G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985 ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR.

, as Presiding Judge of Branch CX, Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region Pasay City and RICHARD UPTON respondents. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:\ In this Petition for certiorari and Prohibition, petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn seeks to set aside the Orders, dated September 15, 1983 and August 3, 1984, in Civil Case No. 1075-P, issued by respondent Judge, which denied her Motion to Dismiss said case, and her Motion for Reconsideration of the Dismissal Order, respectively. The basic background facts are that petitioner is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the United States; that they were married in Hongkong in 1972; that, after the marriage, they established their residence in the Philippines; that they begot two children born on April 4, 1973 and December 18, 1975, respectively; that the parties were divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982; and that petitioner has re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn. Dated June 8, 1983, private respondent filed suit against petitioner in Civil Case No. 1075-P of the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXV, in Pasay City, stating that petitioner's business in Ermita, Manila, (the Galleon Shop, for short), is conjugal property of the parties, and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business, and that private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had "no community property" as of June 11, 1982. The Court below denied the Motion to Dismiss in the mentioned case on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case. The denial is now the subject of this certiorari proceeding. Generally, the denial of a Motion to Dismiss in a civil case is interlocutory and is not subject to appeal. certiorari and Prohibition are neither the remedies to question the propriety of an interlocutory order of the trial Court. However, when a grave abuse of discretion was patently committed, or the lower Court acted capriciously and whimsically, then it devolves upon this Court in a certiorari proceeding to exercise its supervisory authority and to correct the error committed which, in such a case, is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 1 Prohibition would then lie since it would be useless and a waste of time to go ahead with the proceedings. 2 Weconsider the petition filed in this case within the exception, and we have given it due course. For resolution is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines. Petitioner contends that respondent is estopped from laying claim on the alleged conjugal property because of the representation he made in the divorce proceedings before the American Court that they had no community of property; that the Galleon Shop was not established

through conjugal funds, and that respondent's claim is barred by prior judgment. For his part, respondent avers that the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared national policy; that the acts and declaration of a foreign Court cannot, especially if the same is contrary to public policy, divest Philippine Courts of jurisdiction to entertain matters within its jurisdiction. For the resolution of this case, it is not necessary to determine whether the property relations between petitioner and private respondent, after their marriage, were upon absolute or relative community property, upon complete separation of property, or upon any other regime. The pivotal fact in this case is the Nevada divorce of the parties. The Nevada District Court, which decreed the divorce, had obtained jurisdiction over petitioner who appeared in person before the Court during the trial of the case. It also obtained jurisdiction over private respondent who, giving his address as No. 381 Bush Street, San Francisco, California, authorized his attorneys in the divorce case, Karp & Gradt Ltd., to agree to the divorce on the ground of incompatibility in the understanding that there were neither community property nor community obligations. 3 As explicitly stated in the Power of Attorney he executed in favor of the law firm of KARP & GRAD LTD., 336 W. Liberty, Reno, Nevada, to represent him in the divorce proceedings: xxx xxx xxx You are hereby authorized to accept service of Summons, to file an Answer, appear on my behalf and do an things necessary and proper to represent me, without further contesting, subject to the following: 1. That my spouse seeks a divorce on the ground of incompatibility. 2. That there is no community of property to be adjudicated by the Court. 3. 'I'hat there are no community obligations to be adjudicated by the court. xxx xxx xxx 4 There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States of the United States. The decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any State of the Union. What he is contending in this case is that the divorce is not valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and public policy. It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, 5 only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public police and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. 6 In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. As stated by the Federal Supreme Court of the United States in Atherton vs. Atherton, 45 L. Ed. 794, 799:

The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a court of competent jurisdiction are to change the existing status or domestic relation of husband and wife, and to free them both from the bond. The marriage tie when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either. A husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law. When the law provides, in the nature of a penalty. that the guilty party shall not marry again, that party, as well as the other, is still absolutely freed from the bond of the former marriage. Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property. To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws, petitioner has to be considered still married to private respondent and still subject to a wife's obligations under Article 109, et. seq. of the Civil Code cannot be just. Petitioner should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served. WHEREFORE, the Petition is granted, and respondent Judge is hereby ordered to dismiss the Complaint filed in Civil Case No. 1075-P of his Court. Without costs. SO ORDERED.

the former, provides Us the opportunity to lay down a decisional rule on what hitherto appears to be an unresolved jurisdictional question. On September 7, 1979, petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national, were married before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler in the Federal Republic of Germany. The marriage started auspiciously enough, and the couple lived together for some time in Malate, Manila where their only child, Isabella Pilapil Geiling, was born on April 20, 1980. 1 Thereafter, marital discord set in, with mutual recriminations between the spouses, followed by a separation de facto between them. After about three and a half years of marriage, such connubial disharmony eventuated in private respondent initiating a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January, 1983. He claimed that there was failure of their marriage and that they had been living apart since April, 1982. 2 Petitioner, on the other hand, filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXXII, on January 23, 1983 where the same is still pending as Civil Case No. 83-15866. 3 On January 15, 1986, Division 20 of the Schoneberg Local Court, Federal Republic of Germany, promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child was granted to petitioner. The records show that under German law said court was locally and internationally competent for the divorce proceeding and that the dissolution of said marriage was legally founded on and authorized by the applicable law of that foreign jurisdiction. 4 On June 27, 1986, or more than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, private respondent filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that, while still married to said respondent, petitioner "had an affair with a certain William Chia as early as 1982 and with yet another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983". Assistant Fiscal Jacinto A. de los Reyes, Jr., after the corresponding investigation, recommended the dismissal of the cases on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. 5 However, upon review, the respondent city fiscal approved a resolution, dated January 8, 1986, directing the filing of two complaints for adultery against the petitioner. 6 The complaints were accordingly filed and were eventually raffled to two branches of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The case entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Imelda Pilapil and William Chia", docketed as Criminal Case No. 87-52435, was assigned to Branch XXVI presided by the respondent judge; while the other case, "People of the Philippines vs. Imelda Pilapil and James Chua", docketed as Criminal Case No. 87-52434 went to the sala of Judge Leonardo Cruz, Branch XXV, of the same court. 7 On March 14, 1987, petitioner filed a petition with the Secretary of Justice asking that the aforesaid resolution of respondent fiscal be set aside and the cases against her be dismissed. 8 A similar petition was filed by James Chua, her co-accused in Criminal Case No. 87-52434. The Secretary of Justice, through the Chief State

G.R. No. 80116 June 30, 1989 IMELDA MANALAYSAY PILAPIL, petitioner, vs. HON. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXVI; HON. LUIS C. VICTOR, in his capacity as the City Fiscal of Manila; and ERICH EKKEHARD GEILING, respondents. REGALADO, J.: An ill-starred marriage of a Filipina and a foreigner which ended in a foreign absolute divorce, only to be followed by a criminal infidelity suit of the latter against

Prosecutor, gave due course to both petitions and directed the respondent city fiscal to inform the Department of Justice "if the accused have already been arraigned and if not yet arraigned, to move to defer further proceedings" and to elevate the entire records of both cases to his office for review. 9 Petitioner thereafter filed a motion in both criminal cases to defer her arraignment and to suspend further proceedings thereon. 10 As a consequence, Judge Leonardo Cruz suspended proceedings in Criminal Case No. 87-52434. On the other hand, respondent judge merely reset the date of the arraignment in Criminal Case No. 87-52435 to April 6, 1987. Before such scheduled date, petitioner moved for the cancellation of the arraignment and for the suspension of proceedings in said Criminal Case No. 87-52435 until after the resolution of the petition for review then pending before the Secretary of Justice. 11 A motion to quash was also filed in the same case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, 12 which motion was denied by the respondent judge in an order dated September 8, 1987. The same order also directed the arraignment of both accused therein, that is, petitioner and William Chia. The latter entered a plea of not guilty while the petitioner refused to be arraigned. Such refusal of the petitioner being considered by respondent judge as direct contempt, she and her counsel were fined and the former was ordered detained until she submitted herself for arraignment. 13 Later, private respondent entered a plea of not guilty. 14 On October 27, 1987, petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, seeking the annulment of the order of the lower court denying her motion to quash. The petition is anchored on the main ground that the court is without jurisdiction "to try and decide the charge of adultery, which is a private offense that cannot be prosecuted de officio (sic), since the purported complainant, a foreigner, does not qualify as an offended spouse having obtained a final divorce decree under his national law prior to his filing the criminal complaint."
15

the court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to try the case. Now, the law specifically provides that in prosecutions for adultery and concubinage the person who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse, and nobody else. Unlike the offenses of seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, no provision is made for the prosecution of the crimes of adultery and concubinage by the parents, grandparents or guardian of the offended party. The so-called exclusive and successive rule in the prosecution of the first four offenses above mentioned do not apply to adultery and concubinage. It is significant that while the State, as parens patriae, was added and vested by the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure with the power to initiate the criminal action for a deceased or incapacitated victim in the aforesaid offenses of seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, in default of her parents, grandparents or guardian, such amendment did not include the crimes of adultery and concubinage. In other words, only the offended spouse, and no other, is authorized by law to initiate the action therefor. Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the offended spouse to institute the action, it necessarily follows that such initiator must have the status, capacity or legal representation to do so at the time of the filing of the criminal action. This is a familiar and express rule in civil actions; in fact, lack of legal capacity to sue, as a ground for a motion to dismiss in civil cases, is determined as of the filing of the complaint or petition. The absence of an equivalent explicit rule in the prosecution of criminal cases does not mean that the same requirement and rationale would not apply. Understandably, it may not have been found necessary since criminal actions are generally and fundamentally commenced by the State, through the People of the Philippines, the offended party being merely the complaining witness therein. However, in the so-called "private crimes" or those which cannot be prosecuted de oficio, and the present prosecution for adultery is of such genre, the offended spouse assumes a more predominant role since the right to commence the action, or to refrain therefrom, is a matter exclusively within his power and option. This policy was adopted out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial. 20 Hence, as cogently argued by petitioner, Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code thus presupposes that the marital relationship is still subsisting at the time of the institution of the criminal action for, adultery. This is a logical consequence since the raison d'etre of said provision of law would be absent where the supposed offended party had ceased to be the spouse of the alleged offender at the time of the filing of the criminal case. 21 In these cases, therefore, it is indispensable that the status and capacity of the complainant to commence the action be definitely established and, as already demonstrated, such status or capacity must indubitably exist as of the time he initiates the action. It would be absurd if his capacity to bring the action would be determined by his status before or subsequent to the commencement thereof, where such capacity or status existed prior to but ceased before, or was acquired subsequent to but did not exist at the time of, the institution of the case. We would thereby have the

On October 21, 1987, this Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondents from implementing the aforesaid order of September 8, 1987 and from further proceeding with Criminal Case No. 8752435. Subsequently, on March 23, 1988 Secretary of Justice Sedfrey A. Ordoez acted on the aforesaid petitions for review and, upholding petitioner's ratiocinations, issued a resolution directing the respondent city fiscal to move for the dismissal of the complaints against the petitioner. 16 We find this petition meritorious. The writs prayed for shall accordingly issue. Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, 17 the crime of adultery, as well as four other crimes against chastity, cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse. It has long since been established, with unwavering consistency, that compliance with this rule is a jurisdictional, and not merely a formal, requirement. 18 While in point of strict law the jurisdiction of the court over the offense is vested in it by the Judiciary Law, the requirement for a sworn written complaint is just as jurisdictional a mandate since it is that complaint which starts the prosecutory proceeding 19 and without which

anomalous spectacle of a party bringing suit at the very time when he is without the legal capacity to do so. To repeat, there does not appear to be any local precedential jurisprudence on the specific issue as to when precisely the status of a complainant as an offended spouse must exist where a criminal prosecution can be commenced only by one who in law can be categorized as possessed of such status. Stated differently and with reference to the present case, the inquiry ;would be whether it is necessary in the commencement of a criminal action for adultery that the marital bonds between the complainant and the accused be unsevered and existing at the time of the institution of the action by the former against the latter. American jurisprudence, on cases involving statutes in that jurisdiction which are in pari materia with ours, yields the rule that after a divorce has been decreed, the innocent spouse no longer has the right to institute proceedings against the offenders where the statute provides that the innocent spouse shall have the exclusive right to institute a prosecution for adultery. Where, however, proceedings have been properly commenced, a divorce subsequently granted can have no legal effect on the prosecution of the criminal proceedings to a conclusion. 22 In the cited Loftus case, the Supreme Court of Iowa held that 'No prosecution for adultery can be commenced except on the complaint of the husband or wife.' Section 4932, Code. Though Loftus was husband of defendant when the offense is said to have been committed, he had ceased to be such when the prosecution was begun; and appellant insists that his status was not such as to entitle him to make the complaint. We have repeatedly said that the offense is against the unoffending spouse, as well as the state, in explaining the reason for this provision in the statute; and we are of the opinion that the unoffending spouse must be such when the prosecution is commenced. (Emphasis supplied.) We see no reason why the same doctrinal rule should not apply in this case and in our jurisdiction, considering our statutory law and jural policy on the matter. We are convinced that in cases of such nature, the status of the complainant vis-a-vis the accused must be determined as of the time the complaint was filed. Thus, the person who initiates the adultery case must be an offended spouse, and by this is meant that he is still married to the accused spouse, at the time of the filing of the complaint. In the present case, the fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned 23 in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status of persons. Thus, in the recent case of Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr., et al., 24 after a divorce was granted by a United States court between Alice Van Dornja Filipina, and her American husband, the latter filed a civil case in a trial court here alleging that her business concern was conjugal property and praying that she be ordered to render an accounting and that the plaintiff be granted the right to

manage the business. Rejecting his pretensions, this Court perspicuously demonstrated the error of such stance, thus: There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States of the United States. The decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any State of the Union. ... It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. ... Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. ... 25 Under the same considerations and rationale, private respondent, being no longer the husband of petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit. The allegation of private respondent that he could not have brought this case before the decree of divorce for lack of knowledge, even if true, is of no legal significance or consequence in this case. When said respondent initiated the divorce proceeding, he obviously knew that there would no longer be a family nor marriage vows to protect once a dissolution of the marriage is decreed. Neither would there be a danger of introducing spurious heirs into the family, which is said to be one of the reasons for the particular formulation of our law on adultery, 26 since there would thenceforth be no spousal relationship to speak of. The severance of the marital bond had the effect of dissociating the former spouses from each other, hence the actuations of one would not affect or cast obloquy on the other. The aforecited case of United States vs. Mata cannot be successfully relied upon by private respondent. In applying Article 433 of the old Penal Code, substantially the same as Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, which punished adultery "although the marriage be afterwards declared void", the Court merely stated that "the lawmakers intended to declare adulterous the infidelity of a married woman to her marital vows, even though it should be made to appear that she is entitled to have her marriage contract declared null and void, until and unless she actually secures a formal judicial declaration to that effect". Definitely, it cannot be logically inferred therefrom that the complaint can still be filed after the declaration of nullity because such declaration that the marriage is void ab initio is equivalent to stating that it never existed. There being no marriage from the beginning, any complaint for adultery filed after said declaration of nullity would no longer have a leg to stand on. Moreover, what was consequently contemplated and within the purview of the decision in said case is the situation where the

criminal action for adultery was filed before the termination of the marriage by a judicial declaration of its nullity ab initio. The same rule and requisite would necessarily apply where the termination of the marriage was effected, as in this case, by a valid foreign divorce. Private respondent's invocation of Donio-Teves, et al. vs. Vamenta, hereinbefore cited, 27 must suffer the same fate of inapplicability. A cursory reading of said case reveals that the offended spouse therein had duly and seasonably filed a complaint for adultery, although an issue was raised as to its sufficiency but which was resolved in favor of the complainant. Said case did not involve a factual situation akin to the one at bar or any issue determinative of the controversy herein. WHEREFORE, the questioned order denying petitioner's motion to quash is SET ASIDE and another one entered DISMISSING the complaint in Criminal Case No. 8752435 for lack of jurisdiction. The temporary restraining order issued in this case on October 21, 1987 is hereby made permanent. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, petitioner, vs. REDERICK A. RECIO, respondents. PANGANIBAN, J.: A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. However, the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven. Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment; hence, like any other facts, both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence. The Case Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the January 7, 1999 Decision1 and the March 24, 1999 Order2 of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 28, in Civil Case No. 3026-AF. The assailed Decision disposed as follows: "WHEREFORE, this Court declares the marriage between Grace J. Garcia and Rederick A. Recio solemnized on January 12, 1994 at Cabanatuan City as dissolved and both parties can now remarry under existing and applicable laws to any and/or both parties."3 The assailed Order denied reconsideration of the abovequoted Decision. The Facts Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal, on March 1, 1987.4 They lived together as husband and wife in Australia. On May 18, 1989,5 a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage, was issued by an Australian family court. On June 26, 1992, respondent became an Australian citizen, as shown by a "Certificate of Australian Citizenship" issued by the Australian government.6 Petitioner a Filipina and respondent were married

on January 12, 1994 in Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church in Cabanatuan City.7 In their application for a marriage license, respondent was declared as "single" and "Filipino."8 Starting October 22, 1995, petitioner and respondent lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. While the two were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on May 16, 1996, in accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.9 On March 3, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage10 in the court a quo, on the ground of bigamy respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her on January 12, 1994. She claimed that she learned of respondent's marriage to Editha Samson only in November, 1997. In his Answer, respondent averred that, as far back as 1993, he had revealed to petitioner his prior marriage and its subsequent dissolution.11 He contended that his first marriage to an Australian citizen had been validly dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australian in 1989;12 thus, he was legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994.1wphi1.nt On July 7, 1998 or about five years after the couple's wedding and while the suit for the declaration of nullity was pending respondent was able to secure a divorce decree from a family court in Sydney, Australia because the "marriage ha[d] irretrievably broken down."13 Respondent prayed in his Answer that the Complained be dismissed on the ground that it stated no cause of action.14 The Office of the Solicitor General agreed with respondent.15 The court marked and admitted the documentary evidence of both parties.16 After they submitted their respective memoranda, the case was submitted for resolution.17 Thereafter, the trial court rendered the assailed Decision and Order. Ruling of the Trial Court The trial court declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in the Philippines. It deemed the marriage ended, but not on the basis of any defect in an essential element of the marriage; that is, respondent's alleged lack of legal capacity to remarry. Rather, it based its Decision on the divorce decree obtained by respondent. The Australian divorce had ended the marriage; thus, there was no more martial union to nullify or annual. Hence, this Petition.18 Issues Petitioner submits the following issues for our consideration: "I The trial court gravely erred in finding that the divorce decree obtained in Australia by the respondent ipso facto terminated his first marriage to Editha Samson thereby capacitating him to contract a second marriage with the petitioner. "2 The failure of the respondent, who is now a naturalized Australian, to present a certificate of

legal capacity to marry constitutes absence of a substantial requisite voiding the petitioner' marriage to the respondent. "3 The trial court seriously erred in the application of Art. 26 of the Family Code in this case. "4 The trial court patently and grievously erred in disregarding Arts. 11, 13, 21, 35, 40, 52 and 53 of the Family Code as the applicable provisions in this case. "5 The trial court gravely erred in pronouncing that the divorce gravely erred in pronouncing that the divorce decree obtained by the respondent in Australia ipso facto capacitated the parties to remarry, without first securing a recognition of the judgment granting the divorce decree before our courts."19 The Petition raises five issues, but for purposes of this Decision, we shall concentrate on two pivotal ones: (1) whether the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson was proven, and (2) whether respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry petitioner. Because of our ruling on these two, there is no more necessity to take up the rest. The Court's Ruling The Petition is partly meritorious. First Issue: Proving the Divorce Between Respondent and Editha Samson Petitioner assails the trial court's recognition of the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson. Citing Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee,20 petitioner argues that the divorce decree, like any other foreign judgment, may be given recognition in this jurisdiction only upon proof of the existence of (1) the foreign law allowing absolute divorce and (2) the alleged divorce decree itself. She adds that respondent miserably failed to establish these elements. Petitioner adds that, based on the first paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, marriages solemnized abroad are governed by the law of the place where they were celebrated (the lex loci celebrationist). In effect, the Code requires the presentation of the foreign law to show the conformity of the marriage in question to the legal requirements of the place where the marriage was performed. At the outset, we lay the following basic legal principles as the take-off points for our discussion. Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it.21 A marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because of Articles 1522 and 1723 of the Civil Code.24 In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 2625 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is "validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry."26 A divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws.27

A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and proof are concerned, can be made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that "aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law."28 Therefore, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.29 Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. Divorce as a Question of Fact Petitioner insists that before a divorce decree can be admitted in evidence, it must first comply with the registration requirements under Articles 11, 13 and 52 of the Family Code. These articles read as follows: "ART. 11. Where a marriage license is required, each of the contracting parties shall file separately a sworn application for such license with the proper local civil registrar which shall specify the following: xxxxxxxxx "(5) If previously married, how, when and where the previous marriage was dissolved or annulled; xxxxxxxxx "ART. 13. In case either of the contracting parties has been previously married, the applicant shall be required to furnish, instead of the birth of baptismal certificate required in the last preceding article, the death certificate of the deceased spouse or the judicial decree of annulment or declaration of nullity of his or her previous marriage. x x x. "ART. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect their persons." Respondent, on the other hand, argues that the Australian divorce decree is a public document a written official act of an Australian family court. Therefore, it requires no further proof of its authenticity and due execution. Respondent is getting ahead of himself. Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be presented and admitted in evidence.30 A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself.31 The decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an officially body or tribunal of a foreign country.32 Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested33 by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.34

The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to be an authentic one issued by an Australian family court.35 However, appearance is not sufficient; compliance with the aforemetioned rules on evidence must be demonstrated. Fortunately for respondent's cause, when the divorce decree of May 18, 1989 was submitted in evidence, counsel for petitioner objected, not to its admissibility, but only to the fact that it had not been registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan City.36 The trial court ruled that it was admissible, subject to petitioner's qualification.37 Hence, it was admitted in evidence and accorded weight by the judge. Indeed, petitioner's failure to object properly rendered the divorce decree admissible as a written act of the Family Court of Sydney, Australia.38 Compliance with the quoted articles (11, 13 and 52) of the Family Code is not necessary; respondent was no longer bound by Philippine personal laws after he acquired Australian citizenship in 1992.39 Naturalization is the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the political and civil rights belonging to a citizen. 40 Naturalized citizens, freed from the protective cloak of their former states, don the attires of their adoptive countries. By becoming an Australian, respondent severed his allegiance to the Philippines and the vinculum juris that had tied him to Philippine personal laws. Burden of Proving Australian Law Respondent contends that the burden to prove Australian divorce law falls upon petitioner, because she is the party challenging the validity of a foreign judgment. He contends that petitioner was satisfied with the original of the divorce decree and was cognizant of the marital laws of Australia, because she had lived and worked in that country for quite a long time. Besides, the Australian divorce law is allegedly known by Philippine courts: thus, judges may take judicial notice of foreign laws in the exercise of sound discretion. We are not persuaded. The burden of proof lies with "the party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." 41 In civil cases, plaintiffs have the burden of proving the material allegations of the complaint when those are denied by the answer; and defendants have the burden of proving the material allegations in their answer when they introduce new matters.42 Since the divorce was a defense raised by respondent, the burden of proving the pertinent Australian law validating it falls squarely upon him. It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.43 Like any other facts, they must be alleged and proved. Australian marital laws are not among those matters that judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function.44 The power of judicial notice must be exercised with caution, and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be resolved in the negative. Second Issue: Respondent's Legal Capacity to Remarry Petitioner contends that, in view of the insufficient proof of the divorce, respondent was legally incapacitated to marry her in 1994. Hence, she concludes that their marriage was void ab

initio. Respondent replies that the Australian divorce decree, which was validly admitted in evidence, adequately established his legal capacity to marry under Australian law. Respondent's contention is untenable. In its strict legal sense, divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising after marriage. But divorces are of different types. The two basic ones are (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The first kind terminates the marriage, while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force.45 There is no showing in the case at bar which type of divorce was procured by respondent. Respondent presented a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree a conditional or provisional judgment of divorce. It is in effect the same as a separation from bed and board, although an absolute divorce may follow after the lapse of the prescribed period during which no reconciliation is effected.46 Even after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some foreign statutes and practices, still restrict remarriage. Under some other jurisdictions, remarriage may be limited by statute; thus, the guilty party in a divorce which was granted on the ground of adultery may be prohibited from remarrying again. The court may allow a remarriage only after proof of good behavior.47 On its face, the herein Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads: "1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other party has died) commits the offence of bigamy."48 This quotation bolsters our contention that the divorce obtained by respondent may have been restricted. It did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry according to his national law. Hence, we find no basis for the ruling of the trial court, which erroneously assumed that the Australian divorce ipso facto restored respondent's capacity to remarry despite the paucity of evidence on this matter. We also reject the claim of respondent that the divorce decree raises a disputable presumption or presumptive evidence as to his civil status based on Section 48, Rule 3949 of the Rules of Court, for the simple reason that no proof has been presented on the legal effects of the divorce decree obtained under Australian laws. Significance of the Certificate of Legal Capacity Petitioner argues that the certificate of legal capacity required by Article 21 of the Family Code was not submitted together with the application for a marriage license. According to her, its absence is proof that respondent did not have legal capacity to remarry. We clarify. To repeat, the legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party concerned. The certificate mentioned in Article 21 of the Family Code would have been sufficient to establish the legal capacity of respondent, had he duly presented it in court. A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima facie evidence of legal capacity to marry on the part of the alien applicant for a marriage license.50 As it is, however, there is absolutely no evidence that

proves respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner. A review of the records before this Court shows that only the following exhibits were presented before the lower court: (1) for petitioner: (a) Exhibit "A" Complaint;51 (b) Exhibit "B" Certificate of Marriage Between Rederick A. Recto (Filipino-Australian) and Grace J. Garcia (Filipino) on January 12, 1994 in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija;52 (c) Exhibit "C" Certificate of Marriage Between Rederick A. Recio (Filipino) and Editha D. Samson (Australian) on March 1, 1987 in Malabon, Metro Manila;53 (d) Exhibit "D" Office of the City Registrar of Cabanatuan City Certification that no information of annulment between Rederick A. Recto and Editha D. Samson was in its records;54 and (e) Exhibit "E" Certificate of Australian Citizenship of Rederick A. Recto;55 (2) for respondent: (Exhibit "1" Amended Answer;56 (b) Exhibit "S" Family Law Act 1975 Decree Nisi of Dissolution of Marriage in the Family Court of Australia;57 (c) Exhibit "3" Certificate of Australian Citizenship of Rederick A. Recto;58 (d) Exhibit "4" Decree Nisi of Dissolution of Marriage in the Family Court of Australia Certificate; 59 and Exhibit "5" Statutory Declaration of the Legal Separation Between Rederick A. Recto and Grace J. Garcia Recio since October 22, 1995.60 Based on the above records, we cannot conclude that respondent, who was then a naturalized Australian citizen, was legally capacitated to marry petitioner on January 12, 1994. We agree with petitioner's contention that the court a quo erred in finding that the divorce decree ipso facto clothed respondent with the legal capacity to remarry without requiring him to adduce sufficient evidence to show the Australian personal law governing his status; or at the very least, to prove his legal capacity to contract the second marriage. Neither can we grant petitioner's prayer to declare her marriage to respondent null and void on the ground of bigamy. After all, it may turn out that under Australian law, he was really capacitated to marry petitioner as a direct result of the divorce decree. Hence, we believe that the most judicious course is to remand this case to the trial court to receive evidence, if any, which show petitioner's legal capacity to marry petitioner. Failing in that, then the court a quo may declare a nullity of the parties' marriage on the ground of bigamy, there being already in evidence two existing marriage certificates, which were both obtained in the Philippines, one in Malabon, Metro Manila dated March 1, 1987 and the other, in Cabanatuan City dated January 12, 1994. WHEREFORE, in the interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, we REMAND the case to the court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which conclusively show respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner; and failing in that, of declaring the parties' marriage void on the ground of bigamy, as above discussed. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998 FE D. QUITA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and BLANDINA DANDAN, * respondents. BELLOSILLO, J.: FE D. QUITA and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines on 18 May 1941. They were not however blessed with children. Somewhere along the way their relationship soured. Eventually Fe sued Arturo for divorce in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. She submitted in the divorce proceedings a private writing dated 19 July 1950 evidencing their agreement to live separately from each other and a settlement of their conjugal properties. On 23 July 1954 she obtained a final judgment of divorce. Three (3) weeks thereafter she married a certain Felix Tupaz in the same locality but their relationship also ended in a divorce. Still in the U.S.A., she married for the third time, to a certain Wernimont. On 16 April 1972 Arturo died. He left no will. On 31 August 1972 Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for issuance of letters of administration concerning the estate of Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust Company. Respondent Blandina Dandan (also referred to as Blandina Padlan), claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan, and Claro, Alexis, Ricardo, Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda, all surnamed Padlan, named in the children of Arturo Padlan opposed the petition and prayed for the appointment instead of Atty. Leonardo Casaba, which was resolved in favor of the latter. Upon motion of the oppositors themselves, Atty. Cabasal was later replaced by Higino Castillon. On 30 April 1973 the oppositors (Blandina and Padlan children) submitted certified photocopies of the 19 July 1950 private writing and the final judgment of divorce between petitioner and Arturo. Later Ruperto T. Padlan, claiming to be the sole surviving brother of the deceased Arturo, intervened. On 7 October 1987 petitioner moved for the immediate declaration of heirs of the decedent and the distribution of his estate. At the scheduled hearing on 23 October 1987, private respondent as well as the six (6) Padlan children and Ruperto failed to appear despite due notice. On the same day, the trial court required the submission of the records of birth of the Padlan children within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, after which, with or without the documents, the issue on the declaration of heirs would be considered submitted for resolution. The prescribed period lapsed without the required documents being submitted. The trial court invoking Tenchavez v. Escao 1 which held that "a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (Rep. Act 386) was not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction," 2 disregarded the divorce between petitioner and Arturo. Consecuently, it expressed the view that their marriage subsisted until the death of Arturo in 1972. Neither did it consider valid their extrajudicial settlement of conjugal properties due to lack of judicial approval. 3 On the other hand, it opined that there was no showing that marriage existed between private respondent and Arturo, much less was it shown that the alleged Padlan children had been acknowledged by the deceased as his children with her.

