Persons Print ASP

7/25/2019 Persons Print ASP

1/115

G.R. No. 160689 March 26, 2014

RAUL H. SESBREO,Petitioner,vs.HONORABLE COURT OF AEALS, !UAN ". COROM"NA #SUBST"TUTE$ B% AN"TACOROM"NA, EL"&ABETH COROM"NA a'( ROS"EMAR"E COROM"NA), *"CENTE E. GARC"A#SUBST"TUTE$ B% E$GAR !OHN GARC"A), FEL"E CONSTANT"NO, RONAL$ ARC"LLA,NORBETO ABELLANA, $EMETR"O BAL"CHA, ANGEL"TA LHU"LL"ER, !OSE E. GARC"A, AN$*"SA %AN ELECTR"C COMAN% #*ECO),Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BERSAM"N, J.:

This case concerns the claim for damages of petitioner Raul . Ses!re"o founded on a!use ofrights. Ses!re"o accused the violation of contract #$OC% inspection team dispatched !& the $isa&anElectric Compan& #$ECO% to chec' his electric meter (ith conducting an unreasona!le search in his

residential premises. )ut the Regional Trial Court #RTC%, )ranch *+, in Ce!u Cit& rendered udgmenton -ugust *, */ dismissing the claim0*and the Court of -ppeals #C-% affirmed the dismissal on1arch *2, 322+.3

ence, this appeal !& Ses!re"o.

-ntecedents

-t the time material to the petition, $ECO (as a pu!lic utilit& corporation organi4ed and e5istingunder the la(s of the Philippines. $ECO engaged in the sale and distri!ution of electricit& (ithin1etropolitan Ce!u. Ses!re"o (as one of $ECO6s customers under the metered service contractthe& had entered into on 1arch 3, *73.+Respondent $icente E. 8arcia (as $ECO6s President,8eneral 1anager and Chairman of its )oard of Directors. Respondent 9ose E. 8arcia (as $ECO6s$ice:President, Treasurer and a 1em!er of its )oard of Directors. Respondent -ngelita ;huillier (as

another 1em!er of $ECO6s )oard of Directors. Respondent 9uan Coromina (as $ECO6s -ssistantTreasurer, (hile respondent Nor!erto -!ellana (as the ead of $ECO6s )illing Section (hose mainfunction (as to compute !ac' !illings of customers found to have violated their contracts.

To ensure that its electric meters (ere properl& functioning, and that none of it meters had !een

tampered (ith, $ECO emplo&ed respondents Engr.

5 5 5. Reduced to its essentials, ho(ever, the facts of this case are actuall& simple enough, althoughthe voluminous records might indicate other(ise. It all has to do (ith an incident that occurred ataround />22 o6cloc' in the afternoon of 1a& **, *7. On that da&, the $iolation of Contracts #$OC%Team of defendants:appellees Constantino and -rcilla and their PC escort, )alicha, conducted a

routine inspection of the houses at ;a Paloma $illage, ;a!angon, Ce!u Cit&, including that of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt1


2/115

plaintiff:appellant Ses!re"o, for illegal connections, meter tampering, seals, conduit pipes, umpers,(iring connections, and meter installations. -fter )e!e )aledio, plaintiff:appellant Ses!re"o6s maid,

unloc'ed the gate, the& inspected the electric meter and found that it had !een turned upside do(n.Defendant:appellant -rcilla too' photographs of the upturned electric meter. ?ith Chuchie 8arcia,Peter Ses!re"o and one of the maids present, the& removed said meter and replaced it (ith a ne(one. -t that time, plaintiff:appellant Ses!re"o (as in his office and no one called to inform him of the

inspection. The $OC Team then as'ed for and received Chuchie 8arcia6s permission to enter thehouse itself to e5amine the 'ind and num!er of appliances and light fi5tures in the household and

determine its electrical load. -fter(ards, Chuchie 8arcia signed the Inspection Division Report,(hich sho(ed the condition of the electric meter on 1a& **, *7 (hen the $OC Team inspected it,(ith notice that it (ould !e su!ected to a la!orator& test. She also signed a ;oad Surve& Sheet thatsho(ed the electrical load of plaintiff:appellant Ses!re"o.

)ut according to plaintiff:appellant Ses!re"o there (as nothing routine or proper at all (ith (hat the$OC Team did on 1a& **, *7 in his house. Their entr& to his house and the surrounding premises(as effected (ithout his permission and over the o!ections of his maids. The& threatened, forced orcoerced their (a& into his house. The& unscre(ed the electric meter, turned it upside do(n and too'

photographs thereof. The& then replaced it (ith a ne( electric meter. The& searched the house andits rooms (ithout his permission or a search (arrant. The& forced a visitor to sign t(o documents,

ma'ing her appear to !e his representative or agent. -fter(ards, he found that some of his personaleffects (ere missing, apparentl& stolen !& the $OC Team (hen the& searched the house. @

9udgment of the RTC

On -ugust *, */, the RTC rendered udgment dismissing the complaint. AIt did not accord

credence to the testimonies of Ses!re"o6s (itnesses, )e!e )aledio, his housemaid, and Ro!erto;ope4, a part:time salesman, due to inconsistencies on material points in their respectivetestimonies. It o!served that )aledio could not ma'e up her mind as to (hether Ses!re"o6s children(ere in the house (hen the $OC inspection team detached and replaced the electric meter.

;i'e(ise, it considered un!elieva!le that ;ope4 should hear the e5changes !et(een Constantino,-rcilla and )alicha, on one hand, and )aledio, on the other, considering that ;ope4 could not even

hear the conversation !et(een t(o persons si5 feet a(a& from (here he (as seated during thesimulation done in court, the same distance he supposedl& had from the gate of Ses!re"o6s houseduring the incident. It pointed out that ;ope46s presence at the gate during the incident (as evencontradicted !& his o(n testimon& indicating that an elderl& (oman had opened the gate for the$ECO personnel, !ecause it (as )aledio, a lad& in her 32s, (ho had repeatedl& stated on her directand cross e5aminations that she had let the $ECO personnel in. It concluded that for ;ope4 to do

nothing at all upon seeing a person !eing threatened !& another in the manner he descri!ed (assimpl& contrar& to human e5perience.

In contrast, the RTC !elieved the evidence of the respondents sho(ing that the $OC inspectionteam had found the electric meter in Ses!re"o6s residence turned upside do(n to prevent the

accurate registering of the electricit& consumption of the household, causing them to detach andreplace the meter. It held as un!elieva!le that the team forci!l& entered the house through threats

and intimidation0 that the& themselves turned the electric meter upside do(n in order to incriminatehim for theft of electricit&, !ecause the fact that the team and Ses!re"o had not 'no(n each other!efore then rendered it unli'el& for the team to fa!ricate charges against him0 and that Ses!re"o6snon:presentation of Chuchie 8arcia left her allegation of her !eing forced to sign the t(o documents

!& the team unsu!stantiated.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt7


3/115

Decision of the C-

Ses!re"o appealed, !ut the C- affirmed the RTC on 1arch *2, 322+,7holding thusl&>

5 5 5. plaintiff:appellant Ses!re"o6s account is simpl& too implausi!le or far:fetched to !e !elieved.


4/115

pon denial of his motion for reconsideration,*2Ses!re"o appealed.

Issue

?as Ses!re"o entitled to recover damages for a!use of rights

Ruling

The appeal has no merit.

Ses!re"o6s main contention is that the inspection of his residence !& the $OC team (as anunreasona!le search for !eing carried out (ithout a (arrant and for !eing allegedl& done (ith maliceor !ad faith.

)efore dealing (ith the contention, (e have to note that t(o distinct portions of Ses!re"o6sresidence (ere inspected !& the $OS team F the garage (here the electric meter (as installed, andthe main premises (here the four !edrooms, living rooms, dining room and 'itchen (ere located.

-nent the inspection of the garage (here the meter (as installed, the respondents assert that the

$OC team had the continuing authorit& from Ses!re"o as the consumer to enter his premises at allreasona!le hours to conduct an inspection of the meter (ithout !eing lia!le for trespass to d(elling.The authorit& emanated from paragraph of the metered service contract entered into !et(een$ECO and each of its consumers, (hich provided as follo(s>

. The CONS1ER agrees to allo( properl& authori4ed emplo&ees or representatives of theCO1P-NB to enter his premises at all reasona!le hours (ithout !eing lia!le to trespass to d(elling

for the purpose of inspecting, installing, reading, removing, testing, replacing or other(ise disposingof its propert&, andGor removing the CO1P-NB6S propert& in the event of the termination of thecontract for an& cause.**

Ses!re"o contends, ho(ever, that paragraph did not give Constantino, -rcilla and )alicha the

!lan'et authorit& to enter at (ill !ecause the onl& propert& $ECO o(ned in his premises (as themeter0 hence, Constantino and -rcilla should enter onl& the garage. e denies that the& had theright to enter the main portion of the house and inspect the various rooms and the appliances therein!ecause those (ere not the properties of $ECO. e posits that )alicha, (ho (as not an emplo&eeof $ECO, had no authorit& (hatsoever to enter his house and conduct a search. e concludes thattheir search (as unreasona!le, and entitled him to damages in light of their admission that the& had

entered and inspected his premises (ithout a search (arrant.*3

?e do not accept Ses!re"o6s conclusion. 1avvphi1Paragraph clothed the entire $OC team (ith

unuestioned authorit& to enter the garage to inspect the meter. The mem!ers of the team o!viousl&met the conditions imposed !& paragraph for an authori4ed entr&.


