Uberrimae Fidei

The strictest law may become the severest injustice.

Powered by Blogger.

Translate to your language

Select Language ​ ▼

About this blog

These are all original case digests or case briefs done while the author was studying law school in the Philippines.

Hopefully these digested cases will help you get a good grasp of the salient facts and rulings of the Supreme Court in order to have a better
understanding of Philippine Jurisprudence.

Please forgive any typo/grammatical errors as these were done while trying to keep up with the hectic demands brought about by the study of law.

God bless!

P.S.
If this blog post as helped you in any way, kindly click on any of the blog sponsors' advertisements. It won't cost you a thing. This would help
tremendously.

Thank you for your time.

'19 Cloud Security Report OPEN

See How Peers Are Responding to Evolving Cloud Threats. Get The Free Report Now. Palo Alto Networks

Wednesday, December 3, 2014 Type and hit enter to search

Search This Blog

Padilla v CA (Torts) Search

Container Total Pageviews

PADILLA v CA G.R. No. L-39999 May 31, 1984 ROY PADILLA, FILOMENO GALDONES, ISMAEL
GONZALGO and JOSE FARLEY BEDENIA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent. Security 3 4 0 5
FACTS: 101 0 9 by Email
Follow
1. The information states that on February 8, 1964 at around 9AM, the accused prevented Antonio Vergara
and his family to close their stall located at the Public Market, Building No. 3, Jose Panganiban, Camarines Palo Alto Networks Email address... Subm
it
Norte, and by subsequently forcibly opening the door of said stall and thereafter brutally demolishing and
destroying said stall and the furnitures therein by axes and other massive instruments, and carrying away the
goods, wares and merchandise
See How Cloud
Contentions: Native
Technologies
Vergara Family
1. accused took advantage of their public positions: Roy Padilla, being the incumbent municipal mayor, and the Like Containers
rest of the accused being policemen, except Ricardo Celestino who is a civilian, all of Jose Panganiban, Enable Better
Camarines Norte, and that it was committed with evident premeditation. Security Than
Ever Before.
Roy Padilla, et al
1. finding of grave coercion was not supported by the evidence
2. the town mayor had the power to order the clearance of market premises and the removal of the
complainants' stall because the municipality had enacted municipal ordinances pursuant to which the market
stall was a nuisance per se
3. violation of the very directive of the petitioner Mayor which gave the stall owners seventy two (72) hours to
vacate the market premise
OPEN

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:

(1) Trial court: conviction. Roy Padilla, Filomeno Galdonez, Ismael Gonzalgo and Jose Parley Bedenia guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of grave coercion, and hereby imposes upon them to suffer an
imprisonment of FIVE (5) months and One (1) day; to pay a fine of P500.00 each; to pay actual and Subscribe To
compensatory damages in the amount of P10,000.00; moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00; and
another P10,000.00 for exemplary damages, jointly and severally, and all the accessory penalties provided for Posts
by law; and to pay the proportionate costs of this proceedings.
(2) Court of Appeals: acquittal but ordered them to pay solidarily the amount of 9,000. The petitioners were
acquitted because these acts were denominated coercion when they properly constituted some petitioners Comments
were acquitted because these acts were denominated coercion when they properly constituted some other
offense such as threat or malicious mischief

Roy Padilla et al for petition for review on certiorari - grounds

1. where the civil liability which is included in the criminal action is that arising from and as a consequence of
the criminal act, and the defendant was acquitted in the criminal case, (no civil liability arising from the criminal
case), no civil liability arising from the criminal charge could be imposed upon him
2. liability of the defendant for the return of the amount received by him may not be enforced in the criminal
case but must be raised in a separate civil action for the recovery of the said amount

ISSUE: whether or not the respondent court committed a reversible error in requiring the petitioners to pay civil
indemnity to the complainants after acquitting them from the criminal charge.
RULING:
No, the Court of Appeals is correct.
1. A separate civil action is not required. To require a separate civil action simply because the accused was
acquitted would mean needless clogging of court dockets and unnecessary duplication of litigation with all its
attendant loss of time, effort, and money on the part of all concerned.
Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court states the fundamental proposition that when a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with
it. The exceptions are when the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute
it separately.
Civil liability which is also extinguished upon acquittal of the accused is the civil liability arising from the act as
a crime.
The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the accused for damages only when it includes a
declaration that the facts from which the civil might arise did not exist. Thus, the civil liability is not extinguished
by acquittal where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt.
Article 2177 of the Civil Code provides:
Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from
the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. That the same punishable act or
omission can create two kinds of civil liabilities against the accused and, where provided by law, his
employer. 'There is the civil liability arising from the act as a crime and the liability arising from the
same act as a quasi-delict. Either one of these two types of civil liability may be enforced against the
accused, However, the offended party cannot recover damages under both types of liability.
Article 29 of the Civil Code, earlier cited, that "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."
What Article 29 merely emphasizes that a civil action for damages is not precluded by an acquittal for the
same criminal act or omission.
The Civil Code provision does not state that the remedy can be availed of only in a separate civil action. A
separate civil case may be filed but there is no statement that such separate filing is the only and exclusive
permissible mode of recovering damages. Considering moreover the delays suffered by the case in the trial,
appellate, and review stages, it would be unjust to the complainants in this case to require at this time a
separate civil action to be filed.

You might also like:

Tips for surviving law school
Cruz v Filipinas Investment and Finance Corporation (Civil Procedure)
Ching v CA (Civil Procedure)
Coscolluela v Rico General Insurance (Civil Procedure)
Linkwithin

Posted by Victor Morvis

Labels: Torts

No comments:

Post a Comment

Enter your comment...

Comment as: Google Account

Publish Preview

Hotels in El Portal
US$93
KAYAK.com

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Treat yourself

Uberrimae Fidei: Padilla v CA (Torts)

Showfreevids + Watch TV Series = Bringing your business online.