As regards Ruperto, it found that he was a brother of Arturo. On 27 November 1987 4 only petitioner and Ruperto were declared the intestate heirs of Arturo. Accordingly, equal adjudication of the net hereditary estate was ordered in favor of the two intestate heirs. 5 On motion for reconsideration, Blandina and the Padlan children were allowed to present proofs that the recognition of the children by the deceased as his legitimate children, except Alexis who was recognized as his illegitimate child, had been made in their respective records of birth. Thus on 15 February 1988 6 partial reconsideration was granted declaring the Padlan children, with the exception of Alexis, entitled to one-half of the estate to the exclusion of Ruperto Padlan, and petitioner to the other half. 7 Private respondent was not declared an heir. Although it was stated in the aforementioned records of birth that she and Arturo were married on 22 April 1947, their marriage was clearly void since it was celebrated during the existence of his previous marriage to petitioner. In their appeal to the Court of Appeals, Blandina and her children assigned as one of the errors allegedly committed by the trial court the circumstance that the case was decided without a hearing, in violation of Sec. 1, Rule 90, of the Rules of Court, which provides that if there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases. Respondent appellate court found this ground alone sufficient to sustain the appeal; hence, on 11 September 1995 it declared null and void the 27 November 1987 decision and 15 February 1988 order of the trial court, and directed the remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings. 8 On 18 April 1996 it denied reconsideration. 9 Should this case be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings? Petitioner insists that there is no need because, first, no legal or factual issue obtains for resolution either as to the heirship of the Padlan children or as to the decedent; and, second, the issue as to who between petitioner and private respondent is the proper hier of the decedent is one of law which can be resolved in the present petition based on establish facts and admissions of the parties. We cannot sustain petitioner. The provision relied upon by respondent court is clear: If there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases. We agree with petitioner that no dispute exists either as to the right of the six (6) Padlan children to inherit from the decedent because there are proofs that they have been duly acknowledged by him and petitioner herself even recognizes them as heirs of Arturo Padlan; 10 nor as to their respective hereditary shares. But controversy remains as to who is the legitimate surviving spouse of Arturo. The trial court, after the parties other than petitioner failed to appear during the scheduled hearing on 23 October 1987 of the motion for immediate declaration of heirs and distribution of estate, simply issued an order requiring the submission of the records of birth of the Padlan children within ten (10) days from

receipt thereof, after which, with or without the documents, the issue on declaration of heirs would be deemed submitted for resolution. We note that in her comment to petitioner's motion private respondent raised, among others, the issue as to whether petitioner was still entitled to inherit from the decedent considering that she had secured a divorce in the U.S.A. and in fact had twice remarried. She also invoked the above quoted procedural rule. 11 To this, petitioner replied that Arturo was a Filipino and as such remained legally married to her in spite of the divorce they obtained. 12 Reading between the lines, the implication is that petitioner was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of her divorce from Arturo. This should have prompted the trial court to conduct a hearing to establish her citizenship. The purpose of a hearing is to ascertain the truth of the matters in issue with the aid of documentary and testimonial evidence as well as the arguments of the parties either supporting or opposing the evidence. Instead, the lower court perfunctorily settled her claim in her favor by merely applying the ruling in Tenchavez v. Escao. Then in private respondent's motion to set aside and/or reconsider the lower court's decision she stressed that the citizenship of petitioner was relevant in the light of the ruling in Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. 13 that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. She prayed therefore that the case be set for hearing. 14 Petitioner opposed the motion but failed to squarely address the issue on her citizenship. 15 The trial court did not grant private respondent's prayer for a hearing but proceeded to resolve her motion with the finding that both petitioner and Arturo were "Filipino citizens and were married in the Philippines." 16 It maintained that their divorce obtained in 1954 in San Francisco, California, U.S.A., was not valid in Philippine jurisdiction. We deduce that the finding on their citizenship pertained solely to the time of their marriage as the trial court was not supplied with a basis to determine petitioner's citizenship at the time of their divorce. The doubt persisted as to whether she was still a Filipino citizen when their divorce was decreed. The trial court must have overlooked the materiality of this aspect. Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of their divorce, Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from Arturo. Respondent again raised in her appeal the issue on petitioner's citizenship; 17 it did not merit enlightenment however from petitioner. 18 In the present proceeding, petitioner's citizenship is brought anew to the fore by private respondent. She even furnishes the Court with the transcript of stenographic notes taken on 5 May 1995 during the hearing for the reconstitution of the original of a certain transfer certificate title as well as the issuance of new owner's duplicate copy thereof before another trial court. When asked whether she was an American citizen petitioner answered that she was since 1954. 19 Significantly, the decree of divorce of petitioner and Arturo was obtained in the same year. Petitioner however did not bother to file a reply memorandum to erase the uncertainty about her citizenship at the time of their divorce, a factual issue requiring hearings to be conducted by the trial court. Consequently, respondent appellate court did not err in ordering the case returned to the trial court for

further proceedings. We emphasize however that the question to be determined by the trial court should be limited only to the right of petitioner to inherit from Arturo as his surviving spouse. Private respondent's claim to heirship was already resolved by the trial court. She and Arturo were married on 22 April 1947 while the prior marriage of petitioner and Arturo was subsisting thereby resulting in a bigamous marriage considered void from the beginning under Arts. 80 and 83 of the Civil Code. Consequently, she is not a surviving spouse that can inherit from him as this status presupposes a legitimate relationship. 20 As regards the motion of private respondent for petitioner and a her counsel to be declared in contempt of court and that the present petition be dismissed for forum shopping, 21 the same lacks merit. For forum shopping to exist the actions must involve the same transactions and same essential facts and circumstances. There must also be identical causes of action, subject matter and issue. 22 The present petition deals with declaration of heirship while the subsequent petitions filed before the three (3) trial courts concern the issuance of new owner's duplicate copies of titles of certain properties belonging to the estate of Arturo. Obviously, there is no reason to declare the existence of forum shopping. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of respondent Court of Appeals ordering the remand of the case to the court of origin for further proceedings and declaring null and void its decision holding petitioner Fe D. Quita and Ruperto T. Padlan as intestate heirs is AFFIRMED. The order of the appellate court modifying its previous decision by granting one-half (1/2) of the net hereditary estate to the Padlan children, namely, Claro, Ricardo, Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda, with the exception of Alexis, all surnamed Padlan, instead of Arturo's brother Ruperto Padlan, is likewise AFFIRMED. The Court however emphasizes that the reception of evidence by the trial court should he limited to the hereditary rights of petitioner as the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan. The motion to declare petitioner and her counsel in contempt of court and to dismiss the present petition for forum shopping is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

10

G.R. No. 162580 January 27, 2006 ELMAR O. PEREZ, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Fifth Division, TRISTAN A. CATINDIG and LILY GOMEZ-CATINDIG, Respondents. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: This petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assails the July 25, 2003 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74456 which set aside and declared as null and void the September 30, 2002 Order2 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 84, granting petitioners motion for leave to file intervention and admitting the Complaint-in-Intervention3 in Civil Case No. Q-0144847; and its January 23, 2004 Resolution4 denying the motion for reconsideration. Private respondent Tristan A. Catindig married Lily Gomez Catindig5 twice on May 16, 1968. The first marriage ceremony was celebrated at the Central Methodist Church at T.M. Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila while the second took place at the Lourdes Catholic Church in La Loma, Quezon City. The marriage produced four children. Several years later, the couple encountered marital problems that they decided to separate from each other. Upon advice of a mutual friend, they decided to obtain a divorce from the Dominican Republic. Thus, on April 27, 1984, Tristan and Lily executed a Special Power of Attorney addressed to the Judge of the First Civil Court of San Cristobal, Dominican Republic, appointing an attorney-in-fact to institute a divorce action under its laws.6 Thereafter, on April 30, 1984, the private respondents filed a joint petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership with the Regional Trial Court of Makati. On June 12, 1984, the civil court in the Dominican Republic ratified the divorce by mutual consent of Tristan and Lily. Subsequently, on June 23, 1984, the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 133, ordered the complete separation of properties between Tristan and Lily. On July 14, 1984, Tristan married petitioner Elmar O. Perez in the State of Virginia in the United States7 and both lived as husband and wife until October 2001. Their union produced one offspring.8 During their cohabitation, petitioner learned that the divorce decree issued by the court in the Dominican Republic which "dissolved" the marriage between Tristan and Lily was not recognized in the Philippines and that her marriage to Tristan was deemed void under Philippine law. When she confronted Tristan about this, the latter assured her that he would legalize their union after he obtains an annulment of his marriage with Lily. Tristan further promised the petitioner that he would adopt their son so that he would be entitled to an equal share in his estate as that of each of his children with Lily.9 On August 13, 2001, Tristan filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lily with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, docketed as Case No. Q-01-44847. Subsequently, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Intervention10 claiming that she has a legal interest in

the matter in litigation because she knows certain information which might aid the trial court at a truthful, fair and just adjudication of the annulment case, which the trial court granted on September 30, 2002. Petitioners complaint-in-intervention was also ordered admitted. Tristan filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals seeking to annul the order dated September 30, 2002 of the trial court. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and declared as null and void the September 30, 2002 Order of the trial court granting the motion for leave to file intervention and admitting the complaint-in-intervention. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied, hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in disregarding her legal interest in the annulment case between Tristan and Lily. The petition lacks merit. Ordinarily, the proper recourse of an aggrieved party from a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, if the error subject of the recourse is one of jurisdiction, or the act complained of was granted by a court with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as alleged in this case, the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules.11 This is based on the premise that in issuing the assailed decision and resolution, the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of lack of jurisdiction and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A remedy is considered plain, speedy, and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effect of the judgment and the acts of the lower court.12 It is therefore incumbent upon the petitioner to establish that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it promulgated the assailed decision and resolution. We have previously ruled that grave abuse of discretion may arise when a lower court or tribunal violates or contravenes the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. By grave abuse of discretion is meant, such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.13 The word "capricious," usually used in tandem with the term "arbitrary," conveys the notion of willful and unreasoning action. Thus, when seeking the corrective hand of certiorari, a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion is imperative.14 The Rules of Court laid down the parameters before a person, not a party to a case can intervene, thus: Who may intervene. A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated

11

as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenors rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.15 The requirements for intervention are: [a] legal interest in the matter in litigation; and [b] consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication of the original parties may be delayed or prejudiced, or whether the intervenors rights may be protected in a separate proceeding or not.16 Legal interest, which entitles a person to intervene, must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.17 Such interest must be actual, direct and material, and not simply contingent and expectant.18 Petitioner claims that her status as the wife and companion of Tristan for 17 years vests her with the requisite legal interest required of a would-be intervenor under the Rules of Court. Petitioners claim lacks merit. Under the law, petitioner was never the legal wife of Tristan, hence her claim of legal interest has no basis. When petitioner and Tristan married on July 14, 1984, Tristan was still lawfully married to Lily. The divorce decree that Tristan and Lily obtained from the Dominican Republic never dissolved the marriage bond between them. It is basic that laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.19 Regardless of where a citizen of the Philippines might be, he or she will be governed by Philippine laws with respect to his or her family rights and duties, or to his or her status, condition and legal capacity. Hence, if a Filipino regardless of whether he or she was married here or abroad, initiates a petition abroad to obtain an absolute divorce from spouse and eventually becomes successful in getting an absolute divorce decree, the Philippines will not recognize such absolute divorce.20 When Tristan and Lily married on May 18, 1968, their marriage was governed by the provisions of the Civil Code21 which took effect on August 30, 1950. In the case of Tenchavez v. Escano22 we held: (1) That a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (Rep. Act No. 386), is not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction; and neither is the marriage contracted with another party by the divorced consort, subsequently to the foreign decree of divorce, entitled to validity in the country. (Emphasis added) Thus, petitioners claim that she is the wife of Tristan even if their marriage was celebrated abroad lacks merit. Thus, petitioner never acquired the legal interest as a wife upon which her motion for intervention is based. Since petitioners motion for leave to file intervention was bereft of the indispensable requirement of legal interest, the issuance by the trial court of the order

granting the same and admitting the complaint-inintervention was attended with grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly set aside and declared as null and void the said order. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated July 25, 2003 and Resolution dated January 23, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74456 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007 EDGAR SAN LUIS, Petitioner, vs. FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent. x ---------------------------------------------------- x G.R. No. 134029 February 6, 2007 RODOLFO SAN LUIS, Petitioner, vs. FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS alias FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Before us are consolidated petitions for review assailing the February 4, 1998 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 52647, which reversed and set aside the September 12, 1995 2 and January 31, 1996 3 Resolutions of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 134 in SP. Proc. No. M-3708; and its May 15, 1998 Resolution 4 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. The instant case involves the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo T. San Luis (Felicisimo), who was the former governor of the Province of Laguna. During his lifetime, Felicisimo contracted three marriages. His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which were born six children, namely: Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita and Manuel. On August 11, 1963, Virginia predeceased Felicisimo. Five years later, on May 1, 1968, Felicisimo married Merry Lee Corwin, with whom he had a son, Tobias. However, on October 15, 1971, Merry Lee, an American citizen, filed a Complaint for Divorce 5 before the Family Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, United States of America (U.S.A.), which issued a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody on December 14, 1973. 6 On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married respondent Felicidad San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos, before Rev. Fr. William Meyer, Minister of the United Presbyterian at Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. 7 He had no children with respondent but lived with her for 18 years from the time of their marriage up to his death on December 18, 1992. Thereafter, respondent sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets and the settlement of Felicisimos estate. On December 17, 1993, she filed a petition for letters of administration 8 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, docketed as SP. Proc. No. M-3708 which was raffled to Branch 146 thereof. Respondent alleged that she is the widow of Felicisimo;

12

that, at the time of his death, the decedent was residing at 100 San Juanico Street, New Alabang Village, Alabang, Metro Manila; that the decedents surviving heirs are respondent as legal spouse, his six children by his first marriage, and son by his second marriage; that the decedent left real properties, both conjugal and exclusive, valued at P30,304,178.00 more or less; that the decedent does not have any unpaid debts. Respondent prayed that the conjugal partnership assets be liquidated and that letters of administration be issued to her. On February 4, 1994, petitioner Rodolfo San Luis, one of the children of Felicisimo by his first marriage, filed a motion to dismiss 9 on the grounds of improper venue and failure to state a cause of action. Rodolfo claimed that the petition for letters of administration should have been filed in the Province of Laguna because this was Felicisimos place of residence prior to his death. He further claimed that respondent has no legal personality to file the petition because she was only a mistress of Felicisimo since the latter, at the time of his death, was still legally married to Merry Lee. On February 15, 1994, Linda invoked the same grounds and joined her brother Rodolfo in seeking the dismissal 10 of the petition. On February 28, 1994, the trial court issued an Order 11 denying the two motions to dismiss. Unaware of the denial of the motions to dismiss, respondent filed on March 5, 1994 her opposition 12 thereto. She submitted documentary evidence showing that while Felicisimo exercised the powers of his public office in Laguna, he regularly went home to their house in New Alabang Village, Alabang, Metro Manila which they bought sometime in 1982. Further, she presented the decree of absolute divorce issued by the Family Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii to prove that the marriage of Felicisimo to Merry Lee had already been dissolved. Thus, she claimed that Felicisimo had the legal capacity to marry her by virtue of paragraph 2, 13 Article 26 of the Family Code and the doctrine laid down in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. 14 Thereafter, Linda, Rodolfo and herein petitioner Edgar San Luis, separately filed motions for reconsideration from the Order denying their motions to dismiss. 15 They asserted that paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect to validate respondents bigamous marriage with Felicisimo because this would impair vested rights in derogation of Article 256 16 of the Family Code. On April 21, 1994, Mila, another daughter of Felicisimo from his first marriage, filed a motion to disqualify Acting Presiding Judge Anthony E. Santos from hearing the case. On October 24, 1994, the trial court issued an Order 17 denying the motions for reconsideration. It ruled that respondent, as widow of the decedent, possessed the legal standing to file the petition and that venue was properly laid. Meanwhile, the motion for disqualification was deemed moot and academic 18 because then Acting Presiding Judge Santos was substituted by Judge Salvador S. Tensuan pending the resolution of said motion. Mila filed a motion for inhibition 19 against Judge Tensuan on November 16, 1994. On even date, Edgar also filed a motion for reconsideration 20 from the Order denying their motion for reconsideration arguing that it

does not state the facts and law on which it was based. On November 25, 1994, Judge Tensuan issued an Order 21 granting the motion for inhibition. The case was reraffled to Branch 134 presided by Judge Paul T. Arcangel. On April 24, 1995, 22 the trial court required the parties to submit their respective position papers on the twin issues of venue and legal capacity of respondent to file the petition. On May 5, 1995, Edgar manifested 23 that he is adopting the arguments and evidence set forth in his previous motion for reconsideration as his position paper. Respondent and Rodolfo filed their position papers on June 14, 24 and June 20, 25 1995, respectively. On September 12, 1995, the trial court dismissed the petition for letters of administration. It held that, at the time of his death, Felicisimo was the duly elected governor and a resident of the Province of Laguna. Hence, the petition should have been filed in Sta. Cruz, Laguna and not in Makati City. It also ruled that respondent was without legal capacity to file the petition for letters of administration because her marriage with Felicisimo was bigamous, thus, void ab initio. It found that the decree of absolute divorce dissolving Felicisimos marriage to Merry Lee was not valid in the Philippines and did not bind Felicisimo who was a Filipino citizen. It also ruled that paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code cannot be retroactively applied because it would impair the vested rights of Felicisimos legitimate children. Respondent moved for reconsideration 26 and for the disqualification 27 of Judge Arcangel but said motions were denied. 28 Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the orders of the trial court in its assailed Decision dated February 4, 1998, the dispositive portion of which states: WHEREFORE, the Orders dated September 12, 1995 and January 31, 1996 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE; the Orders dated February 28 and October 24, 1994 are REINSTATED; and the records of the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. 29 The appellante court ruled that under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the term "place of residence" of the decedent, for purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of his estate, refers to the personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of abode of a person as distinguished from legal residence or domicile. It noted that although Felicisimo discharged his functions as governor in Laguna, he actually resided in Alabang, Muntinlupa. Thus, the petition for letters of administration was properly filed in Makati City. The Court of Appeals also held that Felicisimo had legal capacity to marry respondent by virtue of paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code and the rulings in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. 30 and Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera. 31 It found that the marriage between Felicisimo and Merry Lee was validly dissolved by virtue of the decree of absolute divorce issued by the Family Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii. As a result, under paragraph 2, Article 26, Felicisimo was capacitated to contract a subsequent marriage with respondent. Thus With the well-known rule express mandate of paragraph 2, Article 26, of the Family Code of the Philippines, the doctrines in Van Dorn, Pilapil, and the

13

reason and philosophy behind the enactment of E.O. No. 227, there is no justiciable reason to sustain the individual view sweeping statement of Judge Arc[h]angel, that "Article 26, par. 2 of the Family Code, contravenes the basic policy of our state against divorce in any form whatsoever." Indeed, courts cannot deny what the law grants. All that the courts should do is to give force and effect to the express mandate of the law. The foreign divorce having been obtained by the Foreigner on December 14, 1992, 32 the Filipino divorcee, "shall x x x have capacity to remarry under Philippine laws". For this reason, the marriage between the deceased and petitioner should not be denominated as "a bigamous marriage. Therefore, under Article 130 of the Family Code, the petitioner as the surviving spouse can institute the judicial proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased. x x x 33 Edgar, Linda, and Rodolfo filed separate motions for reconsideration 34 which were denied by the Court of Appeals. On July 2, 1998, Edgar appealed to this Court via the instant petition for review on certiorari. 35 Rodolfo later filed a manifestation and motion to adopt the said petition which was granted. 36 In the instant consolidated petitions, Edgar and Rodolfo insist that the venue of the subject petition for letters of administration was improperly laid because at the time of his death, Felicisimo was a resident of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. They contend that pursuant to our rulings in Nuval v. Guray 37 and Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City, 38 "residence" is synonymous with "domicile" which denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent, one intends to return. They claim that a person can only have one domicile at any given time. Since Felicisimo never changed his domicile, the petition for letters of administration should have been filed in Sta. Cruz, Laguna. Petitioners also contend that respondents marriage to Felicisimo was void and bigamous because it was performed during the subsistence of the latters marriage to Merry Lee. They argue that paragraph 2, Article 26 cannot be retroactively applied because it would impair vested rights and ratify the void bigamous marriage. As such, respondent cannot be considered the surviving wife of Felicisimo; hence, she has no legal capacity to file the petition for letters of administration. The issues for resolution: (1) whether venue was properly laid, and (2) whether respondent has legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of administration. The petition lacks merit. Under Section 1, 39 Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the petition for letters of administration of the estate of Felicisimo should be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the province "in which he resides at the time of his death." In the case of Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals, 40 we laid down the doctrinal rule for determining the residence as contradistinguished from domicile of the decedent for purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of his estate: [T]he term "resides" connotes ex vi termini "actual residence" as distinguished from "legal residence or domicile." This term "resides," like the terms "residing"

and "residence," is elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. In the application of venue statutes and rules Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is of such nature residence rather than domicile is the significant factor. Even where the statute uses the word "domicile" still it is construed as meaning residence and not domicile in the technical sense. Some cases make a distinction between the terms "residence" and "domicile" but as generally used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are synonymous, and convey the same meaning as the term "inhabitant." In other words, "resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it ones domicile. No particular length of time of residence is required though; however, the residence must be more than temporary. 41 (Emphasis supplied) It is incorrect for petitioners to argue that "residence," for purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo, is synonymous with "domicile." The rulings in Nuval and Romualdez are inapplicable to the instant case because they involve election cases. Needless to say, there is a distinction between "residence" for purposes of election laws and "residence" for purposes of fixing the venue of actions. In election cases, "residence" and "domicile" are treated as synonymous terms, that is, the fixed permanent residence to which when absent, one has the intention of returning. 42 However, for purposes of fixing venue under the Rules of Court, the "residence" of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency. 43 Hence, it is possible that a person may have his residence in one place and domicile in another. In the instant case, while petitioners established that Felicisimo was domiciled in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, respondent proved that he also maintained a residence in Alabang, Muntinlupa from 1982 up to the time of his death. Respondent submitted in evidence the Deed of Absolute Sale 44 dated January 5, 1983 showing that the deceased purchased the aforesaid property. She also presented billing statements 45 from the Philippine Heart Center and Chinese General Hospital for the period August to December 1992 indicating the address of Felicisimo at "100 San Juanico, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa." Respondent also presented proof of membership of the deceased in the Ayala Alabang Village Association 46 and Ayala Country Club, Inc., 47 letter-envelopes 48 from 1988 to 1990 sent by the deceaseds children to him at his Alabang address, and the deceaseds calling cards 49 stating that his home/city address is at "100 San Juanico, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa" while his office/provincial address is in "Provincial Capitol, Sta. Cruz, Laguna." From the foregoing, we find that Felicisimo was a resident of Alabang, Muntinlupa for purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of his estate. Consequently,

14

the subject petition for letters of administration was validly filed in the Regional Trial Court 50 which has territorial jurisdiction over Alabang, Muntinlupa. The subject petition was filed on December 17, 1993. At that time, Muntinlupa was still a municipality and the branches of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region which had territorial jurisdiction over Muntinlupa were then seated in Makati City as per Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 3. 51 Thus, the subject petition was validly filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Anent the issue of respondent Felicidads legal personality to file the petition for letters of administration, we must first resolve the issue of whether a Filipino who is divorced by his alien spouse abroad may validly remarry under the Civil Code, considering that Felicidads marriage to Felicisimo was solemnized on June 20, 1974, or before the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. In resolving this issue, we need not retroactively apply the provisions of the Family Code, particularly Art. 26, par. (2) considering that there is sufficient jurisprudential basis allowing us to rule in the affirmative. The case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. 52 involved a marriage between a foreigner and his Filipino wife, which marriage was subsequently dissolved through a divorce obtained abroad by the latter. Claiming that the divorce was not valid under Philippine law, the alien spouse alleged that his interest in the properties from their conjugal partnership should be protected. The Court, however, recognized the validity of the divorce and held that the alien spouse had no interest in the properties acquired by the Filipino wife after the divorce. Thus: In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. As stated by the Federal Supreme Court of the United States in Atherton vs. Atherton, 45 L. Ed. 794, 799: "The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a competent jurisdiction are to change the existing status or domestic relation of husband and wife, and to free them both from the bond. The marriage tie, when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either. A husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law. When the law provides, in the nature of a penalty, that the guilty party shall not marry again, that party, as well as the other, is still absolutely freed from the bond of the former marriage." Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioners husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own countrys Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property. 53 As to the effect of the divorce on the Filipino wife, the Court ruled that she should no longer be considered married to the alien spouse. Further, she should not be required to perform her marital duties and obligations.

It held: To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws, petitioner has to be considered still married to private respondent and still subject to a wife's obligations under Article 109, et. seq. of the Civil Code cannot be just. Petitioner should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served. 54 (Emphasis added) This principle was thereafter applied in Pilapil v. IbaySomera 55 where the Court recognized the validity of a divorce obtained abroad. In the said case, it was held that the alien spouse is not a proper party in filing the adultery suit against his Filipino wife. The Court stated that "the severance of the marital bond had the effect of dissociating the former spouses from each other, hence the actuations of one would not affect or cast obloquy on the other." 56 Likewise, in Quita v. Court of Appeals, 57 the Court stated that where a Filipino is divorced by his naturalized foreign spouse, the ruling in Van Dorn applies. 58 Although decided on December 22, 1998, the divorce in the said case was obtained in 1954 when the Civil Code provisions were still in effect. The significance of the Van Dorn case to the development of limited recognition of divorce in the Philippines cannot be denied. The ruling has long been interpreted as severing marital ties between parties in a mixed marriage and capacitating the Filipino spouse to remarry as a necessary consequence of upholding the validity of a divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse. In his treatise, Dr. Arturo M. Tolentino cited Van Dorn stating that "if the foreigner obtains a valid foreign divorce, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law." 59 In Garcia v. Recio, 60 the Court likewise cited the aforementioned case in relation to Article 26. 61 In the recent case of Republic v. Orbecido III, 62 the historical background and legislative intent behind paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code were discussed, to wit: Brief Historical Background On July 6, 1987, then President Corazon Aquino signed into law Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code," which took effect on August 3, 1988. Article 26 thereof states: All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35, 37, and 38. On July 17, 1987, shortly after the signing of the original Family Code, Executive Order No. 227 was likewise signed into law, amending Articles 26, 36, and 39 of the Family Code. A second paragraph was added to Article 26. As so amended, it now provides: ART. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37

15

and 38. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (Emphasis supplied) x x Legislative Intent x x

seem arbitrary when applied in a particular case because of its peculiar circumstances. In such a situation, we are not bound, because only of our nature and functions, to apply them just the same, in slavish obedience to their language. What we do instead is find a balance between the word and the will, that justice may be done even as the law is obeyed. As judges, we are not automatons. We do not and must not unfeelingly apply the law as it is worded, yielding like robots to the literal command without regard to its cause and consequence. "Courts are apt to err by sticking too closely to the words of a law," so we are warned, by Justice Holmes again, "where these words import a policy that goes beyond them." xxxx More than twenty centuries ago, Justinian defined justice "as the constant and perpetual wish to render every one his due." That wish continues to motivate this Court when it assesses the facts and the law in every case brought to it for decision. Justice is always an essential ingredient of its decisions. Thus when the facts warrants, we interpret the law in a way that will render justice, presuming that it was the intention of the lawmaker, to begin with, that the law be dispensed with justice. 69 Applying the above doctrine in the instant case, the divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee which absolutely allowed Felicisimo to remarry, would have vested Felicidad with the legal personality to file the present petition as Felicisimos surviving spouse. However, the records show that there is insufficient evidence to prove the validity of the divorce obtained by Merry Lee as well as the marriage of respondent and Felicisimo under the laws of the U.S.A. In Garcia v. Recio, 70 the Court laid down the specific guidelines for pleading and proving foreign law and divorce judgments. It held that presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient and that proof of its authenticity and due execution must be presented. Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office. 71 With regard to respondents marriage to Felicisimo allegedly solemnized in California, U.S.A., she submitted photocopies of the Marriage Certificate and the annotated text 72 of the Family Law Act of California which purportedly show that their marriage was done in accordance with the said law. As stated in Garcia, however, the Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws as they must be alleged and proved. 73 Therefore, this case should be remanded to the trial court for further reception of evidence on the divorce decree obtained by Merry Lee and the marriage of respondent and Felicisimo. Even assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitated to marry respondent in 1974, nevertheless, we find that the latter has the legal personality to file the subject petition for letters of administration, as she may be

Records of the proceedings of the Family Code deliberations showed that the intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 26, according to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy, a member of the Civil Code Revision Committee, is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. Interestingly, Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. The Van Dorn case involved a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The Court held therein that a divorce decree validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines, and consequently, the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry under Philippine law. 63 (Emphasis added) As such, the Van Dorn case is sufficient basis in resolving a situation where a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse. With the enactment of the Family Code and paragraph 2, Article 26 thereof, our lawmakers codified the law already established through judicial precedent.1awphi1.net Indeed, when the object of a marriage is defeated by rendering its continuance intolerable to one of the parties and productive of no possible good to the community, relief in some way should be obtainable. 64 Marriage, being a mutual and shared commitment between two parties, cannot possibly be productive of any good to the society where one is considered released from the marital bond while the other remains bound to it. Such is the state of affairs where the alien spouse obtains a valid divorce abroad against the Filipino spouse, as in this case. Petitioners cite Articles 15 65 and 17 66 of the Civil Code in stating that the divorce is void under Philippine law insofar as Filipinos are concerned. However, in light of this Courts rulings in the cases discussed above, the Filipino spouse should not be discriminated against in his own country if the ends of justice are to be served. 67 In Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 68 the Court stated: But as has also been aptly observed, we test a law by its results; and likewise, we may add, by its purposes. It is a cardinal rule that, in seeking the meaning of the law, the first concern of the judge should be to discover in its provisions the intent of the lawmaker. Unquestionably, the law should never be interpreted in such a way as to cause injustice as this is never within the legislative intent. An indispensable part of that intent, in fact, for we presume the good motives of the legislature, is to render justice. Thus, we interpret and apply the law not independently of but in consonance with justice. Law and justice are inseparable, and we must keep them so. To be sure, there are some laws that, while generally valid, may

16

considered the co-owner of Felicisimo as regards the properties that were acquired through their joint efforts during their cohabitation. Section 6, 74 Rule 78 of the Rules of Court states that letters of administration may be granted to the surviving spouse of the decedent. However, Section 2, Rule 79 thereof also provides in part: SEC. 2. Contents of petition for letters of administration. A petition for letters of administration must be filed by an interested person and must show, as far as known to the petitioner: x x x. An "interested person" has been defined as one who would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor. The interest must be material and direct, and not merely indirect or contingent. 75 In the instant case, respondent would qualify as an interested person who has a direct interest in the estate of Felicisimo by virtue of their cohabitation, the existence of which was not denied by petitioners. If she proves the validity of the divorce and Felicisimos capacity to remarry, but fails to prove that her marriage with him was validly performed under the laws of the U.S.A., then she may be considered as a co-owner under Article 144 76 of the Civil Code. This provision governs the property relations between parties who live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void from the beginning. It provides that the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on coownership. In a co-ownership, it is not necessary that the property be acquired through their joint labor, efforts and industry. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. Hence, the portions belonging to the co-owners shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proven. 77 Meanwhile, if respondent fails to prove the validity of both the divorce and the marriage, the applicable provision would be Article 148 of the Family Code which has filled the hiatus in Article 144 of the Civil Code by expressly regulating the property relations of couples living together as husband and wife but are incapacitated to marry. 78 In Saguid v. Court of Appeals, 79 we held that even if the cohabitation or the acquisition of property occurred before the Family Code took effect, Article 148 governs. 80 The Court described the property regime under this provision as follows: The regime of limited co-ownership of property governing the union of parties who are not legally capacitated to marry each other, but who nonetheless live together as husband and wife, applies to properties acquired during said cohabitation in proportion to their respective contributions. Co-ownership will only be up to the extent of the proven actual contribution of money, property or industry. Absent proof of the extent thereof, their contributions and corresponding shares shall be presumed to be equal. xxxx In the cases of Agapay v. Palang, and Tumlos v. Fernandez, which involved the issue of co-ownership of properties acquired by the parties to a bigamous marriage and an adulterous relationship, respectively, we ruled that proof of actual contribution in the

acquisition of the property is essential. x x x As in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue. Contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the partys own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponents defense. x x x 81 In view of the foregoing, we find that respondents legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of administration may arise from her status as the surviving wife of Felicisimo or as his co-owner under Article 144 of the Civil Code or Article 148 of the Family Code. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals reinstating and affirming the February 28, 1994 Order of the Regional Trial Court which denied petitioners motion to dismiss and its October 24, 1994 Order which dismissed petitioners motion for reconsideration is AFFIRMED. Let this case be REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 167109 February 6, 2007 FELICITAS AMOR-CATALAN, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, ORLANDO B. CATALAN and MEROPE E. BRAGANZA, Respondents. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: This petition for review assails the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69875 dated August 6, 2004, which reversed the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 44, in Civil Case No. D-10636, declaring the marriage between respondents Orlando B. Catalan and Merope E. Braganza void on the ground of bigamy, as well as the Resolution3 dated January 27, 2005, which denied the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married respondent Orlando on June 4, 1950 in Mabini, Pangasinan.4 Thereafter, they migrated to the United States of America and allegedly became naturalized citizens thereof. After 38 years of marriage, Felicitas and Orlando divorced in April 1988.5 Two months after the divorce, or on June 16, 1988, Orlando married respondent Merope in Calasiao, Pangasinan.6 Contending that said marriage was bigamous since Merope had a prior subsisting marriage with Eusebio Bristol, petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with damages in the RTC of Dagupan City7 against Orlando and Merope. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss8 on the ground of lack of cause of action as petitioner was allegedly not a real party-in-interest, but it was denied.9 Trial on the merits ensued. On October 10, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is declared in favor of plaintiff Felicitas Amor Catalan and against defendants Orlando B. Catalan and Merope E. Braganza, as follows:

17

1) The subsequent marriage of Merope Braganza with Orlando B. Catalan is declared null and void ab initio; 2) The defendants are ordered jointly and severally to pay plaintiff by way of moral damages the amount of P300,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of P200,000.00 and attorneys fees in the amount of P50,000.00, including costs of this suit; and 3) The donation in consideration of marriage is ordered revoked and the property donated is ordered awarded to the heirs of Juliana Braganza. Furnish copies of this Decision to Atty. Napoleon B. Arenas, Jr. and Atty. Nolan Evangelista. SO ORDERED.10 Respondents appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the RTC, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby GRANT the appeal and consequently REVERSE and SET ASIDE the appealed decision. We likewise DISMISS Civil Case No. D-10636, RTC, Branch 44, Dagupan City. No costs. SO ORDERED.11 After the motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner filed the instant petition for review raising the following issues: I. WHETHER PETITIONER HAS THE REQUIRED STANDING IN COURT TO QUESTION THE NULLITY OF THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN RESPONDENTS; II. WHETHER THE FAILURE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO DECLARE THE QUESTIONED MARRIAGE VOID CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE ERROR.12 Petitioner contends that the bigamous marriage of the respondents, which brought embarrassment to her and her children, confers upon her an interest to seek judicial remedy to address her grievances and to protect her family from further embarrassment and humiliation. She claims that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in not declaring the marriage void despite overwhelming evidence and the state policy discouraging illegal and immoral marriages.13 The main issue to be resolved is whether petitioner has the personality to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the respondents on the ground of bigamy. However, this issue may not be resolved without first determining the corollary factual issues of whether the petitioner and respondent Orlando had indeed become naturalized American citizens and whether they had actually been judicially granted a divorce decree. While it is a settled rule that the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the reexamination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case,14 there are, however, exceptions to this rule, like when the findings of facts of the RTC and the Court of Appeals are conflicting, or when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based.15

Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found that petitioner and respondent Orlando were naturalized American citizens and that they obtained a divorce decree in April 1988. However, after a careful review of the records, we note that other than the allegations in the complaint and the testimony during the trial, the records are bereft of competent evidence to prove their naturalization and divorce. The Court of Appeals therefore had no basis when it held: In light of the allegations of Felicitas complaint and the documentary and testimonial evidence she presented, we deem it undisputed that Orlando and Felicitas are American citizens and had this citizenship status when they secured their divorce decree in April 1988. We are not therefore dealing in this case with Filipino citizens whose marital status is governed by the Family Code and our Civil Code, but with American citizens who secured their divorce in the U.S. and who are considered by their national law to be free to contract another marriage. x x x16 Further, the Court of Appeals mistakenly considered the failure of the petitioner to refute or contest the allegation in respondents brief, that she and respondent Orlando were American citizens at the time they secured their divorce in April 1988, as sufficient to establish the fact of naturalization and divorce.17 We note that it was the petitioner who alleged in her complaint that they acquired American citizenship and that respondent Orlando obtained a judicial divorce decree.18 It is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.19 Divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising after marriage. But divorces are of different types. The two basic ones are (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The first kind terminates the marriage, while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force.20 A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner.21 However, before it can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it, which must be proved considering that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.22 Without the divorce decree and foreign law as part of the evidence, we cannot rule on the issue of whether petitioner has the personality to file the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. After all, she may have the personality to file the petition if the divorce decree obtained was a limited divorce or a mensa et thoro; or the foreign law may restrict remarriage even after the divorce decree becomes absolute.23 In such case, the RTC would be correct to declare the marriage of the respondents void for being bigamous, there being already in evidence two existing marriage certificates, which were both obtained in the Philippines, one in Mabini, Pangasinan dated December 21, 1959 between Eusebio Bristol and respondent Merope,24 and the other, in Calasiao, Pangasinan dated June 16, 1988 between the respondents.25 However, if there was indeed a divorce decree obtained and which, following the national law of Orlando, does

18

not restrict remarriage, the Court of Appeals would be correct in ruling that petitioner has no legal personality to file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage, thus: Freed from their existing marital bond, each of the former spouses no longer has any interest nor should each have the personality to inquire into the marriage that the other might subsequently contract. x x x Viewed from another perspective, Felicitas has no existing interest in Orlandos subsequent marriage since the validity, as well as any defect or infirmity, of this subsequent marriage will not affect the divorced status of Orlando and Felicitas. x x x26 True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at the time the respondents were married, or even in the Family Code, there is no specific provision as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage; however, only a party who can demonstrate " proper interest" can file the same. A petition to declare the nullity of marriage, like any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest27 and must be based on a cause of action.28 Thus, in Nial v. Bayadog,29 the Court held that the children have the personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of the marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights.1awphi1.net Significantly, Section 2(a) of The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, which took effect on March 15, 2003, now specifically provides: SECTION 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. (a) Who may file. A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. xxxx In fine, petitioners personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage cannot be ascertained because of the absence of the divorce decree and the foreign law allowing it. Hence, a remand of the case to the trial court for reception of additional evidence is necessary to determine whether respondent Orlando was granted a divorce decree and whether the foreign law which granted the same allows or restricts remarriage. If it is proved that a valid divorce decree was obtained and the same did not allow respondent Orlandos remarriage, then the trial court should declare respondents marriage as bigamous and void ab initio but reduce the amount of moral damages from P300,000.00 to P50,000.00 and exemplary damages from P200,000.00 to P25,000.00. On the contrary, if it is proved that a valid divorce decree was obtained which allowed Orlando to remarry, then the trial court must dismiss the instant petition to declare nullity of marriage on the ground that petitioner Felicitas AmorCatalan lacks legal personality to file the same. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, let this case be REMANDED to the trial court for its proper disposition. No costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-19671 November 29, 1965 PASTOR B. TENCHAVEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. VICENTA F. ESCAO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

