Week 3 – Articles 19-36

August 14 and 18, 2023

Article 19: Principle of Abuse of Right (Catch-all provisions from damages):

Every person 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.

Principle of abuse of rights - a person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to
honesty & good faith, otherwise he opens himself to liability

ELEMENTS of Abuse of Right:

a. there is a legal right or duty;

b. which is exercised in bad faith; and
c. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.

HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH, ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW, AND AGAINST

MORALS, GOOD CUSTOMS AND PUBLIC POLICY

 Article 19 provides a rule of conduct that is consistent with an orderly and

harmonious relationship between and among men and women. It codifies
the concept of what is justice and fair play so that the abuse of right by a
person will be prevented.
 Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of
abuse of rights, sets certain standards which may be observed not only in the
exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties.
 These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his
due; and to observe honesty and good faith.
 The law, therefore, recognizes the primordial limitation on all rights; that in
their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be
observed.
 A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as
such, may nevertheless become a 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.
 On the other hand, the 1947 Code Committee in explaining Article 20 stated that
the said rule enunciated in the said article pervades the entire legal system,
and renders it impossible that a person who suffers damage because another
has violated some legal provision, should find himself without relief (Report of the
Code Commission, page 39).
 In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 445 SCRA 500, the
Supreme Court said:
 Malice or bad faith is at the core of said provision. Good faith is presumed and he
who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. Good faith refers to the
state of the mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual
concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking advantage of
another. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence,
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a
breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill-will that
partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill-will or spite and speaks
not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable
harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive. Bad faith - may mean a dishonest belief
or purpose, untrustworthy performance of duties, neglect of fair dealing
standards, or a fraudulent intent

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

 According to Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 16,

Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which
do not especially provide their own sanction. Thus, anyone who, whether
willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, causes
damage to another, shall indemnify his or her victim for injuries suffered
thereby.
 Indemnify = compensate
 Punish illegal acts whether done willfully or negligently
 Negligence - failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another
person that degree of care, precaution, & vigilance which the circumstances
greatly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury

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.

Acts Contra Bonus Mores (against good morals) - acts that are against good
morals; any act evincing bad faith or intent to injure

 ELEMENTS:
a. there is an act which is legal;
b. but which is contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy;
and
c. it is done with intent to injure.

 It presupposes loss or injury, material or otherwise, which one may suffer as a

result of such violation (Cogeo-Cubao Operators and Drivers Association v.
Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 343).
 Insofar as Article 21 is concerned, the same 1947 Code Committee stated that it
was designed to fill in the “countless gaps in the statutes, which leave so
many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even though they have actually
suffered material and moral injury” (Report of the Code Commission, page 39,
Manuel v. People, 476 SCRA 461).

EXAMPLES:

 In a case where a particular government employee was singled out by the deputy
administrator and strictly subjected to the rules for obtaining benefits after
retirement while employees similarly situated were liberally granted their benefits
for as long as the rules were substantially complied with by them, the Supreme
Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court awarding damages in favor of
the government employee on the basis of Article 19 of the Civil Code by
observing and stating
o It is the essence of Article 19 of the Civil Code, under which the
petitioner was made to pay damages, together with Article 27, that the
performance of duty be done with justice and good faith. As we said,
the acts of petitioner were legal as he insists in this petition that his acts
were done in good faith. It is no defense that the petitioner was
motivated by no ill will (a grudge, according to the Sandiganbayan),
since the facts speak for themselves.
o It is no defense either that he was complying merely with legal
procedures since, as we indicated, he was not as strict with the three
retiring other employees.
o There can be no other logical conclusion that he was acting unfairly,
no more, no less, to Mr. Curio.
 Though a person may not have acted criminally, he or she can
nevertheless undertake acts which injure another. In Philippine National
Bank v. Court of Appeals, 83 SCRA 237, where a sugar quota was mortgaged
to the PNB and a lease of such sugar quota allotment made by the debtor to a
third person required the consent of the PNB and where the responsible officers
of the same told the lessor and the lessee that PNB will approve the lease if the
amount thereof was increased from P2.50 to P2.80 per picul and whereupon, the
lessor and the lessee agreed to the increase which prompted even the vice-
president of the bank to recommend to the PNB Board of Directors the approval
of the lease but which, consequently, was twice turned down by the said Board
because it wanted to raise the consideration to P3.00 per picul, resulting to
the loss by the lessee of the amount of P2,800, the Supreme Court, after
deliberating on the other important circumstances surrounding the case,
observed and ruled:
o Under Article 21 of the New Civil Code, “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.” The aforecited provisions on human relations were
intended to expand the concept of torts in this jurisdiction by granting
 adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which
is impossible for human foresight to specifically provide in the statutes.

