QUIMIGUING VS ICAO

Facts:
Carmen Quimiguing, suing through her parents, Antonio and Jacoba
Cabilin, sought an appeal from the orders of Zamboanga CFI, which
dismissed her complaint for support and damages and request for
amendment of complaint.

Quimiguing averred that the then already married Felix Icao succeeded in
having sexual relations with her through force and intimidation. As a
result, she became pregnant despite efforts and drugs supplied by Icao and
had to stop studying. She then claimed for monthly support, damages and
attorney’s fees.

The defendant-appellee, however, moved to dismiss in light of Quimiguing’s

failure to allege the fact that a child had been born in her complaint. The
lower court dismissed the case and subsequently denied further
amendment to the complaint, ruling that no amendment was allowed for
failure of the original complaint to state a cause of action.

Issue:
W/N the plaintiff-appellants can ask for support and damages from
defendant despite failure to allege fact of birth in complaint

Ruling:
Yes. The Court ruled that plaintiff-appellant had right to support of the
child she was carrying and an independent cause of action for damages.
This is because the Civil Code (Art. 40) recognizes the provisional
personality of the unborn child, which includes its right to support from its
progenitors, even it is only “en ventre de sa mere.” Article 742 of the same
Code holds that, just as a conceived child, it may receive donations through
persons that legally represent it. Readings of Articles 40, 854 of the Civil
Code and Article 29 of the Spanish Code also further strengthen the case for
reversal of order.

Additionally, “for a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to
his lust xxx constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that
entitles her to claim compensation for damage caused” per Article 21 of the
Civil Code, a provision supported by Article 2219, which provides moral
damages for victims of seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts.
Judgment reversed, set aside and remanded for proceedings conformable
to the decision; with costs against Icao.

Martinez v. Van Buskirk, 18 Phil. 79

FACTS: On Spetember 11, 1908, Martinez was riding a carromata in Ermita along
the left side of the street when a delivery wagon belonging to the defendant to
which a pair of horses was attached came along the street in the opposite
direction at great speed. The horses ran into the carromata and wounded
Martinez servely. The defendant presented evidence that the cochero was a good
servant and a reliable and safe cochero. And that he was delivering stuff so he
tied the driving lines of the horses to the front end of the delivery wagon and
went inside the wagon to unload the stuff to be delivered. But while unloading,
another vehicle drove by whose driver cracked a whip and made some noises
which frightened the horses and which made it ran away. The cochero was
thrown from the inside of the wagon and was unable to stop the horses. The
horses collided with the carromata.

ISSUE: W/N the employer is liable for the negligence of his cochero

HELD: No. Defendant not liable. Cochero was not negligent. What happened was
an accident. It has been a custom or a matter of common knowledge and
universal practice of merchants to leave horses in the manner which the cochero
left it during the accident. This is the custom in all cities. The public, finding itself
unprejudiced by such practice has acquiesced for years.

Tañada vs. Tuvera 136 SCRA 27 (April 24,

1985) 146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)
TAÑADA VS. TUVERA
136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985)

FACTS:

Invoking the right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern as well as
the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official
Gazette, petitioners filed for writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to
publish and/or cause to publish various presidential decrees, letters of instructions,
general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementations and
administrative orders.

The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, moved for the dismissal of the
case, contending that petitioners have no legal personality to bring the instant petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or statute
becomes valid and enforceable.

HELD:

Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official
Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. The clear object of
this provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are
to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication,
there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignoratia legis nominem
excusat. It would be the height of injustive to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for
the transgression of a law which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive
one.

The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads: there shall be published in the
Official Gazette…. The word “shall” therein imposes upon respondent officials an
imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the constitutional right of the people to be
informed on matter of public concern is to be given substance and validity.

The publication of presidential issuances of public nature or of general applicability is a

requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by
law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. The Court
declared that presidential issuances of general application which have not been
published have no force and effect.