I. V. Binamira & F. B. Barria for plaintiff-appellant. Jalandoni & Jarnir for defendants-appellees. REYES, J.B.L., J.: Direct appeal, on factual and legal questions, from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, in its Civil Case No. R-4177, denying the claim of the plaintiffappellant, Pastor B. Tenchavez, for legal separation and one million pesos in damages against his wife and parents-in-law, the defendants-appellees, Vicente, Mamerto and Mena,1 all surnamed "Escao," respectively.2 The facts, supported by the evidence of record, are the following: Missing her late afternoon classes on 24 February 1948 in the University of San Carlos, Cebu City, where she was then enrolled as a second year student of commerce, Vicenta Escao, 27 years of age (scion of a well-to-do and socially prominent Filipino family of Spanish ancestry and a "sheltered colegiala"), exchanged marriage vows with Pastor Tenchavez, 32 years of age, an engineer, ex-army officer and of undistinguished stock, without the knowledge of her parents, before a Catholic chaplain, Lt. Moises Lavares, in the house of one Juan Alburo in the said city. The marriage was the culmination of a previous love affair and was duly registered with the local civil register. Vicenta's letters to Pastor, and his to her, before the marriage, indicate that the couple were deeply in love. Together with a friend, Pacita Noel, their matchmaker and go-between, they had planned out their marital future whereby Pacita would be the governess of their first-born; they started saving money in a piggy bank. A few weeks before their secret marriage, their engagement was broken; Vicenta returned the engagement ring and accepted another suitor, Joseling Lao. Her love for Pastor beckoned; she pleaded for his return, and they reconciled. This time they planned to get married and then elope. To facilitate the elopement, Vicenta had brought some of her clothes to the room of Pacita Noel in St. Mary's Hall, which was their usual trysting place. Although planned for the midnight following their marriage, the elopement did not, however, materialize because when Vicente went back to her classes after the marriage, her mother, who got wind of the intended nuptials, was already waiting for her at the college. Vicenta was taken home where she admitted that she had already married Pastor. Mamerto and Mena Escao were surprised, because Pastor never asked for the hand of Vicente, and were disgusted because of the great scandal that the clandestine marriage would provoke (t.s.n., vol. III, pp. 1105-06). The following morning, the Escao spouses sought priestly advice. Father Reynes suggested a recelebration to validate what he believed to be an invalid marriage, from the standpoint of the Church, due to the lack of authority from the Archbishop or the parish priest for the officiating chaplain to celebrate the marriage. The recelebration did not take place, because on 26 February 1948 Mamerto Escao was handed by a maid, whose name he claims he does not remember, a letter purportedly coming from San Carlos college students and disclosing an amorous relationship between Pastor Tenchavez and Pacita Noel; Vicenta translated the letter to her father, and thereafter would not agree to a new marriage. Vicenta and Pastor

19

met that day in the house of Mrs. Pilar Mendezona. Thereafter, Vicenta continued living with her parents while Pastor returned to his job in Manila. Her letter of 22 March 1948 (Exh. "M"), while still solicitous of her husband's welfare, was not as endearing as her previous letters when their love was aflame. Vicenta was bred in Catholic ways but is of a changeable disposition, and Pastor knew it. She fondly accepted her being called a "jellyfish." She was not prevented by her parents from communicating with Pastor (Exh. "1Escao"), but her letters became less frequent as the days passed. As of June, 1948 the newlyweds were already estranged (Exh. "2-Escao"). Vicenta had gone to Jimenez, Misamis Occidental, to escape from the scandal that her marriage stirred in Cebu society. There, a lawyer filed for her a petition, drafted by then Senator Emmanuel Pelaez, to annul her marriage. She did not sign the petition (Exh. "B-5"). The case was dismissed without prejudice because of her non-appearance at the hearing (Exh. "B-4"). On 24 June 1950, without informing her husband, she applied for a passport, indicating in her application that she was single, that her purpose was to study, and she was domiciled in Cebu City, and that she intended to return after two years. The application was approved, and she left for the United States. On 22 August 1950, she filed a verified complaint for divorce against the herein plaintiff in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe, on the ground of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character." On 21 October 1950, a decree of divorce, "final and absolute", was issued in open court by the said tribunal. In 1951 Mamerto and Mena Escao filed a petition with the Archbishop of Cebu to annul their daughter's marriage to Pastor (Exh. "D"). On 10 September 1954, Vicenta sought papal dispensation of her marriage (Exh. "D"-2). On 13 September 1954, Vicenta married an American, Russell Leo Moran, in Nevada. She now lives with him in California, and, by him, has begotten children. She acquired American citizenship on 8 August 1958. But on 30 July 1955, Tenchavez had initiated the proceedings at bar by a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and amended on 31 May 1956, against Vicenta F. Escao, her parents, Mamerto and Mena Escao, whom he charged with having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband, and alienating her affections, and against the Roman Catholic Church, for having, through its Diocesan Tribunal, decreed the annulment of the marriage, and asked for legal separation and one million pesos in damages. Vicenta claimed a valid divorce from plaintiff and an equally valid marriage to her present husband, Russell Leo Moran; while her parents denied that they had in any way influenced their daughter's acts, and counterclaimed for moral damages. The appealed judgment did not decree a legal separation, but freed the plaintiff from supporting his wife and to acquire property to the exclusion of his wife. It allowed the counterclaim of Mamerto Escao and Mena Escao for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against the plaintiff-appellant, to the extent of P45,000.00, and plaintiff resorted directly to this Court.

The appellant ascribes, as errors of the trial court, the following: 1. In not declaring legal separation; in not holding defendant Vicenta F. Escao liable for damages and in dismissing the complaint;. 2. In not holding the defendant parents Mamerto Escano and the heirs of Doa Mena Escao liable for damages;. 3 In holding the plaintiff liable for and requiring him to pay the damages to the defendant parents on their counterclaims; and. 4. In dismissing the complaint and in denying the relief sought by the plaintiff. That on 24 February 1948 the plaintiff-appellant, Pastor Tenchavez, and the defendant-appellee, Vicenta Escao, were validly married to each other, from the standpoint of our civil law, is clearly established by the record before us. Both parties were then above the age of majority, and otherwise qualified; and both consented to the marriage, which was performed by a Catholic priest (army chaplain Lavares) in the presence of competent witnesses. It is nowhere shown that said priest was not duly authorized under civil law to solemnize marriages. The chaplain's alleged lack of ecclesiastical authorization from the parish priest and the Ordinary, as required by Canon law, is irrelevant in our civil law, not only because of the separation of Church and State but also because Act 3613 of the Philippine Legislature (which was the marriage law in force at the time) expressly provided that SEC. 1. Essential requisites. Essential requisites for marriage are the legal capacity of the contracting parties and consent. (Emphasis supplied) The actual authority of the solemnizing officer was thus only a formal requirement, and, therefore, not essential to give the marriage civil effects,3 and this is emphasized by section 27 of said marriage act, which provided the following: SEC. 27. Failure to comply with formal requirements . No marriage shall be declared invalid because of the absence of one or several of the formal requirements of this Act if, when it was performed, the spouses or one of them believed in good faith that the person who solemnized the marriage was actually empowered to do so, and that the marriage was perfectly legal. The good faith of all the parties to the marriage (and hence the validity of their marriage) will be presumed until the contrary is positively proved (Lao vs. Dee Tim, 45 Phil. 739, 745; Francisco vs. Jason, 60 Phil. 442, 448). It is well to note here that in the case at bar, doubts as to the authority of the solemnizing priest arose only after the marriage, when Vicenta's parents consulted Father Reynes and the archbishop of Cebu. Moreover, the very act of Vicenta in abandoning her original action for annulment and subsequently suing for divorce implies an admission that her marriage to plaintiff was valid and binding. Defendant Vicenta Escao argues that when she contracted the marriage she was under the undue influence of Pacita Noel, whom she charges to have been in conspiracy with appellant Tenchavez. Even granting,

20

for argument's sake, the truth of that contention, and assuming that Vicenta's consent was vitiated by fraud and undue influence, such vices did not render her marriage ab initio void, but merely voidable, and the marriage remained valid until annulled by a competent civil court. This was never done, and admittedly, Vicenta's suit for annulment in the Court of First Instance of Misamis was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is equally clear from the record that the valid marriage between Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escao remained subsisting and undissolved under Philippine law, notwithstanding the decree of absolute divorce that the wife sought and obtained on 21 October 1950 from the Second Judicial District Court of Washoe County, State of Nevada, on grounds of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character." At the time the divorce decree was issued, Vicenta Escao, like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen.4 She was then subject to Philippine law, and Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Rep. Act No. 386), already in force at the time, expressly provided: Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon the citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. The Civil Code of the Philippines, now in force, does not admit absolute divorce, quo ad vinculo matrimonii; and in fact does not even use that term, to further emphasize its restrictive policy on the matter, in contrast to the preceding legislation that admitted absolute divorce on grounds of adultery of the wife or concubinage of the husband (Act 2710). Instead of divorce, the present Civil Code only provides for legal separation (Title IV, Book 1, Arts. 97 to 108), and, even in that case, it expressly prescribes that "the marriage bonds shall not be severed" (Art. 106, subpar. 1). For the Philippine courts to recognize and give recognition or effect to a foreign decree of absolute divorce betiveen Filipino citizens could be a patent violation of the declared public policy of the state, specially in view of the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Code that prescribes the following: Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, policy and good customs, shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. Even more, the grant of effectivity in this jurisdiction to such foreign divorce decrees would, in effect, give rise to an irritating and scandalous discrimination in favor of wealthy citizens, to the detriment of those members of our polity whose means do not permit them to sojourn abroad and obtain absolute divorces outside the Philippines. From this point of view, it is irrelevant that appellant Pastor Tenchavez should have appeared in the Nevada divorce court. Primarily because the policy of our law cannot be nullified by acts of private parties (Civil Code,Art. 17, jam quot.); and additionally, because the mere appearance of a non-resident consort cannot confer jurisdiction where the court originally had none (Area vs. Javier, 95 Phil. 579). From the preceding facts and considerations, there flows as a necessary consequence that in this

jurisdiction Vicenta Escao's divorce and second marriage are not entitled to recognition as valid; for her previous union to plaintiff Tenchavez must be declared to be existent and undissolved. It follows, likewise, that her refusal to perform her wifely duties, and her denial of consortium and her desertion of her husband constitute in law a wrong caused through her fault, for which the husband is entitled to the corresponding indemnity (Civil Code, Art. 2176). Neither an unsubstantiated charge of deceit nor an anonymous letter charging immorality against the husband constitute, contrary to her claim, adequate excuse. Wherefore, her marriage and cohabitation with Russell Leo Moran is technically "intercourse with a person not her husband" from the standpoint of Philippine Law, and entitles plaintiff-appellant Tenchavez to a decree of "legal separation under our law, on the basis of adultery" (Revised Penal Code, Art. 333). The foregoing conclusions as to the untoward effect of a marriage after an invalid divorce are in accord with the previous doctrines and rulings of this court on the subject, particularly those that were rendered under our laws prior to the approval of the absolute divorce act (Act 2710 of the Philippine Legislature). As a matter of legal history, our statutes did not recognize divorces a vinculo before 1917, when Act 2710 became effective; and the present Civil Code of the Philippines, in disregarding absolute divorces, in effect merely reverted to the policies on the subject prevailing before Act 2710. The rulings, therefore, under the Civil Code of 1889, prior to the Act above-mentioned, are now, fully applicable. Of these, the decision in Ramirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil. 855, is of particular interest. Said this Court in that case: As the divorce granted by the French Court must be ignored, it results that the marriage of Dr. Mory and Leona Castro, celebrated in London in 1905, could not legalize their relations; and the circumstance that they afterwards passed for husband and wife in Switzerland until her death is wholly without legal significance. The claims of the very children to participate in the estate of Samuel Bishop must therefore be rejected. The right to inherit is limited to legitimate, legitimated and acknowledged natural children. The children of adulterous relations are wholly excluded. The word "descendants" as used in Article 941 of the Civil Code cannot be interpreted to include illegitimates born of adulterous relations. (Emphasis supplied) Except for the fact that the successional rights of the children, begotten from Vicenta's marriage to Leo Moran after the invalid divorce, are not involved in the case at bar, the Gmur case is authority for the proposition that such union is adulterous in this jurisdiction, and, therefore, justifies an action for legal separation on the part of the innocent consort of the first marriage, that stands undissolved in Philippine law. In not so declaring, the trial court committed error. True it is that our ruling gives rise to anomalous situations where the status of a person (whether divorced or not) would depend on the territory where the question arises. Anomalies of this kind are not new in the Philippines, and the answer to them was given in Barretto vs. Gonzales, 58 Phil. 667:

21

The hardship of the existing divorce laws in the Philippine Islands are well known to the members of the Legislature. It is the duty of the Courts to enforce the laws of divorce as written by Legislature if they are constitutional. Courts have no right to say that such laws are too strict or too liberal. (p. 72) The appellant's first assignment of error is, therefore, sustained. However, the plaintiff-appellant's charge that his wife's parents, Dr. Mamerto Escao and his wife, the late Doa Mena Escao, alienated the affections of their daughter and influenced her conduct toward her husband are not supported by credible evidence. The testimony of Pastor Tenchavez about the Escao's animosity toward him strikes us to be merely conjecture and exaggeration, and are belied by Pastor's own letters written before this suit was begun (Exh. "2-Escao" and "Vicenta," Rec. on App., pp. 270-274). In these letters he expressly apologized to the defendants for "misjudging them" and for the "great unhappiness" caused by his "impulsive blunders" and "sinful pride," "effrontery and audacity" [sic]. Plaintiff was admitted to the Escao house to visit and court Vicenta, and the record shows nothing to prove that he would not have been accepted to marry Vicente had he openly asked for her hand, as good manners and breeding demanded. Even after learning of the clandestine marriage, and despite their shock at such unexpected event, the parents of Vicenta proposed and arranged that the marriage be recelebrated in strict conformity with the canons of their religion upon advice that the previous one was canonically defective. If no recelebration of the marriage ceremony was had it was not due to defendants Mamerto Escao and his wife, but to the refusal of Vicenta to proceed with it. That the spouses Escao did not seek to compel or induce their daughter to assent to the recelebration but respected her decision, or that they abided by her resolve, does not constitute in law an alienation of affections. Neither does the fact that Vicenta's parents sent her money while she was in the United States; for it was natural that they should not wish their daughter to live in penury even if they did not concur in her decision to divorce Tenchavez (27 Am. Jur. 130-132). There is no evidence that the parents of Vicenta, out of improper motives, aided and abetted her original suit for annulment, or her subsequent divorce; she appears to have acted independently, and being of age, she was entitled to judge what was best for her and ask that her decisions be respected. Her parents, in so doing, certainly cannot be charged with alienation of affections in the absence of malice or unworthy motives, which have not been shown, good faith being always presumed until the contrary is proved. SEC. 529. Liability of Parents, Guardians or Kin. The law distinguishes between the right of a parent to interest himself in the marital affairs of his child and the absence of rights in a stranger to intermeddle in such affairs. However, such distinction between the liability of parents and that of strangers is only in regard to what will justify interference. A parent isliable for alienation of affections resulting from his own malicious conduct, as where he wrongfully entices his son or daughter to leave his or her spouse, but he is not liable unless he acts maliciously, without justification and from unworthy motives. He is not liable where he acts

and advises his child in good faith with respect to his child's marital relations in the interest of his child as he sees it, the marriage of his child not terminating his right and liberty to interest himself in, and be extremely solicitous for, his child's welfare and happiness, even where his conduct and advice suggest or result in the separation of the spouses or the obtaining of a divorce or annulment, or where he acts under mistake or misinformation, or where his advice or interference are indiscreet or unfortunate, although it has been held that the parent is liable for consequences resulting from recklessness. He may in good faith take his child into his home and afford him or her protection and support, so long as he has not maliciously enticed his child away, or does not maliciously entice or cause him or her to stay away, from his or her spouse. This rule has more frequently been applied in the case of advice given to a married daughter, but it is equally applicable in the case of advice given to a son. Plaintiff Tenchavez, in falsely charging Vicenta's aged parents with racial or social discrimination and with having exerted efforts and pressured her to seek annulment and divorce, unquestionably caused them unrest and anxiety, entitling them to recover damages. While this suit may not have been impelled by actual malice, the charges were certainly reckless in the face of the proven facts and circumstances. Court actions are not established for parties to give vent to their prejudices or spleen. In the assessment of the moral damages recoverable by appellant Pastor Tenchavez from defendant Vicente Escao, it is proper to take into account, against his patently unreasonable claim for a million pesos in damages, that (a) the marriage was celebrated in secret, and its failure was not characterized by publicity or undue humiliation on appellant's part; (b) that the parties never lived together; and (c) that there is evidence that appellant had originally agreed to the annulment of the marriage, although such a promise was legally invalid, being against public policy (cf. Art. 88, Civ. Code). While appellant is unable to remarry under our law, this fact is a consequence of the indissoluble character of the union that appellant entered into voluntarily and with open eyes rather than of her divorce and her second marriage. All told, we are of the opinion that appellant should recover P25,000 only by way of moral damages and attorney's fees. With regard to the P45,000 damages awarded to the defendants, Dr. Mamerto Escao and Mena Escao, by the court below, we opine that the same are excessive. While the filing of this unfounded suit must have wounded said defendants' feelings and caused them anxiety, the same could in no way have seriously injured their reputation, or otherwise prejudiced them, lawsuits having become a common occurrence in present society. What is important, and has been correctly established in the decision of the court below, is that said defendants were not guilty of any improper conduct in the whole deplorable affair. This Court, therefore, reduces the damages awarded to P5,000 only. Summing up, the Court rules: (1) That a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (Rep. Act 386), is not entitled to recognition

22

as valid in this jurisdiction; and neither is the marriage contracted with another party by the divorced consort, subsequently to the foreign decree of divorce, entitled to validity in the country; (2) That the remarriage of divorced wife and her cohabitation with a person other than the lawful husband entitle the latter to a decree of legal separation conformably to Philippine law; (3) That the desertion and securing of an invalid divorce decree by one consort entitles the other to recover damages; (4) That an action for alienation of affections against the parents of one consort does not lie in the absence of proof of malice or unworthy motives on their part. WHEREFORE, the decision under appeal is hereby modified as follows; (1) Adjudging plaintiff-appellant Pastor Tenchavez entitled to a decree of legal separation from defendant Vicenta F. Escao; (2) Sentencing defendant-appellee Vicenta Escao to pay plaintiff-appellant Tenchavez the amount of P25,000 for damages and attorneys' fees; (3) Sentencing appellant Pastor Tenchavez to pay the appellee, Mamerto Escao and the estate of his wife, the deceased Mena Escao, P5,000 by way of damages and attorneys' fees. Neither party to recover costs.

23

G.R. No. 81262 August 25, 1989 GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., and HERBERT C. HENDRY, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and RESTITUTO M. TOBIAS, respondents. Atencia & Arias Law Offices for petitioners. Romulo C. Felizmena for private respondent. CORTES, J.: Private respondent Restituto M. Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GLOBE MACKAY) in a dual capacity as a purchasing agent and administrative assistant to the engineering operations manager. In 1972, GLOBE MACKAY discovered fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions for which it lost several thousands of pesos. According to private respondent it was he who actually discovered the anomalies and reported them on November 10, 1972 to his immediate superior Eduardo T. Ferraren and to petitioner Herbert C. Hendry who was then the Executive Vice-President and General Manager of GLOBE MACKAY. On November 11, 1972, one day after private respondent Tobias made the report, petitioner Hendry confronted him by stating that he was the number one suspect, and ordered him to take a one week forced leave, not to communicate with the office, to leave his table drawers open, and to leave the office keys. On November 20, 1972, when private respondent Tobias returned to work after the forced leave, petitioner Hendry went up to him and called him a "crook" and a "swindler." Tobias was then ordered to take a lie detector test. He was also instructed to submit specimen of his handwriting, signature, and initials for examination by the police investigators to determine his complicity in the anomalies. On December 6,1972, the Manila police investigators submitted a laboratory crime report (Exh. "A") clearing private respondent of participation in the anomalies. Not satisfied with the police report, petitioners hired a private investigator, retired Col. Jose G. Fernandez, who on December 10, 1972, submitted a report (Exh. "2") finding Tobias guilty. This report however expressly stated that further investigation was still to be conducted. Nevertheless, on December 12, 1972, petitioner Hendry issued a memorandum suspending Tobias from work preparatory to the filing of criminal charges against him. On December 19,1972, Lt. Dioscoro V. Tagle, Metro Manila Police Chief Document Examiner, after investigating other documents pertaining to the alleged anomalous transactions, submitted a second laboratory crime report (Exh. "B") reiterating his previous finding that the handwritings, signatures, and initials appearing in the checks and other documents involved in the fraudulent transactions were not those of Tobias. The lie detector tests conducted on Tobias also yielded negative results. Notwithstanding the two police reports exculpating Tobias from the anomalies and the fact that the report of the private investigator, was, by its own terms, not yet

complete, petitioners filed with the City Fiscal of Manila a complaint for estafa through falsification of commercial documents, later amended to just estafa. Subsequently five other criminal complaints were filed against Tobias, four of which were for estafa through Falsification of commercial document while the fifth was for of Article 290 of' the Revised Penal Code (Discovering Secrets Through Seizure of Correspondence).lwph1.t Two of these complaints were refiled with the Judge Advocate General's Office, which however, remanded them to the fiscal's office. All of the six criminal complaints were dismissed by the fiscal. Petitioners appealed four of the fiscal's resolutions dismissing the criminal complaints with the Secretary of Justice, who, however, affirmed their dismissal. In the meantime, on January 17, 1973, Tobias received a notice (Exh. "F") from petitioners that his employment has been terminated effective December 13, 1972. Whereupon, Tobias filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the labor arbiter's decision. However, the Secretary of Labor, acting on petitioners' appeal from the NLRC ruling, reinstated the labor arbiter's decision. Tobias appealed the Secretary of Labor's order with the Office of the President. During the pendency of the appeal with said office, petitioners and private respondent Tobias entered into a compromise agreement regarding the latter's complaint for illegal dismissal. Unemployed, Tobias sought employment with the Republic Telephone Company (RETELCO). However, petitioner Hendry, without being asked by RETELCO, wrote a letter to the latter stating that Tobias was dismissed by GLOBE MACKAY due to dishonesty. Private respondent Tobias filed a civil case for damages anchored on alleged unlawful, malicious, oppressive, and abusive acts of petitioners. Petitioner Hendry, claiming illness, did not testify during the hearings. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch IX, through Judge Manuel T. Reyes rendered judgment in favor of private respondent by ordering petitioners to pay him eighty thousand pesos (P80,000.00) as actual damages, two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) as moral damages, twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) as exemplary damages, thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as attorney's fees, and costs. Petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals. On the other hand, Tobias appealed as to the amount of damages. However, the Court of Appeals, an a decision dated August 31, 1987 affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration having been denied, the instant petition for review on certiorari was filed. The main issue in this case is whether or not petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent. Petitioners contend that they could not be made liable for damages in the lawful exercise of their right to dismiss private respondent. On the other hand, private respondent contends that because of petitioners' abusive manner in dismissing him as well as for the inhuman treatment he got from them, the Petitioners must indemnify him for the damage that he had suffered. One of the more notable innovations of the New Civil

24

Code is the codification of "some basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of the social order." [REPORT ON THE CODE COMMISSION ON THE PROPOSED CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, p. 39]. The framers of the Code, seeking to remedy the defect of the old Code which merely stated the effects of the law, but failed to draw out its spirit, incorporated certain fundamental precepts which were "designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience" and which were also meant to serve as "guides for human conduct [that] should run as golden threads through society, to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal, which is the sway and dominance of justice" (Id.) Foremost among these principles is that pronounced in Article 19 which provides: Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. This article, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper. Article 20, which pertains to damage arising from a violation of law, provides that: Art. 20. Every person who contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. However, in the case at bar, petitioners claim that they did not violate any provision of law since they were merely exercising their legal right to dismiss private respondent. This does not, however, leave private respondent with no relief because Article 21 of the Civil Code provides that: Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. This article, adopted to remedy 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" [Id.] should "vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which it is impossible for human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes" [Id. it p. 40; See also PNB v. CA, G.R. No. L-

27155, May 18,1978, 83 SCRA 237, 247]. In determining whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked, there is no rigid test which can be applied. While the Court has not hesitated to apply Article 19 whether the legal and factual circumstances called for its application [See for e.g., Velayo v. Shell Co. of the Phil., Ltd., 100 Phil. 186 (1956); PNB v. CA, supra; Grand Union Supermarket, Inc. v. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. L48250, December 28, 1979, 94 SCRA 953; PAL v. CA, G.R. No. L-46558, July 31,1981,106 SCRA 391; United General Industries, Inc, v. Paler G.R. No. L-30205, March 15,1982,112 SCRA 404; Rubio v. CA, G.R. No. 50911, August 21, 1987, 153 SCRA 183] the question of whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under Article 20 or Article 21 or other applicable provision of law, depends on the circumstances of each case. And in the instant case, the Court, after examining the record and considering certain significant circumstances, finds that all petitioners have indeed abused the right that they invoke, causing damage to private respondent and for which the latter must now be indemnified. The trial court made a finding that notwithstanding the fact that it was private respondent Tobias who reported the possible existence of anomalous transactions, petitioner Hendry "showed belligerence and told plaintiff (private respondent herein) that he was the number one suspect and to take a one week vacation leave, not to communicate with the office, to leave his table drawers open, and to leave his keys to said defendant (petitioner Hendry)" [RTC Decision, p. 2; Rollo, p. 232]. This, petitioners do not dispute. But regardless of whether or not it was private respondent Tobias who reported the anomalies to petitioners, the latter's reaction towards the former upon uncovering the anomalies was less than civil. An employer who harbors suspicions that an employee has committed dishonesty might be justified in taking the appropriate action such as ordering an investigation and directing the employee to go on a leave. Firmness and the resolve to uncover the truth would also be expected from such employer. But the high-handed treatment accorded Tobias by petitioners was certainly uncalled for. And this reprehensible attitude of petitioners was to continue when private respondent returned to work on November 20, 1972 after his one week forced leave. Upon reporting for work, Tobias was confronted by Hendry who said. "Tobby, you are the crook and swindler in this company." Considering that the first report made by the police investigators was submitted only on December 10, 1972 [See Exh. A] the statement made by petitioner Hendry was baseless. The imputation of guilt without basis and the pattern of harassment during the investigations of Tobias transgress the standards of human conduct set forth in Article 19 of the Civil Code. The Court has already ruled that the right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal is done abusively, then the employer is liable for damages to the employee [Quisaba v. Sta. InesMelale Veneer and Plywood Inc., G.R. No. L-38088, August 30, 1974, 58 SCRA 771; See also Philippine Refining Co., Inc. v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-21871, September 27,1966, 18 SCRA 107] Under the circumstances of the instant case, the petitioners clearly failed to exercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias, giving

25

the latter the right to recover damages under Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code. But petitioners were not content with just dismissing Tobias. Several other tortious acts were committed by petitioners against Tobias after the latter's termination from work. Towards the latter part of January, 1973, after the filing of the first of six criminal complaints against Tobias, the latter talked to Hendry to protest the actions taken against him. In response, Hendry cut short Tobias' protestations by telling him to just confess or else the company would file a hundred more cases against him until he landed in jail. Hendry added that, "You Filipinos cannot be trusted." The threat unmasked petitioner's bad faith in the various actions taken against Tobias. On the other hand, the scornful remark about Filipinos as well as Hendry's earlier statements about Tobias being a "crook" and "swindler" are clear violations of 'Tobias' personal dignity [See Article 26, Civil Code]. The next tortious act committed by petitioners was the writing of a letter to RETELCO sometime in October 1974, stating that Tobias had been dismissed by GLOBE MACKAY due to dishonesty. Because of the letter, Tobias failed to gain employment with RETELCO and as a result of which, Tobias remained unemployed for a longer period of time. For this further damage suffered by Tobias, petitioners must likewise be held liable for damages consistent with Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Petitioners, however, contend that they have a "moral, if not legal, duty to forewarn other employers of the kind of employee the plaintiff (private respondent herein) was." [Petition, p. 14; Rollo, p. 15]. Petitioners further claim that "it is the accepted moral and societal obligation of every man to advise or warn his fellowmen of any threat or danger to the latter's life, honor or property. And this includes warning one's brethren of the possible dangers involved in dealing with, or accepting into confidence, a man whose honesty and integrity is suspect" [Id.]. These arguments, rather than justify petitioners' act, reveal a seeming obsession to prevent Tobias from getting a job, even after almost two years from the time Tobias was dismissed. Finally, there is the matter of the filing by petitioners of six criminal complaints against Tobias. Petitioners contend that there is no case against them for malicious prosecution and that they cannot be "penalized for exercising their right and prerogative of seeking justice by filing criminal complaints against an employee who was their principal suspect in the commission of forgeries and in the perpetration of anomalous transactions which defrauded them of substantial sums of money" [Petition, p. 10, Rollo, p. 11]. While sound principles of justice and public policy dictate that persons shall have free resort to the courts for redress of wrongs and vindication of their rights [Buenaventura v. Sto. Domingo, 103 Phil. 239 (1958)], the right to institute criminal prosecutions can not be exercised maliciously and in bad faith [Ventura v. Bernabe, G.R. No. L-26760, April 30, 1971, 38 SCRA 5871.] Hence, in Yutuk V. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L13016, May 31, 1961, 2 SCRA 337, the Court held that the right to file criminal complaints should not be used as a weapon to force an alleged debtor to pay an indebtedness. To do so would be a clear perversion of the function of the criminal processes and of the courts of justice. And in Hawpia CA, G.R. No. L-20047, June 30,

1967. 20 SCRA 536 the Court upheld the judgment against the petitioner for actual and moral damages and attorney's fees after making a finding that petitioner, with persistence, filed at least six criminal complaints against respondent, all of which were dismissed. To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a design to vex and humiliate a person and that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that the charges were false and groundless [Manila Gas Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. L-44190, October 30,1980, 100 SCRA 602]. Concededly, the filing of a suit by itself, does not render a person liable for malicious prosecution [Inhelder Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 52358, May 301983122 SCRA 576]. The mere dismissal by the fiscal of the criminal complaint is not a ground for an award of damages for malicious prosecution if there is no competent evidence to show that the complainant had acted in bad faith [Sison v. David, G.R. No. L-11268, January 28,1961, 1 SCRA 60]. In the instant case, however, the trial court made a finding that petitioners acted in bad faith in filing the criminal complaints against Tobias, observing that: xxx Defendants (petitioners herein) filed with the Fiscal's Office of Manila a total of six (6) criminal cases, five (5) of which were for estafa thru falsification of commercial document and one for violation of Art. 290 of the Revised Penal Code "discovering secrets thru seizure of correspondence," and all were dismissed for insufficiency or lack of evidence." The dismissal of four (4) of the cases was appealed to the Ministry of Justice, but said Ministry invariably sustained the dismissal of the cases. As above adverted to, two of these cases were refiled with the Judge Advocate General's Office of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to railroad plaintiffs arrest and detention in the military stockade, but this was frustrated by a presidential decree transferring criminal cases involving civilians to the civil courts. xxx To be sure, when despite the two (2) police reports embodying the findings of Lt. Dioscoro Tagle, Chief Document Examiner of the Manila Police Department, clearing plaintiff of participation or involvement in the fraudulent transactions complained of, despite the negative results of the lie detector tests which defendants compelled plaintiff to undergo, and although the police investigation was "still under follow-up and a supplementary report will be submitted after all the evidence has been gathered," defendants hastily filed six (6) criminal cases with the city Fiscal's Office of Manila, five (5) for estafa thru falsification of commercial document and one (1) for violation of Art. 290 of the Revised Penal Code, so much so that as was to be expected, all six (6) cases were dismissed, with one of the investigating fiscals, Asst. Fiscal de Guia, commenting in one case that, "Indeed, the haphazard way this case was investigated is evident. Evident likewise is the flurry and haste in the filing of this case

