You are on page 1of 6


. CADIZ 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) Castillo, Certeza, Constantino, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu
LI V SOLIMAN Facts: Respondents 11 year old daughter, Angelica Soliman, underwent a biopsy of the mass located in her lower extremity at St. Lukes Medical Center. She was diagnosed with cancer of the bone which led to the amputation of her right leg. Chemotherapy was suggested to prevent the disease from spreading to other parts of the body, and Angelica was recommended to an oncologist Dr. Rubi Li, also a doctor in St. Lukes. Angelica was admitted to St. Lukes for chemo but died 11 days after the intravenous administration of the first cycle of the chemo. SLMC refused to release a death certificate without full payment of their hospital bill The respondents brought the cadaver of Angelica to the PNP Crime lab for post-mortem examination (Hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple organ hemorrhages and disseminated intravascular coagulation) SLMC Death Certificate ( Immediate cause: osteosarcoma, status post aka; Antecedent cause: above knee amputation; Underlying case: status post chemotherapy) Respondents filed a damage suit **Basically, what the respondents were contending was that the doctor didnt fully inform them of the side effects of the chemo, and that if they had known of all the side effects, they would not have consented. RTC: no negligence at all; CA: no negligence in administration of chemo treatment, but was negligent as the attending physician for failing to fully explain to the respondents all the known side effects of chemotherapy ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was negligent HELD: NO. RTC decision reinstated and upheld. Four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice action based upon the doctrine of informed consent: o Physician had a duty to disclose material risks o Failed to disclose or inadequately disclose those risks o As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment she otherwise would not have consented to o Plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment **The gravamen in an informed consent case requires the plaintiff to point to significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment which would have altered her decision to undergo it. The nature of the disease itself, each patients reaction to chemical agents cannot be precisely determined by the physician. Unlikely for doctors like petitioner who were dealing with grave condition such as cancer to have falsely assured patients of

chemotherapys success rate. (it was alleged that petitioner assured respondents of a 95% healing rate) The plaintiff must prove both the duty and the breach of that duty through expert testimony, and such must show the customary standard of care of physicians in the same practice as that of the defendant doctor. (case to case basis) In the absence of expert testimony in this regard, the Court feels hesitant in defining the scope of mandatory disclosure in cases of malpractice based on lack of informed consent. o Testimony of a medical specialist (not an oncologist) does not qualify as expert. o AMARO V SUMANGUIT Doctrine: The refusal of the Chief of Police to give assistance, which it was his duty to do, constitutes an actionable dereliction in light of Article 27 of the Civil Code. Facts: Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot at neat the city government building of Silay. The next day, he went with Cornelio Amaro (his father) to the office of the Ambrosio Sumanguit (defendant). Instead of obtaining assistance to their complaint, they were harassed and terrorized. They gave up and renounced their right and interest in the prosecution of the crime. Having finished the investigation of the crime complained of, Sumanguit is now harassing the plaintiffs in their daily work by ordering them to appear in his office when he is absent and taking the plaintiiffs signatures in prepared affidavits exempting the police from any dereliction of duty in their case. The plaintiffs filed suit for damages against Sumanguit (chief of police of Silay City).The complaint was dismissed on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Issue: Whether or not there was an actionable dereliction on the part of the defendant. Held: Yes. The plaintiffs claim for relief is not based on the fact of harassment but on the appellees refusal to give them assistance, which it was his duty to do as an officer of the law. In the case, the complaint was imperfectly drafted. But the Rules of Court require that there be a showing , by a statement of ultimate facts, that the plaintiff has a right and that this right was violated by the defendant. The compliant should not be dismissed upon mere ambiguity. The remedy is to file a complaint directly with the city attorney by lodging an administrative charge against Sumanguit.

Happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, when one only remembers to turn on the light.