5/115

-lthough )alicha (as not himself an emplo&ee of $ECO,*@his participation (as to render policeassistance to ensure the personal securit& of Constantino and -rcilla during the inspection,

rendering him a necessar& part of the team as an authori4ed representative. nder thecircumstances, he (as authori4ed to enter considering that paragraph e5pressl& e5tended suchauthorit& to Hproperl& authori4ed emplo&ees or representativesH of $ECO.

It is true, as Ses!re"o urges, that paragraph did not cover the entr& into the main premises of the

residence. Did this necessaril& mean that an& entr& !& the $OS team into the main premisesreuired a search (arrant to !e first secured

Ses!re"o insists so, citing Section 3, -rticle III of the *7A Constitution, the clause guaranteeing theright of ever& individual against unreasona!le searches and sei4ures, vi4>

Section 3. The right of the people to !e secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects againstunreasona!le searches and sei4ures of (hatever nature and for an& purpose shall !e inviola!le, andno search (arrant or (arrant of arrest shall issue e5cept upon pro!a!le cause to !e determinedpersonall& !& the udge after e5amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the

(itnesses he ma& produce, and particularl& descri!ing the place to !e searched and the persons orthings to !e sei4ed.

e states that a violation of this constitutional guarant& rendered $ECO and its $OS team lia!le tohim for damages !& virtue of -rticle +3 #% of the Civil Code, (hich pertinentl& provides>

-rticle +3. -n& pu!lic officer or emplo&ee, or an& private individual, (ho directl& or indirectl&o!structs, defeats, violates or in an& manner impedes or impairs an& of the follo(ing rights and

li!erties of another person shall !e lia!le to the latter for damages>

5 5 5 5

#% The right to !e secured in one6s person, house, papers, and effects against unreasona!lesearches and sei4ures0

5 5 5 5.

Ses!re"o6s insistence has no legal and factual !asis.

The constitutional guarant& against unla(ful searches and sei4ures is intended as a restraint againstthe 8overnment and its agents tas'ed (ith la( enforcement. It is to !e invo'ed onl& to ensure

freedom from ar!itrar& and unreasona!le e5ercise of State po(er. The Court has made this clear inits pronouncements, including that made in People v. 1arti,*Avi4>

If the search is made upon the reuest of la( enforcers, a (arrant must generall& !e first secured ifit is to pass the test of constitutionalit&. o(ever, if the search is made at the !ehest or initiative of

the proprietor of a private esta!lishment for its o(n and private purposes, as in the case at !ar, and(ithout the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasona!le search and sei4urecannot !e invo'ed for onl& the act of private individual, not the la( enforcers, is involved. In sum, theprotection against unreasona!le searches and sei4ures cannot !e e5tended to acts committed !&

private individuals so as to !ring it (ithin the am!it of alleged unla(ful intrusion !& the government.*7
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt18


6/115

It is (orth noting that the $OC inspectors decided to enter the main premises onl& after finding themeter of Ses!re"o turned upside do(n, hanging and its disc not rotating. Their doing so (ould

ena!le them to determine the un!illed electricit& consumed !& his household. The circumstancesustified their decision, and their inspection of the main premises (as a continuation of theauthori4ed entr&. There (as no uestion then that their a!ilit& to determine the un!illed electricit&called for them to see for themselves the usage of electricit& inside. Not !eing agents of the State,

the& did not have to first o!tain a search (arrant to do so.

)alicha6s presence participation in the entr& did not ma'e the inspection a search !& an agent of theState (ithin the am!it of the guarant&. -s alread& mentioned, )alicha (as part of the team !& virtueof his mission order authori4ing him to assist and escort the team during its routineinspection.*Conseuentl&, the entr& into the main premises of the house !& the $OC team did notconstitute a violation of the guarant&.

Our holding could !e different had Ses!re"o persuasivel& demonstrated the intervention of malice or!ad faith on the part of Constantino and -rcilla during their inspection of the main premises, or an&e5cessiveness committed !& them in the course of the inspection. )ut Ses!re"o did not. On the

other hand, the C- correctl& o!served that the inspection did not 4ero in on Ses!re"o6s residence!ecause the other houses (ithin the area (ere similarl& su!ected to the routine inspection.32This,(e thin', eliminated an& notion of malice or !ad faith.

Clearl&, Ses!re"o did not esta!lish his claim for damages if the respondents (ere not guilt& of a!useof rights. To stress, the concept of a!use of rights prescri!es that a person should not use his rightunustl& or in !ad faith0 other(ise, he ma& !e lia!le to another (ho suffers inur&. The rationale forthe concept is to present some !asic principles to !e follo(ed for the rightful relationship !et(een

human !eings and the sta!ilit& of social order.3*1oreover, according to a commentator,33Hthe e5erciseof right ends (hen the right disappears, and it disappears (hen it is a!used, especiall& to thepreudice of others0J iJt cannot !e said that a person e5ercises a right (hen he unnecessaril&preudices another.H -rticle * of the Civil Code 3+sets the standards to !e o!served in the e5ercise of

one6s rights and in the performance of one6s duties, namel&> #a% to act (ith ustice0 #!% to giveever&one his due0 and #c% to o!serve honest& and good faith. The la( there!& recogni4es the

primordial limitation on all rights F that in the e5ercise of the rights, the standards under -rticle *must !e o!served.3/

-lthough the act is not illegal, lia!ilit& for damages ma& arise should there !e an a!use of rights, li'e(hen the act is performed (ithout prudence or in !ad faith. In order that lia!ilit& ma& attach under

the concept of a!use of rights, the follo(ing elements must !e present, to (it> #a% the e5istence of alegal right or dut&, #!% (hich is e5ercised in !ad faith, and #c% for the sole intent of preudicing or

inuring another.3=There is no hard and fast rule that can !e applied to ascertain (hether or not theprinciple of a!use of rights is to !e invo'ed. The resolution of the issue depends on thecircumstances of each case.

Ses!re"o asserts that he did not authori4e )aledio or Chuchie 8arcia to let an&one enter his

residence in his a!sence0 and that )aledio herself confirmed that the mem!ers of the $OC team hadintimidated her into letting them in.

The assertion of Ses!re"o is improper for consideration in this appeal. 1wphi1The RTC and the C-unanimousl& found the testimonies of Ses!re"o6s (itnesses implausi!le !ecause of inconsistencies

on material points0 and even declared that the non:presentation of 8arcia as a (itness (as odd if
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_160689_2014.html#fnt25


7/115

not suspect. Considering that such findings related to the credi!ilit& of the (itnesses and theirtestimonies, the Court cannot revie( and undo them no( !ecause it is not a trier of facts, and is not

also tas'ed to anal&4e or (eigh evidence all over again.3@$eril&, a revie( that ma& tend to supplantthe findings of the trial court that had the first:hand opportunit& to o!serve the demeanor of the(itnesses themselves should !e underta'en !& the Court (ith prudent hesitation. Onl& (henSes!re"o could ma'e a clear sho(ing of a!use in their appreciation of the evidence and records !&

the trial and the appellate courts should the Court do the unusual revie( of the factual findings of thetrial and appellate courts.3A-las, that sho(ing (as not made here.

Nor should the Court hold that Ses!re"o (as denied due process !& the refusal of the trial udge toinhi!it from the case. -lthough the trial udge had issued an order for his voluntar& inhi!ition, he stillrendered the udgment in the end in compliance (ith the instruction of the E5ecutive 9udge, (hosee5ercise of her administrative authorit& on the matter of the inhi!ition should !e respected. 37In this

connection, (e find to !e apt the follo(ing o!servation of the C-, to (it>

5 5 5. )oth 9udge Paredes and 9udge Priscila -gana serve the Regional Trial Court and aretherefore of co:eual ran'. The latter has no authorit& to reverse or modif& the orders of 9udge

Paredes. )ut in ordering 9udge Paredes to continue hearing the case, 9udge -gana did not violatetheir co:eual status or unilaterall& increased her urisdiction. It is merel& part of her administrativeresponsi!ilities as E5ecutive 9udge of the Regional Trial Court of Ce!u Cit&, of (hich 9udge Paredes

is also a mem!er.3

;astl&, the Court finds nothing (rong if the (riter of the decision in the C- refused to inhi!it fromparticipating in the resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed !& Ses!refio. The motion for herinhi!ition (as grounded on suspicion of her !ias and preudice,+2!ut suspicion of !ias and preudice

(ere not enough grounds for inhi!ition.+*

Suffice it to sa& that the records are !ereft of an& indication that even suggested that the -ssociate9ustices of the C- (ho participated in the promulgation of the decision (ere tainted (ith !ias against

him.

