEN THOUGH THE ACCUSED HAS
BEEN ACQUITTED ON REASONABLE DOUBT?

b. The reason is found in Article 2177 which states that
responsibility for fault or negligence is entirely
separate and distinct form the civil liability arising
form negligence under the penal code but the
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same
act or omission of the defendant.

c. Also, under the Revised Penal Code, a person
criminally liable is also civilly liable (Article 100). The
two liabilities are separate and distinct form each
other; the criminal aspect affects social order; the
civil, private rights. One is for the punishment or
correction of the offender, while the other is for
reparation of damages suffered by the aggrieved
party.

WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES WHERE NO CIVIL ACTION MAY BE
INSTITUTED?

(a) When the accused is acquitted on the ground that he
did not commit the act, or
(b) That no crime was committed, or
(c) Because he is justified or exempt from criminal
liability,

Reason: Because the acquittal on these grounds
constitutes res adjudication.

When such civil action is instituted,
only a preponderance of evidence is
required. However, to protect persons
form harassment, the provision
authorizes the defendant t file a
motion in court requiring the plaintiff
to file a bond to answer for damages in
case the complaint should be found to
be malicious.

Note that Article 29 does no speak of
an independent civil action.

Institution of Civil Action for Damages Arising out of a
Criminal Offense before a Criminal Action is Instituted for
the Criminal Offense

Article 30 When a separate civil action is
brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal
offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during
the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of
evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act
complained of.

If however, a criminal action is instituted
while the civil action is pending, the civil
action will be suspended until final
judgment in the criminal case has been
rendered.

As in Article 29, this article does not speak
of an independent civil action.

e. Torts with Independent Civil Actions.


2. Extinction of Civil Liability:

Rule 111, Sec 2: The extinction of the penal action does
not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the
civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if
there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action
that the act or omission from which the civil liability may
arise did not exist.

C. PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS:

NCC, Art. 36. Pre-judicial questions which must be decided
before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may
proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which the
Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not be in
conflict with the provisions of this Code.

RULE 111, Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial
question.

A petition for suspension of the criminal action based
upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil
action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the
court conducting the preliminary investigation.

When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial,
the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal
action at any time before the prosecution rests.

RULE 111, Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question.

The elements of a prejudicial questions are:

(a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, and

(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not
the criminal action may proceed.
D. SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY

RPC, Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers,
tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments.

In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers,
tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations
shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their
establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal
ordinances or some general or special police regulation
shall have been committed by them or their employees.

Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of
goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from
guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value
thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in
advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing
him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall
furthermore have followed the directions which such
innkeeper or his representative may have given them with
respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No
liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the
innkeeper's employees.

RPC, Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.

The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding
article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons,
and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for
felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.


JURISPRUDENCE:

Carpio v. Doroja

ISSUE: WON the subsidiary liability of the owner-
operator may be enforced in the same criminal
proceeding against the driver where the award was
given, or in a separate civil action.

HELD:

The subsidiary liability in Art. 103 should be distinguished
from the primary liability of employers, which is quasi-
delictual in character as provided in Art. 2180 of the New
Civil Code.

Under Art. 103, the liability emanated from a delict. On
the other hand, the liability under Art. 2180 is founded on
culpa-aquiliana.

The present case is neither an action for culpa-contractual
nor for culpa-aquiliana. This is basically an action to
enforce the civil liability arising from crime under Art. 100
of the Revised Penal Code.
In no case can this be regarded as a civil action for the
primary liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of the
New Civil Code, i.e., action for culpa-aquiliana.

In order that an employer may be held subsidiarily liable
for the employee's civil liability in the criminal action, it
should be shown (1) that the employer, etc. is engaged in
any kind of industry, (2) that the employee committed the
offense in the discharge of his duties and (3) that he is
insolvent (Basa Marketing Corp. v. Bolinao, 117 SCRA 156).

The subsidiary liability of the employer, however, arises
only after conviction of the employee in the criminal
action.

All these requisites are present, the employer becomes
ipso facto subsidiarily liable upon the employee's
conviction and upon proof of the latter's insolvency.

Needless to say, the case at bar satisfies all these
requirements.

ADDITIONAL INPUTS:

I. Interference in Contractual Relation

Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to
violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the
other contracting party.

Elements of Interference in Contractual Relation:

1. Valid contract;
2. Outsider knows of the existence of the contract;
3. The third party induces one party to breach his
obligation under the contract;
4. Damage.

Is malice an element of interference in contractual
relation?

A: There are variances in opinion. Some cases say that it is
not, while other cases say that it is (So Ping Bun v. CA).

So if youre the lawyer for the plaintiff, you should try to
prove it anyway just to be sure.

What are the defenses available to the defendant?

(1) Business competition & the purpose is:

(i) furtherance of the business; &
(ii) lawful means are used. Note that there is no
intent to cause damage. (So Ping Bun v. CA)

(2) Honest advice made:

(i) in good faith and
(ii) in performance of his duty as adviser

(3) Innocence of breaching party; Element of inducement
lacking Cite Daywalt that the third party cannot be
more liable than the party on whose behalf he
intermeddles.

