ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION VS.

REPUBLIC BROADCASTING CORP

GR 128690 JANUARY 21, 1999
FACTS:
In 1992, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, through its vice president Charo Santos-Concio, requested
Viva Production, Inc. to ao! ABS-CBN to air at east 1" #i$s produced %& Viva. Pursuant to this request, a $eeting
!as hed %et!een Viva's representative (Vicente )e *osario+ and ABS-CBN's ,ugenio -ope. (/enera 0anager+
and Santos-Concio !as hed on Apri 2, 1992. )uring the $eeting )e *osario proposed a #i$ pac1age !hich !i
ao! ABS-CBN to air 12" Viva #i$s #or P32 $iion. -ater, Santos-Concio, in a etter to )e *osario, proposed a
counterproposa o# 45 #i$s (incuding the 1" #i$s initia& requested+ #or P54 $iion. )e *osario presented the
counter o##er to Viva's Board o# )irectors %ut the Board re6ected the counter o##er. Severa negotiations !ere
su%sequent& $ade %ut on Apri 29, 1992, Viva $ade an agree$ent !ith *epu%ic Broadcasting Corporation (re#erred
to as *BS 7 or /0A 8+ !hich gave e9cusive rights to *BS to air 12" Viva #i$s incuding the 1" #i$s initia&
requested %& ABS-CBN.
ABS-CBN no! #ied a co$paint #or speci#ic per#or$ance against Viva as it aeged that there is aread& a
per#ected contract %et!een Viva and ABS-CBN in the Apri 2, 1992 $eeting. -ope. testi#ied that )e *osario agreed
to the counterproposa and he (-ope.+ even put the agree$ent in a nap1in !hich !as signed and given to )e
*osario. ABS-CBN aso #ied an in6unction against *BS to en6oin the atter #ro$ airing the #i$s. :he in6unction !as
granted. *BS no! #ied a countersuit !ith a pra&er #or $ora da$ages as it cai$ed that its reputation !as de%ased
!hen the& #aied to air the sho!s that the& pro$ised to their vie!ers. *BS reied on the ruing in Peope vs 0anero
and 0a$%uao -u$%er vs PNB !hich states that a corporation $a& recover $ora da$ages i# it ;has a good
reputation that is de%ased, resuting in socia hu$iiation<. :he tria court rued in #avor o# Viva and *BS. :he Court o#
Appeas a##ir$ed the tria court.
ISSUE:
(1+ =hether or not a contract !as per#ected in the Apri 2, 1992 $eeting %et!een the representatives o# the
t!o corporations.
(2+ =hether or not a corporation, i1e *BS, is entited to an a!ard o# $ora da$ages upon grounds o#
de%ased reputation.
HELD:
1! No. :here is no proo# that a contract !as per#ected in the said $eeting. -ope.' testi$on& a%out the
contract %eing !ritten in a nap1in is not corro%orated %ecause the nap1in !as never produced in court.
>urther, there is no $eeting o# the $inds %ecause )e *osario's o##er !as o# 12" #i$s #or P32 $iion
!as not accepted. And that the aeged counter-o##er $ade %& -ope. on the sa$e da& !as not aso
accepted %ecause there's no proo# o# such. :he counter o##er can on& %e dee$ed to have %een $ade
da&s a#ter the Apri 2 $eeting !hen Santos-Concio sent a etter to )e *osario containing the counter-
o##er. *egardess, there !as no sho!ing that )e *osario accepted. But even i# he did accept, such
acceptance !i not %oo$ into a per#ected contract %ecause )e *osario has no authorit& to do so.
As a rue, corporate po!ers, such as the po!er? to enter into contracts? are e9ercised %& the Board o#
)irectors. But this po!er $a& %e deegated to a corporate co$$ittee, a corporate o##icer or corporate $anager. Such
a deegation $ust %e cear and speci#ic. In the case at %ar, there !as no such deegation to )e *osario. :he #act that
he has to present the countero##er to the Board o# )irectors o# Viva is proo# that the contract $ust %e accepted #irst %&
the Viva's Board. @ence, even i# )e *osario accepted the counter-o##er, it did not resut to a contract %ecause it !i
not %ind Viva sans authori.ation.