26

against respondent Tobias," there can be no mistaking that defendants would not but be motivated by malicious and unlawful intent to harass, oppress, and cause damage to plaintiff. xxx [RTC Decision, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp. 235-236]. In addition to the observations made by the trial court, the Court finds it significant that the criminal complaints were filed during the pendency of the illegal dismissal case filed by Tobias against petitioners. This explains the haste in which the complaints were filed, which the trial court earlier noted. But petitioners, to prove their good faith, point to the fact that only six complaints were filed against Tobias when they could have allegedly filed one hundred cases, considering the number of anomalous transactions committed against GLOBE MACKAY. However, petitioners' good faith is belied by the threat made by Hendry after the filing of the first complaint that one hundred more cases would be filed against Tobias. In effect, the possible filing of one hundred more cases was made to hang like the sword of Damocles over the head of Tobias. In fine, considering the haste in which the criminal complaints were filed, the fact that they were filed during the pendency of the illegal dismissal case against petitioners, the threat made by Hendry, the fact that the cases were filed notwithstanding the two police reports exculpating Tobias from involvement in the anomalies committed against GLOBE MACKAY, coupled by the eventual dismissal of all the cases, the Court is led into no other conclusion than that petitioners were motivated by malicious intent in filing the six criminal complaints against Tobias. Petitioners next contend that the award of damages was excessive. In the complaint filed against petitioners, Tobias prayed for the following: one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) as actual damages; fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages; eight hundred thousand pesos (P800,000.00) as moral damages; fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as attorney's fees; and costs. The trial court, after making a computation of the damages incurred by Tobias [See RTC Decision, pp. 7-8; Rollo, pp. 154-1551, awarded him the following: eighty thousand pesos (P80,000.00) as actual damages; two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) as moral damages; twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) as exemplary damages; thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as attorney's fees; and, costs. It must be underscored that petitioners have been guilty of committing several actionable tortious acts, i.e., the abusive manner in which they dismissed Tobias from work including the baseless imputation of guilt and the harassment during the investigations; the defamatory language heaped on Tobias as well as the scornful remark on Filipinos; the poison letter sent to RETELCO which resulted in Tobias' loss of possible employment; and, the malicious filing of the criminal complaints. Considering the extent of the damage wrought on Tobias, the Court finds that, contrary to petitioners' contention, the amount of damages awarded to Tobias was reasonable under the circumstances. Yet, petitioners still insist that the award of damages was improper, invoking the principle of damnum absque injuria. It is argued that "[t]he only probable actual damage that plaintiff (private respondent herein)

could have suffered was a direct result of his having been dismissed from his employment, which was a valid and legal act of the defendants-appellants (petitioners herein).lwph1.t " [Petition, p. 17; Rollo, p. 18]. According to the principle of damnum absque injuria, damage or loss which does not constitute a violation of a legal right or amount to a legal wrong is not actionable [Escano v. CA, G.R. No. L-47207, September 25, 1980, 100 SCRA 197; See also Gilchrist v. Cuddy 29 Phil, 542 (1915); The Board of Liquidators v. Kalaw, G.R. No. L18805, August 14, 1967, 20 SCRA 987]. This principle finds no application in this case. It bears repeating that even granting that petitioners might have had the right to dismiss Tobias from work, the abusive manner in which that right was exercised amounted to a legal wrong for which petitioners must now be held liable. Moreover, the damage incurred by Tobias was not only in connection with the abusive manner in which he was dismissed but was also the result of several other quasidelictual acts committed by petitioners. Petitioners next question the award of moral damages. However, the Court has already ruled in Wassmer v. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964, 12 SCRA 648, 653, that [p]er express provision of Article 2219 (10) of the New Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 of said Code." Hence, the Court of Appeals committed no error in awarding moral damages to Tobias. Lastly, the award of exemplary damages is impugned by petitioners. Although Article 2231 of the Civil Code provides that "[i]n quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence," the Court, in Zulueta v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., G.R. No. L- 28589, January 8, 1973, 49 SCRA 1, ruled that if gross negligence warrants the award of exemplary damages, with more reason is its imposition justified when the act performed is deliberate, malicious and tainted with bad faith. As in the Zulueta case, the nature of the wrongful acts shown to have been committed by petitioners against Tobias is sufficient basis for the award of exemplary damages to the latter. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 09055 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 157314 July 29, 2005 FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioners, vs. THEMISTOCLES PACILAN, JR., Respondent. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.: Before the Court is the petition for review on certiorari filed by Far East Bank and Trust Company (now Bank of the Philippines Islands) seeking the reversal of the Decision1 dated August 30, 2002 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 36627 which ordered it, together with its branch accountant, Roger Villadelgado, to pay respondent Themistocles Pacilan, Jr.2 the total sum of P100,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages. The assailed decision affirmed with modification that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bacolod City, Branch 54, in Civil Case No. 4908. Likewise

27

sought to be reversed and set aside is the Resolution dated January 17, 2003 of the appellate court, denying petitioner banks motion for reconsideration. The case stemmed from the following undisputed facts: Respondent Pacilan opened a current account with petitioner banks Bacolod Branch on May 23, 1980. His account was denominated as Current Account No. 53208 (0052-00407-4). The respondent had since then issued several postdated checks to different payees drawn against the said account. Sometime in March 1988, the respondent issued Check No. 2434886 in the amount of P680.00 and the same was presented for payment to petitioner bank on April 4, 1988. Upon its presentment on the said date, Check No. 2434886 was dishonored by petitioner bank. The next day, or on April 5, 1988, the respondent deposited to his current account the amount of P800.00. The said amount was accepted by petitioner bank; hence, increasing the balance of the respondents deposit to P1,051.43. Subsequently, when the respondent verified with petitioner bank about the dishonor of Check No. 2434866, he discovered that his current account was closed on the ground that it was "improperly handled." The records of petitioner bank disclosed that between the period of March 30, 1988 and April 5, 1988, the respondent issued four checks, to wit: Check No. 2480416 for P6,000.00; Check No. 2480419 for P50.00; Check No. 2434880 for P680.00 and; Check No. 2434886 for P680.00, or a total amount of P7,410.00. At the time, however, the respondents current account with petitioner bank only had a deposit of P6,981.43. Thus, the total amount of the checks presented for payment on April 4, 1988 exceeded the balance of the respondents deposit in his account. For this reason, petitioner bank, through its branch accountant, Villadelgado, closed the respondents current account effective the evening of April 4, 1988 as it then had an overdraft of P428.57. As a consequence of the overdraft, Check No. 2434886 was dishonored. On April 18, 1988, the respondent wrote to petitioner bank complaining that the closure of his account was unjustified. When he did not receive a reply from petitioner bank, the respondent filed with the RTC of Negros Occidental, Bacolod City, Branch 54, a complaint for damages against petitioner bank and Villadelgado. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 4908. The respondent, as complainant therein, alleged that the closure of his current account by petitioner bank was unjustified because on the first banking hour of April 5, 1988, he already deposited an amount sufficient to fund his checks. The respondent pointed out that Check No. 2434886, in particular, was delivered to petitioner bank at the close of banking hours on April 4, 1988 and, following normal banking procedure, it (petitioner bank) had until the last clearing hour of the following day, or on April 5, 1988, to honor the check or return it, if not funded. In disregard of this banking procedure and practice, however, petitioner bank hastily closed the respondents current account and dishonored his Check No. 2434886. The respondent further alleged that prior to the closure of his current account, he had issued several other postdated checks. The petitioner banks act of closing

his current account allegedly preempted the deposits that he intended to make to fund those checks. Further, the petitioner banks act exposed him to criminal prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. According to the respondent, the indecent haste that attended the closure of his account was patently malicious and intended to embarrass him. He claimed that he is a Cashier of Prudential Bank and Trust Company, whose branch office is located just across that of petitioner bank, and a prominent and respected leader both in the civic and banking communities. The alleged malicious acts of petitioner bank besmirched the respondents reputation and caused him "social humiliation, wounded feelings, insurmountable worries and sleepless nights" entitling him to an award of damages. In their answer, petitioner bank and Villadelgado maintained that the respondents current account was subject to petitioner banks Rules and Regulations Governing the Establishment and Operation of Regular Demand Deposits which provide that "the Bank reserves the right to close an account if the depositor frequently draws checks against insufficient funds and/or uncollected deposits" and that "the Bank reserves the right at any time to return checks of the depositor which are drawn against insufficient funds or for any reason."3 They showed that the respondent had improperly and irregularly handled his current account. For example, in 1986, the respondents account was overdrawn 156 times, in 1987, 117 times and in 1988, 26 times. In all these instances, the account was overdrawn due to the issuance of checks against insufficient funds. The respondent had also signed several checks with a different signature from the specimen on file for dubious reasons. When the respondent made the deposit on April 5, 1988, it was obviously to cover for issuances made the previous day against an insufficiently funded account. When his Check No. 2434886 was presented for payment on April 4, 1988, he had already incurred an overdraft; hence, petitioner bank rightfully dishonored the same for insufficiency of funds. After due proceedings, the court a quo rendered judgment in favor of the respondent as it ordered the petitioner bank and Villadelgado, jointly and severally, to pay the respondent the amounts of P100,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages and costs of suit. In so ruling, the court a quo also cited petitioner banks rules and regulations which state that "a charge of P10.00 shall be levied against the depositor for any check that is taken up as a returned item due to insufficiency of funds on the date of receipt from the clearing office even if said check is honored and/or covered by sufficient deposit the following banking day." The same rules and regulations also provide that "a check returned for insufficiency of funds for any reason of similar import may be subsequently recleared for one more time only, subject to the same charges." According to the court a quo, following these rules and regulations, the respondent, as depositor, had the right to put up sufficient funds for a check that was taken as a returned item for insufficient funds the day following the receipt of said check from the clearing office. In fact, the said check could still be recleared for one more time.

28

In previous instances, petitioner bank notified the respondent when he incurred an overdraft and he would then deposit sufficient funds the following day to cover the overdraft. Petitioner bank thus acted unjustifiably when it immediately closed the respondents account on April 4, 1988 and deprived him of the opportunity to reclear his check or deposit sufficient funds therefor the following day. As a result of the closure of his current account, several of the respondents checks were subs equently dishonored and because of this, the respondent was humiliated, embarrassed and lost his credit standing in the business community. The court a quo further ratiocinated that even granting arguendo that petitioner bank had the right to close the respondents account, the manner which attended the closure constituted an abuse of the said right. Citing Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which states that "[e]very person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith" and Article 20 thereof which states that "[e]very person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same," the court a quo adjudged petitioner bank of acting in bad faith. It held that, under the foregoing circumstances, the respondent is entitled to an award of moral and exemplary damages. The decretal portion of the court a quos decision reads: WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Ordering the defendants [petitioner bank and Villadelgado], jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff [the respondent] the sum of P100,000.00 as moral damages; 2. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages plus costs and expenses of the suit; and 3. Dismissing [the] defendants counterclaim for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.4 On appeal, the CA rendered the Decision dated August 30, 2002, affirming with modification the decision of the court a quo. The appellate court substantially affirmed the factual findings of the court a quo as it held that petitioner bank unjustifiably closed the respondents account notwithstanding that its own rules and regulations allow that a check returned for insufficiency of funds or any reason of similar import, may be subsequently recleared for one more time, subject to standard charges. Like the court a quo, the appellate court observed that in several instances in previous years, petitioner bank would inform the respondent when he incurred an overdraft and allowed him to make a timely deposit to fund the checks that were initially dishonored for insufficiency of funds. However, on April 4, 1988, petitioner bank immediately closed the respondents account without even notifying him that he had incurred an overdraft. Even when they had already closed his account on April 4, 1988, petitioner bank still accepted the deposit that the respondent made on April 5, 1988, supposedly to cover his checks. Echoing the reasoning of the court a quo, the CA

declared that even as it may be conceded that petitioner bank had reserved the right to close an account for repeated overdrafts by the respondent, the exercise of that right must never be despotic or arbitrary. That petitioner bank chose to close the account outright and return the check, even after accepting a deposit sufficient to cover the said check, is contrary to its duty to handle the respondents account with utmost fidelity. The exercise of the right is not absolute and good faith, at least, is required. The manner by which petitioner bank closed the account of the respondent runs afoul of Article 19 of the Civil Code which enjoins every person, in the exercise of his rights, "to give every one his due, and observe honesty and good faith." The CA concluded that petitioner banks precipitate and imprudent closure of the respondents account had caused him, a respected officer of several civic and banking associations, serious anxiety and humiliation. It had, likewise, tainted his credit standing. Consequently, the award of damages is warranted. The CA, however, reduced the amount of damages awarded by the court a quo as it found the same to be excessive: We, however, find excessive the amount of damages awarded by the RTC. In our view the reduced amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages are in order. Awards for damages are not meant to enrich the plaintiff-appellee [the respondent] at the expense of defendants-appellants [the petitioners], but to obviate the moral suffering he has undergone. The award is aimed at the restoration, within limits possible, of the status quo ante, and should be proportionate to the suffering inflicted.5 The dispositive portion of the assailed CA decision reads: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is reduced to P75,000.00 and the award of exemplary damages reduced to P25,000.00. SO ORDERED.6 Petitioner bank sought the reconsideration of the said decision but in the assailed Resolution dated January 17, 2003, the appellate court denied its motion. Hence, the recourse to this Court. Petitioner bank maintains that, in closing the account of the respondent in the evening of April 4, 1988, it acted in good faith and in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the operation of a regular demand deposit which reserves to the bank "the right to close an account if the depositor frequently draws checks against insufficient funds and/or uncollected deposits." The same rules and regulations also provide that "the depositor is not entitled, as a matter of right, to overdraw on this deposit and the bank reserves the right at any time to return checks of the depositor which are drawn against insufficient funds or for any reason." It cites the numerous instances that the respondent had overdrawn his account and those instances where he deliberately signed checks using a signature different from the specimen on file. Based on these facts, petitioner bank was constrained to close the respondents account for improper and irregular handling and returned his Check No. 2434886 which

29

was presented to the bank for payment on April 4, 1988. Petitioner bank further posits that there is no law or rule which gives the respondent a legal right to make good his check or to deposit the corresponding amount to cover said check within 24 hours after the same is dishonored or returned by the bank for having been drawn against insufficient funds. It vigorously denies having violated Article 19 of the Civil Code as it insists that it acted in good faith and in accordance with the pertinent banking rules and regulations. The petition is impressed with merit. A perusal of the respective decisions of the court a quo and the appellate court show that the award of damages in the respondents favor was anchored mainly on Article 19 of the Civil Code which, quoted anew below, reads: Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. The elements of abuse of rights are the following: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.7 Malice or bad faith is at the core of the said provision.8 The law always presumes good faith and any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to acts of another has the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill-motive.9 Good faith refers to the state of the mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another.10 Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence, dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of fraud.11 Malice connotes ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive.12 Undoubtedly, petitioner bank has the right to close the account of the respondent based on the following provisions of its Rules and Regulations Governing the Establishment and Operation of Regular Demand Deposits: 10) The Bank reserves the right to close an account if the depositor frequently draws checks against insufficient funds and/or uncollected deposits. 12) However, it is clearly understood that the depositor is not entitled, as a matter of right, to overdraw on this deposit and the bank reserves the right at any time to return checks of the depositor which are drawn against insufficient funds or for any other reason. The facts, as found by the court a quo and the appellate court, do not establish that, in the exercise of this right, petitioner bank committed an abuse thereof. Specifically, the second and third elements for abuse of rights are not attendant in the present case. The evidence presented by petitioner bank negates the existence of bad faith or malice on its part in closing the respondents account on April 4, 1988 because on the

said date the same was already overdrawn. The respondent issued four checks, all due on April 4, 1988, amounting to P7,410.00 when the balance of his current account deposit was only P6,981.43. Thus, he incurred an overdraft of P428.57 which resulted in the dishonor of his Check No. 2434886. Further, petitioner bank showed that in 1986, the current account of the respondent was overdrawn 156 times due to his issuance of checks against insufficient funds.13 In 1987, the said account was overdrawn 117 times for the same reason.14 Again, in 1988, 26 times.15 There were also several instances when the respondent issued checks deliberately using a signature different from his specimen signature on file with petitioner bank.16 All these circumstances taken together justified the petitioner banks closure of the respondents account on April 4, 1988 for "improper handling." It is observed that nowhere under its rules and regulations is petitioner bank required to notify the respondent, or any depositor for that matter, of the closure of the account for frequently drawing checks against insufficient funds. No malice or bad faith could be imputed on petitioner bank for so acting since the records bear out that the respondent had indeed been improperly and irregularly handling his account not just a few times but hundreds of times. Under the circumstances, petitioner bank could not be faulted for exercising its right in accordance with the express rules and regulations governing the current accounts of its depositors. Upon the opening of his account, the respondent had agreed to be bound by these terms and conditions. Neither the fact that petitioner bank accepted the deposit made by the respondent the day following the closure of his account constitutes bad faith or malice on the part of petitioner bank. The same could be characterized as simple negligence by its personnel. Said act, by itself, is not constitutive of bad faith. The respondent had thus failed to discharge his burden of proving bad faith on the part of petitioner bank or that it was motivated by ill-will or spite in closing his account on April 4, 1988 and in inadvertently accepting his deposit on April 5, 1988. Further, it has not been shown that these acts were done by petitioner bank with the sole intention of prejudicing and injuring the respondent. It is conceded that the respondent may have suffered damages as a result of the closure of his current account. However, there is a material distinction between damages and injury. The Court had the occasion to explain the distinction between damages and injury in this wise: Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt or harm which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person alone, the law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria. In other words, in order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of

30

duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that the individual was injured in contemplation of law. Thus, there must first be a breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that breach before damages may be awarded; and the breach of such duty should be the proximate cause of the injury.17 Whatever damages the respondent may have suffered as a consequence, e.g., dishonor of his other insufficiently funded checks, would have to be borne by him alone. It was the respondents repeated improper and irregular handling of his account which constrained petitioner bank to close the same in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its depositors current accounts. The respondents case is clearly one of damnum absque injuria. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 30, 2002 and Resolution dated January 17, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 36627 are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 146322 December 6, 2006 ERNESTO RAMAS UYPITCHING and RAMAS UYPITCHING SONS, INC., petitioners, vs. ERNESTO QUIAMCO, respondent. DECISION CORONA, J.: Honeste vivere, non alterum laedere et jus suum cuique tribuere. To live virtuously, not to injure others and to give everyone his due. These supreme norms of justice are the underlying principles of law and order in society. We reaffirm them in this petition for review on certiorari assailing the July 26, 2000 decision1 and October 18, 2000 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 47571. In 1982, respondent Ernesto C. Quiamco was approached by Juan Davalan,2 Josefino Gabutero and Raul Generoso to amicably settle the civil aspect of a criminal case for robbery3 filed by Quiamco against them. They surrendered to him a red Honda XL-100 motorcycle and a photocopy of its certificate of registration. Respondent asked for the original certificate of registration but the three accused never came to see him again. Meanwhile, the motorcycle was parked in an open space inside respondents business establishment, Avesco-AVNE Enterprises, where it was visible and accessible to the public. It turned out that, in October 1981, the motorcycle had been sold on installment basis to Gabutero by petitioner Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc., a family-owned corporation managed by petitioner Atty. Ernesto Ramas Uypitching. To secure its payment, the motorcycle was mortgaged to petitioner corporation.4 When Gabutero could no longer pay the installments, Davalan assumed the obligation and continued the payments. In September 1982, however, Davalan stopped paying the remaining installments and told petitioner corporations collector, Wilfredo Verao, that the motorcycle had allegedly been "taken by respondents men." Nine years later, on January 26, 1991, petitioner

Uypitching, accompanied by policemen,5 went to Avesco-AVNE Enterprises to recover the motorcycle. The leader of the police team, P/Lt. Arturo Vendiola, talked to the clerk in charge and asked for respondent. While P/Lt. Vendiola and the clerk were talking, petitioner Uypitching paced back and forth inside the establishment uttering "Quiamco is a thief of a motorcycle." On learning that respondent was not in Avesco-AVNE Enterprises, the policemen left to look for respondent in his residence while petitioner Uypitching stayed in the establishment to take photographs of the motorcycle. Unable to find respondent, the policemen went back to Avesco-AVNE Enterprises and, on petitioner Uypitchings instruction and over the clerks objection, took the motorcycle. On February 18, 1991, petitioner Uypitching filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law6 against respondent in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dumaguete City.7 Respondent moved for dismissal because the complaint did not charge an offense as he had neither stolen nor bought the motorcycle. The Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint8 and denied petitioner Uypitchings subsequent motion for reconsideration. Respondent filed an action for damages against petitioners in the RTC of Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Branch 37.9 He sought to hold the petitioners liable for the following: (1) unlawful taking of the motorcycle; (2) utterance of a defamatory remark (that respondent was a thief) and (3) precipitate filing of a baseless and malicious complaint. These acts humiliated and embarrassed the respondent and injured his reputation and integrity. On July 30, 1994, the trial court rendered a decision10 finding that petitioner Uypitching was motivated with malice and ill will when he called respondent a thief, took the motorcycle in an abusive manner and filed a baseless complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. Petitioners acts were found to be contrary to Articles 1911 and 2012 of the Civil Code. Hence, the trial court held petitioners liable to respondent for P500,000 moral damages, P200,000 exemplary damages and P50,000 attorneys fees plus costs. Petitioners appealed the RTC decision but the CA affirmed the trial courts decision with modification, reducing the award of moral and exemplary damages to P300,000 and P100,000, respectively.13 Petitioners sought reconsideration but it was denied. Thus, this petition. In their petition and memorandum, petitioners submit that the sole (allegedly) issue to be resolved here is whether the filing of a complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law in the Office of the City Prosecutor warranted the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs in favor of respondent. Petitioners suggestion is misleading. They were held liable for damages not only for instituting a groundless complaint against respondent but also for making a slanderous remark and for taking the motorcycle from respondents establishment in an abusive manner. Correctness of the Findings of the RTC and CA

31

As they never questioned the findings of the RTC and CA that malice and ill will attended not only the public imputation of a crime to respondent14 but also the taking of the motorcycle, petitioners were deemed to have accepted the correctness of such findings. This alone was sufficient to hold petitioners liable for damages to respondent. Nevertheless, to address petitioners concern, we also find that the trial and appellate courts correctly ruled that the filing of the complaint was tainted with malice and bad faith. Petitioners themselves in fact described their action as a "precipitate act."15 Petitioners were bent on portraying respondent as a thief. In this connection, we quote with approval the following findings of the RTC, as adopted by the CA: x x x There was malice or ill-will [in filing the complaint before the City Prosecutors Office] because Atty. Ernesto Ramas Uypitching knew or ought to have known as he is a lawyer, that there was no probable cause at all for filing a criminal complaint for qualified theft and fencing activity against [respondent]. Atty. Uypitching had no personal knowledge that [respondent] stole the motorcycle in question. He was merely told by his bill collector ([i.e.] the bill collector of Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc.)[,] Wilfredo Verao[,] that Juan Dabalan will [no longer] pay the remaining installment(s) for the motorcycle because the motorcycle was taken by the men of [respondent]. It must be noted that the term used by Wilfredo Verao in informing Atty. Ernesto Ramas Uypitching of the refusal of Juan Dabalan to pay for the remaining installment was []taken[], not []unlawfully taken[] or stolen. Yet, despite the double hearsay, Atty. Ernesto Ramas Uypitching not only executed the [complaint-affidavit] wherein he named [respondent] as the suspect of the stolen motorcycle but also charged [respondent] of qualified theft and fencing activity before the City [Prosecutors] Office of Dumaguete. The absence of probable cause necessarily signifies the presence of malice. What is deplorable in all these is that Juan Dabalan, the owner of the motorcycle, did not accuse [respondent] or the latters men of stealing the motorcycle[,] much less bother[ed] to file a case for qualified theft before the authorities. That Atty. Uypitchings act in charging [respondent] with qualified theft and fencing activity is tainted with malice is also shown by his answer to the question of Cupid Gonzaga16 [during one of their conversations] - "why should you still file a complaint? You have already recovered the motorcycle"[:] "Aron motagam ang kawatan ug motor." ("To teach a lesson to the thief of motorcycle.")17 Moreover, the existence of malice, ill will or bad faith is a factual matter. As a rule, findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on this Court. We see no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the RTC and the CA. Petitioners Abused Their Right of Recovery as Mortgagee(s) Petitioners claim that they should not be held liable for petitioner corporations exercise of its right as seller mortgagee to recover the mortgaged vehicle preliminary to the enforcement of its right to foreclose

on the mortgage in case of default. They are clearly mistaken. True, a mortgagee may take steps to recover the mortgaged property to enable it to enforce or protect its foreclosure right thereon. There is, however, a welldefined procedure for the recovery of possession of mortgaged property: if a mortgagee is unable to obtain possession of a mortgaged property for its sale on foreclosure, he must bring a civil action either to recover such possession as a preliminary step to the sale, or to obtain judicial foreclosure.18 Petitioner corporation failed to bring the proper civil action necessary to acquire legal possession of the motorcycle. Instead, petitioner Uypitching descended on respondents establishment with his policemen and ordered the seizure of the motorcycle without a search warrant or court order. Worse, in the course of the illegal seizure of the motorcycle, petitioner Uypitching even mouthed a slanderous statement. No doubt, petitioner corporation, acting through its copetitioner Uypitching, blatantly disregarded the lawful procedure for the enforcement of its right, to the prejudice of respondent. Petitioners acts violated the law as well as public morals, and transgressed the proper norms of human relations. The basic principle of human relations, embodied in Article 19 of the Civil Code, provides: Art. 19. Every person must in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give every one his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Article 19, also known as the "principle of abuse of right," prescribes that a person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise he opens himself to liability.19 It seeks to preclude the use of, or the tendency to use, a legal right (or duty) as a means to unjust ends. There is an abuse of right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure another.20 The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to harm another.21 Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured party will attach. In this case, the manner by which the motorcycle was taken at petitioners instance was not only attended by bad faith but also contrary to the procedure laid down by law. Considered in conjunction with the defamatory statement, petitioners exercise of the right to recover the mortgaged vehicle was utterly prejudicial and injurious to respondent. On the other hand, the precipitate act of filing an unfounded complaint could not in any way be considered to be in accordance with the purpose for which the right to prosecute a crime was established. Thus, the totality of petitioners actions showed a calculated design to embarrass, humiliate and publicly ridicule respondent. Petitioners acted in an excessively harsh fashion to the prejudice of respondent. Contrary to law, petitioners willfully caused damage to respondent. Hence, they should indemnify him.22 WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The July 26, 2000 decision and October 18, 2000 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47571 are

32

AFFIRMED. Triple costs against petitioners, considering that petitioner Ernesto Ramas Uypitching is a lawyer and an officer of the court, for his improper behavior. SO ORDERED.

reply. Consequently, on December 23, 1998, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 71, Pasig City a complaint for damages against petitioners, docketed as Civil Case No. 67190. After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision dated February 14, 2001 in favor of respondent, thus:

G.R. No. 160273 January 18, 2008 CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., SABINO R. DAPAT, RUBEN D. ALMENDRAS, JULIUS Z. NERI, DOUGLAS L. LUYM, CESAR T. LIBI, RAMONTITO* E. GARCIA and JOSE B. SALA, petitioners, vs. RICARDO F. ELIZAGAQUE, respondent. DECISION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision1 dated January 31, 2003 and Resolution dated October 2, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71506. The facts are: Cebu Country Club, Inc. (CCCI), petitioner, is a domestic corporation operating as a non-profit and non-stock private membership club, having its principal place of business in Banilad, Cebu City. Petitioners herein are members of its Board of Directors. Sometime in 1987, San Miguel Corporation, a special company proprietary member of CCCI, designated respondent Ricardo F. Elizagaque, its Senior Vice President and Operations Manager for the Visayas and Mindanao, as a special non-proprietary member. The designation was thereafter approved by the CCCIs Board of Directors. In 1996, respondent filed with CCCI an application for proprietary membership. The application was indorsed by CCCIs two (2) proprietary members, namely: Edmundo T. Misa and Silvano Ludo. As the price of a proprietary share was around the P5 million range, Benito Unchuan, then president of CCCI, offered to sell respondent a share for only P3.5 million. Respondent, however, purchased the share of a certain Dr. Butalid for only P3 million. Consequently, on September 6, 1996, CCCI issued Proprietary Ownership Certificate No. 1446 to respondent. During the meetings dated April 4, 1997 and May 30, 1997 of the CCCI Board of Directors, action on respondents application for proprietary membership was deferred. In another Board meeting held on July 30, 1997, respondents application was voted upon. Subsequently, or on August 1, 1997, respondent received a letter from Julius Z. Neri, CCCIs corporat e secretary, informing him that the Board disapproved his application for proprietary membership. On August 6, 1997, Edmundo T. Misa, on behalf of respondent, wrote CCCI a letter of reconsideration. As CCCI did not answer, respondent, on October 7, 1997, wrote another letter of reconsideration. Still, CCCI kept silent. On November 5, 1997, respondent again sent CCCI a letter inquiring whether any member of the Board objected to his application. Again, CCCI did not

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff: 1. Ordering defendants to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff the amount of P2,340,000.00 as actual or compensatory damages. 2. Ordering defendants to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff the amount of P5,000,000.00 as moral damages. 3. Ordering defendants to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff the amount of P1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages. 4. Ordering defendants to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff the amount of P1,000,000.00 as and by way of attorneys fees and P80,000.00 as litigation expenses. 5. Costs of suit. Counterclaims are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.2 On appeal by petitioners, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated January 31, 2003, affirmed the trial courts Decision with modification, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated February 14, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City in Civil Case No. 67190 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as follows: 1. Ordering defendants-appellants to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff-appellee the amount of P2,000,000.00 as moral damages; 2. Ordering defendants-appellants to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff-appellee the amount of P1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages; 3. Ordering defendants-appellants to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff-appellee the mount of P500,000.00 as attorneys fees and P50,000.00 as litigation expenses; and 4. Costs of the suit. The counterclaims are DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.3 On March 3, 2003, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and motion for leave to set the motion for oral arguments. In its Resolution4 dated October 2, 2003, the appellate court denied the motions for lack of merit. Hence, the present petition. The issue for our resolution is whether in disapproving respondents application for proprietary membership with CCCI, petitioners are liable to respondent for damages, and if so, whether their liability is joint and several. Petitioners contend, inter alia, that the Court of Appeals

33

erred in awarding exorbitant damages to respondent despite the lack of evidence that they acted in bad faith in disapproving the latters application; and in disregarding their defense of damnum absque injuria. For his part, respondent maintains that the petition lacks merit, hence, should be denied. CCCIs Articles of Incorporation provide in part: SEVENTH: That this is a non-stock corporation and membership therein as well as the right of participation in its assets shall be limited to qualified persons who are duly accredited owners of Proprietary Ownership Certificates issued by the corporation in accordance with its By-Laws. Corollary, Section 3, Article 1 of CCCIs Ame nded ByLaws provides: SECTION 3. HOW MEMBERS ARE ELECTED The procedure for the admission of new members of the Club shall be as follows: (a) Any proprietary member, seconded by another voting proprietary member, shall submit to the Secretary a written proposal for the admission of a candidate to the "Eligible-for-Membership List"; (b) Such proposal shall be posted by the Secretary for a period of thirty (30) days on the Club bulletin board during which time any member may interpose objections to the admission of the applicant by communicating the same to the Board of Directors; (c) After the expiration of the aforesaid thirty (30) days, if no objections have been filed or if there are, the Board considers the objections unmeritorious, the candidate shall be qualified for inclusion in the "Eligible-for-Membership List"; (d) Once included in the "Eligible-for-Membership List" and after the candidate shall have acquired in his name a valid POC duly recorded in the books of the corporation as his own, he shall become a Proprietary Member, upon a non-refundable admission fee of P1,000.00, provided that admission fees will only be collected once from any person. On March 1, 1978, Section 3(c) was amended to read as follows: (c) After the expiration of the aforesaid thirty (30) days, the Board may, by unanimous vote of all directors present at a regular or special meeting, approve the inclusion of the candidate in the "Eligible-for-Membership List". As shown by the records, the Board adopted a secret balloting known as the "black ball system" of voting wherein each member will drop a ball in the ballot box. A white ball represents conformity to the admission of an applicant, while a black ball means disapproval. Pursuant to Section 3(c), as amended, cited above, a unanimous vote of the directors is required. When respondents application for proprietary membership was voted upon during the Board meeting on July 30, 1997, the ballot box contained one (1) black ball. Thus, for lack of unanimity, his application was disapproved. Obviously, the CCCI Board of Directors, under its Articles of Incorporation, has the right to approve or disapprove an application for proprietary membership. But such right should not be exercised arbitrarily.

Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code on the Chapter on Human Relations provide restrictions, thus: Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. In GF Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona,5 we expounded Article 19 and correlated it with Article 21, thus: This article, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper. (Emphasis in the original) In rejecting respondents application for proprietary membership, we find that petitioners violated the rules governing human relations, the basic principles to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of social order. The trial court and the Court of Appeals aptly held that petitioners committed fraud and evident bad faith in disapproving respondents applications. This is contrary to morals, good custom or public policy. Hence, petitioners are liable for damages pursuant to Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the same Code. It bears stressing that the amendment to Section 3(c) of CCCIs Amended By-Laws requiring the unanimous vote of the directors present at a special or regular meeting was not printed on the application form respondent filled and submitted to CCCI. What was printed thereon was the original provision of Section 3(c) which was silent on the required number of votes needed for admission of an applicant as a proprietary member. Petitioners explained that the amendment was not printed on the application form due to economic reasons. We find this excuse flimsy and unconvincing. Such amendment, aside from being extremely significant, was introduced way back in 1978 or almost twenty (20) years before respondent filed his application. We cannot fathom why such a prestigious and exclusive golf country club, like the CCCI, whose members are all affluent, did not have enough money to cause the printing of an updated application form.