TORTS ATTY. CADIZ 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) Castillo, Certeza, Constantino, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu
This suggested remedy does not preclude the action for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code and hence does not justify the dismissal of the complaint. COJUANGCO V CA GR No. 119398 | July 2, 1999 | J. Panganiban W/N the award for damages against respondent Carrascoso is warranted by evidence the law Held: YES AND NO. Petitioner is only entitled to nominal damages. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and Doctrine: To hold public officers personally liable for moral and exemplary conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a known duty due to some motive damages and for attorneys fees for acts done in the performance of or interest of ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. There is sufficient official functions, the plaintiff must prove that these officers exhibited acts evidence on record to support Respondent Courts conclusion that characterized by evident bad faith, malice, or gross negligence. But even if Carrascoso did not act in bad faith. His letters to PCGG indicated his their acts had not been so tainted, public officers may still be held liable for uncertainties as to the extent of the sequestration against the properties of nominal damages if they had violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights. the plaintiff. There is also denying that plaintiff is a very close political and business associate of the former President Marcos. Sequestration was also Facts: a novel remedy. Under these equivocalities, Carrascoso could not be Petitioner Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. filed a Petition for Review under faulted in asking further instructions from the PCGG, on what to do and Rule 45 of the ROC seeking to set aside CAs decision, after it reversed a more so, to obey the instructions given. Besides, EO2 has just been issued favorable decision of the RTC that ordered the private respondents to pay by President Aquino, freezing all assets and properties in the Philippines him moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs of the suit, (of) former President Marcos and/or his wifetheir close friends, and denied his Motion for Reconsideration. subordinates, business associates Cojuangco, a known businessman-sportsman owned several The extant rule is that public officers shall not be liable by way of racehorses which he entered in sweepstakes races. Several of his horses moral and exemplary damages for acts done in the performance of official won the races on various dates, and won prizes together with the 30% due duties, unless there is a clear showing of bad faith, malice or gross for trainer/grooms. He sent letters of demand for the collection of the negligence. Attorneys fees and expenses of litigation cannot be imposed prizes due him but private respondents PCSO and its then chairman either, in the absence of clear showing of any of the grounds provided Fernando Carrascoso Jr. consistently replied that the demanded prizes are therefor under the Civil Code. The trial courts award of these kinds of being withheld on advice of PCGG. Consequently, Cojuangco filed this case damages must perforce be deleted. before the Manila RTC but before the receipt summons, PCGG advised Nevertheless, this Court agrees with the petitioner and the trial private respondents that it poses no more objection to its remittance of that Respondent Carrascoso may still be held liable under Article 32 of the the prized winnings. This was immediately communicated to petitioners Civil Code, which provides: counsel Estelito Mendoza by Carrascoso but the former refused to accept Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private the prizes at this point, reasoning that the matter had already been individual, who directly or indirectly obstruct, defeats, brought to court. violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the The trial court ruled that the private respondents had no authority following rights and liberties of another person shall be to withhold the subject racehorse winnings since no writ of sequestration liable to the latter for damages: was issued by PCGG. Ordering the private respondents to pay in solidum xxx xxx xxx the claimed winnings, the trial court further held that, by not paying the (6) The rights against deprivation of property without due winnings, Carrascoso had acted in bad faith amounting to the persecution process of law; and harassment of petitioner and his family. While the case was pending Under the aforecited article, it is not necessary that the public with the CA, the petitioner moved for partial execution pending appeal to officer acted with malice or bad faith. To be liable, it is enough that there which the private respondents posed no objection to. was a violation of the constitutional rights of petitioner, even on the CA reversed the trial courts finding of bad faith, holding that the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the performance of one's former PCSO chairman was merely carrying out the instruction of the duties. PCGG. It likewise noted that Carrascosos acts of promptly replying to We hold that petitioner's right to the use of his property was demands and not objecting to partial execution negated bad faith. unduly impeded. While Respondent Carrascoso may have relied upon the PCGG's instructions, he could have further sought the specific legal basis Issue: therefor. A little exercise of prudence would have disclosed that there was no writ issued specifically for the sequestration of the racehorse winnings 2 Happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, when one only remembers to turn on the light.