 In a case where a person sold a parcel of land to another; thereby

transferring title to such other person and subsequently the same transferor
claimed and misrepresented that the title to the said land was lost during the
Second World War, which enabled him to procure another title which he used
to have the same property sold to another person with the active participation
of the register of deeds and the lawyer-son of the said register of deeds, who
both knew of the first sale
 Supreme Court held that the register of deeds and his lawyer son:
are likewise civilly liable for failure to observe honesty and good
faith in the performance of their duties as public officer and as
member of the Bar (Art. 19, New Civil Code) or for willfully or
negligently causing damage to another (Art. 20, New Civil Code), or
for willfully causing loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs and/or public policy (Art. 21, New
Civil Code). (Vda. de Laig v. Court of Appeals, 82 SCRA 294).
 Petitioners were denied irrigation water for their farm lots in order to make
them vacate their landholdings, it was held that the defendants violated the
plaintiff’s rights and caused prejudice to the latter by the unjustified diversion
of the water for which the award of damages under Article 21 can be made
(Magbanua v. IAC, 137 SCRA 329).
 Also, creditors are protected in cases of contracts intended to defraud
them. Further, any third person who induces another to violate his contract
shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party also under Articles 20
and 21 of the Civil Code (People’s Bank v. Dahican Lumber Company, 20 SCRA
84).
 In a case where a drivers’ group, claiming to protect the interest of all
drivers of a particular transportation company and in protest of certain
policies of the said company, decided to take over the operation of the
jeepney service in the Cogeo-Cubao route without authorization from the
Public Service Commission and in violation of the right of the transportation
company to operate its services in the said route under its certificate of public
convenience

o Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision awarding damages in

favor of the transportation company by observing and ruling Article 21
of the Civil Code provides that 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 damages.
o The provision covers a situation where a person has a legal right which
was violated by another in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy. It presupposes loss or injury, material or
otherwise, which one may suffer as a result of such violation. It is clear
from the facts of this case that petitioner formed a barricade and
 forcibly took over the motor units and personnel of the respondent
corporation. This paralyzed the usual activities and earnings of the
latter during the period of ten days and violated the right of respondent
Lungsod Corp. to conduct its operations thru its authorized officers.

 Significantly, while a breach of promise to marry is not actionable (Gashem

Shookat Baksh v. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 115), it has been held that to
formally set a wedding and go through and spend for all the wedding
preparations and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony was
about to be solemnized, is a different matter. This is palpably and unjustifiably
contrary to good customs for which the defendant must be held answerable
for damages in accordance with Article 21 of the Civil Code (Wassmer v.
Velez, 12 SCRA 649).
 In the same vein, it has been held that for a married man to force a woman not
his wife to yield to his lust constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his
victim which entitled her to compensation under Article 21 of the Civil Code
(Quimiguing v. Icao, 34 SCRA 133).
 Similarly, in Gashem Shookat Baksh v. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 115, the
Supreme Court ruled
o In the light of the above laudable purpose of Article 21, We are of the
opinion, and so hold, that where a man’s promise to marry is in fact the
proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his
representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate
cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof
that he had no intention of marrying her and that the promise was
only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to
accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify
the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such
promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the
willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is
essential however, that such injury should have been committed in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
o In the instant case, respondent Court found that it was the petitioner’s
“fraudulent and deceptive protestations of love for and promise to
marry plaintiff that made her surrender her virtue and womanhood to
him and to live with him on the honest and sincere belief that he would
keep said promise, and it was likewise these fraud and deception on
appellant’s part that made plaintiff’s parents agree to their daughter’s
living-in with him preparatory to their supposed marriage.
o In short, private respondent surrendered her virginity, the cherished
possession of every single Filipina, not because of lust but because of
moral seduction, the kind illustrated by the Code Commission in its
example earlier adverted to.
o The pari delicto rule does not apply in this case for while indeed, the
private respondent may not have been impelled by the purest of
intentions, she eventually submitted to the petitioner in sexual congress
 not out of lust, but because of moral seduction. In fact, it is apparent that
she had qualms of conscience about the entire episode for as soon
as she found out that petitioner was not going to marry her after all
she left him.
o Pari delicto means “in equal fault; in a similar offense or crime; equal
in guilt or in legal fault.” At most, it could be conceded that she is merely
in delicto. “Equity often interfered for the relief of the less guilty of the
parties, where his transgression has been brought about by the imposition
of undue influence of the party on whom the burden of the original
wrong principally rests, or where his consent to the transaction was
itself procured by fraud.”