34

It is thus clear that respondent was left groping in the dark wondering why his application was disapproved. He was not even informed that a unanimous vote of the Board members was required. When he sent a letter for reconsideration and an inquiry whether there was an objection to his application, petitioners apparently ignored him. Certainly, respondent did not deserve this kind of treatment. Having been designated by San Miguel Corporation as a special non-proprietary member of CCCI, he should have been treated by petitioners with courtesy and civility. At the very least, they should have informed him why his application was disapproved. The exercise of a right, though legal by itself, must nonetheless be in accordance with the proper norm. When the right is exercised arbitrarily, unjustly or excessively and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.6 It bears reiterating that the trial court and the Court of Appeals held that petitioners disapproval of respondents application is characterized by bad faith. As to petitioners reliance on the principle of damnum absque injuria or damage without injury, suffice it to state that the same is misplaced. In Amonoy v. Gutierrez,7 we held that this principle does not apply when there is an abuse of a persons right, as in this case. As to the appellate courts award to respondent of moral damages, we find the same in order. Under Article 2219 of the New Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered, among others, in acts and actions referred to in Article 21. We believe respondents testimony that he suffered mental anguish, social humiliation and wounded feelings as a result of the arbitrary denial of his application. However, the amount of P2,000,000.00 is excessive. While there is no hard-and-fast rule in determining what would be a fair and reasonable amount of moral damages, the same should not be palpably and scandalously excessive. Moral damages are not intended to impose a penalty to the wrongdoer, neither to enrich the claimant at the expense of the defendant.8 Taking into consideration the attending circumstances here, we hold that an award to respondent of P50,000.00, instead of P2,000,000.00, as moral damages is reasonable. Anent the award of exemplary damages, Article 2229 allows it by way of example or correction for the public good. Nonetheless, since exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions,9 we reduce the amount from P1,000,000.00 to P25,000.00 only. On the matter of attorneys fees and litigation expenses, Article 2208 of the same Code provides, among others, that attorneys fees and expenses of litigation may be recovered in cases when exemplary damages are awarded and where the court deems it just and equitable that attorneys fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered, as in this case. In any event, however, such award must be reasonable, just and equitable. Thus, we reduce the amount of attorneys fees (P500,000.00) and litigation expenses (P50,000.00) to P50,000.00 and P25,000.00, respectively. Lastly, petitioners argument that they could not be held

jointly and severally liable for damages because only one (1) voted for the disapproval of respondents application lacks merit. Section 31 of the Corporation Code provides: SEC. 31. Liability of directors, trustees or officers. Directors or trustees who willfully and knowingly vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or who are guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation or acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such directors, or trustees shall be liable jointly and severally for all damages resulting therefrom suffered by the corporation, its stockholders or members and other persons. (Emphasis ours) WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 71506 are AFFIRMED with modification in the sense that (a) the award of moral damages is reduced from P2,000,000.00 to P50,000.00; (b) the award of exemplary damages is reduced from P1,000,000.00 to P25,000.00; and (c) the award of attorneys fees and litigation expenses is reduced from P500,000.00 and P50,000.00 to P50,000.00 and P25,000.00, respectively. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 165443 April 16, 2009 CALATAGAN GOLF CLUB, INC. Petitioner, vs. SIXTO CLEMENTE, JR., Respondent. DECISION TINGA, J.: Seeking the reversal of the Decision1 dated 1 June 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62331 and the reinstatement of the Decision dated 15 November 2000 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in SEC Case No. 04-98-5954, petitioner Calatagan Golf Club, Inc. (Calatagan) filed this Rule 45 petition against respondent Sixto Clemente, Jr. (Clemente). The key facts are undisputed. Clemente applied to purchase one share of stock of Calatagan, indicating in his application for membership his mailing address at "Phimco Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 240, MCC," complete residential address, office and residence telephone numbers, as well as the company (Phimco) with which he was connected, Calatagan issued to him Certificate of Stock No. A-01295 on 2 May 1990 after paying P120,000.00 for the share.2 Calatagan charges monthly dues on its members to meet expenses for general operations, as well as costs for upkeep and improvement of the grounds and facilities. The provision on monthly dues is incorporated in Calatagans Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws. It is also reproduced at the back of each certificate of stock. 3 As reproduced in the dorsal side of Certificate of Stock No. A-01295, the provision reads: 5. The owners of shares of stock shall be subject to the payment of monthly dues in an amount as may be prescribed in the by-laws or by the Board of Directors which shall in no case be less that [sic] P50.00 to meet

35

the expenses for the general operations of the club, and the maintenance and improvement of its premises and facilities, in addition to such fees as may be charged for the actual use of the facilities x x x When Clemente became a member the monthly charge stood at P400.00. He paid P3,000.00 for his monthly dues on 21 March 1991 and another P5,400.00 on 9 December 1991. Then he ceased paying the dues. At that point, his balance amounted to P400.00.4 Ten (10) months later, Calatagan made the initial step to collect Clementes back accounts by sending a demand letter dated 21 September 1992. It was followed by a second letter dated 22 October 1992. Both letters were sent to Clementes mailing address as indicated in his membership application but were sent back to sender with the postal note that the address had been closed.5 Calatagan declared Clemente delinquent for having failed to pay his monthly dues for more than sixty (60) days, specifically P5,600.00 as of 31 October 1992. Calatagan also included Clementes name in the list of delinquent members posted on the clubs bulletin board. On 1 December 1992, Calatagans board of directors adopted a resolution authorizing the foreclosure of shares of delinquent members, including Clementes; and the public auction of these shares. On 7 December 1992, Calatagan sent a third and final letter to Clemente, this time signed by its Corporate Secretary, Atty. Benjamin Tanedo, Jr. The letter contains a warning that unless Clemente settles his outstanding dues, his share would be included among the delinquent shares to be sold at public auction on 15 January 1993. Again, this letter was sent to Clementes mailing address that had already been closed.6 On 5 January 1993, a notice of auction sale was posted on the Clubs bulletin board, as well as on the clubs premises. The auction sale took place as scheduled on 15 January 1993, and Clementes share sold for P64,000.7 According to the Certificate of Sale issued by Calatagan after the sale, Clementes share was purchased by a Nestor A. Virata.8 At the time of the sale, Clementes accrued monthly dues amounted to P5,200.00.9 A notice of foreclosure of Clementes share was published in the 26 May 1993 issue of the Business World.10 Clemente learned of the sale of his share only in November of 1997.11 He filed a claim with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking the restoration of his shareholding in Calatagan with damages. On 15 November 2000, the SEC rendered a decision dismissing Clementes complaint. Citing Section 69 of the Corporation Code which provides that the sale of shares at an auction sale can only be questioned within six (6) months from the date of sale, the SEC concluded that Clementes claim, filed four (4) years after the sale, had already prescribed. The SEC further held that Calatagan had complied with all the requirements for a valid sale of the subject share, Clemente having failed to inform Calatagan that the address he had earlier supplied was no longer his address. Clemente, the SEC ruled, had acted in bad faith in assuming as he claimed that his non-payment of monthly dues would merely render his share "inactive." Clemente filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. On 1 June 2004, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision reversing the SEC. The appellate

court restored Clementes one share with a directive to Calatagan to issue in his a new share, and awarded to Clemente a total of P400,000.00 in damages, less the unpaid monthly dues of P5,200.00. In rejecting the SECs finding that the action had prescribed, the Court of Appeals cited the SECs own ruling in SEC Case No. 4160, Caram v. Valley Golf Country Club, Inc., that Section 69 of the Corporation Code specifically refers to unpaid subscriptions to capital stock, and not to any other debt of stockholders. With the insinuation that Section 69 does not apply to unpaid membership dues in non-stock corporations, the appellate court employed Article 1140 of the Civil Code as the proper rule of prescription. The provision sets the prescription period of actions to recover movables at eight (8) years. The Court of Appeals also pointed out that since that Calatagans first two demand letters had been returned to it as sender with the notation about the closure of the mailing address, it very well knew that its third and final demand letter also sent to the same mailing address would not be received by Clemente. It noted the by-law requirement that within ten (10) days after the Board has ordered the sale at auction of a members share of stock for indebtedness, the Corporate Secretary shall notify the owner thereof and advise the Membership Committee of such fact. Finally, the Court of Appeals ratiocinated that "a person who is in danger of the imminent loss of his property has the right to be notified and be given the chance to prevent the loss."12 Hence, the present appeal. Calatagan maintains that the action of Clemente had prescribed pursuant to Section 69 of the Corporation Code, and that the requisite notices under both the law and the by-laws had been rendered to Clemente. Section 69 of the Code provides that an action to recover delinquent stock sold must be commenced by the filing of a complaint within six (6) months from the date of sale. As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, Section 69 is part of Title VIII of the Code entitled "Stocks and Stockholders" and refers specifically to unpaid subscriptions to capital stock, the sale of which is governed by the immediately preceding Section 68. The Court of Appeals debunked both Calatagans and the SECs reliance on Section 69 by citing another SEC ruling in the case of Caram v. Valley Golf. In connection with Section 69, Calatagan raises a peripheral point made in the SECs Caram ruling. In Caram, the SEC, using as takeoff Section 6 of the Corporation Code which refers to "such rights, privileges or restrictions as may be stated in the articles of incorporation," pointed out that the Articles of Incorporation of Valley Golf does not "impose any lien, liability or restriction on the Golf Share [of Caram]," but only its (Valley Golfs) By-Laws does. Here, Calatagan stresses that its own Articles of Incorporation does provide that the monthly dues assessed on owners of shares of the corporation, along with all other obligations of the shareholders to the club, "shall constitute a first lien on the shares and in the event of delinquency such shares may be ordered sold by the Board of Directors in the manner provided in the ByLaws to satisfy said dues or other obligations of the shareholders."13 With its illative but incomprehensible logic, Calatagan concludes that the prescriptive period under Section 69 should also apply to the sale of

36

Clementes share as the lien that Calatagan perceives to be a restriction is stated in the articles of incorporation and not only in the by-laws. We remain unconvinced. There are fundamental differences that defy equivalence or even analogy between the sale of delinquent stock under Section 68 and the sale that occurred in this case. At the root of the sale of delinquent stock is the nonpayment of the subscription price for the share of stock itself. The stockholder or subscriber has yet to fully pay for the value of the share or shares subscribed. In this case, Clemente had already fully paid for the share in Calatagan and no longer had any outstanding obligation to deprive him of full title to his share. Perhaps the analogy could have been made if Clemente had not yet fully paid for his share and the non-stock corporation, pursuant to an article or by-law provision designed to address that situation, decided to sell such share as a consequence. But that is not the case here, and there is no purpose for us to apply Section 69 to the case at bar. Calatagan argues in the alternative that Clementes suit is barred by Article 1146 of the Civil Code which establishes four (4) years as the prescriptive period for actions based upon injury to the rights of the plaintiff on the hypothesis that the suit is purely for damages. As a second alternative still, Calatagan posits that Clementes action is governed by Article 1149 of the Civil Code which sets five (5) years as the period of prescription for all other actions whose prescriptive periods are not fixed in the Civil Code or in any other law. Neither article is applicable but Article 1140 of the Civil Code which provides that an action to recover movables shall prescribe in eight (8) years. Calatagans action is for the recovery of a share of stock, plus damages. Calatagans advertence to the fact that the constitution of a lien on the members share by virtue of the explicit provisions in its Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws is relevant but ultimately of no help to its cause. Calatagans Articles of Incorporation states that the "dues, together with all other obligations of members to the club, shall constitute a first lien on the shares, second only to any lien in favor of the national or local government, and in the event of delinquency such shares may be ordered sold by the Board of Directors in the manner provided in the By-Laws to satisfy said dues or other obligations of the stockholders."14 In turn, there are several provisions in the By-laws that govern the payment of dues, the lapse into delinquency of the member, and the constitution and execution on the lien. We quote these provisions: ARTICLE XII MEMBERS ACCOUNT SEC. 31. (a) Billing Members, Posting of Delinquent Members The Treasurer shall bill al members monthly. As soon as possible after the end of every month, a statement showing the account of bill of a member for said month will be prepared and sent to him. If the bill of any member remains unpaid by the 20th of the month following that in which the bill was incurred, the Treasurer shall notify him that if his bill is not paid in full by the end of the succeeding month his name will be posted as delinquent the following day at the Clubhouse bulletin board. While posted, a member, the immediate members of his family, and his guests, may not avail of the facilities of the Club. (b) Members on the delinquent list for more than 60

days shall be reported to the Board and their shares or the shares of the juridical entities they represent shall thereafter be ordered sold by the Board at auction to satisfy the claims of the Club as provided for in Section 32 hereon. A member may pay his overdue account at any time before the auction sale. Sec. 32. Lien on Shares; Sale of Share at Auction- The club shall have a first lien on every share of stock to secure debts of the members to the Club. This lien shall be annotated on the certificates of stock and may be enforced by the Club in the following manner: (a) Within ten (10) days after the Board has ordered the sale at auction of a members share of stock for indebtedness under Section 31(b) hereof, the Secretary shall notify the owner thereof, and shall advise the Membership Committee of such fact. (b) The Membership Committee shall then notify all applicants on the Waiting List and all registered stockholders of the availability of a share of stock for sale at auction at a specified date, time and place, and shall post a notice to that effect in the Club bulletin board for at least ten (10) days prior to the auction sale. (c) On the date and hour fixed, the Membership Committee shall proceed with the auction by viva voce bidding and award the sale of the share of stock to the highest bidder. (d) The purchase price shall be paid by the winning bidder to the Club within twenty-four (24) hours after the bidding. The winning bidder or the representative in the case of a juridical entity shall become a Regular Member upon payment of the purchase price and issuance of a new stock certificate in his name or in the name of the juridical entity he represents. The proceeds of the sale shall be paid by the Club to the selling stockholder after deducting his obligations to the Club. (e) If no bids be received or if the winning bidder fails to pay the amount of this bid within twentyfour (24) hours after the bidding, the auction procedures may be repeated from time to time at the discretion of the Membership Committee until the share of stock be sold. (f) If the proceeds from the sale of the share of stock are not sufficient to pay in full the indebtedness of the member, the member shall continue to be obligated to the Club for the unpaid balance. If the member whose share of stock is sold fails or refuse to surrender the stock certificate for cancellation, cancellation shall be effected in the books of the Club based on a record of the proceedings. Such cancellation shall render the unsurrendered stock certificate null and void and notice to this effect shall be duly published. It is plain that Calatagan had endeavored to install a clear and comprehensive procedure to govern the payment of monthly dues, the declaration of a member as delinquent, and the constitution of a lien on the shares and its eventual public sale to answer for the members debts. Under Section 91 of the Corporation Code, membership in a non-stock corporation "shall be terminated in the manner and for the causes provided in the articles of incorporation or the by-laws." The By-law provisions are elaborate in explaining the manner and the causes for the termination of membership in

37

Calatagan, through the execution on the lien of the share. The Court is satisfied that the By-Laws, as written, affords due protection to the member by assuring that the member should be notified by the Secretary of the looming execution sale that would terminate membership in the club. In addition, the ByLaws guarantees that after the execution sale, the proceeds of the sale would be returned to the former member after deducting the outstanding obligations. If followed to the letter, the termination of membership under this procedure outlined in the By-Laws would accord with substantial justice. Yet, did Calatagan actually comply with the by-law provisions when it sold Clementes share? The appellate courts finding on this point warrants our approving citation, thus: In accordance with this provision, Calatagan sent the third and final demand letter to Clemente on December 7, 1992. The letter states that if the amount of delinquency is not paid, the share will be included among the delinquent shares to be sold at public auction. This letter was signed by Atty. Benjamin Tanedo, Jr., Calatagan Golfs Corporate Secretary. It was again sent to Clementes mailing address Phimco Industries Inc., P.O. Box 240, MCC Makati. As expected, it was returned because the post office box had been closed. Under the By-Laws, the Corporate Secretary is tasked to "give or cause to be given, all notices required by law or by these By-Laws. .. and keep a record of the addresses of all stockholders. As quoted above, Sec. 32 (a) of the By-Laws further provides that "within ten (10) days after the Board has ordered the sale at auction of a members share of stock for indebtedness under Section 31 (b) hereof, the Secretary shall notify the owner thereof and shall advise the Membership Committee of such fact.," The records do not disclose what report the Corporate Secretary transmitted to the Membership Committee to comply with Section 32(a). Obviously, the reason for this mandatory requirement is to give the Membership Committee the opportunity to find out, before the share is sold, if proper notice has been made to the shareholder member. We presume that the Corporate Secretary, as a lawyer is knowledgeable on the law and on the standards of good faith and fairness that the law requires. As custodian of corporate records, he should also have known that the first two letters sent to Clemente were returned because the P.O. Box had been closed. Thus, we are surprised given his knowledge of the law and of corporate records that he would send the third and final letter Clementes last chance before his share is sold and his membership lost to the same P.O. Box that had been closed. Calatagan argues that it "exercised due diligence before the foreclosure sale" and "sent several notices to Clementes specified mailing address." We do not agree; we cannot label as due diligence Calatagans act of sending the December 7, 1992 letter to Clementes mailing address knowing fully well that the P.O. Box had been closed. Due diligence or good faith imposes upon the Corporate Secretary the chief repository of all corporate records the obligation to check Clementes other address which, under the By-Laws, have to be kept on file and are in fact on file. One obvious purpose of giving the Corporate Secretary the duty to keep the

addresses of members on file is specifically for matters of this kind, when the member cannot be reached through his or her mailing address. Significantly, the Corporate Secretary does not have to do the actual verification of other addressees on record; a mere clerk can do the very simple task of checking the files as in fact clerks actually undertake these tasks. In fact, one telephone call to Clementes phone numbers on file would have alerted him of his impending loss. Ultimately, the petition must fail because Calatagan had failed to duly observe both the spirit and letter of its own by-laws. The by-law provisions was clearly conceived to afford due notice to the delinquent member of the impending sale, and not just to provide an intricate faade that would facilitate Calatagans sale of the share. But then, the bad faith on Calatagans part is palpable. As found by the Court of Appeals, Calatagan very well knew that Clementes postal box to which it sent its previous letters had already been closed, yet it persisted in sending that final letter to the same postal box. What for? Just for the exercise, it appears, as it had known very well that the letter would never actually reach Clemente.1avvphi1 It is noteworthy that Clemente in his membership application had provided his residential address along with his residence and office telephone numbers. Nothing in Section 32 of Calatagans By-Laws requires that the final notice prior to the sale be made solely through the members mailing address. Clemente cites our aphorism-like pronouncement in Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals15 that "[a] simple telephone call and an ounce of good faith x x x could have prevented this present controversy." That memorable observation is quite apt in this case. Calatagans bad faith and failure to observe its own By Laws had resulted not merely in the loss of Clementes privilege to play golf at its golf course and avail of its amenities, but also in significant pecuniary damage to him. For that loss, the only blame that could be thrown Clementes way was his failure to notify Calatagan of the closure of the P.O. Box. That lapse, if we uphold Calatagan would cost Clemente a lot. But, in the first place, does he deserve answerability for failing to notify the club of the closure of the postal box? Indeed, knowing as he did that Calatagan was in possession of his home address as well as residence and office telephone numbers, he had every reason to assume that the club would not be at a loss should it need to contact him. In addition, according to Clemente, he was not even aware of the closure of the postal box, the maintenance of which was not his responsibility but his employer Phimcos. The utter bad faith exhibited by Calatagan brings into operation Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code, 16 under the Chapter on Human Relations. These provisions, which the Court of Appeals did apply, enunciate a general obligation under law for every person to act fairly and in good faith towards one another. A non-stock corporation like Calatagan is not exempt from that obligation in its treatment of its members. The obligation of a corporation to treat every person honestly and in good faith extends even to its shareholders or members, even if the latter find themselves contractually bound to perform certain obligations to the corporation. A certificate of stock cannot be a charter of dehumanization.

38

We turn to the matter of damages. The award of actual damages is of course warranted since Clemente has sustained pecuniary injury by reason of Calatagans wrongful violation of its own By-Laws. It would not be feasible to deliver Clementes original Certificate of Stock because it had already been cancelled and a new one issued in its place in the name of the purchases at the auction who was not impleaded in this case. However, the Court of Appeals instead directed that Calatagan to issue to Clemente a new certificate of stock. That sufficiently redresses the actual damages sustained by Clemente. After all, the certificate of stock is simply the evidence of the share. The Court of Appeals also awarded Clemente P200,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P100,000.00 as attorneys fees. We agree that the award of such damages is warranted. The Court of Appeals cited Calatagan for violation of Article 32 of the Civil Code, which allows recovery of damages from any private individual "who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs" the right "against deprivation of property without due process of laws." The plain letter of the provision squarely entitles Clemente to damages from Calatagan. Even without Article 32 itself, Calatagan will still be bound to pay moral and exemplary damages to Clemente. The latter was able to duly prove that he had sustained mental anguish, serious anxiety and wounded feelings by reason of Calatagans acts, thereby entitling him to moral damages under Article 2217 of the Civil Code. Moreover, it is evident that Calatagans bad faith as exhibited in the course of its corporate actions warrants correction for the public good, thereby justifying exemplary damages under Article 2229 of the Civil Code. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 101749 July 10, 1992 CONRADO BUNAG, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, First Division, and ZENAIDA B. CIRILO, respondents. REGALADO, J.: Petitioner appeals for the reversal of the decision 1 of respondent Court of Appeals promulgated on May 17, 1991 in CA-G.R. CV No. 07054, entitled "Zenaida B. Cirilo vs. Conrado Bunag, Sr. and Conrado Bunag, Jr.," which affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XI at Bacoor, Cavite, and, implicitly, respondent court's resolution of September 3, 1991 2 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Respondent court having assiduously discussed the salient antecedents of this case, vis-a-vis the factual findings of the court below, the evidence of record and the contentions of the parties, it is appropriate that its findings, which we approve and adopt, be extensively reproduced hereunder: Based on the evidence on record, the following facts are considered indisputable: On the afternoon of September 8, 1973, defendant-

appellant Bunag, Jr. brought plaintiff-appellant to a motel or hotel where they had sexual intercourse. Later that evening, said defendantappellant brought plaintiff-appellant to the house of his grandmother Juana de Leon in Pamplona, Las Pias, Metro Manila, where they lived together as husband and wife for 21 days, or until September 29, 1973. On September 10, 1973, defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr. and plaintiff-appellant filed their respective applications for a marriage license with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Bacoor, Cavite. On October 1, 1973, after leaving plaintiff-appellant, defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr. filed an affidavit withdrawing his application for a marriage license. Plaintiff-appellant contends that on the afternoon of September 8, 1973, defendantappellant Bunag, Jr., together with an unidentified male companion, abducted her in the vicinity of the San Juan de Dios Hospital in Pasay City and brought her to a motel where she was raped. The court a quo, which adopted her evidence, summarized the same which we paraphrased as follows: Plaintiff was 26 years old on November 5, 1974 when she testified, single and had finished a college course in Commerce (t.s.n., p. 4, Nov. 5, 1974). It appears that on September 8, 1973, at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, while she was walking along Figueras Street, Pasay City on her way to the San Juan de Dios Canteen to take her snack, defendant, Conrado Bunag, Jr., came riding in a car driven by a male companion. Plaintiff and defendant Bunag, Jr. were sweethearts, but two weeks before September 8, 1973, they had a quarrel, and Bunag, Jr. wanted to talk matters over with plaintiff, so that he invited her to take their merienda at the Aristocrat Restaurant in Manila instead of at the San Juan de Dios Canteen, to which plaintiff obliged, as she believed in his sincerity (t.s.n., pp. 8-10, Nov. 5, 1974). Plaintiff rode in the car and took the front seat beside the driver while Bunag, Jr. seated himself by her right side. The car travelled north on its way to the Aristocrat Restaurant but upon reaching San Juan Street in Pasay City, it turned abruptly to the right, to which plaintiff protested, but which the duo ignored and instead threatened her not to make any noise as they were ready to die and would bump the car against the post if she persisted. Frightened and silenced, the car travelled its course thru F.B. Harrison Boulevard until they reached a motel. Plaintiff was then pulled and dragged from the car against her will, and amidst her cries and pleas. In spite of her struggle she was no match to the joint strength of the two male combatants because of

39

her natural weakness being a woman and her small stature. Eventually, she was brought inside the hotel where the defendant Bunag, Jr. deflowered her against her will and consent. She could not fight back and repel the attack because after Bunag, Jr. had forced her to lie down and embraced her, his companion held her two feet, removed her panty, after which he left. Bunag, Jr. threatened her that he would ask his companion to come back and hold her feet if she did not surrender her womanhood to him, thus he succeeded in feasting on her virginity. Plaintiff described the pains she felt and how blood came out of her private parts after her vagina was penetrated by the penis of the defendant Bunag, Jr. (t.s.n. pp. 17-24, Nov. 5, 1974). After that outrage on her virginity, plaintiff asked Bunag, Jr. once more to allow her to go home but the latter would not consent and stated that he would only let her go after they were married as he intended to marry her, so much so that she promised not to make any scandal and to marry him. Thereafter, they took a taxi together after the car that they used had already gone, and proceeded to the house of Juana de Leon, Bunag, Jr.'s grandmother in Pamplona, Las Pias, Metro Manila where they arrived at 9:30 o'clock in the evening (t.s.n., p. 26, Nov. 5, 1974). At about ten (10) o'clock that same evening, defendant Conrado Bunag, Sr., father of Bunag, Jr. arrived and assured plaintiff that the following day which was a Monday, she and Bunag, Jr. would go to Bacoor, to apply for a marriage license, which they did. They filed their applications for marriage license (Exhibits "A" and "C") and after that plaintiff and defendant Bunag, Jr. returned to the house of Juana de Leon and lived there as husband and wife from September 8, 1973 to September 29, 1973. On September 29, 1973 defendant Bunag, Jr. left and never returned, humiliating plaintiff and compelled her to go back to her parents on October 3, 1973. Plaintiff was ashamed when she went home and could not sleep and eat because of the deception done against her by defendants-appellants (t.s.n., p. 35, Nov. 5, 1974). The testimony of plaintiff was corroborated in toto by her uncle, Vivencio Bansagan who declared that on September 8, 1973 when plaintiff failed to arrive home at 9:00 o'clock in the evening, his sister who is the mother of plaintiff asked him to look for her but his efforts proved futile, and he told his sister that plaintiff might

have married (baka nag-asawa, t.s.n., pp. 5-6, March 18, 1976). However, in the afternoon of the next day (Sunday), his sister told him that Francisco Cabrera, accompanied by barrio captain Jacinto Manalili of Ligas, Bacoor, Cavite, informed her that plaintiff and Bunag, Jr. were in Cabrera's house, so that her sister requested him to go and see the plaintiff, which he did, and at the house of Mrs. Juana de Leon in Pamplona, Las Pias, Metro Manila he met defendant Conrado Bunag, Sr., who told him, "Pare, the children are here already. Let us settle the matter and have them married." He conferred with plaintiff who told him that as she had already lost her honor, she would bear her sufferings as Boy Bunag, Jr. and his father promised they would be married. Defendants-appellants, on the other hand, deny that defendant-appellant Conrado Bunag, Jr. abducted and raped plaintiff-appellant on September 8, 1973. On the contrary, plaintiffappellant and defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr. eloped on that date because of the opposition of the latter's father to their relationship. Defendant-appellants claim that defendantappellant Bunag, Jr. and plaintiff-appellant had earlier made plans to elope and get married, and this fact was known to their friends, among them, Architect Chito Rodriguez. The couple made good their plans to elope on the afternoon of September 8, 1973, when defendantappellant Bunag, Jr., accompanied by his friend Guillermo Ramos, Jr., met plaintiff-appellant and her officemate named Lydia in the vicinity of the San Juan de Dios Hospital. The foursome then proceeded to (the) aforesaid hospital's canteen where they had some snacks. Later, Guillermo Ramos, Jr. took Lydia to Quirino Avenue where she could get a ride home, thereby leaving the defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr. and plaintiff-appellant alone. According to defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr., after Guillermo Ramos, Jr. and Lydia left, he and plaintiffappellant took a taxi to the Golden Gate and Flamingo Hotels where they tried to get a room, but these were full. They finally got a room at the Holiday Hotel, where defendant-appellant registered using his real name and residence certificate number. Three hours later, the couple check out of the hotel and proceeded to the house of Juana de Leon at Pamplona, Las Pias, where they stayed until September 19, 1873. Defendant-appellant claims that bitter disagreements with the plaintiff-appellant over money and the threats made to his life prompted him to break off their plan to get married. During this period, defendant-appellant Bunag, Sr. denied having gone to the house of Juan de Leon and telling plaintiff-appellant that she would be wed to defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr. In fact, he phoned Atty. Conrado Adreneda,

40

member of the board of directors of Mandala Corporation, defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr.'s employer, three times between the evening of September 8, 1973 and September 9, 1973 inquiring as to the whereabouts of his son. He came to know about his son's whereabouts when he was told of the couple's elopement late in the afternoon of September 9, 1973 by his mother Candida Gawaran. He likewise denied having met relatives and emissaries of plaintiffappellant and agreeing to her marriage to his son. 3 A complaint for damages for alleged breach of promise to marry was filed by herein private respondent Zenaida B. Cirilo against petitioner Conrado Bunag, Jr. and his father, Conrado Bunag, Sr., as Civil Case No. N-2028 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XIX at Bacoor, Cavite. On August 20, 1983, on a finding, inter alia, that petitioner had forcibly abducted and raped private respondent, the trial court rendered a decision 4 ordering petitioner Bunag, Jr. to pay private respondent P80,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, P20,000.00 by way of temperate damages, and P10,000.00 for and as attorney's fees, as well as the costs of suit. Defendant Conrado Bunag, Sr. was absolved from any and all liability. Private respondent appealed that portion of the lower court's decision disculpating Conrado Bunag, Sr. from civil liability in this case. On the other hand, the Bunags, as defendants-appellants, assigned in their appeal several errors allegedly committed by trial court, which were summarized by respondent court as follows: (1) in finding that defendant-appellant Conrado Bunag, Jr. forcibly abducted and raped plaintiff-appellant; (2) in finding that defendants-appellants promised plaintiffappellant that she would be wed to defendant-appellant Conrado Bunag, Jr.; and (3) in awarding plaintiffappellant damages for the breach of defendantsappellants' promise of marriage. 5 As stated at the outset, on May 17, 1991 respondent Court of Appeals rendered judgment dismissing both appeals and affirming in toto the decision of the trial court. His motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner Bunag, Jr. is before us on a petition for review, contending that (1) respondent court failed to consider vital exhibits, testimonies and incidents for petitioner's defense, resulting in the misapprehensions of facts and violative of the law on preparation of judgment; and (2) it erred in the application of the proper law and jurisprudence by holding that there was forcible abduction with rape, not just a simple elopement and an agreement to marry, and in the award of excessive damages. 6 Petitioner Bunag, Jr. first contends that both the trial and appellate courts failed to take into consideration the alleged fact that he and private respondent had agreed to marry, and that there was no case of forcible abduction with rape, but one of simple elopement and agreement to marry. It is averred that the agreement to marry has been sufficiently proven by the testimonies of the witnesses for both parties and the exhibits presented in court. This submission, therefore, clearly hinges on the credibility of the witnesses and evidence presented by the parties and the weight accorded thereto in the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of

Appeals. In effect, what petitioner would want this Court to do is to evaluate and analyze anew the evidence, both testimonial and documentary, presented before and calibrated by the trial court, and as further meticulously reviewed and discussed by respondent court. The issue raised primarily and ineluctably involves questions of fact. We are, therefore, once again constrained to stress the well-entrenched statutory and jurisprudential mandate that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are, as a rule, conclusive upon this Court. Only questions of law, distinctly set forth, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, subject to clearly settled exceptions in case law. Our jurisdiction in cases brought to us from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to the latter, its findings of fact being conclusive. This Court has emphatically declared that it is not its function to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the lower court. Barring, therefore, a showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand, for this Court is not expected or required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties. 7 Neither does the instant case reveal any feature falling within, any of the exceptions which under our decisional rules may warrant a review of the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. On the foregoing considerations and our review of the records, we sustain the holding of respondent court in favor of private respondent. Petitioner likewise asserts that since action involves a breach of promise to marry, the trial court erred in awarding damages. It is true that in this jurisdiction, we adhere to the timehonored rule that an action for breach of promise to marry has no standing in the civil law, apart from the right to recover money or property advanced by the plaintiff upon the faith of such promise. 8 Generally, therefore, a breach of promise to marry per se is not actionable, except where the plaintiff has actually incurred expenses for the wedding and the necessary incidents thereof. However, the award of moral damages is allowed in cases specified in or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. Correlatively, under Article 21 of said Code, in relation to paragraph 10 of said Article 2219, any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for moral damages. 9 Article 21 was adopted to remedy 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, and is intended to vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically provide for in the statutes. 10 Under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, the acts of petitioner in forcibly abducting private respondent and having carnal knowledge with her against her will, and thereafter promising to marry her

41

in order to escape criminal liability, only to thereafter renege on such promise after cohabiting with her for twenty-one days, irremissibly constitute acts contrary to morals and good customs. These are grossly insensate and reprehensible transgressions which indisputably warrant and abundantly justify the award of moral and exemplary damages, pursuant to Article 21 in relation to paragraphs 3 and 10, Article 2219, and Article 2229 and 2234 of Civil Code. Petitioner would, however, belabor the fact that said damages were awarded by the trial court on the basis of a finding that he is guilty of forcible abduction with rape, despite the prior dismissal of the complaint therefor filed by private respondent with the Pasay City Fiscal's Office. Generally, the basis of civil liability from crime is the fundamental postulate of our law that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. In other words, criminal liability will give rise to civil liability ex delicto only if the same felonious act or omission results in damage or injury to another and is the direct and proximate cause thereof. 11 Hence, extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist. 12 In the instant case, the dismissal of the complaint for forcible abduction with rape was by mere resolution of the fiscal at the preliminary investigation stage. There is no declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil case might arise did not exist. Consequently, the dismissal did not in any way affect the right of herein private respondent to institute a civil action arising from the offense because such preliminary dismissal of the penal action did not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. The reason most often given for this holding is that the two proceedings involved are not between the same parties. Furthermore, it has long been emphasized, with continuing validity up to now, that there are different rules as to the competency of witnesses and the quantum of evidence in criminal and civil proceedings. In a criminal action, the State must prove its case by evidence which shows the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, while in a civil action it is sufficient for the plaintiff to sustain his cause by preponderance of evidence only. 13 Thus, in Rillon, et al. vs. Rillon, 14 we stressed that it is not now necessary that a criminal prosecution for rape be first instituted and prosecuted to final judgment before a civil action based on said offense in favor of the offended woman can likewise be instituted and prosecuted to final judgment. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, and the assailed judgment and resolution are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-18630 December 17, 1966 APOLONIO TANJANCO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ARACELI SANTOS, respondents. REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals (in its Case No. 27210-R) revoking an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (in Civil Case No. Q-4797) dismissing appellant's action for support and damages. The essential allegations of the complaint are to the effect that, from December, 1957, the defendant (appellee herein), Apolonio Tanjanco, courted the plaintiff, Araceli Santos, both being of adult age; that "defendant expressed and professed his undying love and affection for plaintiff who also in due time reciprocated the tender feelings"; that in consideration of defendant's promise of marriage plaintiff consented and acceded to defendant's pleas for carnal knowledge; that regularly until December 1959, through his protestations of love and promises of marriage, defendant succeeded in having carnal access to plaintiff, as a result of which the latter conceived a child; that due to her pregnant condition, to avoid embarrassment and social humiliation, plaintiff had to resign her job as secretary in IBM Philippines, Inc., where she was receiving P230.00 a month; that thereby plaintiff became unable to support herself and her baby; that due to defendant's refusal to marry plaintiff, as promised, the latter suffered mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation. The prayer was for a decree compelling the defendant to recognize the unborn child that plaintiff was bearing; to pay her not less than P430.00 a month for her support and that of her baby, plus P100,000.00 in moral and exemplary damages, plus P10,000.00 attorney's fees. Upon defendant's motion to dismiss, the court of first instance dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff Santos duly appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the latter ultimately decided the case, holding with the lower court that no cause of action was shown to compel recognition of a child as yet unborn, nor for its support, but decreed that the complaint did state a cause of action for damages, premised on Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, prescribing as follows: ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. The Court of Appeals, therefore, entered judgment setting aside the dismissal and directing the court of origin to proceed with the case. Defendant, in turn, appealed to this Court, pleading that actions for breach of a promise to marry are not permissible in this jurisdiction, and invoking the rulings of this Court in Estopa vs. Piansay, L-14733, September 30, 1960; Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals, L-14628, January 29, 1962; and De Jesus vs. SyQuia, 58 Phil. 886. We find this appeal meritorious. In holding that the complaint stated a cause of action for damages, under Article 21 above mentioned, the Court of Appeals relied upon and quoted from the memorandum submitted by the Code Commission to the Legislature in 1949 to support the original draft of the Civil Code. Referring to Article 23 of the draft (now Article 21 of the Code), the Commission stated: But the Code Commission has gone farther than the sphere of wrongs defined or determined by positive

42

law. Fully sensible that there are countless gaps in the statutes, which leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even though they have actually suffered material and moral injury, the Commission has deemed it necessary, in the interest of justice, to incorporate in the proposed Civil Code the following rule: "ART. 23. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage." An example will illustrate the purview of the foregoing norm: "A" seduces the nineteen-year old daughter of "X". A promise of marriage either has not been made, or can not be proved. The girl becomes pregnant. Under the present laws, there is no crime, as the girl is above eighteen years of age. Neither can any civil action for breach of promise of marriage be filed. Therefore, though the grievous moral wrong has been committed, and though the girl and her family have suffered incalculable moral damage, she and her parents cannot bring any action for damages. But under the proposed article, she and her parents would have such a right of action. The Court of Appeals seems to have overlooked that the example set forth in the Code Commission's memorandum refers to a tort upon a minor who has been seduced. The essential feature is seduction, that in law is more than mere sexual intercourse, or a breach of a promise of marriage; it connotes essentially the idea of deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded (U.S. vs. Buenaventura, 27 Phil. 121; U.S. vs. Arlante, 9 Phil. 595). It has been ruled in the Buenaventura case (supra) that To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some sufficient promise or inducement and the woman must yield because of the promise or other inducement. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the intercourse is from mutual desire, there is no seduction (43 Cent. Dig. tit. Seduction, par. 56). She must be induced to depart from the path of virtue by the use of some species of arts, persuasions and wiles, which are calculated to have and do have that effect, and which result in her ultimately submitting her person to the sexual embraces of her seducer (27 Phil. 123). And in American Jurisprudence we find: On the other hand, in an action by the woman, the enticement, persuasion or deception is the essence of the injury; and a mere proof of intercourse is insufficient to warrant a recover. Accordingly it is not seduction where the willingness arises out of sexual desire or curiosity of the female, and the defendant merely affords her the needed opportunity for the commission of the act. It has been emphasized that to allow a recovery in all such cases would tend to the demoralization of the female sex, and would be a reward for unchastity by which a class of adventuresses would be swift to profit." (47 Am. Jur. 662) Bearing these principles in mind, let us examine the

complaint. The material allegations there are as follows: I. That the plaintiff is of legal age, single, and residing at 56 South E. Diliman, Quezon City, while defendant is also of legal age, single and residing at 525 Padre Faura, Manila, where he may be served with summons; II. That the plaintiff and the defendant became acquainted with each other sometime in December, 1957 and soon thereafter, the defendant started visiting and courting the plaintiff; III. That the defendant's visits were regular and frequent and in due time the defendant expressed and professed his undying love and affection for the plaintiff who also in due time reciprocated the tender feelings; IV. That in the course of their engagement, the plaintiff and the defendant as are wont of young people in love had frequent outings and dates, became very close and intimate to each other and sometime in July, 1958, in consideration of the defendant's promises of marriage, the plaintiff consented and acceded to the former's earnest and repeated pleas to have carnal knowledge with him; V. That subsequent thereto and regularly until about July, 1959 except for a short period in December, 1958 when the defendant was out of the country, the defendant through his protestations of love and promises of marriage succeeded in having carnal knowledge with the plaintiff; VI. That as a result of their intimate relationship, the plaintiff started conceiving which was confirmed by a doctor sometime in July, 1959; VII. That upon being certain of her pregnant condition, the plaintiff informed the defendant and pleaded with him to make good his promises of marriage, but instead of honoring his promises and righting his wrong, the defendant stopped and refrained from seeing the plaintiff since about July, 1959 has not visited the plaintiff and to all intents and purposes has broken their engagement and his promises. Over and above the partisan allegations, the facts stand out that for one whole year, from 1958 to 1959, the plaintiff-appellee, a woman of adult age, maintained intimate sexual relations with appellant, with repeated acts of intercourse. Such conduct is incompatible with the idea of seduction. Plainly there is here voluntariness and mutual passion; for had the appellant been deceived, had she surrendered exclusively because of the deceit, artful persuasions and wiles of the defendant, she would not have again yielded to his embraces, much less for one year, without exacting early fulfillment of the alleged promises of marriage, and would have cut chart all sexual relations upon finding that defendant did not intend to fulfill his promises. Hence, we conclude that no case is made under Article 21 of the Civil Code, and no other cause of action being alleged, no error was committed by the Court of First Instance in dismissing the complaint. Of course, the dismissal must be understood as without prejudice to whatever actions may correspond to the child of the plaintiff against the defendant-appellant, if any. On that point, this Court makes no pronouncement, since the child's own rights are not here involved.