2! No. :he a!ard o# $ora da$ages cannot %e granted in #avor o# a corporation %ecause, %eing an arti#icia
person and having e9istence on& in ega conte$pation, it has no #eeings, no e$otions, no senses, It
cannot, there#ore, e9perience ph&sica su##ering and $enta anguish, !hich ca %e e9perienced on& %& one
having a nervous s&ste$. No $ora da$ages can %e a!arded to a 6uridica person. :he state$ent in the
case o# Peope vs 0anero and 0a$%uao -u$%er vs PNB is a $ere o%iter dictu$ hence it is not %inding as
a 6urisprudence.
LEDES"A VS. COURT OF APPEALS
GR L-#$#98 APRIL 1#, 1988
FACTS
Vioeta )e$o !ho !as supposed to graduate $agna cu$ uade !as not ao!ed to do so %ecause o# her
act o# ending $one& to $e$%ers o# organi.ation o# !hich she !as a $e$%er. According to the schoo authorities,
that act !as against schoo rues and reguations. :his the President o# the state coege did, despite her
quai#ications and the Bureau o# Pu%ic Schoo's instruction not to deprive her o# the honors due to her, %ut 6ust the
sa$e, she !as graduated as a pain student. :he Supre$e Court said that she !ent through a pain#u ordea %rought
a%out %& the President's negect o# dut& and caousness. @ence, $ora da$ages and e9e$par& da$age !ere
proper. :he %asis o# the decision !as artice 28, NCC, !here a person su##ering $ateria or $ora oss %ecause a
pu%ic e$po&ee re#uses or negects, !ithout 6ust cause, to per#or$ his o##icia dut& $a& #ie an action o# da$ages and
other reie# again the atter.
ISSUE:
=hether or not the president !oud %e ia%e #or da$ages under Artice 28.
HELD:
It cannot %e disputed that Vioeta )e$o !ent through a pain#u ordea, !hich !as %rought a%out %& the
petitionerAs negect o# dut& and caousness. :hus, $ora da$ages are %ut proper.
:he Soicitor- /enera tried to cover-up the petitionerAs dei%erate o$ission to in#or$ 0iss )e$o %& stating
that it !as not the dut& o# the petitioner to #urnish her a cop& o# the )irectorAs decision. /ranting this to %e true, it !as
nevertheess the petitionerAs dut& to en#orce the said decision. @e coud have done so considering that he received
the decision BBB and even though he sent it %ac1 !ith the records o# the case, he undou%ted& read the !hoe o# it,
!hich consisted o# on& 5 pages. 0oreover, the petitioner shoud have had the decenc& to $eet 0r. )e$o, the girAs
#ather, and in#or$ the atter, at the ver& east o# the decision. :his, the petitioner #aied to do, and not !ithout the
attendant %ad #aith !hich the appeate court correct& pointed out in its decision.
"EYNARDO BELTRAN VS. PEOPLE
GR 1%&#6& JUNE 20, 2000
FACTS:
In 1985, Betran and Char$aine >ei9 $arried each other. :he&'ve had " chidren since then %ut a#ter 2"
&ears o# $arriage Betran #ied an action #or the decaration o# the nuit& o# their $arriage due to >ei9's PI. >ei9
countered that Betran e#t the con6uga ho$e to coha%it !ith a certain 0iagros and that she #ied a case o#
concu%inage against Betran. In 1998, the o!er court #ound pro%a%e cause against Betran and 0iagros. In order to
#oresta the issuance o# a !arrant o# arrest against hi$, Betran raised the issue that the civi case he #ied is a
pre6udicia question to the cri$ina case #ied %& 0iagros. @e said that the courts hearing the cases $a& issue
con#icting ruings i# the cri$ina case !i not %e suspended unti the civi case gets resoved. :he o!er court denied
Betran's petition and so did Cudge :ua.on o# the *:C upon appea. Betran then eevated the case to the SC.
