Skinny Cases

7/21/2019 Skinny Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/skinny-cases 1/6

8/4/2015 Ski nny Cases: Per sons and Fam il y Rel ati ons: H um an R el ati ons Notes

http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/07/civil-law-articles-19-36.html?m=1

Case Digests and Scratch Notes

Skinny Cases

Persons and Family Relations: Human Relations Notes

Notes on

Articles 19 to 36

Human Relations

Art. 19. Abuse of Right Doctrine

Every person must, in the exercise of his rights, in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give

everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Provides a rule of conduct that is consistent with an orderly and harmonious relationship between and among

men and women.

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.

Elements of abuse of rights:

1. There is a legal right or duty;

2. Which is exercised in bad faith;

3. For the sole intent if prejudicing or injuring another

Art. 20. Willfully or negligently causes damage to another

Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall

indemnify the latter for the same.

Speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own

sanction.

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.

Art. 21. Contrary to good customs, moral, public policy Any person who willfully causes losses or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to

morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

Deals with the acts contra bonus mores or against good morals.

Elements:

1. There is an act which is legal

2. But which is contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy;

3. And it is done with the intent to injure.

http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/?m=1







Arts 19, 20, 21 are related to each other and under these articles an act which causes

injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages

Art. 22. Prevention of unjust enrichment

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.

Art. 23.

Even when an act or even causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or

negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnify if through the act or event he was

benefited.

Unjust enrichment. No person can claim what is not validly and legally his or hers.

Nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest. No one shall enrich himself at the expense of another.

Art. 24. Protecting the rights of the disadvantage

In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties as at a disadvantage onaccount of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other

handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.

Court vigilance. The court must render justice, therefore, must be vigilant in protecting the rights of the

disadvantaged with the end in view that any decision will be in consonance with what is right and what is legal.

Art. 25. Extravagance during emergency.

Thoughtless extravagance in the 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.

The law seeks to prevent inconsiderate and ostentatious activities during times of emergency.

Art. 26.

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.

Protection of human dignity. Meant to regard human life and safety, to forestall human suffering or to try to

protect persons from being unjustly humiliated.

Art. 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. A public official is supposed to be a representation of the government, and

therefore, the law exacts on him an obligation to be 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 public servant to perform his duties, is entitle to

damages.

Article 28.

Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises, or in labor 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.

Necessary in a system of free enterprise to give others fair chance to engage in business or earn a living.

Art. 29. Civil action when guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

When the accuse in criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been provedbeyond 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. When the guilt of the accused is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, civil action to prove the civil

liability can still be filed where only preponderance of evidence is needed.Proof beyond reasonable doubt. The amount of proof which forms an abiding moral certainty that the accused

committed the crime charge. It is not absolute certainty.

Preponderance of evidence. The evidence adduced by one side outweighs the other.

Art. 30. Civil obligation arising from a criminal offense.

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 civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be

sufficient to prove the act complained of.

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

In short, civil obligation arising from a criminal offense only needs a preponderance of evidence as a quantum of

proof.

Art. 31.

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.

Civil action not arising from felony. Article 31 seeks to give an aggrieved party a remedy and a cause of action in





this kind of situations.

Civil action arises not from felony if there is no pre‐existing contractual relations between the parties ‐‐‐> quasi‐

dilect.

This provision is evidently refers to a civil action based, not on the act or omission charged as a felony in a

criminal case, but to one based on obligation arising from other sources, such as law or contract. The first is

governed by the provisions of the Civil Code, and not those of the RPC.

An independent civil action is an action based upon the same criminal act as in the case of Arts 32, 33, 34.

Quasi‐delict is culpa aquiliana and is separate and distinct from criminal negligence, which is a delict, which is

punishable under the RPC.

This article also applies to culpa contractual .

Art. 32.

Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstruct 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. Freedom against deprivation of property without due process of law;

7. The right to 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, houses, 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 any associations or societies for purposes not

contrary to law;

13. The right to take part in 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 case 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 my be proved by a preponderance of evidence.





The indemnity shall include moral damage. 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.

Separate civil action for violation of constitutional rights. 1947 Code Commission found it imperative that a

separate civil action is necessary for the violation of the individual's constitutional rights.

Art 32 renders any public officer of employee or any private individual liable in damages for violating the

constitutional rights and liberties of another.

Reasons:

1. Threat to freedom originates from abuses of power of government officials. The

citizen had to depend upon the prosecution attorney for the institution of

criminal proceedings, in order that the wrongful act might be punished under the

RPC and the civil liability exacted.

2. Even when the prosecuting attorney filed a criminal action, the requirement of

proof beyond reasonable doubt often prevented the appropriate punishment.

3. Direct and open violations of the Penal Code trampling upon the freedoms named

are not so frequent as those indirect ways which do not come within the pale of

penal law

Good faith not a defense. The very nature of Art 32 is that the wrong may be civil or criminal. It is not necessary

therefore that there should be malice or bad faith.

Art 33. Civil action for violation of private rights

In case of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct

from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of

the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.

Principle is allow the citizen to enforce his rights in a private action brought by him, regardless of the action of

the State attorney.

Defamation, fraud, and physical injuries and are understood in their ordinary sense. Fraud, estafa; defamatory,

libel; physical injuries, death or crime of homicide, but it cannot include reckless imprudence resulting in

homicide. Why? Because it is not listed in the crimes under Art 33.

This article authorizes the institution of an independent civil action for damages, which shall proceed

independently of the criminal prosecution and shall be proved by a preponderance evidence.

Art. 34. Members of the police force.

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 subsidiary responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized

shall be independent of any criminal proceeding, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to

support such action.

Refusal to render needed assistance whenever a citizen go to seek help can be a basis for claiming damages

against them. The city or municipality shall be subsidiary responsible therefor.

Art. 35. Reservation of civil action.

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





‹ ›Home

View web version

no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney

refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complainant may bring civil action for damages

against the alleged offender. Such civil action shall be supported by 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.

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.

Rules of the Court sets out the procedure with respect to the reservations in criminal cases with respect to civil

liability of the accused:

1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.

2. When separate civil action is suspended

3. When civil action may proceed independently

4. Effect of death on civil actions.

Art. 36. Prejudicial Question.

Article 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 shallpromulgate 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 whetherthere was intimidation or not must necessary be resolved before the bigamy case. If B was indeed intimidated in

marrying C, there is no bigamy.

‐ Persons and Family Relations, 2009, Sta. Maria, Melencio S.

0

Powered by Blogger.




http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/07/persons-and-family-relations-notes.html?m=1

https://www.blogger.com/

Documents

Skinny Cases