43

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and that of the Court of First Instance is affirmed. No costs. G.R. No. 127358 March 31, 2005 NOEL BUENAVENTURA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ISABEL LUCIA SINGH BUENAVENTURA, respondents. x-------------------x G.R. No. 127449 March 31, 2005 NOEL BUENAVENTURA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ISABEL LUCIA SINGH BUENAVENTURA, Respondents. DECISION AZCUNA, J.: These cases involve a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage, which was filed by petitioner Noel Buenaventura on July 12, 1992, on the ground of the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife, Isabel Singh Buenaventura, herein respondent. After respondent filed her answer, petitioner, with leave of court, amended his petition by stating that both he and his wife were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. In response, respondent filed an amended answer denying the allegation that she was psychologically incapacitated.1 On July 31, 1995, the Regional Trial Court promulgated a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1) Declaring and decreeing the marriage entered into between plaintiff Noel A. Buenaventura and defendant Isabel Lucia Singh Buenaventura on July 4, 1979, null and void ab initio; 2) Ordering the plaintiff to pay defendant moral damages in the amount of 2.5 million pesos and exemplary damages of 1 million pesos with 6% interest from the date of this decision plus attorneys fees of P100,000.00; 3) Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant expenses of litigation of P50,000.00, plus costs; 4) Ordering the liquidation of the assets of the conjugal partnership property[,] particularly the plaintiffs separation/retirement benefits received from the Far East Bank [and] Trust Company[,] by ceding, giving and paying to her fifty percent (50%) of the net amount of P3,675,335.79 or P1,837,667.89 together with 12% interest per annum from the date of this decision and one-half (1/2) of his outstanding shares of stock with Manila Memorial Park and Provident Group of Companies; 5) Ordering him to give a regular support in favor of his son Javy Singh Buenaventura in the amount of P15,000.00 monthly, subject to modification as the necessity arises; 6) Awarding the care and custody of the minor Javy Singh Buenaventura to his mother, the herein defendant; and

7) Hereby authorizing the defendant to revert back to the use of her maiden family name Singh. Let copies of this decision be furnished the appropriate civil registry and registries of properties. SO ORDERED.2 Petitioner appealed the above decision to the Court of Appeals. While the case was pending in the appellate court, respondent filed a motion to increase the P15,000 monthly support pendente lite of their son Javy Singh Buenaventura. Petitioner filed an opposition thereto, praying that it be denied or that such incident be set for oral argument.3 On September 2, 1996, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution increasing the support pendente lite to P20,000.4 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration questioning the said Resolution.5 On October 8, 1996, the appellate court promulgated a Decision dismissing petitioners appeal for lack of merit and affirming in toto the trial courts decision. 6 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. From the abovementioned Decision, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari. On November 13, 1996, through another Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners motion for reconsideration of the September 2, 1996 Resolution, which increased the monthly support for the son.7 Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari to question these two Resolutions. On July 9, 1997, the Petition for Review on Certiorari8 and the Petition for Certiorari9 were ordered consolidated by this Court.10 In the Petition for Review on Certiorari petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals decided the case not in accord with law and jurisprudence, thus: 1. WHEN IT AWARDED DEFENDANT-APPELLEE MORAL DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF P2.5 MILLION AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES OF P1 MILLION, WITH 6% INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF ITS DECISION, WITHOUT ANY LEGAL AND MORAL BASIS; 2. WHEN IT AWARDED P100,000.00 ATTORNEYS FEES AND P50,000.00 EXPENSES OF LITIGATION, PLUS COSTS, TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, WITHOUT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS; 3. WHEN IT ORDERED PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT NOEL TO PAY DEFENDANT-APPELLEE ONE-HALF OR P1,837,667.89 OUT OF HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS RECEIVED FROM THE FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO., WITH 12% INTEREST THEREON FROM THE DATE OF ITS DECISION, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SAID RETIREMENT BENEFITS ARE GRATUITOUS AND EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF NOEL, AND ALSO TO DELIVER TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEE ONE-HALF OF HIS SHARES OF STOCK WITH THE MANILA MEMORIAL PARK AND THE PROVIDENT GROUP OF COMPANIES, ALTHOUGH SAID SHARES OF STOCK WERE ACQUIRED BY NOEL BEFORE HIS MARRIAGE TO RESPONDENT ISABEL AND ARE, THEREFORE, AGAIN HIS EXCLUSIVE PROPERTIES; AND 4. WHEN IT AWARDED EXCLUSIVE CARE AND CUSTODY OVER THE PARTIES MINOR CHILD TO

44

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE WITHOUT ASKING THE CHILD (WHO WAS ALREADY 13 YEARS OLD AT THAT TIME) HIS CHOICE AS TO WHOM, BETWEEN HIS TWO PARENTS, HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE CUSTODY OVER HIS PERSON.11 In the Petition for Certiorari, petitioner advances the following contentions: THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO SET RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR INCREASED SUPPORT FOR THE PARTIES SON FOR HEARING.12 THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO INCREASE JAVYS MONTHLY SUPPORT OF P15,000.00 BEING GIVEN BY PETITIONER EVEN AT PRESENT PRICES.13 IN RESOLVING RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR THE INCREASE OF JAVYS SUPPORT, THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE LIST OF EXPENSES SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT IN THE LIGHT OF PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS THERETO, INSTEAD OF MERELY ASSUMING THAT JAVY IS ENTITLED TO A P5,000 INCREASE IN SUPPORT AS SAID AMOUNT IS "TOO MINIMAL."14 LIKEWISE, THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE HIS PRESENT INCOME TO SHOW THAT HE CANNOT AFFORD TO INCREASE JAVYS SUPPORT.15 With regard to the first issue in the main case, the Court of Appeals articulated: On Assignment of Error C, the trial court, after findings of fact ascertained from the testimonies not only of the parties particularly the defendantappellee but likewise, those of the two psychologists, awarded damages on the basis of Articles 21, 2217 and 2229 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Thus, the lower court found that plaintiff-appellant deceived the defendant-appellee into marrying him by professing true love instead of revealing to her that he was under heavy parental pressure to marry and that because of pride he married defendantappellee; that he was not ready to enter into marriage as in fact his career was and always would be his first priority; that he was unable to relate not only to defendant-appellee as a husband but also to his son, Javy, as a father; that he had no inclination to make the marriage work such that in times of trouble, he chose the easiest way out, that of leaving defendantappellee and their son; that he had no desire to keep defendant-appellee and their son as proved by his reluctance and later, refusal to reconcile after their separation; that the aforementioned caused defendant-appellee to suffer mental anguish, anxiety, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights not only in those years the parties were together but also after and throughout their separation. Plaintiff-appellant assails the trial courts decision on the ground that unlike those arising from a breach in ordinary contracts, damages arising as a consequence of marriage may not be awarded. While it is correct that there is, as yet, no decided case by the Supreme Court where damages by reason of the performance or non-performance of

marital obligations were awarded, it does not follow that no such award for damages may be made. Defendant-appellee, in her amended answer, specifically prayed for moral and exemplary damages in the total amount of 7 million pesos. The lower court, in the exercise of its discretion, found full justification of awarding at least half of what was originally prayed for. We find no reason to disturb the ruling of the trial court.16 The award by the trial court of moral damages is based on Articles 2217 and 21 of the Civil Code, which read as follows: ART. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission. ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. The trial court referred to Article 21 because Article 221917 of the Civil Code enumerates the cases in which moral damages may be recovered and it mentions Article 21 as one of the instances. It must be noted that Article 21 states that the individual must willfully cause loss or injury to another. There is a need that the act is willful and hence done in complete freedom. In granting moral damages, therefore, the trial court and the Court of Appeals could not but have assumed that the acts on which the moral damages were based were done willfully and freely, otherwise the grant of moral damages would have no leg to stand on. On the other hand, the trial court declared the marriage of the parties null and void based on Article 36 of the Family Code, due to psychological incapacity of the petitioner, Noel Buenaventura. Article 36 of the Family Code states: A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. Psychological incapacity has been defined, thus: . . . no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. . . .18 The Court of Appeals and the trial court considered the acts of the petitioner after the marriage as proof of his psychological incapacity, and therefore a product of his

45

incapacity or inability to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Nevertheless, said courts considered these acts as willful and hence as grounds for granting moral damages. It is contradictory to characterize acts as a product of psychological incapacity, and hence beyond the control of the party because of an innate inability, while at the same time considering the same set of acts as willful. By declaring the petitioner as psychologically incapacitated, the possibility of awarding moral damages on the same set of facts was negated. The award of moral damages should be predicated, not on the mere act of entering into the marriage, but on specific evidence that it was done deliberately and with malice by a party who had knowledge of his or her disability and yet willfully concealed the same. No such evidence appears to have been adduced in this case. For the same reason, since psychological incapacity means that one is truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that one must assume and discharge as a consequence of marriage, it removes the basis for the contention that the petitioner purposely deceived the private respondent. If the private respondent was deceived, it was not due to a willful act on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the award of moral damages was without basis in law and in fact. Since the grant of moral damages was not proper, it follows that the grant of exemplary damages cannot stand since the Civil Code provides that exemplary damages are imposed in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.19 With respect to the grant of attorneys fees and expenses of litigation the trial court explained, thus: Regarding Attorneys fees, Art. 2208 of the Civil Code authorizes an award of attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, when as in this case the plaintiffs act or omission has compelled the defendant to litigate and to incur expenses of litigation to protect her interest (par. 2), and where the Court deems it just and equitable that attorneys fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. (par. 11)20 The Court of Appeals reasoned as follows: On Assignment of Error D, as the award of moral and exemplary damages is fully justified, the award of attorneys fees and costs of litigation by the trial court is likewise fully justified.21 The acts or omissions of petitioner which led the lower court to deduce his psychological incapacity, and his act in filing the complaint for the annulment of his marriage cannot be considered as unduly compelling the private respondent to litigate, since both are grounded on petitioners psychological incapacity, which as explained above is a mental incapacity causing an utter inability to comply with the obligations of marriage. Hence, neither can be a ground for attorneys fees and litigation expenses. Furthermore, since the award of moral and exemplary damages is no longer justified, the award of attorneys fees and expenses of litigation is left without basis. Anent the retirement benefits received from the Far East Bank and Trust Co. and the shares of stock in the Manila Memorial Park and the Provident Group of Companies, the trial court said:

The third issue that must be resolved by the Court is what to do with the assets of the conjugal partnership in the event of declaration of annulment of the marriage. The Honorable Supreme Court has held that the declaration of nullity of marriage carries ipso facto a judgment for the liquidation of property (Domingo v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 104818, Sept. 17, 1993, 226 SCRA, pp. 572 573, 586). Thus, speaking through Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero, it was ruled in this case: When a marriage is declared void ab initio, the law states that the final judgment therein shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in the previous proceedings. The parties here were legally married on July 4, 1979, and therefore, all property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved (Art. 116, New Family Code; Art. 160, Civil Code). Art. 117 of the Family Code enumerates what are conjugal partnership properties. Among others they are the following: 1) Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses; 2) Those obtained from the labor, industry, work or profession of either or both of the spouses; 3) The fruits, natural, industrial, or civil, due or received during the marriage from the common property, as well as the net fruits from the exclusive property of each spouse. . . . Applying the foregoing legal provisions, and without prejudice to requiring an inventory of what are the parties conjugal properties and what are the exclusive properties of each spouse, it was disclosed during the proceedings in this case that the plaintiff who worked first as Branch Manager and later as Vice-President of Far East Bank & Trust Co. received separation/retirement package from the said bank in the amount of P3,701,500.00 which after certain deductions amounting to P26,164.21 gave him a net amount of P3,675,335.79 and actually paid to him on January 9, 1995 (Exhs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). Not having shown debts or obligations other than those deducted from the said retirement/separation pay, under Art. 129 of the Family Code "The net remainder of the conjugal partnership properties shall constitute the profits, which shall be divided equally between husband and wife, unless a different proportion or division was agreed upon in the marriage settlement or unless there has been a voluntary waiver or forfeiture of such share as provided in this Code." In this particular case, however, there had been no marriage settlement between the parties, nor had there been any voluntary waiver or valid forfeiture

46

of the defendant wifes share in the conjugal partnership properties. The previous cession and transfer by the plaintiff of his one-half (1/2) share in their residential house and lot covered by T.C.T. No. S-35680 of the Registry of Deeds of Paraaque, Metro Manila, in favor of the defendant as stipulated in their Compromise Agreement dated July 12, 1993, and approved by the Court in its Partial Decision dated August 6, 1993, was actually intended to be in full settlement of any and all demands for past support. In reality, the defendant wife had allowed some concession in favor of the plaintiff husband, for were the law strictly to be followed, in the process of liquidation of the conjugal assets, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated shall, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, be adjudicated to the spouse with whom their only child has chosen to remain (Art. 129, par. 9). Here, what was done was one-half (1/2) portion of the house was ceded to defendant so that she will not claim anymore for past unpaid support, while the other half was transferred to their only child as his presumptive legitime. Consequently, nothing yet has been given to the defendant wife by way of her share in the conjugal properties, and it is but just, lawful and fair, that she be given one-half (1/2) share of the separation/retirement benefits received by the plaintiff the same being part of their conjugal partnership properties having been obtained or derived from the labor, industry, work or profession of said defendant husband in accordance with Art. 117, par. 2 of the Family Code. For the same reason, she is entitled to one-half (1/2) of the outstanding shares of stock of the plaintiff husband with the Manila Memorial Park and the Provident Group of Companies.22 The Court of Appeals articulated on this matter as follows: On Assignment of Error E, plaintiff-appellant assails the order of the trial court for him to give one-half of his separation/retirement benefits from Far East Bank & Trust Company and half of his outstanding shares in Manila Memorial Park and Provident Group of Companies to the defendant-appellee as the latters share in the conjugal partnership. On August 6, 1993, the trial court rendered a Partial Decision approving the Compromise Agreement entered into by the parties. In the same Compromise Agreement, the parties had agreed that henceforth, their conjugal partnership is dissolved. Thereafter, no steps were taken for the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. Finding that defendant-appellee is entitled to at least half of the separation/retirement benefits which plaintiff-appellant received from Far East Bank & Trust Company upon his retirement as VicePresident of said company for the reason that the benefits accrued from plaintiffappellants service for the bank for a number of years, most of which while he was married to defendant-appellee, the trial court adjudicated the same. The same is true with the outstanding shares of plaintiff-appellant in Manila Memorial Park and Provident Group of Companies. As these were acquired by the plaintiffappellant at the time he was married to defendant-

appellee, the latter is entitled to one-half thereof as her share in the conjugal partnership. We find no reason to disturb the ruling of the trial court.23 Since the present case does not involve the annulment of a bigamous marriage, the provisions of Article 50 in relation to Articles 41, 42 and 43 of the Family Code, providing for the dissolution of the absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains, as the case may be, do not apply. Rather, the general rule applies, which is that in case a marriage is declared void ab initio, the property regime applicable and to be liquidated, partitioned and distributed is that of equal coownership. In Valdes v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon City,24 this Court expounded on the consequences of a void marriage on the property relations of the spouses and specified the applicable provisions of law: The trial court correctly applied the law. In a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, such as the case may be, of the Family Code. Article 147 is a remake of Article 144 of the Civil Code as interpreted and so applied in previous cases; it provides: ART. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation. When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation. This peculiar kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman, suffering no legal impediment to marry each other, so exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without

47

the benefit of marriage. The term "capacitated" in the provision (in the first paragraph of the law) refers to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage, i.e., any "male or female of the age of eighteen years or upwards not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles 37 and 38" of the Code. Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall still be considered as having contributed thereto jointly if said party's "efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family household." Unlike the conjugal partnership of gains, the fruits of the couple's separate property are not included in the coownership. Article 147 of the Family Code, in substance and to the above extent, has clarified Article 144 of the Civil Code; in addition, the law now expressly provides that (a) Neither party can dispose or encumber by act[s] inter vivos [of] his or her share in co-ownership property, without the consent of the other, during the period of cohabitation; and (b) In the case of a void marriage, any party in bad faith shall forfeit his or her share in the coownership in favor of their common children; in default thereof or waiver by any or all of the common children, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants, or still in default thereof, to the innocent party. The forfeiture shall take place upon the termination of the cohabitation or declaration of nullity of the marriage. In deciding to take further cognizance of the issue on the settlement of the parties' common property, the trial court acted neither imprudently nor precipitately; a court which had jurisdiction to declare the marriage a nullity must be deemed likewise clothed with authority to resolve incidental and consequential matters. Nor did it commit a reversible error in ruling that petitioner and private respondent own the "family home" and all their common property in equal shares, as well as in concluding that, in the liquidation and partition of the property owned in common by them, the provisions on co-ownership under the Civil Code, not Articles 50, 51 and 52, in relation to Articles 102 and 129, of the Family Code, should aptly prevail. The rules set up to govern the liquidation of either the absolute community or the conjugal partnership of gains, the property regimes recognized for valid and voidable marriages (in the latter case until the contract is annulled), are irrelevant to the liquidation of the co-ownership that exists between common-law spouses. The first paragraph of Article 50 of the Family Code, applying paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43, relates only, by its explicit terms, to voidable marriages and, exceptionally, to void marriages under Article 40 of the Code, i.e., the

declaration of nullity of a subsequent marriage contracted by a spouse of a prior void marriage before the latter is judicially declared void. The latter is a special rule that somehow recognizes the philosophy and an old doctrine that void marriages are inexistent from the very beginning and no judicial decree is necessary to establish their nullity. In now requiring for purposes of remarriage, the declaration of nullity by final judgment of the previously contracted void marriage, the present law aims to do away with any continuing uncertainty on the status of the second marriage. It is not then illogical for the provisions of Article 43, in relation to Articles 41 and 42, of the Family Code, on the effects of the termination of a subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of a previous marriage to be made applicable pro hac vice. In all other cases, it is not to be assumed that the law has also meant to have coincident property relations, on the one hand, between spouses in valid and voidable marriages (before annulment) and, on the other, between common-law spouses or spouses of void marriages, leaving to ordain, in the latter case, the ordinary rules on co-ownership subject to the provision of Article 147 and Article 148 of the Family Code. It must be stressed, nevertheless, even as it may merely state the obvious, that the provisions of the Family Code on the "family home," i.e., the provisions found in Title V, Chapter 2, of the Family Code, remain in force and effect regardless of the property regime of the spouses.25 Since the properties ordered to be distributed by the court a quo were found, both by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, to have been acquired during the union of the parties, the same would be covered by the co-ownership. No fruits of a separate property of one of the parties appear to have been included or involved in said distribution. The liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties owned in common by the parties herein as ordered by the court a quo should, therefore, be sustained, but on the basis of coownership and not of the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. As to the issue on custody of the parties over their only child, Javy Singh Buenaventura, it is now moot since he is about to turn twenty-five years of age on May 27, 200526 and has, therefore, attained the age of majority. With regard to the issues on support raised in the Petition for Certiorari, these would also now be moot, owing to the fact that the son, Javy Singh Buenaventura, as previously stated, has attained the age of majority. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 8, 1996 and its Resolution dated December 10, 1996 which are contested in the Petition for Review (G.R. No. 127449), are hereby MODIFIED, in that the award of moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, expenses of litigation and costs are deleted. The order giving respondent one-half of the retirement benefits of petitioner from Far East Bank and Trust Co. and one-half of petitioners shares of stock in Manila Memorial Park and in the Provident Group of Companies is sustained but on the basis of the liquidation, partition and distribution of the coownership and not of the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. The rest of said Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED.

48

The Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 127358) contesting the Court of Appeals Resolutions of September 2, 1996 and November 13, 1996 which increased the support pendente lite in favor of the parties son, Javy Singh Buenaventura, is now MOOT and ACADEMIC and is, accordingly, DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

the completed project.8 The DPWH prepared the Disbursement Voucher in favor of petitioner.9 However, the DPWH withheld payment from respondent after the District Auditor of the Commission on Audit (COA) disapproved the final release of funds on the ground that the contractors license of respondent had expired at the time of the execution of the contract. The District Engineer sought the opinion of the DPWH Legal Department on whether the contracts of Carwin Construction for various Mount Pinatubo rehabilitation projects were valid and effective although its contractors license had already expired when the projects were contracted.10 In a Letter-Reply dated September 1, 1993, Cesar D. Mejia, Director III of the DPWH Legal Department opined that since Republic Act No. 4566 (R.A. No. 4566), otherwise known as the Contractors License Law, does not provide that a contract entered into after the license has expired is void and there is no law which expressly prohibits or declares void such contract, the contract is enforceable and payment may be paid, without prejudice to any appropriate administrative liability action that may be imposed on the contractor and the government officials or employees concerned.11 In a Letter dated July 4, 1994, the District Engineer requested clarification from the DPWH Legal Department on whether Carwin Construction should be paid for works accomplished despite an expired contractors license at the time the contracts were executed.12 In a First Indorsement dated July 20, 1994, Cesar D. Mejia, Director III of the Legal Department, recommended that payment should be made to Carwin Construction, reiterating his earlier legal opinion.13 Despite such recommendation for payment, no payment was made to respondent. Thus, on July 3, 1995, respondent filed the complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against petitioner before the RTC.14 On September 14, 1995, petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the complaint states no cause of action and that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the nature of the action since respondent did not appeal to the COA the decision of the District Auditor to disapprove the claim.15 Following the submission of respondents Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,16 the RTC issued an Order dated March 11, 1996 denying the Motion to Dismiss.17 The OSG filed a Motion for Reconsideration18 but it was likewise denied by the RTC in its Order dated May 23, 1996.19 On August 5, 1996, the OSG filed its Answer invoking the defenses of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and the doctrine of non-suability of the State.20 Following trial, the RTC rendered on February 19, 1997 its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering the latter, thru its District Engineer at Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga, to pay the following: a) P457,000.00 representing the contract for the

G.R. No. 158253 March 2, 2007 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, COMMISSION ON AUDIT and THE NATIONAL TREASURER, Petitioner, vs. CARLITO LACAP, doing business under the name and style CARWIN CONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY, Respondent. DECISION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 dated April 28, 2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 56345 which affirmed with modification the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, San Fernando, Pampanga (RTC) in Civil Case No. 10538, granting the complaint for Specific Performance and Damages filed by Carlito Lacap (respondent) against the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner). The factual background of the case is as follows: The District Engineer of Pampanga issued and duly published an "Invitation To Bid" dated January 27, 1992. Respondent, doing business under the name and style Carwin Construction and Construction Supply (Carwin Construction), was pre-qualified together with two other contractors. Since respondent submitted the lowest bid, he was awarded the contract for the concreting of Sitio 5 Bahay Pare.3 On November 4, 1992, a Contract Agreement was executed by respondent and petitioner.4 On September 25, 1992, District Engineer Rafael S. Ponio issued a Notice to Proceed with the concreting of Sitio 5 Bahay Pare.5 Accordingly, respondent undertook the works, made advances for the purchase of the materials and payment for labor costs.6 On October 29, 1992, personnel of the Office of the District Engineer of San Fernando, Pampanga conducted a final inspection of the project and found it 100% completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Accordingly, the Office of the District Engineer issued Certificates of Final Inspection and Final Acceptance.7 Thereafter, respondent sought to collect payment for

49

concreting project of Sitio 5 road, Bahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga plus interest at 12% from demand until fully paid; and b) The costs of suit. SO ORDERED.21 The RTC held that petitioner must be required to pay the contract price since it has accepted the completed project and enjoyed the benefits thereof; to hold otherwise would be to overrun the long standing and consistent pronouncement against enriching oneself at the expense of another.22 Dissatisfied, petitioner filed an appeal with the CA.23 On April 28, 2003, the CA rendered its Decision sustaining the Decision of the RTC. It held that since the case involves the application of the principle of estoppel against the government which is a purely legal question, then the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply; that by its actions the government is estopped from questioning the validity and binding effect of the Contract Agreement with the respondent; that denial of payment to respondent on purely technical grounds after successful completion of the project is not countenanced either by justice or equity. The CA rendered herein the assailed Decision dated April 28, 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in that the interest shall be six percent (6%) per annum computed from June 21, 1995. SO ORDERED.24 Hence, the present petition on the following ground: THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER, CONSIDERING THAT: (a) RESPONDENT FAILED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; AND TO EXHAUST

The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes.29 The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.30 Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.31 Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; 32 (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;33 (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings.34 Exceptions (c) and (e) are applicable to the present case. Notwithstanding the legal opinions of the DPWH Legal Department rendered in 1993 and 1994 that payment to a contractor with an expired contractors license is proper, respondent remained unpaid for the completed work despite repeated demands. Clearly, there was unreasonable delay and official inaction to the great prejudice of respondent. Furthermore, whether a contractor with an expired license at the time of the execution of its contract is entitled to be paid for completed projects, clearly is a pure question of law. It does not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and not as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.35 Said question at best could be resolved only tentatively by the administrative authorities. The final decision on the matter rests not with them but with the courts of justice. Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply, because nothing of an administrative nature is to be or can be done.36 The issue does not require technical knowledge and experience but one that would involve the interpretation and application of law. Thus, while it is undisputed that the District Auditor of

(b) IT IS THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT WHICH HAS THE PRIMARY JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE RESPONDENTS MONEY CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.25 Petitioner contends that respondents recourse to judicial action was premature since the proper remedy was to appeal the District Auditors disapproval of payment to the COA, pursuant to Section 48, Presidential Decree No. 1445 (P.D. No. 1445), otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines; that the COA has primary jurisdiction to resolve respondents money claim against the government under Section 2(1),26 Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and Section 2627 of P.D. No. 1445; that nonobservance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the principle of primary jurisdiction results in a lack of cause of action. Respondent, on the other hand, in his Memorandum28 limited his discussion to Civil Code provisions relating to human relations. He submits that equity demands that he be paid for the work performed; otherwise, the mandate of the Civil Code provisions relating to human relations would be rendered nugatory if the State itself is allowed to ignore and circumvent the standard of behavior it sets for its inhabitants. The present petition is bereft of merit.

50

the COA disapproved respondents claim against the Government, and, under Section 4837 of P.D. No. 1445, the administrative remedy available to respondent is an appeal of the denial of his claim by the District Auditor to the COA itself, the Court holds that, in view of exceptions (c) and (e) narrated above, the complaint for specific performance and damages was not prematurely filed and within the jurisdiction of the RTC to resolve, despite the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. As the Court aptly stated in Rocamora v. RTC-Cebu (Branch VIII):38 The plaintiffs were not supposed to hold their breath and wait until the Commission on Audit and the Ministry of Public Highways had acted on the claims for compensation for the lands appropriated by the government. The road had been completed; the Pope had come and gone; but the plaintiffs had yet to be paid for the properties taken from them. Given this official indifference, which apparently would continue indefinitely, the private respondents had to act to assert and protect their interests.39 On the question of whether a contractor with an expired license is entitled to be paid for completed projects, Section 35 of R.A. No. 4566 explicitly provides: SEC. 35. Penalties. Any contractor who, for a price, commission, fee or wage, submits or attempts to submit a bid to construct, or contracts to or undertakes to construct, or assumes charge in a supervisory capacity of a construction work within the purview of this Act, without first securing a license to engage in the business of contracting in this country; or who shall present or file the license certificate of another, give false evidence of any kind to the Board, or any member thereof in obtaining a certificate or license, impersonate another, or use an expired or revoked certificate or license, shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than five hundred pesos but not more than five thousand pesos. (Emphasis supplied) The "plain meaning rule" or verba legis in statutory construction is that if the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation.40 This rule derived from the maxim Index animi sermo est (speech is the index of intention) rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intention or will and preclude the court from construing it differently. The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by use of such words as are found in the statute.41 Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.42 The wordings of R.A. No. 4566 are clear. It does not declare, expressly or impliedly, as void contracts entered into by a contractor whose license had already expired. Nonetheless, such contractor is liable for payment of the fine prescribed therein. Thus, respondent should be paid for the projects he completed. Such payment, however, is without prejudice to the payment of the fine prescribed under the law. Besides, Article 22 of the Civil Code which embodies the maxim Nemo ex alterius incommode debet lecupletari (no man ought to be made rich out of anothers injury) states:

Art. 22. Every person who through an act of 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. This article is part of the chapter of the Civil Code on Human Relations, the provisions of which were formulated as "basic principles to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of the social order, x x x designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience, x x x guides human conduct [that] should run as golden threads through society to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal which is the sway and dominance of justice."43 The rules thereon apply equally well to the Government.44 Since respondent had rendered services to the full satisfaction and acceptance by petitioner, then the former should be compensated for them. To allow petitioner to acquire the finished project at no cost would undoubtedly constitute unjust enrichment for the petitioner to the prejudice of respondent. Such unjust enrichment is not allowed by law. WHEREFORE, the present petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 28, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 56345 is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 102007 September 2, 1994 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO BAYOTAS y CORDOVA, accused-appellant. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant. ROMERO, J.: In Criminal Case No. C-3217 filed before Branch 16, RTC Roxas City, Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof on June 19, 1991 in a decision penned by Judge Manuel E. Autajay. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died on February 4, 1992 at the National Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hepatic encephalopathy secondary to hipato carcinoma gastric malingering. Consequently, the Supreme Court in its Resolution of May 20, 1992 dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. However, it required the Solicitor General to file its comment with regard to Bayotas' civil liability arising from his commission of the offense charged. In his comment, the Solicitor General expressed his view that the death of accused-appellant did not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the offense charged. The Solicitor General, relying on the case of People v. Sendaydiego 1 insists that the appeal should still be resolved for the purpose of reviewing his conviction by the lower court on which the civil liability is based. Counsel for the accused-appellant, on the other hand, opposed the view of the Solicitor General arguing that the death of the accused while judgment of conviction is pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil penalties. In support of his position, said counsel

51

invoked the ruling of the Court of Appeals in People v. Castillo and Ocfemia 2 which held that the civil obligation in a criminal case takes root in the criminal liability and, therefore, civil liability is extinguished if accused should die before final judgment is rendered. We are thus confronted with a single issue: Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability? In the aforementioned case of People v. Castillo, this issue was settled in the affirmative. This same issue posed therein was phrased thus: Does the death of Alfredo Castillo affect both his criminal responsibility and his civil liability as a consequence of the alleged crime? It resolved this issue thru the following disquisition: Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code is the controlling statute. It reads, in part: Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to the pecuniary penalties liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment; With reference to Castillo's criminal liability, there is no question. The law is plain. Statutory construction is unnecessary. Said liability is extinguished. The civil liability, however, poses a problem. Such liability is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. Saddled upon us is the task of ascertaining the legal import of the term "final judgment." Is it final judgment as contradistinguished from an interlocutory order? Or, is it a judgment which is final and executory? We go to the genesis of the law. The legal precept contained in Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code heretofore transcribed is lifted from Article 132 of the Spanish El Codigo Penal de 1870 which, in part, recites: La responsabilidad penal se extingue. 1. Por la muerte del reo en cuanto a las penas personales siempre, y respecto a las pecuniarias, solo cuando a su fallecimiento no hubiere recaido sentencia firme. xxx xxx xxx The code of 1870 . . . it will be observed employs the term "sentencia firme." What is "sentencia firme" under the old statute? XXVIII Enciclopedia Juridica Espaola, p. 473, furnishes the ready answer: It says: SENTENCIA FIRME. La sentencia que adquiere la fuerza de las definitivas por no haberse utilizado por las partes litigantes recurso alguno contra ella dentro de los terminos y plazos legales concedidos al efecto.