Article 22. (Solutio Indebiti) 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.

Article 23. (Unjust Enrichment) 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.

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

 Unjust enrichment - no person can claim what is not validly & legally theirs;
should not unduly profit; There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly
retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or
property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good
conscience.
 Nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest - basic doctrine of unjust
enrichment means that a person shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself
inequitably at another’s expense
 Accion in Rem Verso
o considered merely an auxiliary action, available only when there is no
other remedy on contract, quasi-contract, crime, & quasi-delict
o Essential requisites:
(1) that the defendant has been enriched (2) that the plaintiff has suffered
a loss (3) that the enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal
ground (4)that the plaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi-
contract, crime, or quasi-delict

 Solutio Indebiti - if you receive something by mistake, you are supposed to give it
back
 Negotiorum gestio - voluntary gesture; out of the goodness of your heart
  Petitioner-defendant cannot be allowed to unjustly enrich himself at the expense
of another by holding on to property no longer belonging to him. In law and in
equity, therefore, Sandoval is entitled to recover the rice, or the value thereof
since he was not paid the price therefor (Obana v. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA
557).
 In Republic v. Ballocanag G.R. No. 163794, November 28, 2008, 572 SCRA 436,
where a person in good faith invested money to develop and grow fruit-bearing
trees on land which he believed as his own but which turned out as timberland
belonging to the State, the Supreme Court recognized the ownership of the State
over the land but ordered it to pay the person the value of the actual
improvements he made.
 As for Article 23, it likewise seeks to prevent unjust enrichment.
 For example: Without A’s knowledge, a flood drives his cattle to the cultivated
highland of B. A’s cattle are saved, but B’s crop is destroyed. True, A was not at
fault, but he was benefited. It is but right and equitable that he should indemnify
B.

Article 28. (Unfair Competition) Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or

industrial enterprises, or in la- bor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit,
machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a
right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.

UNFAIR COMPETITION.

 Democracy becomes a veritable mockery if any person or group of persons by

any unjust or highhanded method may deprive others of a fair chance to engage
in business or earn a living.
 Necessary in a system of free enterprise
 Competition is good for the economy, but the competition must be within the
bounds of law
 Conglomerates are not allowed to prevent connivance to monopolize industries
 Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial, & industrial enterprises & labor.
 Examples of acts not allowed:

o A strike prematurely declared

o A strike for trivial, unjust, or unreasonable cause
o A strike carried out thru force, intimidation, or other unlawful
means
o The making of goods to deceive purchasers
o Selling goods above the maximum prices set by the state

Article 24. (Vigilance of the Court in Favor of the Disadvantaged) 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.
COURT VIGILANCE