ISSUE:
=hether or not the a%soute nuit& o# a previous $arriage %e invo1ed as a pre6udicia question in the case at
%ar
HELD:
:he rationae %ehind the principe o# pre6udicia question is to avoid t!o con#icting decisions. It has t!o
essentia ee$entsD (a+ the civi action invoves an issue si$iar or inti$ate& reated to the issue raised in the cri$ina
action? and (%+ the resoution o# such issue deter$ines !hether or not the cri$ina action $a& proceed. :he pendenc&
o# the case #or decaration o# nuit& o# Betran's $arriage is not a pre6udicia question to the concu%inage case. >or a
civi case to %e considered pre6udicia to a cri$ina action as to cause the suspension o# the atter pending the #ina
deter$ination o# the civi case, it $ust appear not on& that the said civi case invoves the sa$e #acts upon !hich the
cri$ina prosecution !oud %e %ased, %ut aso that in the resoution o# the issue or issues raised in the a#oresaid civi
action, the guit or innocence o# the accused !oud necessari& %e deter$ined.
Artice "2 o# the >a$i& Code providesD
;:he a%soute nuit& o# a previous $arriage $a& %e invo1ed #or purposes o# re$arriage on the %asis soe&
o# a #ina 6udg$ent decaring such previous $arriage void.<
:he SC rued that the i$port o# said provision is that #or purposes o# re$arriage, the on& ega& accepta%e
%asis #or decaring a previous $arriage an a%soute nuit& is a #ina 6udg$ent decaring such previous $arriage void,
!hereas, #or purposes o# other than re$arriage, other evidence is accepta%e.
In a case #or concu%inage, the accused (Betran+ need not present a #ina 6udg$ent decaring his $arriage
void #or he can adduce evidence in the cri$ina case o# the nuit& o# his $arriage other than proo# o# a #ina 6udg$ent
decaring his $arriage void.
=ith regard to Betran's argu$ent that he coud %e acquitted o# the charge o# concu%inage shoud his
$arriage %e decared nu and void, su##ice it to state that even a su%sequent pronounce$ent that his $arriage is void
#ro$ the %eginning is not a de#ense.
BANAL VS TADEO, JR.
GR &8911-2# DECE"BER 11, 198&
FACTS:
:his is a petition #or certiorari to revie! and set aside the orders o# the respondent *egiona :ria Court,
Branch 124, Eue.on Cit& dated (1+ F Canuar& 19F8 !hich re6ected the appearance o# Att&. Nicoito -. Bustos as
private prosecutor in Cri$ina Cases Nos. E-"2929 to E-"2915 !here respondent *osario Caudio is the accused #or
vioation o# Batas Pa$%ansa Bg. 22? and (2+ 51 0arch 19F8 !hich denied the petitioner's $otion #or reconsideration
o# the order dated F Canuar& 19F8? and #or $anda$us to ao! Att&. Bustos to enter his appearance as private
prosecutor in the stated cri$ina cases.
>i#teen (14+ separate in#or$ations #or vioation o# Batas Pa$%ansa Bg. 22 or the Bouncing Chec1s -a!,
doc1eted as Cri$ina Cases Nos. "2929-"2915,!ere #ied against respondent Caudio %e#ore the *egiona :ria Court
o# Eue.on Cit& and origina& assigned to Branch F".Gn Canuar& F, 19F8, the respondent court issued an order
re6ecting the appearance o# Att&. Nicoito -. Bustos as private prosecutor on the ground that the charge is #or the
vioation o# Batas Pa$%ansa Bg. 22 !hich does notp rovide #or an& civi ia%iit& or inde$nit& and hence, Hit is not a
cri$e against propert& %ut pu%ic order.H :he petitioner, through counse #ied a $otion #or reconsideration o# the order
dated F Canuar& 19F8 on 0arch 12, 19F8.In an order dated 51 0arch 19F8, the respondent court denied petitionerAs
$otion #or reconsideration.
ISSUE:
=hether or not the respondent Court acted !ith grave a%use o# discretion or in e9cess o# its 6urisdiction in
re6ecting the appearance o# a private prosecutor
HELD:
Artice 22 o# the Ne! Civi Code providesD ,ver& person !ho, contrar& to a!, !i#u& or negigent& causes
da$age to another, sha inde$ni#& the atter #or the sa$e. Not on& the State %ut the petitioner too is entited to reie#
as a $e$%er o# the pu%ic !hich the a! see1s to protect. She !as assured that the chec1s !ere good !hen she
parted !ith $one&, propert& or services. She su##ered !ith the State !hen the chec1s %ounced.