II. Remedies

a. Civil Action with Criminal Action

Clarification of this rule:

This rule on civil actions instituted with the criminal action
has been amended several times, hence the conflicting
jurisprudence.

Under the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
civil liability arising from crime is deemed instituted and
not merely impliedly instituted with the institution of
the criminal action, unless:

1. the offended party waives the civil action,
2. reserves the right to institute it separately, or
3. institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

But take note that the civil action that is deemed instituted
with the criminal action is only the one for the recovery of
the civil liability arising from the offense charged, and no
other civil action.

All decisions to the contrary are no longer controlling.

What are the independent civil actions?

A: The independent civil actions are those under Articles
32, 33, 34, and 2176. These are NOT deemed instituted
with the criminal action or considered as waived even if
there is no reservation.

The need for reservation applies only to the civil liability
arising from the offense charged.
Can an employer be held civilly liable for quasi delict in a
criminal action for reckless imprudence filed against his
employee?

A: No. Quasi delict under Article 2176 is not deemed
instituted with the criminal action. If at all, the only civil
liability of the employer in the criminal action would be his
subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code.

What is the difference between separate civil action
under Section 2 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court and an
independent civil action?

A: The independent civil actions are those under Articles
32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code. These are not
deemed instituted with the criminal action even if there is
no reservation made by the plaintiff.

The separate civil action under Section 2 of Rule 111 refers
to an action to recover civil liability arising from the crime.

This is deemed instituted with the criminal action, unless
the offended party waives it, makes a reservation, or
institutes it prior to the institution of the criminal action.

Note that this should refer to the civil liability arising from
the offense, and not to any other civil action which may be
connected to the offense but does not necessarily arise
from the crime (ex: civil case for legal separation in
connection with a case for bigamy).

b. Separate Civil Action

Summary of this Rule:

1. This rule contemplates a situation where the offended
party files a separate civil action to recover civil liability
arising from the offense. This is a departure from the
general rule in Section 1 that the civil action is deemed
instituted with the criminal action.

2. If the criminal action has bee commenced, and the
offended party makes a reservation to separately file the
civil action arising therefrom, he cannot institute the civil
action until final judgment has been rendered in the
criminal action.

3. If the separate civil action has already been instituted
prior to the filing of the criminal action, upon filing of the
criminal action, the civil action shall be suspended in
whatever stage it may be found until final judgment is
rendered in the criminal action.

4. In case the criminal action is instituted after the civil
action, the two actions may, upon motion of the offended
party, be consolidated before judgment on the merits is
rendered in the civil action. It will be tried and decided
jointly by the court trying the criminal action.

5. The only civil action that is deemed suspended is the
civil action arising from the offense charged and not other
civil actions that may be related to but do not arise from
the offense. A civil action may not be suspended under
Rule 111 where the action is not to enforce civil liability
from the crime charged.

6. As a general rule, there can only be consolidation of the
criminal and civil actions if the civil action is for recovery of
the civil liability arising from the offense. However, under
certain exceptional circumstances, there can still be
consolidation of the criminal and civil actions even if the
civil action is not for the recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense (ex: civil action based on contract).


The requisites for consolidation in these cases are:

a. the actions arise from the same act, event, or
transaction;

b. they involve the same or like issues;

c. they depend largely or substantially on the same
evidence

d. the court must have jurisdiction over the cases to be
consolidated; and

e. a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage
or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.

7. The period of prescription of the civil action arising from
a crime that has not been reserved or that was filed ahead
of the criminal action and was subsequently suspended
shall not run while the criminal action is pending.

III. Prejudicial Question

What is a prejudicial question?

A prejudicial question is one based on a fact separate and
distinct from the crime but is so intimately connected with
it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Elements:

1. the previously instituted civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, and

2. the resolution of such issue determines whether or not
the criminal action may proceed.

Take note that the new rule is that the civil action must
have been previously instituted in order to constitute a
prejudicial question (Torres v. Garchitorena).

IV. Subsidiary Liability

Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers,
tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments.

In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers,
tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations
shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their
establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal
ordinances or some general or special police regulation
shall have been committed by them or their employees.

Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of
goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from
guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value
thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in
advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing
him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall
furthermore have followed the directions which such
innkeeper or his representative may have given them with
respect to the care and vigilance over such goods.

No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the
innkeeper's employees.

Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.

The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding
article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons,
and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for
felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.

Requisites of subsidiary civil liability of the employer,
teacher, corporation, etc:

(a) the existence of an employer-employee relationship;

(b) that the employer is engaged in some kind of industry;

(c) that the employee is adjudged guilty of the wrongful
act and found to have committed the offense in the
discharge of his duties (not necessarily any offense he
commits "while" in the discharge of such duties); and

(d) that said employee is insolvent.