 The courts must render justice and they must be very vigilant in protecting the
rights of the disadvantaged with a perspective that any decision will be in
consonance with what is right and legal.
 EXAMPLE: In a case where the parties executed a contract, implemented it for a
lengthy period of time pursuant to its unambiguous provisions, and benefited
from the same, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of one of the parties that
the said party was disadvantaged pursuant to Article 24 considering that it was
proven that the parties undertook a lengthy negotiations before the contract was
finalized and that the said party was good in business
 The law takes great interest in the welfare of the weak & handicapped hence we
have parens patriae - “father or parent of his country” – the power of the state in
safeguarding the rights of person under disability, such as the insane & the
incompetent
 Vigilant for his protection – that in case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved in
favor of the underdog (the weaker of two competitors, or anyone not expected to
win a competition)
 A confession obtained thru coercion, whether physical, mental, or emotional is
inadmissible. What is essential for a confession’s validity is that it proceeds from
the free will of the person confessing. (coercion – compelling someone to do
something through forceful actions or threats)
 The law in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorized neither oppression nor
self-destruction of the employer
 Disadvantages:

o Moral dependence

o Ignorance

o Indigence

o Mental Weakness

o Tender age

o Other Handicap

Article 25. (Thoughtless Extravagance) 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.

EXTRAVAGANCE DURING EMERGENCY

 The law seeks to prevent inconsiderate and ostentatious activities during times of
emergency. However, Article 25 specifically provides for the entities which are
 given legal standing to seek an injunction: any government or private charitable
institution.
 Respect for the personality & dignity of others
 Thoughtless extravagance during emergencies may incite the passions of those
who cannot afford to spend
 ONLY a charitable institution whether government or private may bring the action

Article 26. (Respect of the dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of mind of
other people) Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of
mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and 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 another’s 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.

 Respect for the personality & dignity of others

 Enhances human dignity & personality.
 Decency and propriety are sought by the legal provision under consideration, not
social equality Social equality – a state of affairs in which all individuals within a specific
society have equal rights, liberties, and status, possibly including civil rights, freedom of
expression, autonomy, and equal access to certain public goods and social services.
Decency - behavior that conforms to accepted standards of morality or respectability.
 Remedies:
o Action for damages
o Action for prevention
o Any other relief
 Prying into the privacy of another’s residence: Includes respect for another’s
name, picture, or personality EXCEPT as is needed for publication of information
& pictures of legitimate news value
 Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another
o Includes alienation of the affections of the husband or the wife
o Intriguing against another’s honor (gossiping) also included
o Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends
o Includes: gossiping & reliance on hearsay

 Can be invoked for protective order

 Vexing or humiliating: Includes criticism of one’s health or features without
justifiable cause
  If human personality is not properly exalted — then the laws are indeed
defective. Sad to say, such is to some degree the present state of legislation in
the Philippines. To remedy this grave fault in the laws is one of the principal aims
of the Project Civil Code.
 The privacy of one’s home is an inviolable right. Yet, the laws in force do not
effectively protect this right.
 Alienation of the affection of another’s wife or husband, unless it constitutes
adultery or concubinage, is not condemned by the law
 Not less serious are the acts mentioned in No. 4: vexing or humiliating another
on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical
defect or other personal conditions. The penal laws against defamation and
unjust vexation are glaringly inadequate.
 Religious freedom does not authorize anyone disrepute upon another by reason
of the latter’s religion.
 Place of birth, physical defect and other personal conditions are too often the
pretext of humiliation cast upon persons. Such tampering with human
personality, even though the penal laws are not violated, should be the cause of
civil action.
 In RCPI v. Verchez, Supreme Court awarded damages on the basis of Article
26(2) of the Civil Code considering that the act or omission of the telegraph
company disturbed the peace of mind of the family.

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.
RELIEF AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICIALS
 Relief against public officials
 Purpose is to end the bribery system when the public official for some flimsy
excuse, delays or refuses the performance of his duty until he gets some kind of
“pabagsak”
• To be convicted of Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 (“Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practice Act”)
o The offender is a public officer
o Who requested or received a “gift,” a present, a share, a percentage, or a benefit
o On behalf of the offender of any other person
o In connection with a contract or transaction with the government o In which the
public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right to intervene.