?ERE


8/115

FLORENC"O A. SALA$AGA,Complainant,vs.

ATT%. ARTURO B. ASTORGA,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

LEONAR$O$E CASTRO, J.:

1em!ership in the legal profession is a high personal privilege !urdened (ith conditions,*includingcontinuing fidelit& to the la( and constant possession of moral fitness. ;a(&ers, as guardians of thela(, pla& a vital role in the preservation of societ&, and a conseuent o!ligation of la(&ers is tomaintain the highest standards of ethical conduct.3


9/115

-ggrieved, complainant instituted a criminal complaint for estafa against respondent (ith the Officeof the Provincial Prosecutor of ;e&te, doc'eted as I.S. No. =:*//. The Provincial Prosecutor of

;e&te approved the Resolution7dated -pril 3*, *= in I.S. No. =:*// finding that HtJhe facts of theJcase are sufficient to engender a (ell:founded !elief that Estafa 5 5 5 has !een committed and thatrespondent herein is pro!a!l& guilt& thereof.H-ccordingl&, an Information*2dated 9anuar& 7,*@ (asfiled !efore the 1unicipal Trial Court #1TC% of )a&!a&, ;e&te, formall& charging respondent (ith the

crime of estafa under -rticle +*@, paragraphs * and 3 of the Revised Penal Code, **committed asfollo(s>

On 1arch */, *7/, accused representing himself as the o(ner of a parcel of land 'no(n as ;ot No.A@@* of the )a&!a& Cadastre, mortgaged the same to the Rural )an' of -l!uera, -l!uera, ;e&te,(ithin the urisdiction of this onora!le Court, 'no(ing full& (ell that the possessor and o(ner at thattime (as private complainant


10/115

that respondent !e #*% suspended from the practice of la( for one &ear, (ith (arning that a similarmisdeed in the future shall !e dealt (ith more severit&, and #3% ordered to return the sum

of P*=,222.22, the amount he received as consideration for the pacto de retrosale, (ith interest atthe legal rate.

Considering respondent6s Hcommission of unla(ful acts, especiall& crimes involving moral turpitude,actsof dishonest&, grossl& immoral conduct and deceit,H the I)P )oard of 8overnors adopted and

approved the Investigating Commissioner6s Report and Recommendation (ith modification asfollo(s> respondent is#*% suspended from the practice of la( for t(o &ears, (ith (arning that asimilar misdeed in the future shall !e dealt (ith more severit&, and #3% ordered to return the sumof P*=,222.22 received in consideration of the pacto de retrosale, (ith legal interest. *A

The Court6s Ruling

The Court agrees (ith the recommendation of the I)P )oard of 8overnors to suspend respondentfrom the practice of la( for t(o &ears, !ut it refrains from ordering respondent to returnthe P*=,222.22 consideration, plus interest.

Respondent does not den& e5ecuting the HDeed of Sale (ith Right to RepurchaseH dated Decem!er3, *7* in favor of complainant. o(ever, respondent insists that the deed is not one of sale (ith

pacto de retro, !ut one of euita!le mortgage. Thus, respondent argues that he still had the legalright to mortgage the su!ect propert& to other persons. Respondent additionall& asserts thatcomplainant should render an accounting of the produce the latter had collected from the saidpropert&, (hich (ould alread& e5ceed the P*=,222.22 consideration stated in the deed.

There is no merit in respondent6s defense.

Regardless of (hether the (ritten contract !et(een respondent and complainant is actuall& one ofsale (ith pacto de retroor of euita!le mortgage, respondent6s actuations in his transaction (ith

complainant, as (ell as in the present administrative cases, clearl& sho( a disregard for the higheststandards of legal proficienc&, moralit&, honest&, integrit&, and fair dealing reuired from la(&ers, for(hich respondent should !e held administrativel& lia!le.

?hen respondent (as admitted to the legal profession, he too' an oath (here he undertoo' toHo!e& the la(s,H Hdo no falsehood,H and Hconduct himJself as a la(&er according to the !est of hisJ'no(ledge and discretion.H*7e gravel& violated his oath.

The Investigating Commissioner correctl& found, and the I)P )oard of 8overnors rightl& agreed, that

respondent caused the am!iguit& or vagueness in the HDeed of Sale (ith Right to RepurchaseH ashe (as the one (ho prepared or drafted the said instrument. Respondent could have simpl&

denominated the instrument as a deed of mortgage and referred to himself and complainant asHmortgagorH and Hmortgagee,H respectivel&, rather than as Hvendor a retroH and Hvendee a retro.H If

onl& respondent had !een more circumspect and careful in the drafting and preparation of the deed,then the controvers& !et(een him and complainant could have!een avoided or, at the ver& least,

easil& resolved. is imprecise and misleading (ording of the said deed on its face !etra&ed lac'oflegal competence on his part. e there!& fell short of his oath to Hconduct himJself as a la(&eraccording to the !est of hisJ 'no(ledge and discretion.H
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt18


11/115

1ore significantl&, respondent transgressed the la(s and the fundamental tenet of human relationsasem!odied in -rticle * of the Civil Code>

-rt. *. Ever& person must, in the e5ercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act (ithustice, give ever&one his due, and o!serve honest& and good faith.

Respondent, as o(ner of the propert&, had the right to mortgage it to complainant !ut, as a la(&er,he should have seen to it that his agreement (ith complainant is em!odied in an instrument that

clearl& e5presses the intent of the contracting parties. - la(&er (ho drafts a contract must see to itthat the agreement faithfull& and clearl& reflects the intention of the contracting parties. Other(ise,the respective rights and o!ligations of the contracting parties (ill !e uncertain, (hich opens thedoor to legal disputes !et(een the said parties. Indeed, the uncertaint& caused !& respondent6s poor

formulation of the HDeed of Sale (ith Right to RepurchaseH (as a significant factor in the legalcontrovers& !et(een respondent and complainant. Such poor formulation reflects at the ver& least

negativel& on the legal competence of respondent.

nder Section @+ of the ;and Registration -ct,*the la( in effect at the time the PN) acuired the

su!ect propert& and o!tained TCT No. T:+3** in its name in *A3, (here a decree in favor of apurchaser (ho acuires mortgaged propert& in foreclosure proceedings !ecomes final, such

purchaser !ecomes entitled to the issuance of a ne( certificate of title in his name and amemorandum thereof shall !e Hindorsed upon the mortgagor6s original certificate.H32TCT No. T:@@3,(hich respondent gave complainant (hen the& entered into the HDeed of Sale (ith Right toRepurchaseH dated Decem!er 3, *7*, does not !earsuch memorandum !ut onl& a memorandumon the mortgage of the propert& to PN) in *@+ and the su!seuent amendment of the mortgage.

Respondent dealt (ith complainant (ith !ad faith, falsehood, and deceit (hen he entered into the

HDeed of Sale (ith Right to RepurchaseH dated Decem!er 3, *7* (ith the latter. e made it appearthat the propert& (as covered !& TCT No. T:@@3 under his name, even giving complainant theo(ner6s cop& of the said certificate oftitle, (hen the truth is that the said TCT had alread& !een

cancelled some nine &ears earlier !& TCT No. T:+3** in the name of PN). e did not evencare tocorrect the (rong statement in the deed (hen he (as su!seuentl& issued a ne( cop& of TCT No.T:A3+= on 9anuar& /, *73,3*or !arel& a month after the e5ecution of the said deed. -ll told,

respondent clearl& committed an act of gross dishonest& and deceit against complainant.

Canon * and Rule *.2* of the Codeof Professional Responsi!ilit& provide>

C-NON * F - la(&er shall uphold the constitution, o!e& the la(s of the land and promote respect forla( and legal processes.