"Sentencia firme" really should be understood as one which is definite. Because, it is only when judgment is such that, as Medina y Maranon puts it, the crime is confirmed "en condena determinada;" or, in the words of Groizard, the guilt of the accused becomes "una verdad legal." Prior thereto, should the accused die, according to Viada, "no hay legalmente, en tal caso, ni reo, ni delito, ni responsabilidad criminal de ninguna clase." And, as Judge Kapunan well explained, when a defendant dies before judgment becomes executory, "there cannot be any determination by final judgment whether or not the felony upon which the civil action might arise exists," for the simple reason that "there is no party defendant." (I Kapunan, Revised Penal Code, Annotated, p. 421. Senator Francisco holds the same view. Francisco, Revised Penal Code, Book One, 2nd ed., pp. 859-860) The legal import of the term "final judgment" is similarly reflected in the Revised Penal Code. Articles 72 and 78 of that legal body mention the term "final judgment" in the sense that it is already enforceable. This also brings to mind Section 7, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court which states that a judgment in a criminal case becomes final "after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal." By fair intendment, the legal precepts and opinions here collected funnel down to one positive conclusion: The term final judgment employed in the Revised Penal Code means judgment beyond recall. Really, as long as a judgment has not become executory, it cannot be truthfully said that defendant is definitely guilty of the felony charged against him. Not that the meaning thus given to final judgment is without reason. For where, as in this case, the right to institute a separate civil action is not reserved, the decision to be rendered must, of necessity, cover "both the criminal and the civil aspects of the case." People vs. Yusico (November 9, 1942), 2 O.G., No. 100, p. 964. See also: People vs. Moll, 68 Phil., 626, 634; Francisco, Criminal Procedure, 1958 ed., Vol. I, pp. 234, 236. Correctly, Judge Kapunan observed that as "the civil action is based solely on the felony committed and of which the offender might be found guilty, the death of the offender extinguishes the civil liability." I Kapunan, Revised Penal Code, Annotated, supra. Here is the situation obtaining in the present case: Castillo's criminal liability is out. His civil liability is sought to be enforced by reason of that criminal liability. But then, if we dismiss, as we must, the criminal action and let the civil aspect remain, we will be faced with the anomalous situation whereby we will be called upon to clamp civil liability in a case where the source thereof criminal liability does not exist. And, as was well stated in Bautista, et al.

52

vs. Estrella, et al., CA-G.R. No. 19226-R, September 1, 1958, "no party can be found and held criminally liable in a civil suit," which solely would remain if we are to divorce it from the criminal proceeding." This ruling of the Court of Appeals in the Castillo case 3 was adopted by the Supreme Court in the cases of People of the Philippines v. Bonifacio Alison, et al., 4 People of the Philippines v. Jaime Jose, et al. 5 and People of the Philippines v. Satorre 6 by dismissing the appeal in view of the death of the accused pending appeal of said cases. As held by then Supreme Court Justice Fernando in the Alison case: The death of accused-appellant Bonifacio Alison having been established, and considering that there is as yet no final judgment in view of the pendency of the appeal, the criminal and civil liability of the said accused-appellant Alison was extinguished by his death (Art. 89, Revised Penal Code; Reyes' Criminal Law, 1971 Rev. Ed., p. 717, citing People v. Castillo and Ofemia C.A., 56 O.G. 4045); consequently, the case against him should be dismissed. On the other hand, this Court in the subsequent cases of Buenaventura Belamala v. Marcelino Polinar 7 and Lamberto Torrijos v. The Honorable Court of Appeals 8 ruled differently. In the former, the issue decided by this court was: Whether the civil liability of one accused of physical injuries who died before final judgment is extinguished by his demise to the extent of barring any claim therefore against his estate. It was the contention of the administrator-appellant therein that the death of the accused prior to final judgment extinguished all criminal and civil liabilities resulting from the offense, in view of Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. However, this court ruled therein: We see no merit in the plea that the civil liability has been extinguished, in view of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines of 1950 (Rep. Act No. 386) that became operative eighteen years after the revised Penal Code. As pointed out by the Court below, Article 33 of the Civil Code establishes a civil action for damages on account of physical injuries, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. Art. 33. In cases 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. Assuming that for lack of express reservation, Belamala's civil action for damages was to be considered instituted together with the criminal action still, since both proceedings were terminated without final adjudication, the civil action of the offended party under Article 33 may yet be enforced separately. In Torrijos, the Supreme Court held that:

xxx xxx xxx It should be stressed that the extinction of civil liability follows the extinction of the criminal liability under Article 89, only when the civil liability arises from the criminal act as its only basis. Stated differently, where the civil liability does not exist independently of the criminal responsibility, the extinction of the latter by death, ipso facto extinguishes the former, provided, of course, that death supervenes before final judgment. The said principle does not apply in instant case wherein the civil liability springs neither solely nor originally from the crime itself but from a civil contract of purchase and sale. (Emphasis ours) xxx xxx xxx In the above case, the court was convinced that the civil liability of the accused who was charged with estafa could likewise trace its genesis to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code since said accused had swindled the first and second vendees of the property subject matter of the contract of sale. It therefore concluded: "Consequently, while the death of the accused herein extinguished his criminal liability including fine, his civil liability based on the laws of human relations remains." Thus it allowed the appeal to proceed with respect to the civil liability of the accused, notwithstanding the extinction of his criminal liability due to his death pending appeal of his conviction. To further justify its decision to allow the civil liability to survive, the court relied on the following ratiocination: Since Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 9 requires the dismissal of all money claims against the defendant whose death occurred prior to the final judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI), then it can be inferred that actions for recovery of money may continue to be heard on appeal, when the death of the defendant supervenes after the CFI had rendered its judgment. In such case, explained this tribunal, "the name of the offended party shall be included in the title of the case as plaintiff-appellee and the legal representative or the heirs of the deceased-accused should be substituted as defendants-appellants." It is, thus, evident that as jurisprudence evolved from Castillo to Torrijos, the rule established was that the survival of the civil liability depends on whether the same can be predicated on sources of obligations other than delict. Stated differently, the claim for civil liability is also extinguished together with the criminal action if it were solely based thereon, i.e., civil liability ex delicto. However, the Supreme Court in People v. Sendaydiego, et al. 10 departed from this long-established principle of law. In this case, accused Sendaydiego was charged with and convicted by the lower court of malversation thru falsification of public documents. Sendaydiego's death supervened during the pendency of the appeal of his conviction. This court in an unprecedented move resolved to dismiss Sendaydiego's appeal but only to the extent of his criminal liability. His civil liability was allowed to survive although it was clear that such claim thereon was exclusively dependent on the criminal action already extinguished. The legal import of such decision was for the court to continue exercising appellate

53

jurisdiction over the entire appeal, passing upon the correctness of Sendaydiego's conviction despite dismissal of the criminal action, for the purpose of determining if he is civilly liable. In doing so, this Court issued a Resolution of July 8, 1977 stating thus: The claim of complainant Province of Pangasinan for the civil liability survived Sendaydiego because his death occurred after final judgment was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, which convicted him of three complex crimes of malversation through falsification and ordered him to indemnify the Province in the total sum of P61,048.23 (should be P57,048.23). The civil action for the civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action in the absence of express waiver or its reservation in a separate action (Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court). The civil action for the civil liability is separate and distinct from the criminal action (People and Manuel vs. Coloma, 105 Phil. 1287; Roa vs. De la Cruz, 107 Phil. 8). When the action is for the recovery of money and the defendant dies before final judgment in the Court of First Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially provided in Rule 87 of the Rules of Court (Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court). The implication is that, if the defendant dies after a money judgment had been rendered against him by the Court of First Instance, the action survives him. It may be continued on appeal (Torrijos vs. Court of Appeals, L-40336, October 24, 1975; 67 SCRA 394). The accountable public officer may still be civilly liable for the funds improperly disbursed although he has no criminal liability (U.S. vs. Elvina, 24 Phil. 230; Philippine National Bank vs. Tugab, 66 Phil. 583). In view of the foregoing, notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal of the deceased Sendaydiego insofar as his criminal liability is concerned, the Court Resolved to continue exercising appellate jurisdiction over his possible civil liability for the money claims of the Province of Pangasinan arising from the alleged criminal acts complained of, as if no criminal case had been instituted against him, thus making applicable, in determining his civil liability, Article 30 of the Civil Code . . . and, for that purpose, his counsel is directed to inform this Court within ten (10) days of the names and addresses of the decedent's heirs or whether or not his estate is under administration and has a duly appointed judicial administrator. Said heirs or administrator will be substituted for the deceased insofar as the civil action for the civil liability is concerned (Secs. 16 and 17, Rule 3, Rules of Court). Succeeding cases 11 raising the identical issue have maintained adherence to our ruling in Sendaydiego; in other words, they were a reaffirmance of our abandonment of the settled rule that a civil liability solely anchored on the criminal (civil liability ex delicto)

is extinguished upon dismissal of the entire appeal due to the demise of the accused. But was it judicious to have abandoned this old ruling? A re-examination of our decision in Sendaydiego impels us to revert to the old ruling. To restate our resolution of July 8, 1977 in Sendaydiego: The resolution of the civil action impliedly instituted in the criminal action can proceed irrespective of the latter's extinction due to death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction, pursuant to Article 30 of the Civil Code and Section 21, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court. Article 30 of the Civil Code provides: When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of. Clearly, the text of Article 30 could not possibly lend support to the ruling in Sendaydiego. Nowhere in its text is there a grant of authority to continue exercising appellate jurisdiction over the accused's civil liability ex delicto when his death supervenes during appeal. What Article 30 recognizes is an alternative and separate civil action which may be brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense independently of any criminal action. In the event that no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of said civil case, the quantum of evidence needed to prove the criminal act will have to be that which is compatible with civil liability and that is, preponderance of evidence and not proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Citing or invoking Article 30 to justify the survival of the civil action despite extinction of the criminal would in effect merely beg the question of whether civil liability ex delicto survives upon extinction of the criminal action due to death of the accused during appeal of his conviction. This is because whether asserted in the criminal action or in a separate civil action, civil liability ex delicto is extinguished by the death of the accused while his conviction is on appeal. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code is clear on this matter: Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment; xxx xxx xxx However, the ruling in Sendaydiego deviated from the expressed intent of Article 89. It allowed claims for civil liability ex delicto to survive by ipso facto treating the civil action impliedly instituted with the criminal, as one filed under Article 30, as though no criminal proceedings had been filed but merely a separate civil action. This had the effect of converting such claims from one which is dependent on the outcome of the criminal action to an entirely new and separate one, the prosecution of which does not even necessitate the filing of criminal proceedings. 12 One would be hard put to pinpoint the statutory authority for such a

54

transformation. It is to be borne in mind that in recovering civil liability ex delicto, the same has perforce to be determined in the criminal action, rooted as it is in the court's pronouncement of the guilt or innocence of the accused. This is but to render fealty to the intendment of Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that "every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable." In such cases, extinction of the criminal action due to death of the accused pending appeal inevitably signifies the concomitant extinction of the civil liability. Mors Omnia Solvi. Death dissolves all things. In sum, in pursuing recovery of civil liability arising from crime, the final determination of the criminal liability is a condition precedent to the prosecution of the civil action, such that when the criminal action is extinguished by the demise of accused-appellant pending appeal thereof, said civil action cannot survive. The claim for civil liability springs out of and is dependent upon facts which, if true, would constitute a crime. Such civil liability is an inevitable consequence of the criminal liability and is to be declared and enforced in the criminal proceeding. This is to be distinguished from that which is contemplated under Article 30 of the Civil Code which refers to the institution of a separate civil action that does not draw its life from a criminal proceeding. The Sendaydiego resolution of July 8, 1977, however, failed to take note of this fundamental distinction when it allowed the survival of the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto by treating the same as a separate civil action referred to under Article 30. Surely, it will take more than just a summary judicial pronouncement to authorize the conversion of said civil action to an independent one such as that contemplated under Article 30. Ironically however, the main decision in Sendaydiego did not apply Article 30, the resolution of July 8, 1977 notwithstanding. Thus, it was held in the main decision: Sendaydiego's appeal will be resolved only for the purpose of showing his criminal liability which is the basis of the civil liability for which his estate would be liable. 13 In other words, the Court, in resolving the issue of his civil liability, concomitantly made a determination on whether Sendaydiego, on the basis of evidenced adduced, was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing the offense charged. Thus, it upheld Sendaydiego's conviction and pronounced the same as the source of his civil liability. Consequently, although Article 30 was not applied in the final determination of Sendaydiego's civil liability, there was a reopening of the criminal action already extinguished which served as basis for Sendaydiego's civil liability. We reiterate: Upon death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal. Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court was also invoked to serve as another basis for the Sendaydiego resolution of July 8, 1977. In citing Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the Court made the inference that civil actions of the type involved in Sendaydiego consist of money claims, the recovery of which may be continued on appeal if defendant dies pending appeal of his

conviction by holding his estate liable therefor. Hence, the Court's conclusion: "When the action is for the recovery of money" "and the defendant dies before final judgment in the court of First Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially provided" in Rule 87 of the Rules of Court (Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court). The implication is that, if the defendant dies after a money judgment had been rendered against him by the Court of First Instance, the action survives him. It may be continued on appeal. Sadly, reliance on this provision of law is misplaced. From the standpoint of procedural law, this course taken in Sendaydiego cannot be sanctioned. As correctly observed by Justice Regalado: xxx xxx xxx I do not, however, agree with the justification advanced in both Torrijos and Sendaydiego which, relying on the provisions of Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, drew the strained implication therefrom that where the civil liability instituted together with the criminal liabilities had already passed beyond the judgment of the then Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court), the Court of Appeals can continue to exercise appellate jurisdiction thereover despite the extinguishment of the component criminal liability of the deceased. This pronouncement, which has been followed in the Court's judgments subsequent and consonant to Torrijos and Sendaydiego, should be set aside and abandoned as being clearly erroneous and unjustifiable. Said Section 21 of Rule 3 is a rule of civil procedure in ordinary civil actions. There is neither authority nor justification for its application in criminal procedure to civil actions instituted together with and as part of criminal actions. Nor is there any authority in law for the summary conversion from the latter category of an ordinary civil action upon the death of the offender. . . . Moreover, the civil action impliedly instituted in a criminal proceeding for recovery of civil liability ex delicto can hardly be categorized as an ordinary money claim such as that referred to in Sec. 21, Rule 3 enforceable before the estate of the deceased accused. Ordinary money claims referred to in Section 21, Rule 3 must be viewed in light of the provisions of Section 5, Rule 86 involving claims against the estate, which in Sendaydiego was held liable for Sendaydiego's civil liability. "What are contemplated in Section 21 of Rule 3, in relation to Section 5 of Rule 86, 14 are contractual money claims while the claims involved in civil liability ex delicto may include even the restitution of personal or real property." 15 Section 5, Rule 86 provides an exclusive enumeration of what claims may be filed against the estate. These are: funeral expenses, expenses for the last illness, judgments for money and claim arising from contracts, expressed or implied. It is clear that money claims arising from delict do not form part of this exclusive enumeration. Hence, there could be no

55

legal basis in (1) treating a civil action ex delicto as an ordinary contractual money claim referred to in Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and (2) allowing it to survive by filing a claim therefor before the estate of the deceased accused. Rather, it should be extinguished upon extinction of the criminal action engendered by the death of the accused pending finality of his conviction. Accordingly, we rule: if the private offended party, upon extinction of the civil liability ex delicto desires to recover damages from the same act or omission complained of, he must subject to Section 1, Rule 111 16 (1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended) file a separate civil action, this time predicated not on the felony previously charged but on other sources of obligation. The source of obligation upon which the separate civil action is premised determines against whom the same shall be enforced. If the same act or omission complained of also arises from quasi-delict or may, by provision of law, result in an injury to person or property (real or personal), the separate civil action must be filed against the executor or administrator 17 of the estate of the accused pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court: Sec. 1. Actions which may and which may not be brought against executor or administrator. No action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or administrator; but actions to recover real or personal property, or an interest therein, from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal, may be commenced against him. This is in consonance with our ruling in Belamala 18 where we held that, in recovering damages for injury to persons thru an independent civil action based on Article 33 of the Civil Code, the same must be filed against the executor or administrator of the estate of deceased accused and not against the estate under Sec. 5, Rule 86 because this rule explicitly limits the claim to those for funeral expenses, expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, judgment for money and claims arising from contract, express or implied. Contractual money claims, we stressed, refers only to purely personal obligations other than those which have their source in delict or tort. Conversely, if the same act or omission complained of also arises from contract, the separate civil action must be filed against the estate of the accused, pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. From this lengthy disquisition, we summarize our ruling herein: 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore." 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than

delict. 19 Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: a) Law 20 b) Contracts c) Quasi-contracts d) . . . e) Quasi-delicts 3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above. 4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 21 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. 22 Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, we hold that the death of appellant Bayotas extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the act complained of, i.e., rape. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed without qualification. WHEREFORE, the appeal of the late Rogelio Bayotas is DISMISSED with costs de oficio. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 133978 November 12, 2002 JOSE S. CANCIO, JR., represented by ROBERTO L. CANCIO, petitioner, vs. EMERENCIANA ISIP, respondent. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: The instant petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raises pure questions of law involving the March 20, 19981 and June 1, 19982 Orders3 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga, Branch 49, in Civil Case No. G-3272. The undisputed facts are as follows: Petitioner, assisted by a private prosecutor, filed three cases of Violation of B.P. No. 22 and three cases of Estafa, against respondent for allegedly issuing the following checks without sufficient funds, to wit: 1) Interbank Check No. 25001151 in the amount of P80,000.00; 2) Interbank Check No. 25001152 in the amount of P 80,000.00; and 3) Interbank Check No. 25001157 in the amount of P30,000.00.4 The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor dismissed Criminal Case No. 13356, for Violation of B.P. No. 22 covering check no. 25001151 on the ground that the

56

check was deposited with the drawee bank after 90 days from the date of the check. The two other cases for Violation of B.P. No. 22 (Criminal Case No. 13359 and 13360) were filed with and subsequently dismissed by the Municipal Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, Branch 1, on the ground of "failure to prosecute."5 Meanwhile, the three cases for Estafa were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga, Branch 49, and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. G-3611 to G-3613. On October 21, 1997, after failing to present its second witness, the prosecution moved to dismiss the estafa cases against respondent. The prosecution likewise reserved its right to file a separate civil action arising from the said criminal cases. On the same date, the trial court granted the motions of the prosecution. ThusUpon motion of the prosecution for the dismissal of these cases without prejudice to the refiling of the civil aspect thereof and there being no comment from the defense, let these cases be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of the civil aspect of the cases. SO ORDER[ED].6 On December 15, 1997, petitioner filed the instant case for collection of sum of money, seeking to recover the amount of the checks subject of the estafa cases. On February 18, 1998, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint contending that petitioners action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Respondent further prayed that petitioner should be held in contempt of court for forum-shopping.7 On March 20, 1998, the trial court found in favor of respondent and dismissed the complaint. The court held that the dismissal of the criminal cases against respondent on the ground of lack of interest or failure to prosecute is an adjudication on the merits which amounted to res judicata on the civil case for collection. It further held that the filing of said civil case amounted to forum-shopping. On June 1, 1998, the trial court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.8 Hence, the instant petition. The legal issues for resolution in the case at bar are: 1) whether the dismissal of the estafa cases against respondent bars the institution of a civil action for collection of the value of the checks subject of the estafa cases; and 2) whether the filing of said civil action violated the anti-forum-shopping rule. An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., (1) civil liability ex delicto, under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code;9 and (2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as felony [e.g. culpa contractual or obligations arising from law under Article 3110 of the Civil Code,11 intentional torts under Articles 3212 and 34,13 and culpa aquiliana under Article 217614 of the Civil Code]; or (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action [Article 33,15 Civil Code].16 Either of these two possible liabilities may be enforced against the offender subject, however, to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party "cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission" or under both causes.17 The modes of enforcement of the foregoing civil liabilities are provided for in the Revised Rules of

Criminal Procedure. Though the assailed order of the trial court was issued on March 20, 1998, the said Rules, which took effect on December 1, 2000, must be given retroactive effect in the instant case considering that statutes regulating the procedure of the court are construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.18 Section 1, Rule 111, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. xxxxxxxxx Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions. Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended in 1988 and under the present Rules, the civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted with the criminal action, but the offended party is given the option to file a separate civil action before the prosecution starts to present evidence.19 Anent the independent civil actions under Articles 31, 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the old rules considered them impliedly instituted with the civil liability ex-delicto in the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Under the present Rules, however, the independent civil actions may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. The failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil action based on these articles of the Civil Code.20 In the case at bar, a reading of the complaint filed by petitioner show that his cause of action is based on culpa contractual, an independent civil action. Pertinent portion of the complaint reads: xxxxxxxxx 2. That plaintiff is the owner/proprietor to CANCIOS MONEY EXCHANGE with office address at Guagua, Pampanga; 3. That on several occasions, particularly on February 27, 1993 to April 17 1993, inclusive, defendant drew, issued and made in favor of the plaintiff the following checks: CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT 1. Interbank Check No. 25001151 March 10, 1993

57

P80,000.00 2. Interbank Check No. 25001152 March 27, 1993 P80,000.00 3. Interbank Check No. 25001157 May 17, 1993 P30,000.00 in exchange of cash with the assurance that the said checks will be honored for payment on their maturity dates, copy of the aforementioned checks are hereto attached and marked. 4. That when the said checks were presented to the drawee bank for encashment, the same were all dishonored for reason of DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS (DAIF); 5. That several demands were made upon the defendant to make good the checks but she failed and refused and still fails and refuses without justifiable reason to pay plaintiff; 6. That for failure of the defendant without any justifiable reason to pay plaintiff the value of the checks, the latter was forced to hire the services of undersigned counsel and agreed to pay the amount of P30,000.00 as attorneys fees and P1,000.00 per appearance in court; 7. That for failure of the defendant without any justifiable reason to pay plaintiff and forcing the plaintiff to litigate, the latter will incur litigation expenses in the amount of P20,000.00. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is prayed of this Court that after due notice and hearing a judgment be rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiff as follows: a. the principal sum of P190,000.00 plus the legal interest; b. attorneys fees of P30,000.00 plus P1,000.00 per court appearance; c. litigation expenses in the amount of P20,000.00 PLAINTIFF prays for other reliefs just and equitable under the premises. x x x x x x x x x.21 Evidently, petitioner sought to enforce respondents obligation to make good the value of the checks in exchange for the cash he delivered to respondent. In other words, petitioners cause of action is the respondents breach of the contractual obligation. It matters not that petitioner claims his cause of action to be one based on delict.22 The nature of a cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of action. The purpose of an action or suit and the law to govern it is to be determined not by the claim of the party filing the action, made in his argument or brief, but rather by the complaint itself, its allegations and prayer for relief.23 Neither does it matter that the civil action reserved in the October 21, 1997 order of the trial court was the civil action ex delicto. To reiterate, an independent civil action arising from contracts, as in the instant case, may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. Under Article 31 of the Civil Code "[w]hen the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, [e.g. culpa contractual] such civil action may proceed

independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter." Thus, in Vitola, et al. v. Insular Bank of Asia and America,24 the Court, applying Article 31 of the Civil Code, held that a civil case seeking to recover the value of the goods subject of a Letter of Credit-Trust Receipt is a civil action ex contractu and not ex delicto. As such, it is distinct and independent from the estafa case filed against the offender and may proceed regardless of the result of the criminal proceedings. One of the elements of res judicata is identity of causes of action.25 In the instant case, it must be stressed that the action filed by petitioner is an independent civil action, which remains separate and distinct from any criminal prosecution based on the same act.26 Not being deemed instituted in the criminal action based on culpa criminal, a ruling on the culpability of the offender will have no bearing on said independent civil action based on an entirely different cause of action, i.e., culpa contractual. In the same vein, the filing of the collection case after the dismissal of the estafa cases against respondent did not amount to forum-shopping. The essence of forumshopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment. Although the cases filed by petitioner arose from the same act or omission of respondent, they are, however, based on different causes of action. The criminal cases for estafa are based on culpa criminal while the civil action for collection is anchored on culpa contractual. Moreover, there can be no forum-shopping in the instant case because the law expressly allows the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal action.27 Clearly, therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners complaint for collection of the value of the checks issued by respondent. Being an independent civil action which is separate and distinct from any criminal prosecution and which require no prior reservation for its institution, the doctrine of res judicata and forumshopping will not operate to bar the same. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition is GRANTED. The March 20, 1998 and June 1, 1998 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga, Branch 49, in Civil Case No. G-3272 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The instant case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. SO ORDERED.

58

G.R. No. 151452. July 29, 2005 SPS. ANTONIO C. SANTOS and ESPERANZA C. SANTOS, NORA BARNALO, BELINDA LUMACTAD, MARIENELA DY, NIKKA SANTOS and LEONARDO FERRER, Petitioners, vs. HON. NORMANDIE B. PIZARDO, as Presiding Judge, RTC of Quezon City, Branch 101, DIONISIO M SIBAYAN, and VIRON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., represented by VIRGILIO Q. RONDARIS, President/Chairman, Respondent. DECISION TINGA, J.: In this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 dated March 1, 2002, petitioners assail the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated September 10, 2001 and January 9, 2002, respectively dismissing their petition for certiorari and denying their motion for reconsideration, arising from the dismissal of their complaint to recover civil indemnity for the death and physical injuries of their kin. The following facts are matters of record. In an Information dated April 25, 1994, Dionisio M. Sibayan (Sibayan) was charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Multiple Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries in connection with a vehicle collision between a southbound Viron Transit bus driven by Sibayan and a northbound Lite Ace Van, which claimed the lives of the vans driver and three (3) of its passengers, including a two-month old baby, and caused physical injuries to five (5) of the vans passengers. After trial, Sibayan was convicted and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. However, as there was a reservation to file a separate civil action, no pronouncement of civil liability was made by the municipal circuit trial court in its decision promulgated on December 17, 1998.2 On October 20, 2000, petitioners filed a complaint for damages against Sibayan, Viron Transit and its President/Chairman, Virgilio Q. Rondaris, with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, pursuant to their reservation to file a separate civil action.3 They cited therein the judgment convicting Sibayan. Viron Transit moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of improper service of summons, prescription and laches, and defective certification of non-forum shopping. It also sought the dropping of Virgilio Q. Rondaris as defendant in view of the separate personality of Viron Transit from its officers.4 Petitioners opposed the motion to dismiss contending, among others, that the right to file a separate action in this case prescribes in ten (10) years reckoned from the finality of the judgment in the criminal action. As there was no appeal of the decision convicting Sibayan, the complaint which was filed barely two (2) years thence was clearly filed within the prescriptive period. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the principal ground that the cause of action had already prescribed. According to the trial court, actions based on quasi delict, as it construed petitioners cause of action to be, prescribe four (4) years from the accrual of the cause of action. Hence, notwithstanding the fact that petitioners reserved the right to file a separate civil action, the

complaint ought to be dismissed on the ground of prescription.5 Improper service of summons was likewise cited as a ground for dismissal of the complaint as summons was served through a certain Jessica Ubalde of the legal department without mentioning her designation or position. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration pointing out yet again that the complaint is not based on quasi delict but on the final judgment of conviction in the criminal case which prescribes ten (10) years from the finality of the judgment.6 The trial court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration reiterating that petitioners cause of action was based on quasi delict and had prescribed under Article 1146 of the Civil Code because the complaint was filed more than four (4) years after the vehicular accident.7 As regards the improper service of summons, the trial court reconsidered its ruling that the complaint ought to be dismissed on this ground. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which dismissed the same for error in the choice or mode of appeal.8 The appellate court also denied petitioners motion for reconsideration reasoning that even if the respondent trial court judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of dismissal, certiorari is still not the permissible remedy as appeal was available to petitioners and they failed to allege that the petition was brought within the recognized exceptions for the allowance of certiorari in lieu of appeal.9 In this petition, petitioners argue that a rigid application of the rule that certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal will result in a judicial rejection of an existing obligation arising from the criminal liability of private respondents. Petitioners insist that the liability sought to be enforced in the complaint arose ex delicto and is not based on quasi delict. The trial court allegedly committed grave abuse of discretion when it insisted that the cause of action invoked by petitioners is based on quasi delict and concluded that the action had prescribed. Since the action is based on the criminal liability of private respondents, the cause of action accrued from the finality of the judgment of conviction. Assuming that their petition with the appellate court was procedurally flawed, petitioners implore the Court to exempt this case from the rigid operation of the rules as they allegedly have a legitimate grievance to vindicate, i.e., damages for the deaths and physical injuries caused by private respondents for which no civil liability had been adjudged by reason of their reservation of the right to file a separate civil action. In their Comment10 dated June 13, 2002, private respondents insist that the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prescription was in order. They point out that the averments in the complaint make out a cause of action for quasi delict under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. As such, the prescriptive period of four (4) years should be reckoned from the time the accident took place. Viron Transit also alleges that its subsidiary liability cannot be enforced since Sibayan was not ordered to pay damages in the criminal case. It is Viron Transits contention that the subsidiary liability of the employer contemplated in Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code

59

presupposes a situation where the civil aspect of the case was instituted in the criminal case and no reservation to file a separate civil case was made. Private respondents likewise allege that the recourse to the Court of Appeals via certiorari was improper as petitioners should have appealed the adverse order of the trial court. Moreover, they point out several other procedural lapses allegedly committed by petitioners, such as lack of certification against forum-shopping; lack of duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed order of the trial court; and non-indication of the full names and addresses of petitioners in the petition. Petitioners filed a Reply11 dated September 14, 2002, while private respondents filed a Rejoinder12 dated October 14, 2002, both in reiteration of their arguments. We grant the petition. Our Revised Penal Code provides that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. 13 Such civil liability may consist of restitution, reparation of the damage caused and indemnification of consequential damages.14 When a criminal action is instituted, the civil liability arising from the offense is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, subject to three notable exceptions: first, when the injured party expressly waives the right to recover damages from the accused; second, when the offended party reserves his right to have the civil damages determined in a separate action in order to take full control and direction of the prosecution of his cause; and third, when the injured party actually exercises the right to maintain a private suit against the offender by instituting a civil action prior to the filing of the criminal case. Notably, it was the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended in 1988, which governed the institution of the criminal action, as well as the reservation of the right to file a separate civil action. Section 1, Rule 111 thereof states: Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The institution of, or the reservation of the right to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the others. The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused. When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the filing fees for such action as provided in these Rules shall constitute a

first lien on the judgment except in an award for actual damages. In cases wherein the amount of damages, other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon filing thereof in court for trial. Petitioners expressly made a reservation of their right to file a separate civil action as a result of the crime committed by Sibayan. On account of this reservation, the municipal circuit trial court, in its decision convicting Sibayan, did not make any pronouncement as to the latters civil liability. Predicating their claim on the judgment of conviction and their reservation to file a separate civil action made in the criminal case, petitioners filed a complaint for damages against Sibayan, Viron Transit and its President/Chairman. Petitioners assert that by the institution of the complaint, they seek to recover private respondents civil liability arising from crime. Unfortunately, based on its misreading of the allegations in the complaint, the trial court dismissed the same, declaring that petitioners cause of action was based on quasi delict and should have been brought within four (4) years from the time the cause of action accrued, i.e., from the time of the accident. A reading of the complaint reveals that the allegations therein are consistent with petitioners claim that the action was brought to recover civil liability arising from crime. Although there are allegations of negligence on the part of Sibayan and Viron Transit, such does not necessarily mean that petitioners were pursuing a cause of action based on quasi delict, considering that at the time of the filing of the complaint, the cause of action ex quasi delicto had already prescribed. Besides, in cases of negligence, the offended party has the choice between an action to enforce civil liability arising from crime under the Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi delict under the Civil Code. An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., (1) civil liability ex delicto, under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; and (2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as a felony, e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code, intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34, and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code; or (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code.15 Either of these liabilities may be enforced against the offender subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant and the similar proscription against double recovery under the Rules above-quoted. At the time of the filing of the complaint for damages in this case, the cause of action ex quasi delicto had already prescribed. Nonetheless, petitioners can pursue the remaining avenue opened for them by their reservation, i.e., the surviving cause of action ex delicto. This is so because the prescription of the action ex quasi delicto does not operate as a bar to an action to enforce the civil liability arising from crime especially as the latter action had been expressly reserved.