TORTS ATTY. CADIZ 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) Castillo, Certeza, Constantino, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu
of petitioner. There was apparently no record of any such writ covering his racehorses either. The issuance of a sequestration order requires the showing of a prima facie case and due regard for the requirements of due process. The withholding of the prize winnings of petitioner without a properly issued sequestration order clearly spoke of a violation of his property rights without due process of law. Art. 2221 of the Civil Code authorizes the award of nominal damages to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered. ARAFILES V PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS GR No. 150256 | March 25, 2004 | J. Carpio-Morales Facts: Petitioner Catalino Arafiles seeks a review of the CA decision which dismissed his complaint for damages against respondents publisher Philippine Journalists Inc, Manuel Villareal Jr, editor Max Buan Jr and reporter Romy Morales. Respondent Morales wrote a report that appeared on Peoples Journal Tonight, which related how Emelita Despuig, an employee of the National Institute of Atmospheric Sciences (NAIS) of PAG-ASA, lodged a complaint against petitioner, a NAIS director, for forcible abduction with rape and forcible abduction with attempted rape and the supposed details of the rape. About a year after the report was published, Arafiles instituted the complaint for damages, alleging that on account of the grossly malicious and overly sensationalized reporting in the news item, his reputation as a director of NAIS was injured, that he became the object of public contempt and ridicule as he was depicted as a sex-crazed stalker and serial rapist and that the news deferred his promotion. In their Answer, respondents prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint, they alleging that "the news item, having been sourced from the Police Blotter which is an official public document and bolstered by a personal interview of the victim is therefore privileged and falls within the protective constitutional provision of freedom of the press . . . . ," and by way of Compulsory Counterclaim, they prayed for the award of moral and exemplary damages plus attorneys fees. The Quezon City RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, but was later on reversed by CA, claiming that the petitioner was not able to prove by preponderance of evidence that (herein respondents) were motivated by a sinister intent to cause harm and injury to (herein petitioner). No. In actions for damages for libel, it is axiomatic that the published work alleged to contain libelous material must be examined and viewed as a whole. In order to ascertain the meaning of a published article, the whole of the article must be considered, each phrase must be construed in the light of the entire publication x x x The headlines of a newspaper must also be read in connection with the language which follows. The presentation of the news item subject of petitioners complaint may have been in a sensational manner, but it is not per se illegal. Respondents could of course have been more circumspect in their choice of words as the headline and first seven paragraphs of the news item give the impression that a certain director of the NIAS actually committed the crimes complained of by Emelita. The succeeding paragraphs (in which petitioner and complainant Emelita were eventually identified) sufficiently convey to the readers, however, that the narration of events was only an account of what Emelita had reported at the police headquarters. Every citizen of course has the right to enjoy a good name and reputation, but we do not consider that the respondents, under the circumstances of this case, had violated said right or abused the freedom of the press. The newspapers should be given such leeway and tolerance as to enable them to courageously and effectively perform their important role in our democracy. In the preparation of stories, press reporters and [editors] usually have to race with their deadlines; and consistently with good faith and reasonable care, they should not be held to account, to a point of suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfection in the choice of words.

SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC V SOLUTA FACTS: 1. Loida Somacera (Loida), a laundrywoman of the hotel, stayed overnight at the female locker room at the basement of the hotel. 2. At dawn, she heard pounding sounds outside, she saw five men in barong tagalog whom she failed to recognize but she was sure were not employees of the hotel, forcibly opening the door of the union office. 3. In the morning, as union officer Soluta was trying in vain to open the door of the union office, Loida narrated to him what she had witnessed at dawn. 4. Soluta immediately lodged a complaint before the Security Officer. And he fetched a locksmith. At that instant, men in barong tagalog armed with clubs arrived and started hitting Soluta and his companions. Issue: 5. Panlilio thereupon instructed Villanueva to force open the door, W/N the CA erred in holding that the publication of the news item was not and the latter did. Once inside, Panlilio and his companions began attended with malice to thus free respondents of liability for damages searching the office, over the objection of Babay who even asked them if they had a search warrant. Held: 6. A plastic bag was found containing marijuana flowering tops. 3 Happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, when one only remembers to turn on the light.

TORTS ATTY. CADIZ 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) Castillo, Certeza, Constantino, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu
7. As a result of the discovery of the presence of marijuana in the union office and after the police conducted an investigation of the incident, a complaint against the 13 union officers was filed before the Fiscals Office of Manila. RTC acquitted the accused. On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court.