Rule *.2* F - la(&er shall not engage in unla(ful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. nder

Canon *, a la(&er is not onl& mandated to personall& o!e& the la(s and the legal processes, he ismoreover e5pected to inspire respect and o!edience thereto. On the other hand, Rule *.2* statesthe norm of conduct that is e5pected of all la(&ers.33

-n& act or omission that is contrar& to, prohi!ited or unauthori4ed !&, in defiance of, diso!edient to,or disregards the la( is Hunla(ful.H Hnla(fulH conduct does not necessaril& impl& the element ofcriminalit& although the concept is !road enough to include such element. 3+
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt23


12/115

To !e HdishonestH means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or !etra&0 !e untrust(orth&0lac'ing inintegrit&, honest&, pro!it&, integrit& in principle, fairness and straightfor(ardness. On the

other hand, conduct that is HdeceitfulH means as follo(s>

avingJ the proclivit& for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device that is usedupon another (ho is ignorant of the true facts, to the preudice and damage of the part& imposedupon. In order to !e deceitful, the person must either have 'no(ledge of the falsit& or acted in

rec'less and conscious ignorance thereof, especiall& if the parties are not on eual terms, and (asdone (ith the intent that the aggrieved part& act thereon, and the latter indeed acted in reliance ofthe false statement or deed in the manner contemplated to his inur&.3/The actions of respondent inconnection (ith the e5ecution of the HDeed of Sale (ith Right to RepurchaseH clearl& fall (ithin theconcept of unla(ful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. The& violate -rticle * of the Civil Code. The&sho( a disregard for Section @+ of the ;and Registration -ct. The& also reflect !ad faith, dishonest&,

and deceit on respondent6s part. Thus, respondent deserves to !e sanctioned.

Respondent6s !reach of his oath, violation of the la(s, lac' of good faith, and dishonest& arecompounded !& his gross disregard of this Court6s directives, as (ell as the orders of the I)P6s

Investigating Commissioner #(ho (as acting as an agent of this Court pursuant to the Court6sreferral of these cases to the I)P for investigation, report and recommendation%, (hich caused dela&in the resolution of these administrative cases.

In particular, the Court reuired respondent to comment on complainant6s -ffidavit:Complaint in -.C.No. /@A and Supplemental Complaint in -.C. No. /A37 on 1arch *3, *A and 9une 3=, *A,respectivel&.3=?hile he reuested for several e5tensions of time (ithin (hich to su!mit his comment,no such comment (as su!mitted prompting the Court to reuire him in a Resolution dated

C-NON ** F - la(&er shall o!serve and maintain the respect due to the courts and to udicial

officers and should insist on similar conduct !& others.

5 5 5 5

C-NON *3 F - la(&er shall e5ert ever& effort and consider it his dut& to assist in the speed& andefficient administration of ustice.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt27


13/115

5 5 5 5

Rule *3.2+ F - la(&er shall not, after o!taining e5tensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or!riefs, let the period lapse (ithout su!mitting the same or offering an e5planation for his failure to doso.

Rule *3.2/ F - la(&er shall not undul& dela& a case, impede the e5ecution of a udgment or misusecourt processes.

Respondent6s infractions are aggravated !& the fact that he has alread& !een imposed a disciplinar&sanction !efore. 1wphi1In Nu"e4 v. -tt&. -storga,37respondent (as held lia!le for conduct un!ecoming anattorne& for (hich he (as fined P3,222.22.

8iven the foregoing, the suspension of respondent from the practice of la( for t(o &ears, as

recommended !& the I)P )oard of 8overnors, is proper.

The Court, ho(ever, (ill not adopt the recommendation of the I)P to order respondent to return the

sum ofP*=,222.22 he received from complainant under the HDeed of Sale (ith Right to Repurchase.HThis is a civil lia!ilit& !est determined and a(arded in a civil case rather than the present

administrative cases.

In Roa v. 1oreno,3the Court pronounced that HiJn disciplinar& proceedings against la(&ers, the onl&issue is (hether the officer of the court is still fit to !e allo(ed to continue as a mem!er of the )ar.Our onl& concern is the determination of respondent6s administrative lia!ilit&. Our findings have no

material !earing on other udicial action (hich the parties ma& choose to file against eachother.H?hile the respondent la(&er6s (rongful actuations ma& give rise at the same time to criminal,

civil, and administrative lia!ilities, each must !e determined in the appropriate case0 and ever& casemust !e resolved in accordance (ith the facts and the la( applica!le and the uantum of proofreuired in each. Section =,+2in relation to Sections *+*and 3,+3Rule *++ of the Rules of Court states

that in administrative cases, such as the ones at!ar, onl& su!stantial evidence is reuired, not proof!e&ond reasona!le dou!t as in criminal cases, or preponderance of evidence asin civil cases.Su!stantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence (hich a reasona!le mind might accept as

adeuate to ustif& a conclusion.++

The Court notes that !ased on the same factual antecedents as the present administrative cases,complainant instituted a criminal case for estafa against respondent, doc'eted as Criminal Case No.+**3:-, !efore the 1TC. ?hen a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recover& of civil

lia!ilit& arising from the offense charged shall !e deemed instituted (ith the criminal action unlessthe offended part& (aives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separatel& or institutes thecivil action prior to the criminal action.+/nless the complainant (aived the civil action, reserved the

right to institute it separatel&, or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action, then his civilaction for the recover& of civil lia!ilit& arising from the estafa committed !& respondent is deemedinstituted (ith Criminal Case No. +**3:-. The civil lia!ilit& that complainant ma& recover in Criminal

Case No. +**3:- includes restitution0 reparation of the damage caused him0 andGor indemnificationfor conseuential damages,+=(hich ma& alread& cover the P*=,222.22 consideration complainanthad paid for the su!ect propert&.

?ERE !reach of the ;a(&er6s Oath0

unla(ful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct0 and disrespect for the Court and causing undue dela& of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_4697_2014.html#fnt35


14/115

these cases, for (hich he is SSPENDED from the practice of la( for a period of t(o #3% &ears,rec'oned from receipt of this Decision, (ith ?-RNIN8 that a similar misconduct in the future shall

!e dealt (ith more severel&.

;et a cop& of this Decision !e furnished the Office of the )ar Confidant and the Integrated )ar of thePhilippines for their information and guidance. The Court -dministrator is directed to circulate thisDecision to all courts in the countr&.

SO ORDERED.

TERES"TA !. LEON

G.R. No. 12+8 March 1, 200

NOEL BUENA*ENTURA,Petitioner,vs.COURT OF AEALS a'( "SABEL LUC"A S"NGH BUENA*ENTURA, respondents.

5:::::::::::::::::::5

G.R. No. 12+449 March 1, 200

NOEL BUENA*ENTURA,Petitioner,vs.

COURT OF AEALS a'( "SABEL LUC"A S"NGH BUENA*ENTURA,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

A&CUNA, J.3

These cases involve a petition for the declaration of nullit& of marriage, (hich (as filed !& petitioner

Noel )uenaventura on 9ul& *3, *3, on the ground of the alleged ps&chological incapacit& of his(ife, Isa!el Singh )uenaventura, herein respondent. -fter respondent filed her ans(er, petitioner,(ith leave of court, amended his petition !& stating that !oth he and his (ife (ere ps&chologicall&incapacitated to compl& (ith the essential o!ligations of marriage. In response, respondent filed anamended ans(er den&ing the allegation that she (as ps&chologicall& incapacitated.*

On 9ul& +*, *=, the Regional Trial Court promulgated a Decision, the dispositive portion of (hich

reads>

?ERE

*% Declaring and decreeing the marriage entered into !et(een plaintiff Noel -. )uenaventuraand defendant Isa!el ;ucia Singh )uenaventura on 9ul& /, *A, null and void ab initio0

3% Ordering the plaintiff to pa& defendant moral damages in the amount of 3.= million pesosand e5emplar& damages of * million pesos (ith @K interest from the date of this decision

plus attorne&6s fees ofP*22,222.220
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_127358_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_127358_2005.html#fnt1


15/115

+% Ordering the plaintiff to pa& the defendant e5penses of litigation of P=2,222.22, plus costs0

/% Ordering the liuidation of the assets of the conugal partnership propert&,J particularl& theplaintiff6s separationGretirement !enefits received from the


16/115

*. ?EN IT -?-RDED DE


17/115

the t(o ps&chologists, a(arded damages on the !asis of -rticles 3*, 33*A and 333 of theCivil Code of the Philippines.

Thus, the lo(er court found that plaintiff:appellant deceived the defendant:appellee intomarr&ing him !& professing true love instead of revealing to her that he (as under heav&parental pressure to marr& and that !ecause of pride he married defendant:appellee0 that he(as not read& to enter into marriage as in fact his career (as and al(a&s (ould !e his first

priorit&0 that he (as una!le to relate not onl& to defendant:appellee as a hus!and !ut also tohis son, 9av&, as a father0 that he had no inclination to ma'e the marriage (or' such that intimes of trou!le, he chose the easiest (a& out, that of leaving defendantFappellee and theirson0 that he had no desire to 'eep defendant:appellee and their son as proved !& hisreluctance and later, refusal to reconcile after their separation0 that the aforementionedcaused defendant:appellee to suffer mental anguish, an5iet&, !esmirched reputation,

sleepless nights not onl& in those &ears the parties (ere together !ut also after andthroughout their separation.