 A public official is supposed to be an agent or at least a representation of the

government and, therefore, the law exacts on him or her an obligation to be very
vigilant and just so that the public can be assured that the government is truly
effective in servicing their needs.
 Any person, suffering from the refusal or neglect of any government employee or
public servant to perform his duties, is entitled to damages.
  Thus, in a case where the president of a state college, in bad faith and despite
the decision and directives of the Office of the Bureau of Public Schools, refused
to graduate a student with honors, an award which the student honestly earned
and deserved, the Supreme Court ruling that the award of damages in favor of
the said student under Article 27 was proper.
 Vda. de Laig v. Court of Appeals, 82 SCRA 294, where the register of deeds
assisted in the fraudulent procurement of a certificate of title in violation of the
Land Registration Act (Act No. 496), the Supreme Court ruled that he was liable
for damages under Article 27. Thus, a chief of police is liable under Article 27 of
the New Civil Code for refusal to give assistance to the complainants which was
his official duty as an officer of the law. Similarly, a municipal mayor incurs the
same liability for neglecting to perform his official functions.
 In Correa v. CFI of Bulacan, 92 SCRA 312, where a mayor was personally held
liable for illegally dismissing policemen even if such mayor had relinquished his
position, the Supreme Court ruled: This principle of personal liability has been
applied to cases where a public officer removes another officer or discharges an
employee wrongfully, the reported cases saying that by reason of non-
compliance with the requirements of law in respect to removal from office, the
officials were acting outside of their official authority

Article 32. (Duties Exercised by Public Officers) 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 or 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 constitute 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.

PARTICULAR WRONG OR INJURY.

There are two kinds of duties exercised by public officers: the “duty owing to the public
collectively” (the body politic), and the “duty owing to particular individuals,”

1. Of Duties to the Public.

 Officers whose duty is owing primarily to the public collectively - to the body
politic - & not to any particular individual, who act for the public at large, & who
are ordinarily paid out of the public treasury.
 Governor owes a duty to the public to see that the laws are properly executed,
that fit and competent officials are appointed by him, that unworthy and ill-
considered acts of the legislature do not receive his approval but these, and
many others of a like nature, are duties which he owes to the public at large and
no one individual could single himself out and assert that they were duties owing
to him alone.
 Members of the legislature owe a duty to the public to pass only wise and proper
laws, but no one person could pretend that the duty was owing to himself rather
than to another.
 Highway commissioners owe a duty that they will be governed only by
considerations of the public good in deciding upon the opening or closing of
highways, but it is not a duty to any particular individual of the community.

2. Of Duties to Individuals.
 Includes those who, while they owe to the public the general duty of a proper
administration of their respective offices, yet become, by reason of their
employment by a particular individual to do some act for him in an official
 capacity, under a special and particular obligation to him as an individual. They
serve individuals chiefly and usually receive their compensation from fees paid
by each individual who employs them.
 A sheriff or constable in serving civil process for a private suitor, a recorder of
deeds in recording the deed or mortgage of an individual, a clerk of court in
entering up a private judgment, a notary public in protesting negotiable paper, an
inspector of elections in passing upon the qualifications of an elector, each owes
a general duty of official good conduct to the public, but he is also under a
special duty to the particular individual concerned which gives the latter a
peculiar interest in his due performance.
 In determining whether a public officer is liable for an improper performance or
non-performance of a duty, it must first be determined which of the two classes of
duties is involved.
 “[T]he liability of a public officer to an individual or the public is based upon and is
co-extensive with his duty to the individual or the public. If to the one or the other
he owes no duty, to that one he can incur no liability.”
 Stated differently, when what is involved is a “duty owing to the public in general,”
an individual cannot have a cause of action for damages against the public
officer, even though he may have been injured by the action or inaction of the
officer.
 The remedy in this case is not judicial but political.
 EXPN: When the complaining individual suffers a particular or special injury on
account of the public officer’s improper performance or non-performance of his
public duty. An individual can never be suffered to sue for an injury which,
technically, is one to the public only; he must show a wrong which he specially
suffers, and damage alone does not constitute a wrong.
 The rule restated is that an individual cannot have a particular action against a
public officer without a particular injury, or a particular right, which are the
grounds upon which all actions are founded.
 Juxtaposed with Article 32 of the Civil Code, the principle may now translate into
the rule that an individual can hold a public officer personally liable for damages
on account of an act or omission that violates a constitutional right only if it
results in a particular wrong or injury to the former.
 To have a cause of action for damages against the petitioner, respondent must
allege that it suffered a particular or special injury on account of the non-
performance by petitioner of the public duty. Without such delict or tortious act or
omission, the complaint then fails to state a cause of action, because a cause of
action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
 A cause of action exists if the following elements are present:

(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it
arises or is created;
(2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate
such right; and
 (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the
plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to plaintiff for which
the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.