ISSUE: Whether respondent individual can recover damages for violation of constitutional rights. RULING: Article 32, in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code, allows so. ART. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: x x x x In the present case, petitioners had, by their own claim, already received reports in late 1987 of illegal activities and Maniego conducted surveillance. Yet, in the morning of January 11, 1988, petitioners and their companions barged into and searched the union office without a search warrant, despite ample time for them to obtain one. The course taken by petitioners and company stinks in illegality. Petitioners violation of individual respondents constitutional right against unreasonable search thus furnishes the basis for the award of damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code. For respondents, being the lawful occupants of the office had the right to raise the question of validity of the search and seizure. Article 32 speaks of an officer or employee or person "directly or indirectly" responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. Hence, it is not the actor alone who must answer for damages under Article 32; the person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party. Such being the case, petitioners, together with Maniego and Villanueva, the ones who orchestrated the illegal search, are jointly and severally liable for actual, moral and exemplary damages to herein individual respondents in accordance with the earlier-quoted pertinent provision of Article 32, in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases, among others, (6) Illegal search and (10) Acts and action referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35. LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO V FORTUNE TOBACCO CORP. 2008 December 23 | Nachura, J.

Doctrine: It is a fundamental principle in the law of public officers that a duty owing to the public in general cannot give rise to a liability in favor of particular individuals. The failure to perform a public duty can constitute an individual wrong only when a person can show that, in the public duty, a duty to himself as an individual is also involved, and that he has suffered a special and peculiar injury by reason of its improper performance or nonperformance Facts: a. Petitioner Vinzons-Chato issued, on July 1, 1993, RMC 37-93 reclassifying cigarette brands Champion, Hope and More as locally manufactured bearing a foreign brand, hence, subject to 55% ad valorem tax (as opposed to 20-45% when it was classified as local brands) under RA 7654 enacted just two days after the RMC was issued b. When Fortune corp. received by registered mail a certified photocopy of the RMC, it filed MR requesting the recall thereof; however, the MR was denied in a letter and the same contained an assessment of ad valorem deficiency for P9,598,334.00 on the basis of the RMC with a demand for payment within 10 days c. Fortune filed a petition for review with CTA, which issued an injunction enjoining implementation of the RMC and which eventually declared the same null and void d. The CA affirmed the CTA ruling e. The SC (in CIR v. CA, GR 119761, August 29, 1996) affirmed the same holding that the RMC fell short of the requirements for a valid administrative issuance f. Fortune then filed with the RTC a complaint for damages against petitioner in her private capacity under Art. 32 of Civil Code (violation of constitutional liberties particularly of right to due process and equal protection) g. Petitioner filed a MTD alleging the complaint stated no cause of action because (a) she issued the RMC in the exercise of official function and acted merely as an agent; (b) lack of allegation on bad faith or malice h. The RTC denied MTD holding that to rule on the allegations therein would be premature i. Acting on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the CA likewise ruled against petitioner holding that Art. 32 need not be committed with malice; it also held that while as a general rule, Sec. 38, Book I of the Admin. Code applies to civil liability of public officers, Art. 32 is the special law applicable herein j. In a 2007 Decision, the SC affirmed the CA; and via April 2008 Resolution, it denied with finality petitioners MR

Happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, when one only remembers to turn on the light.

TORTS ATTY. CADIZ 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) Castillo, Certeza, Constantino, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu

k. Petitioner filed a Motion to Refer the case to the SC En Banc to

reconsider (MR)the 2007 Decision on the ground that the petition raises a legal question, novel and of paramount importance, that said Decision will send a chilling effect to public officers and adversely affect the performance of duties of superior public officers in departments or agencies with rule-making and quasijudicial powers that the CIR will have reason to hesitate or refrain from performing official duties despite the due process safeguards in Sec. 228 of the NIRC; the Court referred the case to SC En Banc via June 2008 Resolution Fortune on the other hand filed a MR of the 2008 Resolution referring the case to SC En Banc

injured by the action or inaction of the officer --- there is damage to the individual but no wrong to him No one individual could single himself out and assert that they were duties owing to him alone

constitutional right (only if it results in a particular wrong or injury to the former) Owes a general duty of official good conduct to the public, but also under a special duty to the particular individual concerned which gives the latter a peculiar interest in his due performance >A sheriff or constable in serving civil process for a private suitor, > a recorder of deeds in recording the deed or mortgage of an individual, > a clerk of court in entering up a private judgment, > a notary public in protesting negotiable paper, > an inspector of elections in passing upon the qualifications of an elector,