Plaintiff:appellant assails the trial court6s decision on the ground that unli'e those arising

from a !reach in ordinar& contracts, damages arising as a conseuence of marriage ma& not!e a(arded. ?hile it is correct that there is, as &et, no decided case !& the Supreme Court(here damages !& reason of the performance or non:performance of marital o!ligations

(ere a(arded, it does not follo( that no such a(ard for damages ma& !e made.

Defendant:appellee, in her amended ans(er, specificall& pra&ed for moral and e5emplar&damages in the total amount of A million pesos. The lo(er court, in the e5ercise of itsdiscretion, found full ustification of a(arding at least half of (hat (as originall& pra&ed for.

?e find no reason to distur! the ruling of the trial court.*@

The a(ard !& the trial court of moral damages is !ased on -rticles 33*A and 3* of the Civil Code,(hich read as follo(s>

-RT. 33*A. 1oral damages include ph&sical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious an5iet&,

!esmirched reputation, (ounded feelings, moral shoc', social humiliation, and similar inur&.Though incapa!le of pecuniar& computation, moral damages ma& !e recovered if the& arethe pro5imate result of the defendant6s (rongful act or omission.

-RT. 3*. -n& person (ho (ilfull& causes loss or inur& to another in a manner that is contrar&

to morals, good customs or pu!lic polic& shall compensate the latter for the damage.

The trial court referred to -rticle 3* !ecause -rticle 33**Aof the Civil Code enumerates the cases in(hich moral damages ma& !e recovered and it mentions -rticle 3* as one of the instances. It must

!e noted that -rticle 3* states that the individual must (illfull& cause loss or inur& to another. Thereis a need that the act is (illful and hence done in complete freedom. In granting moral damages,therefore, the trial court and the Court of -ppeals could not !ut have assumed that the acts on (hich

the moral damages (ere !ased (ere done (illfull& and freel&, other(ise the grant of moral damages(ould have no leg to stand on.

On the other hand, the trial court declared the marriage of the parties null and void !ased on -rticle+@ of the


18/115

- marriage contracted !& an& part& (ho, at the time of the cele!ration, (as ps&chologicall&incapacitated to compl& (ith the essential marital o!ligations of marriage, shall li'e(ise !e

void even if such incapacit& !ecomes manifest onl& after its solemni4ation.

Ps&chological incapacit& has !een defined, thus>

. . . no less than a mental #not ph&sical% incapacit& that causes a part& to !e r57'co'- o: h- /a;c ara co-'a'; ha co'coa'7 5; /- a;;5-( a'((;char-( /7 h-


19/115

The acts or omissions of petitioner (hich led the lo(er court to deduce his ps&chological incapacit&,and his act in filing the complaint for the annulment of his marriage cannot !e considered as undul&

compelling the private respondent to litigate, since !oth are grounded on petitioner6s ps&chologicalincapacit&, (hich as e5plained a!ove is a mental incapacit& causing an utter ina!ilit& to compl& (iththe o!ligations of marriage. ence, neither can !e a ground for attorne&6s fees and litigatione5penses.


20/115

de!ts or o!ligations other than those deducted from the said retirementGseparation pa&,under -rt. *3 of the


21/115

defendant:appellee, the latter is entitled to one:half thereof as her share in the conugalpartnership. ?e find no reason to distur! the ruling of the trial court.3+

Since the present case does not involve the annulment of a !igamous marriage, the provisions of-rticle =2 in relation to -rticles /*, /3 and /+ of the


22/115

an& Hmale or female of the age of eighteen &ears or up(ards not under an& of theimpediments mentioned in -rticles +A and +7H of the Code.

nder this propert& regime, propert& acuired !& !oth spouses throughtheir wor#and industr"shall !e governed !& the rules on eual co:o(nership. -n& propert&acuired during the union is prima facie presumed to have !een o!tained through their ointefforts. - part& (ho did not participate in the acuisition of the propert& shall still !e

considered as having contri!uted thereto ointl& if said part&s Hefforts consisted in the careand maintenance of the famil& household.H nli'e the conugal partnership of gains, the fruitsof the couples separate propert& are not included in the co:o(nership.

-rticle */A of the


23/115

the la( has also meant to have coincident propert& relations, on the one hand, !et(eenspouses in valid and voida!le marriages #!efore annulment% and, on the other, !et(een

common:la( spouses or spouses of void marriages, leaving to ordain, in the latter case, theordinar& rules on co:o(nership su!ect to the provision of -rticle */A and -rticle */7 of the


24/115

MONER, OMAR, RAM"R, ROBA%CA, SATAR, TA%BA ALL SURNAME$ NG"LA%, E$MERAN$ONG, UNOS BANTANGAN a'( NA$!ER ESU"*EL,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

ERALTA, J.:


25/115

e5ecution, respondents (ere as'ed to deliver to petitioner the original o(ners duplicate cop& of thecertificates of title of their respective properties. Respondents received the do(npa&ment for theproperties on Octo!er 37, *=.

- fe( da&s after the e5ecution of the aforestated deeds and the deliver& of the correspondingdocuments to petitioner, respondents came to 'no( that the sale of their properties (as null and

void, !ecause it (as done (ithin the period that the& (ere not allo(ed to do so and that the sale didnot have the approval of the Secretar& of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources#DENR% prompting them to file a case for the declaration of nullit& of the deeds of conditional anda!solute sale of the uestioned properties and the grant of right of (a& (ith the RTC, ;as Pi"as,)ranch 3=+.

On the other hand, petitioner claims that sometime in *=, the representative of adi Ngila&approached petitioner to propose the sale of a portion of his properties. Thereafter, representativesof petitioner fle( to 8eneral Santos Cit& from 1anila to conduct an ocular inspection of the su!ectproperties. Petitioner (as (illing to purchase the properties !ut seeing that some of the properties(ere registered as land grants through homestead patents, representatives of petitioner informedNgila& that the& (ould return to 8eneral Santos Cit& in a fe( months to finali4e the sale as ten #*2%

certificates of title (ere issued on Novem!er 3/, **.

-ccording to petitioner, Ngila& and his children prevailed upon the representatives of petitioner toma'e an advance pa&ment. To accommodate the Ngila&s, petitioner acceded to ma'ing an advance(ith the understanding that petitioner could demand an&time the return of the advance pa&mentshould Ngila& not !e a!le to compl& (ith the conditions of the sale. The Ngila&s li'e(ise undertoo'to secure the necessar& approvals of the DENR !efore the consummation of the sale.

The RTC ruled in favor of


26/115

the prohi!itive period of five &ears from the issuance of the patent. The C- Decision dated 1arch +2,322@ disposed the case as follo(s>

?ERE


27/115

In its Repl&dated 9ul& +2, 322A, petitioner insists that the prohi!ition against alienation anddisposition of land covered !& omestead Patents is a prohi!ition against the actual loss of thehomestead (ithin the five:&ear prohi!itor& period, not against all contracts including those that donot result in such an actual loss of o(nership or possession. It also points out that respondentsthemselves admit that the transfer certificates of title covering the ten parcels of land are all dated*7, (hich confirms its declaration that the lands covered !& ** omestead Patents (ere not

conve&ed to


28/115

Nevertheless, petitioner does not err in see'ing the return of the do(n pa&ment as a conseuence ofthe sale having !een declared void. The rule is settled that the declaration of nullit& of a contract(hich is void a! initio operates to restore things to the state and condition in (hich the& (ere found!efore the e5ecution thereof.*APetitioner is correct in its argument that allo(ing respondents to 'eepthe amount received from petitioner is tantamount to udicial acuiescence to unust enrichment.nust enrichment e5ists H(hen a person unustl& retains a !enefit to the loss of another, or (hen a

person retains mone& or propert& of another against the fundamental principles of ustice, euit& andgood conscience.H*7There is unust enrichment under -rticle 33 of the Civil Code (hen #*% a personis unustl& !enefited, and #3% such !enefit is derived at the e5pense of or (ith damages toanother.*Thus, the sale (hich created the o!ligation of petitioner to pa& the agreed amount having!een declared void, respondents have the dut& to return the do(n pa&ment as the& no longer havethe right to 'eep it. The principle of unust enrichment essentiall& contemplates pa&ment (hen thereis no dut& to pa&, and the person (ho receives the pa&ment has no right to receive it. 32-s found !&the C- and undisputed !& the parties, the amount or the do(n pa&ment made is P*/,222,222.22(hich shall also !e the amount to !e returned !& respondents.