Lim v. Ponce de Leon, we granted the petitioner’s claim for damages because he, in
fact, suffered the loss of his motor launch due to the illegal seizure thereof.

In Cojuangco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, we upheld the right of petitioner to the recovery of
damages as there was an injury sustained by him on account of the illegal withholding
of his horserace prize winnings.

A public officer, such as the petitioner, vested with quasi-legislative or rule-making

power, owes a duty to the public to promulgate rules which are compliant with the
requirements of valid administrative regulations. But it is a duty owed not to the
respondent alone, but to the entire body politic who would be affected, directly or
indirectly, by the administrative rule.

GOOD FAITH NOT A DEFENSE

 To be liable under Article 32 of the New Civil Code, it is enough that there was a
violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and it is not required that
defendants should have acted with malice or bad faith.
 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
that effective protection of individual rights.
 Public officials in the past have abused their powers on the pretest 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 the plea of
good faith. In the United States this remedy is in the nature of a tort.

There is no real democracy if a public official is abusing, and we made the article so
strong and so comprehensive that it concludes an abuse of individual rights even if
done in good faith, that official is liable.
If we should limit the scope of this article, that would practically nullify the object of the
article.

SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MAY

BE INSTITUTED
 The creation of an absolutely separate and independent civil action for the
violation of civil liberties is essential to the effective maintenance of democracy.

(1) In most cases, the threat to freedom originates from abuses of power of government
officials and peace officers. In this way, many individuals, whose freedom had been
tampered with, have been unable to reach the courts, which are the bulwark of liberty.
(2) Even when the prosecuting attorney filed a criminal action, the requirement of proof
beyond reasonable doubt often prevented the appropriate punishment.

(3) The injured citizen will always have, under the Project of Civil Code, adequate civil
remedies before the courts because of the independent civil action, even in those
instances where the act or omission complained of does not constitute a criminal
offense

 Article 32 of the Civil Code which renders any public officer or employee or any
private individual liable in damages for violating the constitutional rights and
liberties of another, as enumerated therein, does not exempt the respondents
from responsibility.
 Only judges are excluded from liability under the said article, provided their acts
or omissions do not constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal
statute.
 The law speaks of an officer or employee or person “directly” or “indirectly”
responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another.
 Thus, it is not the actor alone (i.e., the one directly responsible) who must answer
for damages under Article 32; the person indirectly responsible has also to
answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party.
 Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the persons who are directly, as well as
indirectly, responsible for the transgression joint tortfeasors.

EXEMPTION OF JUDGES FROM THIS PROVISION

 Article 32 provides that “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.”
 Judges cannot be subjected to liability — civil, criminal or administrative — for
any of their official acts, no matter how erroneous, so long as they act in good
faith. It is only when they act fraudulently or corruptly, or with gross ignorance,
may they be held criminally or administratively responsible.
 It is settled doctrine that judges are not liable to respond in a civil action for
damages, and are not otherwise administratively responsible for what they may
do in the exercise of their judicial functions when acting within their legal powers
and jurisdiction.
 More importantly, the error must be gross or patent, deliberate and malicious, or
incurred with evident bad faith.
 Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a
breach of a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the
nature of fraud. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive
design or some motive of self-interest or ill will for ulterior purposes.

Article 34. (Subsidiary Liability of the City or Municipality) 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 therefor. The civil
action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a
preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

MEMBERS OF POLICE FORCE

 Primary liability – against the member of the police force who refuses of fails to
render aid or protection
 Subsidiary liability – the city or municipality concerned in case of insolvency
o Insolvency - financial distress
 The article does not apply to the PNP or the National Government
 City/Municipality Police Force
 duty of police officers to see to it that peace & order are maintained in the
community.
 should a citizen go to them to seek assistance, their failure or refusal to
render the needed assistance to maintain lawful order can be a basis for
claiming damages against them
 city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible

It is the duty of police officers to see to it that peace and order are maintained in the
community. Hence, should a citizen go to them to seek assistance, their failure or
refusal to render the needed assistance to maintain lawful order can be a basis for
claiming damages against them. The city or municipality shall be subsidiarily
responsible therefor.

INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ACTIONS

Article 29. (Effect of an acquittal of an accused in a Criminal case) When the

accused in 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.

CIVIL ACTION
 An acquittal on the ground that the guilt of the defendant has not been
satisfactorily established is equivalent to one on reasonable doubt & does not
preclude or prevent a civil suit under Art 29
 Criminal liability is harder to prove – beyond reasonable doubt compared to mere
preponderance of evidence
 If in a criminal case, the accused is acquitted because the fact from which any
civil liability could arise did not exist, a case subsequently brought must be
dismissed
  Proof beyond reasonable doubt - amount of proof which forms an abiding moral
certainty that the accused committed the crime charged. It is not, therefore,
absolute certainty.
 Preponderance of evidence - as a whole, the evidence adduced by one side
outweighs that of the adverse party
 Substantial evidence - needed for labor & administrative cases; evidence that a
reasonable mind can accept as proof of one's guilt or innocence
 Criminal Action takes precedence
o General rule - civil action/case that was filed in congruence will be
instituted along with the criminal action
 If degree of evidence in criminal case is not enough, they can still do civil
action unless its an impossible crime or the person accused is not the one who
did it or there is mistake in identity

Article 30. (Preponderance of Evidence) 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.

a. Preponderance of Evidence
b. Clear and Convincing Evidence
c. Substantial Evidence
d. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

CIVIL OBLIGATION ARISING FROM A CRIMINAL OFFENSE

 Even if the civil obligation arose from a criminal offense, the required quantum of
evidence in a civil suit to claim such civil obligation is not proof beyond
reasonable doubt but merely preponderance of evidence.

Article 31. (When May a Civil Action Proceed) 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 latter.

 Certain injuries which do not necessarily arise from the commission of a crime.
 Article 31 seeks to give an aggrieved party a remedy & a cause of action in this
kind of situations.
 An example of this is quasi-delict:
Quasi-delict
o Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done
o Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation
between the parties & is governed by the provisions of this Article.
 Art. 31 does NOT provide for an independent civil action
 o Independent civil action - one that is brought distinctly & 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
 Instances where the law grants an independent civil action:
o Art. 32 – breach of constitutional & other rights
o Art. 33 – defamation, fraud, physical injuries
o Art. 34 – refusal or failure of city or municipal police to give protection
o Art. 2177 – quasi-delict or Culpa Aquiliana (negligence considered as an
independent source of liability in the absence of special relation)
o Art 31 contemplates a case where the obligation does not arise from a crime
but from some other act
 Article 31 likewise applies to culpa contractual.
o Culpa contractual - Negligence incident to the performance of a
contractual obligation

Art. 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another
with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any
special law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a
crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute
criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the
alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Upon the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to
indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.

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.

- When a person claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another but the
judges fails to find any crime to have been committed or if the prosecuting attorney
refuses/fails to institute criminal proceedings

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.

- The general rule is that the criminal case takes precedence; an exception would be if
there exist prejudicial questions, which should be resolved before the criminal case.

PREJUDICIAL QUESTION: That which must precede the criminal action that which
requires a decision before a final judgment is rendered in the principal action where the
said question is closely connected. The resolution of the Prejudicial question will
determine if the criminal action may proceed.
Ex. A and B got married. B then married C. A filed a case for bigamy against B. B also
filed a civil case against C (the second spouse) contending that she was intimidated into
marrying C. The civil case to determine whether there was intimidation or not must
necessary be resolved before the bigamy case. If B was indeed intimidated in marrying
C, there is no bigamy.

Elements of Prejudicial Question (Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court)

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.

CIVIL PERSONALITY
Art. 37. Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is
inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity to act, which is
the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost. (n)

JURIDICAL CAPACITY: fitness to be the subject of legal relations, inherent in every

person and is lost only through death.
- Acquired when one is conceived (rights of the unborn child)
CAPACITY TO ACT: power to do acts with legal effect, may be acquired of lost -
Acquired when one reaches the age of majority, lost in cases like civil interdiction