Issue: Whether the 2007 Decision denying the prayer of petitioner Vinzons-Chato to dismiss the complaint filed by Fortune Tobacco against her was correct? Held: NO. The MR of petitioner of 2007 Decision is granted; and the MR of Fortune of the June 28 Resolution is denied; the complaint is thereby dismissed 1. Two kinds of duties exercised by public officers determine whether a public officer is liable for improper performance or nonperformance of a duty. As the eminent Floyd R. Mechem instructs, [t]he liability of a public officer to an individual or the public is based upon and is co-extensive with his duty to the individual or the public. If to the one or the other he owes no duty, to that one he can incur no liability. Of duties to the Public Of Duties to Individuals Primarily: to the public Owe to the public the general collectively --- to the body politic duty of a proper administration --- and not to any particular of their respective offices --- yet, individual by reason of their employment by a particular individual to do some act for him in an official capacity, under a special and particular obligation to him as an individual Act for the public at large, and Serve individuals chiefly and who are ordinarily paid out of usually receive their the public treasury compensation from fees paid by each individual who employs them An individual cannot have a An individual can hold a public cause of action for damages officer personally liable for against the public officer, even damages on account of an act though he may have been or omission that violates a

The officers whose duties fall wholly or partially within this class are numerous and the distinction will be readily recognized --> members of the legislature owe a duty to the public to pass only wise and proper laws, but no one person could pretend that the duty was owing to himself rather than to another > Highway commissioners owe a duty that they will be governed only by considerations of the public good in deciding upon the opening or closing of highways, but it is not a duty to any particular individual of the community

2. Note: central to an award of tort damages is the premise that an

individual was injured in contemplation of law --- plaintiff must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed the plaintiff, meaning a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it 2.a. On breach of duty owed Fortune Tobacco: Vinzons-Chato exercised a public duty owing to the public in general. Her position therein was vested with quasi-legislative or rule-making power, and as such, it owes a duty to the public to promulgate rules which are compliant with the requirements of valid administrative regulations --- but it is a duty owed not to Fortune alone, but to the entire body politic who would be affected, directly or indirectly, by the administrative rule 2.b. On the on injuries suffered: As to The phrase financial and business difficulties mentioned in the complaint is a vague notion, ambiguous in concept, and cannot translate into a particular injury. Petitioner took nothing from Fortune as the latter did not

Happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, when one only remembers to turn on the light.

TORTS ATTY. CADIZ 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) Castillo, Certeza, Constantino, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu
pay a single centavo on the tax assessment levied. Consequently, the complaint stated no cause of action as one of its elements was missing --- the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another. Reliance on CIR v. CA (1996) to support violations of due process and equal protection is misplaced because even though it declared that the Court is convinced that the hastily promulgated RMC 3793 has fallen short of a valid and effective administrative issuance, the same does not make the RMC unconstitutional In the absence of CIR v. CA, Fortune solely relies on par. 2.01 of its complaint, which alleges: They were done without due process of law and in violation of the right of plaintiff to the equal protection of the laws. However, bare allegations are conclusions of law and not hypothetically admitted in MTD US jurisprudence, Webster Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of FBI, among others, support petitioners stance. It held that whether violation of the Fourth Amendment by a federal agent acting under color of authority gives rise to a cause of action for damages consequent upon his constitutional conduct, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Bivens is entitled to recover damages for injuries he suffered as a result In addition, Sec. 227, RA 8424 (Tax Reform Act of 97) provides: Satisfaction of Judgment against any internal revenue officer. x x x No such judgment, damages or costs shall be paid or reimbursed in behalf of a person who has acted negligently or in bad faith, or with willful oppression. Because the respondents complaint does not impute negligence or bad faith to the petitioner, any money judgment by the trial court against her will have to be assumed by the Republic of the Philippines. As such, the complaint is in the nature of a suit against the State



5. 6.


Happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, when one only remembers to turn on the light.