?ERE


29/115

In furtherance of their agreement, 8on4alo e5ecuted on -pril @, * a deed of assignment (here!&he, as the contractor, (as assigning to Tarnate an amount euivalent to *2K of the total collection

from the DP? for the proect. This *2K retention fee #euivalent to P3++,=3@.*+% (as the rent forTarnate6s euipment that had !een utili4ed in the proect. In the deed of assignment, 8on4alo furtherauthori4ed Tarnate to use the official receipt of 8on4alo Construction in the processing of thedocuments relative to the collection of the *2K retention fee and in encashing the chec' to !e

issued !& the DP? for that purpose. +The deed of assignment (as su!mitted to the DP? on -pril*=, *. During the processing of the documents for the retention fee, ho(ever, Tarnate learned

that 8on4alo had unilaterall& rescinded the deed of assignment !& means of an affidavit ofcancellation of deed of assignment dated -pril *, * filed in the DP? on -pril 33, *0 /andthat the dis!ursement voucher for the *2K retention fee had then !een issued in the name of8on4alo, and the retention fee released to him.=

Tarnate demanded the pa&ment of the retention fee from 8on4alo, !ut to no avail. Thus, he !roughtthis suit against 8on4alo on Septem!er *+, * in the Regional Trial Court #RTC% in 1ountainProvince to recover the retention fee of P3++,=3@.*+, moral and e5emplar& damages for !reach ofcontract, and attorne&6s fees.@

In his ans(er, 8on4alo admitted the deed of assignment and the authorit& given therein to Tarnate,!ut averred that the proect had not !een full& implemented !ecause of its cancellation !& the

DP?, and that he had then revo'ed the deed of assignment. e insisted that the assignment couldnot stand independentl& due to its !eing a mere product of the su!contract that had !een !ased onhis contract (ith the DP?0 and that Tarnate, having !een full& a(are of the illegalit& andineffectualit& of the deed of assignment from the time of its e5ecution, could not go to court (ith

unclean hands to invo'e an& right !ased on the invalid deed of assignment or on the product of suchdeed of assignment.A

Ruling of the RTC

On 9anuar& 3@, 322*, the RTC, opining that the deed of assignment (as a valid and !indingcontract, and that 8on4alo must compl& (ith his o!ligations under the deed of assignment, rendered

udgment in favor of Tarnate as follo(s>

?ERE

*. Defendant Domingo 8on4alo to pa& the Plaintiff, 9ohn Tarnate, 9r., the amount of T?O

NDRED TIRTB TREE TOS-ND


30/115

+. Defendant to pa& Plaintiff the sum of #*% !oth parties (ere in pari

delicto0 #3% the deed of assignment (as void0 and #+% there (as no compliance (ith the ar!itrationclause in the su!contract.

8on4alo su!mits in support of his contentions that the su!contract and the deed of assignment,

!eing specificall& prohi!ited !& la(, had no force and effect0 that upon finding !oth him and Tarnateguilt& of violating the la( for e5ecuting the su!contract, the RTC and the C- should have applied therule of in pari delicto, to the effect that the la( should not aid either part& to enforce the illegal

contract !ut should leave them (here it found them0 and that it (as erroneous to accord to theparties relief from their predicament.**

Ruling
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt11


31/115

?e den& the petition for revie(, !ut (e delete the grant of moral damages, attorne&6s fees andlitigation e5penses.

There is no uestion that ever& contractor is prohi!ited from su!contracting (ith or assigning toanother person an& contract or proect that he has (ith the DP? unless the DP? Secretar& hasapproved the su!contracting or assignment. This is pursuant to Section @ of Presidential Decree No.*=/, (hich provides>

Section @. -ssignment and Su!contract. F The contractor shall not assign, transfer, pledge,su!contract or ma'e an& other disposition of the contract or an& part or interest therein e5cept (iththe approval of the 1inister of Pu!lic ?or's, Transportation and Communications, the 1inister ofPu!lic igh(a&s, or the 1inister of Energ&, as the case ma& !e. -pproval of the su!contract shall

not relieve the main contractor from an& lia!ilit& or o!ligation under his contract (ith the 8overnmentnor shall it create an& contractual relation !et(een the su!contractor and the 8overnment.

8on4alo, (ho (as the sole contractor of the proect in uestion, su!contracted the implementation ofthe proect to Tarnate in violation of the statutor& prohi!ition. Their su!contract (as illegal, therefore,

!ecause it did not !ear the approval of the DP? Secretar&. Necessaril&, the deed of assignment(as also illegal, !ecause it sprung from the su!contract. -s aptl& o!served !& the C->

5 5 5. The intention of the parties in e5ecuting the Deed of -ssignment (as merel& to cover up theillegalit& of the su!:contract agreement. The& 'ne( for a fact that the DP? (ill not allo( plaintiff:appellee to claim in his o(n name under the Su!:Contract -greement.

O!viousl&, (ithout the Su!:Contract -greement there (ill !e no Deed of -ssignment to spea' of.

The illegalit& of the Su!:Contract -greement necessaril& affects the Deed of -ssignment !ecausethe rule is that an illegal agreement cannot give !irth to a valid contract. To rule other(ise is tosanction the act of entering into transaction the o!ect of (hich is e5pressl& prohi!ited !& la( andthereafter e5ecute an apparentl& valid contract to su!terfuge the illegalit&. The legal proscription in

such an instance (ill !e easil& rendered nugator& and meaningless to the preudice of the generalpu!lic.*3

nder -rticle */2 #*% of the Civil Code, a contract (hose cause, o!ect or purpose is contrar& to la(is a void or ine5istent contract. -s such, a void contract cannot produce a valid one.*+To the sameeffect is -rticle */33 of the Civil Code, (hich declares that Ha contract, (hich is the direct result of aprevious illegal contract, is also void and ine5istent.H

?e do not concur (ith the C-6s finding that the guilt of Tarnate for violation of Section @ ofPresidential Decree No. *=/ (as lesser than that of 8on4alo, for, as the C- itself o!served, Tarnatehad voluntaril& entered into the agreements (ith 8on4alo.*/Tarnate also admitted that he did not

participate in the !idding for the proect !ecause he 'ne( that he (as not authori4ed to contract (iththe DP?.*=8iven that Tarnate (as a !usinessman (ho had represented himself in the su!contractas H!eing financiall& and organi4ationall& sound and esta!lished, (ith the necessar& personnel and

euipment for the performance of the proect,H*@he ustifia!l& presumed to !e a(are of the illegalit& ofhis agreements (ith 8on4alo.


32/115

euit& or at la(, from an illegal contract0 no suit can !e maintained for its specific performance, or torecover the propert& agreed to !e sold or delivered, or the mone& agreed to !e paid, or damages for

its violation0 and (here the parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief of an& 'ind (ill !e given toone against the other.*A

Nonetheless, the application of the doctrine of in pari delicto is not al(a&s rigid. 1wphi1-n acceptede5ception arises (hen its application contravenes (ell:esta!lished pu!lic polic&.*7In this urisdiction,

pu!lic polic& has !een defined as Hthat principle of the la( (hich holds that no su!ect or citi4en canla(full& do that (hich has a tendenc& to !e inurious to the pu!lic or against the pu!lic good.H*

nust enrichment e5ists, according to ulst v. PR )uilders, Inc.,32H(hen a person unustl& retains a!enefit at the loss of another, or (hen a person retains mone& or propert& of another against the

fundamental principles of ustice, euit& and good conscience.H The prevention of unust enrichmentis a recogni4ed pu!lic polic& of the State, for -rticle 33 of the Civil Code e5plicitl& provides that

HeJver& person (ho through an act of performance !& another, or an& other means, acuires orcomes into possession of something at the e5pense of the latter (ithout ust or legal ground, shallreturn the same to him.H It is (ell to note that -rticle 33 His part of the chapter of the Civil Code on

uman Relations, the provisions of (hich (ere formulated as !asic principles to !e o!served for therightful relationship !et(een human !eings and for the sta!ilit& of the social order0 designed toindicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience0 guides for human conduct

that should run as golden threads through societ& to the end that la( ma& approach its supremeideal (hich is the s(a& and dominance of ustice.H3*

There is no uestion that Tarnate provided the euipment, la!or and materials for the proect incompliance (ith his o!ligations under the su!contract and the deed of assignment0 and that it (as

8on4alo as the contractor (ho received the pa&ment for his contract (ith the DP? as (ell as the*2K retention fee that should have !een paid to Tarnate pursuant to the deed ofassignment.33Considering that 8on4alo refused despite demands to deliver to Tarnate the stipulated*2K retention fee that (ould have compensated the latter for the use of his euipment in the proect,

8on4alo (ould !e unustl& enriched at the e5pense of Tarnate if the latter (as to !e !arred fromrecovering !ecause of the rigid application of the doctrine of in pari delicto. The prevention of unust

enrichment called for the e5ception to appl& in Tarnate6s favor. Conseuentl&, the RTC and the C-properl& adudged 8on4alo lia!le to pa& Tarnate the euivalent amount of the *2K retention fee#i.e., P3++,=3@.*+%.

8on4alo sought to ustif& his refusal to turn over the P3++,=3@.*+ to Tarnate !& insisting that he

#8on4alo% had a de!t of P322,222.22 to Congressman $ictor Domingue40 that his pa&ment of the*2K retention fee to Tarnate (as conditioned on Tarnate pa&ing that de!t to Congressman

Domingue40 and that he refused to give the *2K retention fee to Tarnate !ecause Tarnate did notpa& to Congressman Domingue4.3+is ustification (as unpersuasive, ho(ever, !ecause, firstl&,8on4alo presented no proof of the de!t to Congressman Domingue40 secondl&, he did notcompetentl& esta!lish the agreement on the condition that supposedl& !ound Tarnate to pa& to

Congressman Domingue403/and, thirdl&, !urdening Tarnate (ith 8on4alo6s personal de!t toCongressman Domingue4 to !e paid first !& Tarnate (ould constitute another case of unust

enrichment.

The Court regards the grant of moral damages, attorne&6s fees and litigation e5penses to Tarnate to

!e inappropriate. ?e have ruled that no damages ma& !e recovered under a void contract, (hich,!eing none5istent, produces no uridical tie !et(een the parties involved.3=It is nota!le, too, that the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_160600_2014.html#fnt25


33/115

RTC and the C- did not spell out the sufficient factual and legal ustifications for such damages to !egranted.

;astl&, the letter and spirit of -rticle 33 of the Civil Code command 8on4alo to ma'e a full reparationor compensation to Tarnate. The illegalit& of their contract should not !e allo(ed to deprive Tarnatefrom !eing full& compensated through the imposition of legal interest. To(ards that end, interest of@K per annum rec'oned from Septem!er *+, *, the time of the udicial demand !& Tarnate, is

imposed on the amount of P3++,=3@.*+. Not to afford this relief (ill ma'e a travest& of the ustice to(hich Tarnate (as entitled for having suffered too long from 8on4alo6s unust enrichment.

?ERE


34/115

-fter the graduation ceremonies, Tan met )ernice C. Ching, a fello( parent at RIS. In the course oftheir conversation, Tan intimated that he (as contemplating a suit against the officers of RIS in their

personal capacities, including petitioner (ho (as the assistant headmaster.

Ching telephoned petitioner sometime the first (ee' of -pril and told him that Tan (as planning tosue the officers of RIS in their personal capacities. )efore the& hung up, petitioner told Ching>

O'a&, &ou too, ta'e care and !e careful tal'ing to TanJ, that6s dangerous.

Ching then called Tan and informed him that petitioner said Htal'ing to him (as dangerous.H

Insulted, Tan filed a complaint for grave oral defamation in the Office of the Cit& Prosecutor of

1andalu&ong Cit& against petitioner on -ugust 3*, 322+.

On Novem!er +, 322+, petitioner (as charged (ith grave oral defamation in the 1etropolitan TrialCourt #1eTC% of 1andalu&ong Cit&, )ranch @2Aunder the follo(ing Information>

That on or a!out the *+th da& of 1arch, 322+ in the Cit& of 1andalu&ong, Philippines, a place (ithinthe urisdiction of this onora!le Court, the a!ove:named petitionerJ, (ith deli!erate intent of!ringing -TTB. -;)ERT P. T-N, into discredit, dishonor, disrepute and contempt, did then and there,

(illfull&, unla(full& and feloniousl& spea' and utter the follo(ing (ords to 1s. )ernice C. Ching>

HOM, BO TOO, BO T-ME C-RE -ND )E C-RE


35/115

In a decision dated Decem!er 3A, 322=, the 1eTC found petitioner guilt& !e&ond reasona!le dou!tof grave oral defamation>7

=HEREFORE,udgment is here!& rendered finding accused, 9erome Castro GU"LT% !e&ondreasona!le dou!t of the crime of 8rave Oral Defamation, sentencing him therefore, in accordance to

-rticle +=7#*% of the Revised Penal Code and appl&ing the Indeterminate Sentence ;a( to suffer thepenalt& of imprisonment of * month and * da& of arresto %a"oras minimum to / months and * da&

of arresto %a"oras ma5imum.

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court #RTC% affirmed the factual findings of the 1eTC. o(ever, invie( of the animosit& !et(een the parties, it found petitioner guilt& onl& of slight oral defamation. )ut!ecause Tan filed his complaint in the Office of the Cit& Prosecutor of 1andalu&ong Cit& onl& on

-ugust 3*, 322+ #or almost five months from discover&%, the RTC ruled that prescription had alread&set in0 it therefore acuitted petitioner on that ground.

On -pril *, 322A, the Office of the Solicitor 8eneral #OS8% filed a petition for certiorari in the Courtof -ppeals #C-% assailing the decision of the RTC.*2It contended that the RTC acted (ith grave

a!use of discretion (hen it do(ngraded petitioner6s offense to slight oral defamation. The RTCallegedl& misappreciated the antecedents (hich provo'ed petitioner to utter the allegedl&

defamator& statement against Tan.

The C- found that the RTC committed grave a!use of discretion (hen it misapprehended the totalit&of the circumstances and found petitioner guilt& onl& of slight oral defamation. Thus, the C-reinstated the 1eTC decision.**

Petitioner moved for reconsideration !ut it (as denied.*3ence, this recourse.

Petitioner !asicall& contends that the C- erred in ta'ing cogni4ance of the petition for certiorariinasmuch as the OS8 raised errors of udgment #i.e.,that the RTC misappreciated the evidence

presented !& the parties% !ut failed to prove that the RTC committed grave a!use of discretion.Thus, dou!le eopard& attached (hen the RTC acuitted him.

?e grant the petition.

No person shall !e t(ice put in eopard& of punishment for the same offense.*+This constitutionalmandate is echoed in Section A of Rule **A of the Rules of Court (hich provides>

Section A. &or%er conviction or ac$uittal' double (eopard". )?hen an accused has !een convictedor acuitted or the case against him dismissed or other(ise terminated (ithout his e5press consent!& a court of competent urisdiction, upon a valid complaint or in information or other formal charge

sufficient in form and su!stance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to thecharge, the conviction or acuittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall !e a !ar toanother prosecution for the offense charged or for an& attempt to commit the same or frustration

thereof, or for an& offense (hich necessaril& includes or is necessaril& included in the offensecharged in the former complaint or information.

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt13


36/115

nder this provision, dou!le eopard& occurs upon #*% a valid indictment #3% !efore a competentcourt #+% after arraignment #/% (hen a valid plea has !een entered and #=% (hen the accused (as

acuitted or convicted or the case (as dismissed or other(ise terminated (ithout the e5pressconsent of the accused.*/Thus, an acuittal, (hether ordered !& the trial or appellate court, is finaland unappeala!le on the ground of dou!le eopard&.*=

The onl& e5ception is (hen the trial court acted (ith grave a!use of discretion or, as (e held

in *al%an v. +andiganba"an,*@(hen there (as mistrial. In such instances, the OS8 can assail thesaid udgment in a petition for certiorari esta!lishing that the State (as deprived of a fair opportunit&to prosecute and prove its case.*A

The rationale !ehind this e5ception is that a udgment rendered !& the trial court (ith grave a!use of

discretion (as issued (ithout urisdiction. It is, for this reason, void. Conseuentl&, there is no dou!leeopard&.

In this case, the OS8 merel& assailed the RTC6s finding on the nature of petitioner6s statement, thatis, (hether it constituted grave or slight oral defamation. The OS8 premised its allegation of grave

a!use of discretion on the RTC6s HerroneousH evaluation and assessment of the evidence presented!& the parties. 1awph1

?hat the OS8 therefore uestioned (ere errors of udgment #or those involving misappreciation ofevidence or errors of la(%. o(ever, a court, in a petition for certiorari, cannot revie( the pu!licrespondent6s evaluation of the evidence and factual findings.*7Errors of udgment cannot !e raisedin a Rule @= petition as a (rit of certiorari can onl& correct errors of urisdiction #or those involving the

commission of grave a!use of discretion%.*

)ecause the OS8 did not raise errors of urisdiction, the C- erred in ta'ing cogni4ance of its petitionand, (orse, in revie(ing the factual findings of the RTC.32?e therefore reinstate the RTC decisionso as not to offend the constitutional prohi!ition against dou!le eopard&.

-t most, petitioner could have !een lia!le for damages under -rticle 3@ of the Civil Code3*>

-rticle 3@. Ever& person shall respect the dignit&, personalit&, privac& and peace of mind of hisneigh!ors and other persons. The follo(ing and similar acts, though the& ma& not constitute acriminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief>

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

#) "'r5' o ca5;- a'oh-r o /- a-'a-( :ro h; :r-'(;

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Petitioner is reminded that, as an educator, he is supposed to !e a role model for the &outh. -s such,

he should al(a&s act (ith ustice, give ever&one his due and o!serve honest& and good faith.33

=HEREFORE, the petition is here!& GRANTE$. The -ugust 3, 322A decision and Decem!er =,322A resolution of the Court of -ppeals in C-:8.R. SP No. 7@/ are RE*ERSE$ and SET AS"$E.The Novem!er 32, 322@ decision of the Regional Trial Court of 1andalu&ong Cit&, )ranch 3*3
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_180832_2008.html#fnt22


37/115

is RE"NSTATE$. Petitioner 9erome Castro is ACU"TTE$ of slight oral defamation as defined andpenali4ed in -rticle +=7 of the Revised Penal Code.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L498 A


38/115

the Clu!, $ioleta Delmo e5tended loans to some officers and mem!ers of the Clu!upon proper application dul& approved !& the maorit& of the mem!ers of the

E5ecutive )oard0 and that upon receiving the report from 1r. 9esse Dagoon, adviserof the funds of the Clu!, that Office conducted an investigation on the matter andhaving !een convinced of the guilt of $iolets Delmo and the other officers andmem!ers of the Clu!, that Office rendered the order or decision in uestion. In

ustif&ing that Offices order or decision, it is contended that approval !& that Office ofthe Constitution and )&:;a(s of the Clu! is necessar& for its effectivit& and validit&

and since it (as never su!mitted to that Office, the Clu! had no valid constitution and)&:;a(s and that as a conseuence, Resolution No. 3 (hich (as passed !ased onthe Constitution and )&:;a(s: is (ithout an& force and effect and the treasurer,$ioleta Delmo, (ho e5tended loans to some officers and mem!ers of the Clu!

pursuant thereto are illegal #sic%, hence, she and the other students involved aredeemed guilt& of misappropriating the funds of the Clu!. On the other hand, Raclito

Castaneda, Nestor 8ole4 and $ioleta Delmo, President, Secretar& and Treasurer ofthe Clu!, respectivel&, testified that the Clu! had adopted its Constitution and )&:;a(s in a meeting held last Octo!er +, *@=, and that pursuant to -rticle I of said

Constitution and )&:;a(s, the maorit& of the mem!ers of the E5ecutive )oardpassed Resolution No. 3, (hich resolution !ecame the !asis for the e5tension on ofloans to some officers and mem!ers of the Clu!, that the Clu! honestl& !elieved that

its Constitution and )&:;a(s has !een approved !& the superintendent !ecause theadviser of the Clu!, 1r. 9esse Dagoon, assured the President of the Clu! that he (illcause the approval of the Constitution and )&:;a(s !& the Superintendent0 theofficers of the Clu! have !een inducted to office on Octo!er ,*@= !& the

Superintendent and that the Clu! had !een li'e(ise allo(ed to cosponsor theEducation ?ee' Cele!ration.

-fter a careful stud& of the records, this Office sustains the action ta'en !& theSuperintendent in penali4ing the adviser of the Clu! as (ell as the officers and

mem!ers thereof !& dropping them from mem!ership therein. o(ever, this Office isconvinced that $iolets 1. Delmo had acted in good faith, in her capacit& as Clu!

Treasurer, in e5tending loans to the officers and mem!ers of the Student partnershipClu!. Resolution No. 3 authori4ing the Clu! treasurer to discharge finds to studentsin need of financial assistance and other humanitarian purposes had !een approved!& the Clu! adviser, 1r. 9esse Dagoon, (ith the notation that approval (as given inhis capacit& as adviser of the Clu! and e5tension of the Superintendents personalit&.

-side from misleading the officers and mem!ers of the Clu!, 1r. Dagoon, had

unsatisfactoril& e5plained (h& he failed to give the Constitution and )&:;a(s of theClu! to the Superintendent for approval despite his assurance to the Clu! presidentthat he (ould do so. ?ith this finding of negligence on the part of the Clu! adviser,not to mention la5it& in the performance of his duties as such, this Office considers

as too severe and un(arranted that portion of the uestioned order stating that$ioleta Delmo Hshall not !e a candidate for an& a(ard or citation from this school or

an& organi4ation in this school.H $ioleta Delmo, it is noted, has !een a consistent fullscholar of the school and she alone has maintained her scholarship. The decision inuestion (ould, therefore, set at naught all her sacrifice and frustrate her dreams ofgraduating (ith honors in this &ears commencement e5ercises.


39/115

In vie( of all the foregoing, this Office !elieves and so holds and here!& directs thatappellant $ioleta. 1. Delmo, and for that matter all other Clu! mem!ers or officers

involved in this case, !e not deprived of an& a(ard, citation or honor from the school,if the& are other(ise entitled thereto. #Rollo, pp. 37:+2%

On -pril 3A, *@@, the petitioner received !& mail the decision of the Director and all the records ofthe case. On the same da&, petitioner received a telegram stating the follo(ing>

H-IR1-I; RECORDS DE;1O C-SE 1ISSENT T-T O

;et us go to specific !adges of the defendants #no( petitioners% !ad faith. Per

investigation of $ioleta Delmos appeal to Director $italiano )ernardino of the )ureauof Pu!lic Schools #E5hi!it ; it (as the defendant (ho inducted the officers of the

Student ;eadership Clu! on Octo!er , *@=. In fact the Clu! (as allo(ed tocosponsor the Education ?ee' Cele!ration. #E5h. H;H%. If the defendant he not

approve of the constitution and !&:la(s of the Clu!, (h& did he induct the officersinto office and allo( the Clu! to sponsor the Education ?ee' Cele!rationH It (as

through his o(n act that the students (ere misled to do as the& did. Coupled (ith thedefendants tacit recognition of the Clu! (as the assurance of 1r. 9emm Dagoon,Clu! -dviser, (ho made the students !elieve that he (as acting as an e5tension of1r. ;edesmas personalit&. #E5hi!it H;H%.


40/115

-nother !adge of the defendants (ant of good faith is the fact that, although, he'ae( as earl& as -pril 3A,*@@ that per on of r )ernardino, E5hi!it H;,H he (as

directed to give honors to 1iss Delmo, he 'ept Id information to . e told the Courtthat he 'ne( that the letter of Director )ernardino directed him not to deprive 1issDelmo the honors due her, !ut she #sic% sa&s that he has not finished reading theletter:decision, E5hi!it H;,H of Director )ernardino 2, him to give honors to 1iss

Delmo. #Tsn,


41/115

The trial court a(arded P32,222.22 to the estate of $ioleta Delmo and P*2,222.22 to her parents formoral damages0 P=,222.22 for nominal damages to $ioletas estate0 e5emplar& damages of

P*2,222.22 and P3,222.22 attorne&s fees.

On appeal, the Court of -ppeals affirmed the decision. ence, this petition.

The issues raised in this petition can !e reduced to the sole uestion of (hether or not therespondent Court of -ppeals erred in affirming the trial courts finding that petitioner is lia!le for

damages under -rticle 3A of the Ne( Civil Code.

?e find no reason (h& the findings of the trial and appellate courts should !e reversed. It cannot !edisputed that $ioleta Delmo (ent through a painful ordeal (hich (as !rought a!out !& thepetitioners neglect of dut& and callousness. Thus, moral damages are !ut proper. -s (e have

affirmed in the case of #Prudenciado v. -lliance Transport S&stem, Inc., */7 SCR- //2, //7%>

There is no argument that moral damages include ph&sical suffering, mental anguish,fright, serious an5iet&, !esmirched reputation, (ounded feelings, moral shoc', social

humiliation, and similar inur&. Though incapa!le of pecuniar& computation, moraldamages ma& !e recovered if the& are the pro5imate result of defendants (rongl&act or omission.H #People v. )a&lon, *3 SCR- @3 #*7/%.

The Solicitor:8eneral tries to cover:up the petitioners deli!erate omission to inform 1iss Delmo !&stating that it (as not the dut& of the petitioner to furnish her a cop& of the Directors decision.8ranting this to !e true, it (as nevertheless the petitioners dut& to enforce the said decision. ecould have done so considering that he received the decision on -pril 3A, *@@ and even though he

sent it !ac' (ith the records of the case, he undou!tedl& read the (hole of it (hich consisted of onl&three pages. 1oreover, the petitioner should have had the decenc& to meet (ith 1r. Delmo, the girlsfather, and inform the latter, at the ver& least of the decision. This, the petitioner li'e(ise failed to do,and not (ithout the attendant !ad faith (hich the appellate court correctl& pointed out in its decision,

to (it>

Third, assuming that defendant could not furnish 1iss Delmo of a cop& of the

decision, he could have used his discretion and plain common sense !& informingher a!out it or he could have directed the inclus

Persons Print ASP

Documents

Transcript of Persons Print ASP