60

The case of Mendoza v. La Mallorca Bus Company16 was decided upon a similar set of facts. Therein, the driver of La Mallorca Bus Company was charged with reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property. The plaintiff made an express reservation for the filing of a separate civil action. The driver was convicted which conviction was affirmed by this Court. Later, plaintiff filed a separate civil action for damages based on quasi delict which was ordered dismissed by the trial court upon finding that the action was instituted more than six (6) years from the date of the accident and thus, had already prescribed. Subsequently, plaintiff instituted another action, this time based on the subsidiary liability of the bus company. The trial court dismissed the action holding that the dismissal of the earlier civil case operated as a bar to the filing of the action to enforce the bus companys subsidiary liability. We held that the dismissal of the action based on culpa aquiliana is not a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary liability of the employer. Once there is a conviction for a felony, final in character, the employer becomes subsidiarily liable if the commission of the crime was in the discharge of the duties of the employees. This is so because Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code operates with controlling force to obviate the possibility of the aggrieved party being deprived of indemnity even after the rendition of a final judgment convicting the employee. Seen in this light, the trial court should not have dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, but instead allowed the complaint for damages ex delicto to be prosecuted on the merits, considering petitioners allegations in their complaint, opposition to the motion to dismiss17 and motion for reconsideration18 of the order of dismissal, insisting that the action was to recover civil liability arising from crime. This does not offend the policy that the reservation or institution of a separate civil action waives the other civil actions. The rationale behind this rule is the avoidance of multiple suits between the same litigants arising out of the same act or omission of the offender. 19 However, since the stale action for damages based on quasi delict should be considered waived, there is no more occasion for petitioners to file multiple suits against private respondents as the only recourse available to them is to pursue damages ex delicto. This interpretation is also consistent with the bar against double recovery for obvious reasons. Now the procedural issue. Admittedly, petitioners should have appealed the order of dismissal of the trial court instead of filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Such procedural misstep, however, should be exempted from the strict application of the rules in order to promote their fundamental objective of securing substantial justice.20 We are loathe to deprive petitioners of the indemnity to which they are entitled by law and by a final judgment of conviction based solely on a technicality. It is our duty to prevent such an injustice.21 WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered SETTING ASIDE the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated September 10, 2001 and January 9, 2002, respectively dismissing the present action and denying petitioners motion for reconsideration, as well as the orders of the lower court dated February 26, 2001 and July 16, 2001. Let the case be REMANDED to the trial court for further

proceedings. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 155223 April 4, 2007 BOBIE ROSE V. FRIAS, represented by her Attorneyin-fact, MARIE F. FUJITA, Petitioner, vs. FLORA SAN DIEGO-SISON, Respondent. DECISION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Bobie Rose V. Frias represented by her Attorney-in-fact, Marie Regine F. Fujita (petitioner) seeking to annul the Decision1 dated June 18, 2002 and the Resolution2 dated September 11, 2002 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No. 52839. Petitioner is the owner of a house and lot located at No. 589 Batangas East, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, which she acquired from Island Masters Realty and Development Corporation (IMRDC) by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated Nov. 16, 1990.3 The property is covered by TCT No. 168173 of the Register of Deeds of Makati in the name of IMRDC.4 On December 7, 1990, petitioner, as the FIRST PARTY, and Dra. Flora San Diego-Sison (respondent), as the SECOND PARTY, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement5 over the property with the following terms: NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of THREE MILLION PESOS (P3,000,000.00) receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the FIRST PARTY from the SECOND PARTY, the parties have agreed as follows: 1. That the SECOND PARTY has a period of Six (6) months from the date of the execution of this contract within which to notify the FIRST PARTY of her intention to purchase the aforementioned parcel of land together within (sic) the improvements thereon at the price of SIX MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P6,400,000.00). Upon notice to the FIRST PARTY of the SECOND PARTYs intention to purchase the same, the latter has a period of another six months within which to pay the remaining balance of P3.4 million. 2. That prior to the six months period given to the SECOND PARTY within which to decide whether or not to purchase the above-mentioned property, the FIRST PARTY may still offer the said property to other persons who may be interested to buy the same provided that the amount of P3,000,000.00 given to the FIRST PARTY BY THE SECOND PARTY shall be paid to the latter including interest based on prevailing compounded bank interest plus the amount of the sale in excess of P7,000,000.00 should the property be sold at a price more than P7 million. 3. That in case the FIRST PARTY has no other buyer within the first six months from the execution of this contract, no interest shall be charged by the SECOND PARTY on the P3 million however, in the event that on the sixth month the SECOND PARTY would decide not to purchase the aforementioned

61

property, the FIRST PARTY has a period of another six months within which to pay the sum of P3 million pesos provided that the said amount shall earn compounded bank interest for the last six months only. Under this circumstance, the amount of P3 million given by the SECOND PARTY shall be treated as [a] loan and the property shall be considered as the security for the mortgage which can be enforced in accordance with law. x x x x.6 Petitioner received from respondent two million pesos in cash and one million pesos in a post-dated check dated February 28, 1990, instead of 1991, which rendered said check stale.7 Petitioner then gave respondent TCT No. 168173 in the name of IMRDC and the Deed of Absolute Sale over the property between petitioner and IMRDC. Respondent decided not to purchase the property and notified petitioner through a letter8 dated March 20, 1991, which petitioner received only on June 11, 1991, 9 reminding petitioner of their agreement that the amount of two million pesos which petitioner received from respondent should be considered as a loan payable within six months. Petitioner subsequently failed to pay respondent the amount of two million pesos. On April 1, 1993, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a complaint10 for sum of money with preliminary attachment against petitioner. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 93-65367 and raffled to Branch 30. Respondent alleged the foregoing facts and in addition thereto averred that petitioner tried to deprive her of the security for the loan by making a false report11 of the loss of her owners copy of TCT No. 168173 to the Tagig Police Station on June 3, 1991, executing an affidavit of loss and by filing a petition12 for the issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of said title with the RTC of Makati, Branch 142; that the petition was granted in an Order13 dated August 31, 1991; that said Order was subsequently set aside in an Order dated April 10, 199214 where the RTC Makati granted respondents petition for relief from judgment due to the fact that respondent is in possession of the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 168173, and ordered the provincial public prosecutor to conduct an investigation of petitioner for perjury and false testimony. Respondent prayed for the ex-parte issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and payment of two million pesos with interest at 36% per annum from December 7, 1991, P100,000.00 moral, corrective and exemplary damages and P200,000.00 for attorneys fees. In an Order dated April 6, 1993, the Executive Judge of the RTC of Manila issued a writ of preliminary attachment upon the filing of a bond in the amount of two million pesos.15 Petitioner filed an Amended Answer16 alleging that the Memorandum of Agreement was conceived and arranged by her lawyer, Atty. Carmelita Lozada, who is also respondents lawyer; that she was asked to sign the agreement without being given the chance to read the same; that the title to the property and the Deed of Sale between her and the IMRDC were entrusted to Atty. Lozada for safekeeping and were never turned over to respondent as there was no consummated sale yet; that out of the two million pesos cash paid, Atty. Lozada took the one million pesos which has not been returned, thus

petitioner had filed a civil case against her; that she was never informed of respondents decision not to purchase the property within the six month period fixed in the agreement; that when she demanded the return of TCT No. 168173 and the Deed of Sale between her and the IMRDC from Atty. Lozada, the latter gave her these documents in a brown envelope on May 5, 1991 which her secretary placed in her attache case; that the envelope together with her other personal things were lost when her car was forcibly opened the following day; that she sought the help of Atty. Lozada who advised her to secure a police report, to execute an affidavit of loss and to get the services of another lawyer to file a petition for the issuance of an owners duplicate copy; that the petition for the issuance of a new owners duplicate copy was filed on her behalf without her knowledge and neither did she sign the petition nor testify in court as falsely claimed for she was abroad; that she was a victim of the manipulations of Atty. Lozada and respondent as shown by the filing of criminal charges for perjury and false testimony against her; that no interest could be due as there was no valid mortgage over the property as the principal obligation is vitiated with fraud and deception. She prayed for the dismissal of the complaint, counter-claim for damages and attorneys fees. Trial on the merits ensued. On January 31, 1996, the RTC issued a decision,17 the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby RENDERED: 1) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P2 Million plus interest thereon at the rate of thirty two (32%) per cent per annum beginning December 7, 1991 until fully paid. 2) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P70,000.00 representing premiums paid by plaintiff on the attachment bond with legal interest thereon counted from the date of this decision until fully paid. 3) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P100,000.00 by way of moral, corrective and exemplary damages. 4) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff attorneys fees of P100,000.00 plus cost of litigation.18 The RTC found that petitioner was under obligation to pay respondent the amount of two million pesos with compounded interest pursuant to their Memorandum of Agreement; that the fraudulent scheme employed by petitioner to deprive respondent of her only security to her loaned money when petitioner executed an affidavit of loss and instituted a petition for the issuance of an owners duplicate title knowing the same was in respondents possession, entitled respondent to moral damages; and that petitioners bare denial cannot be accorded credence because her testimony and that of her witness did not appear to be credible. The RTC further found that petitioner admitted that she received from respondent the two million pesos in cash but the fact that petitioner gave the one million pesos to Atty. Lozada was without respondents knowledge thus it is not binding on respondent; that respondent had also proven that in 1993, she initially paid the sum of P30,000.00 as premium for the issuance of the attachment bond, P20,000.00 for its renewal in 1994, and P20,000.00 for the renewal in 1995, thus plaintiff

62

should be reimbursed considering that she was compelled to go to court and ask for a writ of preliminary attachment to protect her rights under the agreement. Petitioner filed her appeal with the CA. In a Decision dated June 18, 2002, the CA affirmed the RTC decision with modification, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED in the sense that the rate of interest is reduced from 32% to 25% per annum, effective June 7, 1991 until fully paid.19 The CA found that: petitioner gave the one million pesos to Atty. Lozada partly as her commission and partly as a loan; respondent did not replace the mistakenly dated check of one million pesos because she had decided not to buy the property and petitioner knew of her decision as early as April 1991; the award of moral damages was warranted since even granting petitioner had no hand in the filing of the petition for the issuance of an owners copy, she executed an affidavit of loss of TCT No. 168173 when she knew all along that said title was in respondents possession; petitioners claim that she thought the title was lost when the brown envelope given to her by Atty. Lozada was stolen from her car was hollow; that such deceitful conduct caused respondent serious anxiety and emotional distress. The CA concluded that there was no basis for petitioner to say that the interest should be charged for six months only and no more; that a loan always bears interest otherwise it is not a loan; that interest should commence on June 7, 199120 with compounded bank interest prevailing at the time the two million was considered as a loan which was in June 1991; that the bank interest rate for loans secured by a real estate mortgage in 1991 ranged from 25% to 32% per annum as certified to by Prudential Bank,21 that in fairness to petitioner, the rate to be charged should be 25% only. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated September 11, 2002. Hence the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner raising the following issues: (A) WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPOUNDED BANK INTEREST SHOULD BE LIMITED TO SIX (6) MONTHS AS CONTAINED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT. (B) WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES. (C) WHETHER OR NOT THE GRANT OF CORRECTIVE AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES IS PROPER EVEN IF NOT MENTIONED IN THE TEXT OF THE DECISION.22 Petitioner contends that the interest, whether at 32% per annum awarded by the trial court or at 25% per annum as modified by the CA which should run from June 7, 1991 until fully paid, is contrary to the parties Memorandum of Agreement; that the agreement provides that if respondent would decide not to purchase the property, petitioner has the period of another six months to pay the loan with compounded bank interest for the last six months only; that the CAs ruling that a loan always bears interest otherwise it is not a loan is contrary to Art. 1956 of the New Civil Code which provides that no interest shall be due unless it

has been expressly stipulated in writing. We are not persuaded. While the CAs conclusion, that a loan always bears interest otherwise it is not a loan, is flawed since a simple loan may be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay interest,23 we find no error committed by the CA in awarding a 25% interest per annum on the two-million peso loan even beyond the second six months stipulated period. The Memorandum of Agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent on December 7, 1990 is the law between the parties. In resolving an issue based upon a contract, we must first examine the contract itself, especially the provisions thereof which are relevant to the controversy.24 The general rule is that if the terms of an agreement are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall prevail.25 It is further required that the various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.26 In this case, the phrase "for the last six months only" should be taken in the context of the entire agreement. We agree with and adopt the CAs interpretation of the phrase in this wise: Their agreement speaks of two (2) periods of six months each. The first six-month period was given to plaintiffappellee (respondent) to make up her mind whether or not to purchase defendant-appellants (petitioner's) property. The second six-month period was given to defendant-appellant to pay the P2 million loan in the event that plaintiff-appellee decided not to buy the subject property in which case interest will be charged "for the last six months only", referring to the second six-month period. This means that no interest will be charged for the first six-month period while appellee was making up her mind whether to buy the property, but only for the second period of six months after appellee had decided not to buy the property. This is the meaning of the phrase "for the last six months only". Certainly, there is nothing in their agreement that suggests that interest will be charged for six months only even if it takes defendant-appellant an eternity to pay the loan.27 The agreement that the amount given shall bear compounded bank interest for the last six months only, i.e., referring to the second six-month period, does not mean that interest will no longer be charged after the second six-month period since such stipulation was made on the logical and reasonable expectation that such amount would be paid within the date stipulated. Considering that petitioner failed to pay the amount given which under the Memorandum of Agreement shall be considered as a loan, the monetary interest for the last six months continued to accrue until actual payment of the loaned amount. The payment of regular interest constitutes the price or cost of the use of money and thus, until the principal sum due is returned to the creditor, regular interest continues to accrue since the debtor continues to use such principal amount.28 It has been held that for a debtor to continue in possession of the principal of the loan and to continue to use the same after maturity of the loan without payment of the monetary interest,

63

would constitute unjust enrichment on the part of the debtor at the expense of the creditor.29 Petitioner and respondent stipulated that the loaned amount shall earn compounded bank interests, and per the certification issued by Prudential Bank, the interest rate for loans in 1991 ranged from 25% to 32% per annum. The CA reduced the interest rate to 25% instead of the 32% awarded by the trial court which petitioner no longer assailed.1awphi1.nt In Bautista v. Pilar Development Corp.,30 we upheld the validity of a 21% per annum interest on a P142,326.43 loan. In Garcia v. Court of Appeals,31 we sustained the agreement of the parties to a 24% per annum interest on an P8,649,250.00 loan. Thus, the interest rate of 25% per annum awarded by the CA to a P2 million loan is fair and reasonable. Petitioner next claims that moral damages were awarded on the erroneous finding that she used a fraudulent scheme to deprive respondent of her security for the loan; that such finding is baseless since petitioner was acquitted in the case for perjury and false testimony filed by respondent against her. We are not persuaded. Article 31 of the Civil Code provides that 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.32 While petitioner was acquitted in the false testimony and perjury cases filed by respondent against her, those actions are entirely distinct from the collection of sum of money with damages filed by respondent against petitioner. We agree with the findings of the trial court and the CA that petitioners act of trying to depriv e respondent of the security of her loan by executing an affidavit of loss of the title and instituting a petition for the issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 168173 entitles respondent to moral damages.1a\^/phi1.net Moral damages may be awarded in culpa contractual or breach of contract cases when the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong. It partakes of the nature of fraud.33 The Memorandum of Agreement provides that in the event that respondent opts not to buy the property, the money given by respondent to petitioner shall be treated as a loan and the property shall be considered as the security for the mortgage. It was testified to by respondent that after they executed the agreement on December 7, 1990, petitioner gave her the owners copy of the title to the property, the Deed of Sale between petitioner and IMRDC, the certificate of occupancy, and the certificate of the Secretary of the IMRDC who signed the Deed of Sale.34 However, notwithstanding that all those documents were in respondents possession, petitioner executed an affidavit of loss that the owners copy of the title and the Deed of Sale were lost. Although petitioner testified that her execution of the affidavit of loss was due to the fact that she was of the belief that since she had demanded from Atty. Lozada the return of the title, she thought that the brown envelope with markings which Atty. Lozada gave her on

May 5, 1991 already contained the title and the Deed of Sale as those documents were in the same brown envelope which she gave to Atty. Lozada prior to the transaction with respondent.35 Such statement remained a bare statement. It was not proven at all since Atty. Lozada had not taken the stand to corroborate her claim. In fact, even petitioners own witness, Benilda Ynfante (Ynfante), was not able to establish petitioner's claim that the title was returned by Atty. Lozada in view of Ynfante's testimony that after the brown envelope was given to petitioner, the latter passed it on to her and she placed it in petitioners attach case36 and did not bother to look at the envelope.37 It is clear therefrom that petitioners execution of the affidavit of loss became the basis of the filing of the petition with the RTC for the issuance of new owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 168173. Petitioners actuation would have deprived respondent of the security for her loan were it not for respondents timely filing of a petition for relief whereby the RTC set aside its previous order granting the issuance of new title. Thus, the award of moral damages is in order. The entitlement to moral damages having been established, the award of exemplary damages is proper.38 Exemplary damages may be imposed upon petitioner by way of example or correction for the public good.39 The RTC awarded the amount of P100,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages. While the award of moral and exemplary damages in an aggregate amount may not be the usual way of awarding said damages,40 no error has been committed by CA. There is no question that respondent is entitled to moral and exemplary damages. Petitioner argues that the CA erred in awarding attorneys fees because the trial courts decision did not explain the findings of facts and law to justify the award of attorneys fees as the same was mentioned only in the dispositive portion of the RTC decision. We agree. Article 220841 of the New Civil Code enumerates the instances where such may be awarded and, in all cases, it must be reasonable, just and equitable if the same were to be granted.42 Attorney's fees as part of damages are not meant to enrich the winning party at the expense of the losing litigant. They are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.43 The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the general rule. As such, it is necessary for the trial court to make findings of facts and law that would bring the case within the exception and justify the grant of such award. The matter of attorney's fees cannot be mentioned only in the dispositive portion of the decision.44 They must be clearly explained and justified by the trial court in the body of its decision. On appeal, the CA is precluded from supplementing the bases for awarding attorneys fees when the trial court failed to discuss in its Decision the reasons for awarding the same. Consequently, the award of attorney's fees should be deleted. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision dated June 18, 2002 and the Resolution dated September 11, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 52839 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the award of attorneys fees is DELETED.

64

No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 86720 September 2, 1994 MHP GARMENTS, INC., and LARRY C. DE GUZMAN, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, AGNES VILLA CRUZ, MIRASOL LUGATIMAN, and GERTRUDES GONZALES, respondents. Benjamin M. Dacanay for petitioners. Emmanuel O. Tansingco for private respondents. PUNO, J.: The constitutional protection of our people against unreasonable search and seizure is not merely a pleasing platitude. It vouchsafes our right to privacy and dignity against undesirable intrusions committed by any public officer or private individual. An infringement of this right justifies an award for damages. On February 22, 1983, petitioner MHP Garments, Inc., was awarded by the Boy Scouts of the Philippines, the exclusive franchise to sell and distribute official Boy Scouts uniforms, supplies, badges, and insignias. In their Memorandum Agreement, petitioner corporation was given the authority to "undertake or cause to be undertaken the prosecution in court of all illegal sources of scout uniforms and other scouting supplies." 1 Sometime in October 1983, petitioner corporation received information that private respondents Agnes Villa Cruz, Mirasol Lugatiman, and Gertrudes Gonzales were selling Boy Scouts items and paraphernalia without any authority. Petitioner de Guzman, an employee of petitioner corporation, was tasked to undertake the necessary surveillance and to make a report to the Philippine Constabulary (PC). On October 25, 1983, at about 10:30 A.M., petitioner de Guzman, Captain Renato M. Peafiel, and two (2) other constabulary men of the Reaction Force Battalion, Sikatuna Village, Diliman, Quezon City went to the stores of respondents at the Marikina Public Market. Without any warrant, they seized the boy and girl scouts pants, dresses, and suits on display at respondents' stalls. The seizure caused a commotion and embarrassed private respondents. Receipts were issued for the seized items. The items were then turned over by Captain Peafiel to petitioner corporation for safekeeping. A criminal complaint for unfair competition was then filed against private respondents. 2 During its pendency, petitioner de Guzman exacted from private respondent Lugatiman the sum of THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P3,100.00) in order to be dropped from the complaint. On December 6, 1983, after a preliminary investigation, the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal dismissed the complaint against all the private respondents. On February 6, 1984, he also ordered the return of the seized items. The seized items were not immediately returned despite demands. 3 Private respondents had to go personally to petitioners' place of business to recover their goods. Even then, not all the seized items were returned. The other items returned were of inferior quality. Private respondents then filed Civil Case No. 51144

against the petitioners for sums of money and damages. 4 In its Decision dated January 9, 1987, the trial court ruled for the private respondents, thus: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants, ordering the latter jointly and severally: 1. To return the amount of P3,100.00 to plaintiff Mirasol Lugatiman with interest at 12% per annum from January 12, 1984, the date of the last receipt issued, until fully paid; 2. To pay plaintiff Agnes Villa Cruz the sum of P2,000.00 for the 26 pieces of girl scout items not returned; 3. To pay plaintiffs the amount of P50,000.00 for and as moral damages and P15,000.00 for and as exemplary damages; and 4. P5,000.00 for and as attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Costs against the defendants. SO ORDERED. The decision was appealed to the respondent court. On January 18, 1989, its Fifth Division, 5 affirmed the Decision with modification, thus: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION; and, as modified, the dispositive portion thereof now reads as follows: Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs (private respondents) and against defendants (petitioners), ordering the latter jointly and severally; 1. To return the amount of P3,100.00 to plaintiff (respondent) Mirasol Lugatiman and cancel her application for distributor's license; 2. To pay plaintiff (respondent) Agnes Villa Cruz the sum of P2,000.00 for the unreturned 26 pieces of girl scouts items with interest at 12% per annum from June 4, 1984 (date the complaint was filed) until it is fully paid; 3. To pay plaintiffs (respondents) the amount of P10,000.00 each, or a total of P30,000.00, for and as moral damages; and P5,000.00 each, or a total of P15,000.00, for and as exemplary damages; and 4. To pay plaintiffs (respondents) P5,000.00 for and as attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Costs of the case a quo and the instant appeal are assessed jointly and severally against defendants-appellants (petitioners) MHP Garments, Inc. and Larry de Guzman. SO ORDERED. In this petition for certiorari, petitioners contend: FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN IMPUTING LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES TO THE PETITIONERS WHO DID NOT EFFECT THE SEIZURE OF THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT

65

MADE A FINDING THAT THE MANNER WITH WHICH THE CONFISCATION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WAS TORTIOUS BUT PENALIZED INSTEAD THE PETITIONERS WHO DID NOT COMMIT THE ACT OF CONFISCATION. THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND FOR THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AND AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. We affirm. Article III, section 2, of the Constitution protects our people from unreasonable search and seizure. It provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. This provision protects not only those who appear to be innocent but also those who appear to be guilty but are nevertheless to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. 6 In the case at bench, the seizure was made without any warrant. Under the Rules of Court, 7 a warrantless search can only be undertaken under the following circumstance: Sec. 12. Search incident to a lawful arrest. - A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant. We hold that the evidence did not justify the warrantless search and seizure of private respondents' goods. Petitioner corporation received information that private respondents were illegally selling Boy Scouts items and paraphernalia in October 1983. The specific date and time are not established in the evidence adduced by the parties. Petitioner de Guzman then made a surveillance of the stores of private respondents. They reported to the Philippine Constabulary and on October 25, 1983, the raid was made on the stores of private respondents and the supposed illicit goods were seized. The progression of time between the receipt of the information and the raid of the stores of private respondents shows there was sufficient time for petitioners and the PC raiding party to apply for a judicial warrant. Despite the sufficiency of time, they did not apply for a warrant and seized the goods of private respondents. In doing so, they took the risk of a suit for damages in case the seizure would be proved to violate the right of private respondents against unreasonable search and seizure. In the case at bench, the search and seizure were clearly illegal. There was no probable cause for the seizure. Probable cause for a search has been defined as "such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched." 8 These facts and circumstances were not in any way shown by the

petitioners to justify their warrantless search and seizure. Indeed, after a preliminary investigation, the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal dismissed their complaint for unfair competition and later ordered the return of the seized goods. Petitioners would deflect their liability with the argument that it was the Philippine Constabulary that conducted the raid and their participation was only to report the alleged illegal activity of private respondents. While undoubtedly, the members of the PC raiding team should have been included in the complaint for violation of the private respondents' constitutional rights, still, the omission will not exculpate petitioners. In the case of Lim vs. Ponce de Leon, 9 we ruled for the recovery of damages for violation of constitutional rights and liberties from public officer or private individual, thus: 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. xxx xxx xxx (9) The rights to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. xxx xxx xxx The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudged. Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: xxx xxx xxx (6) Illegal search; (1) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. Pursuant to the foregoing provisions, a person whose constitutional rights have been violated or impaired is entitled to actual and moral damages from the public officer or employee responsible therefor. In addition, exemplary damages may also be awarded. xxx xxx xxx The very nature of Article 32 is that the wrong may be civil or criminal. It is not necessary therefore that there should be malice or bad faith. To make such a requisite would defeat the main purpose of Article 32 which is the effective protection of individual rights. Public officials in the past have abused their powers on the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the performance of their duties. Precisely, the object of the Article is to put an end to official abuse by plea of the good faith. In the United States this remedy is in the nature of a tort. (emphasis supplied) In the subsequent case of Aberca vs. Ver, 10 the Court En Banc explained the liability of persons indirectly responsible, viz: [T]he decisive factor in this case, in our view, is the language of Article 32. The law speaks of an

66

officer or employee or person "directly or indirectly" responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. Thus, it is not the actor alone (i.e., the one directly responsible) who must answer for damages under Article 32; the person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party. xxx xxx xxx While it would certainly be too naive to expect that violators of human rights would easily be deterred by the prospect of facing damages suits, it should nonetheless be made clear in no uncertain terms that Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the persons who are directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for the transgression joint tortfeasors. xxx xxx xxx [N]either can it be said that only those shown to have participated "directly" should be held liable. Article 32 of the Civil Code encompasses within the ambit of its provisions those directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for its violations. (emphasis supplied) Applying the aforecited provisions and leading cases, the respondent court correctly granted damages to private respondents. Petitioners were indirectly involved in transgressing the right of private respondents against unreasonable search and seizure. Firstly, they instigated the raid pursuant to their covenant in the Memorandum Agreement to undertake the prosecution in court of all illegal sources of scouting supplies. 11 As correctly observed by respondent court: Indeed, the acts committed by the PC soldiers of unlawfully seizing appellees' (respondents') merchandise and of filing the criminal complaint for unfair competition against appellees (respondents) were for the protection and benefit of appellant (petitioner) corporation. Such being the case, it is, thus, reasonably fair to infer from those acts that it was upon appellant (petitioner) corporation's instance that the PC soldiers conducted the raid and effected the illegal seizure. These circumstances should answer the trial court's query posed in its decision now under consideration as to why the PC soldiers immediately turned over the seized merchandise to appellant (petitioner) corporation. 12 The raid was conducted with the active participation of their employee. Larry de Guzman did not lift a finger to stop the seizure of the boy and girl scouts items. By standing by and apparently assenting thereto, he was liable to the same extent as the officers themselves. 13 So with the petitioner corporation which even received for safekeeping the goods unreasonably seized by the PC raiding team and de Guzman, and refused to surrender them for quite a time despite the dismissal of its complaint for unfair competition. Secondly, Letter of Instruction No. 1299 was precisely crafted on March 9, 1983 to safeguard not only the privilege of franchise holder of scouting items but also the citizen's constitutional rights, to wit: TITLE: APPREHENSION OF

UNAUTHORIZED MANUFACTURERS DISTRIBUTORS OF PARAPHERNALIA IMPOUNDING OF PARAPHERNALIA. ABSTRACT:

AND SCOUT AND SAID

Directs all law enforcement agencies of the Republic of the Philippines, to apprehend immediately unauthorized manufacturers and distributors of Scout paraphernalia, upon proper application by the Boy Scouts of the Philippines and/or Girl Scouts of the Philippines for warrant of arrest and/or search warrant with a judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law; and to impound the said paraphernalia to be used as evidence in court or other appropriate administrative body. Orders the immediate and strict compliance with the Instructions. 14 Under the above provision and as aforediscussed, petitioners miserably failed to report the unlawful peddling of scouting goods to the Boy Scouts of the Philippines for the proper application of a warrant. Private respondents' rights are immutable and cannot be sacrificed to transient needs. 15 Petitioners did not have the unbridled license to cause the seizure of respondents' goods without any warrant. And thirdly, if petitioners did not have a hand in the raid, they should have filed a third-party complaint against the raiding team for contribution or any other relief, 16 in respect of respondents' claim for Recovery of Sum of Money with Damages. Again, they did not. We have consistently ruled that moral damages are not awarded to penalize the defendant but to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries he may have suffered. 17 Conformably with our ruling in Lim vs. Ponce de Leon, op. cit., moral damages can be awarded in the case at bench. There can be no doubt that petitioners must have suffered sleepless nights, serious anxiety, and wounded feelings due the tortious raid caused by petitioners. Private respondents' avowals of embarrassment and humiliation during the seizure of their merchandise were supported by their testimonies. Respondent Cruz declared: I felt very nervous. I was crying to loss (sic) my goods and capital because I am doing business with borrowed money only, there was commotion created by the raiding team and they even stepped on some of the pants and dresses on display for sale. All passersby stopped to watch and stared at me with accusing expressions. I was trembling and terribly ashamed, sir. 18 Respondent Lugatiman testified: I felt very nervous. I was crying and I was very much ashamed because many people have been watching the PC soldiers hauling my items, and many/I (sic) heard say "nakaw pala ang mga iyan" for which I am claiming P25,000.00 for damages. 19 While respondent Gonzalez stated thus: I do not like the way the raid was conducted by the team sir because it looked like that what I

67

have been selling were stolen items that they should be confiscated by uniformed soldiers. Many people were around and the more the confiscation was made in a scandalous manner; every clothes, T-shirts, pants and dresses even those not wrapped dropped to the ground. I was terribly shamed in the presence of market goers that morning. 20 Needles to state, the wantonness of the wrongful seizure justifies the award of exemplary damages. 21 It will also serve as a stern reminder to all and sundry that the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure is a virile reality and not a mere burst of rhetoric. The all encompassing protection extends against intrusions directly done both by government and indirectly by private entities. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. We impose a SIX PERCENT (6%) interest from January 9, 1987 on the TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) for the unreturned twenty-six (26) pieces of girl scouts items and a TWELVE PERCENT (12%) interest, in lieu of SIX PERCENT (6%), on the said amount upon finality of this Decision until the payment thereof. 22 Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. GR. No. 101236 January 30, 1992 JULIANA P. YAP, petitioner, vs. MARTIN PARAS and ALFREDO D. BARCELONA, SR., Judge of the 3rd MTC of Glan Malapatan, South Cotabato, respondents. Mariano C. Alegarbes for petitioner. Public Attorney's Office for private respondent. CRUZ, J.: This is still another dispute between brother and sister over a piece of property they inherited from their parents. The case is complicated by the circumstance that the private respondent's counsel in this petition is the son of the judge, the other respondent, whose action is being questioned. Petitioner Juliana P. Yap was the sister of private respondent Martin Paras.* On October 31, 1971, according to Yap, Paras sold to her his share in the intestate estate for P300.00. The sale was evidenced by a private document. Nineteen years later, on May 2, 1990, Paras sold the same property to Santiago Saya-ang for P5,000.00. This was evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale. When Yap learned of the second sale, she filed a complaint for estafa against Paras and Saya-ang with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of General Santos City. 1 On the same date, she filed a complaint for the nullification of the said sale with the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City. 2 After investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor instituted a criminal complaint for estafa against Paras with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Glan-Malapatan, South Cotabato, presided by Judge Alfredo D. Barcelona, Sr. On April 17, 1991, before arraignment of the accused, the trial judge motu proprio issued an order dismissing the criminal case on the ground that:

. . . after a careful scrutiny of the statements of complainant, Juliana P. Yap and of the respondent Martin Paras and his witnesses, the Court holds and maintained (sic) that there is a prejudicial question to a civil action, which must be ventilated in the proper civil court. In the case of Ras vs. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125, the Supreme Court had already made a pronouncement that "a criminal action for Estafa for alleged double sale of property is a prejudicial question to a civil action for nullity of the alleged Deed of Sale and defense of the alleged vendors of forgeries of their signatures to the Deed." 3 The Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied on April 30, 1990. She then came to this Court for relief in this special civil action for certiorari. The Court could have referred this petition to the Court of Appeals, which has concurrent jurisdiction under BP 129, but decided to resolve the case directly in view of the peculiar circumstances involved. The petitioner's contention is that where there is a prejudicial question in a civil case, the criminal action may not be dismissed but only suspended. Moreover, this suspension may not be done motu proprio by the judge trying the criminal case but only upon petition of the defendant in accordance with the Rules of Court. It is also stressed that a reversal of the order of dismissal would not bar the prosecution of the accused under the double jeopardy rule because he has not yet been arraigned. The Court notes that the counsel for private respondent Paras who filed the comment in his behalf is the son and namesake of Judge Barcelona. Atty. Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr. is employed in the Public Attorney's Office. He has made it of record that he was not the counsel of Paras at the time the questioned order of dismissal was issued by his father. He thus impliedly rejects the charge of bias against his father. Perhaps out of filial loyalty, Atty. Barcelona suggests there may have been a basis for the order in view of the alleged double sale of the property which was being litigated in the regional trial court. He concedes, however, that the order may have been premature and that it could not have been issued motu proprio. Agreeing that double jeopardy would not attach because of the lack of arraignment, he asks that his Comment be considered a motion for the suspension of the criminal action on the ground of prejudicial question. The Court has deliberated on the issues and finds that the respondent judge did indeed commit grave abuse of discretion in motu proprio issuing the order of dismissal. Section 6, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended by this Court on July 7, 1988, provides as follows: Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the fiscal or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests.

68

Judge Barcelona's precipitate action is intriguing, to say the least, in light of the clear provision of the abovequoted rule. The rule is not even new, being only a rewording of the original provision in the Rules of Court before they were amended. It plainly says that the suspension may be made only upon petition and not at the instance of the judge alone, and it also says suspension, and not dismissal. One also wonders if the person who notarized the disputed second sale, Notary Public Alexander C. Barcelona, might be related to the respondent judge. But more important than the preceding considerations is the trial judge's misapprehension of the concept of a prejudicial question. Section 5, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended provides: Sec. 5. Elements of prejudicial question. The two (2) essential elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the congnizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. 4 It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. 5 We have held that "for a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the criminal action pending the determination of the civil action, it must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution is based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in said civil action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused". 6 It is the issue in the civil action that is prejudicial to the continuation of the criminal action, not the criminal action that is prejudicial to the civil action. The excerpt quoted by the respondent judge in his Order does not appear anywhere in the decision of Ras v. Rasul. 7 Worse, he has not only misquoted the decision but also wrongly applied it. The facts of that case are not analogous to those in the case at bar. In that case, Ras allegedly sold to Pichel a parcel of land which he later also sold to Martin. Pichel brought a civil action for nullification of the second sale and asked that the sale made by Ras in his favor be declared valid. Ras's defense was that he never sold the property to Pichel and his purported signatures appearing in the first deed of sale were forgeries. Later, an information for estafa was filed against Ras based on the same double sale that was the subject of the civil action. Ras filed a "Motion for Suspension of Action" (that is, the criminal case), claiming that the resolution of the issues in the civil case would necessarily be determinative of his guilt or innocence. Through then Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee, this

Court ruled that a suspension of the criminal action was in order because: On the basis of the issues raised in both the criminal and civil cases against petitioner and in the light of the foregoing concepts of a prejudicial question, there indeed appears to be a prejudicial question in the case at bar, considering that petitioner Alejandro Ras' defense (as defendant) in Civil Case No. 73 of the nullity and forgery of the alleged prior deed of sale in favor of Luis Pichel (plaintiff in the civil case and complaining witnesses in the criminal case) is based on the very same facts which would be necessarily determinative of petitioner Ras' guilt or innocence as accused in the criminal case. If the first alleged sale in favor of Pichel is void or fictitious, then there would be no double sale and petitioner would be innocent of the offense charged. A conviction in the criminal case (if it were allowed to proceed ahead) would be a gross injustice and would have to be set aside if it were finally decided in the civil action that indeed the alleged prior deed of sale was a forgery and spurious. xxx xxx xxx The petitioner Alejandro Ras claims in his answer to the complaint in Civil Case No. 73 that he had never sold the property in litigation to the plaintiff (Luis Pichel) and that his signatures in the alleged deed of sale and that of his wife were forged by the plaintiff. It is, therefore, necessary that the truth or falsity of such claim be first determined because if his claim is true, then he did not sell his property twice and no estafa was committed. The question of nullity of the sale is distinct and separate from the crime of estafa (alleged double sale) but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of herein petitioner in the criminal action. In the Ras case, there was a motion to suspend the criminal action on the ground that the defense in the civil case forgery of his signature in the first deed of sale had to be threshed out first. Resolution of that question would necessarily resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. By contrast, there was no motion for suspension in the case at bar; and no less importantly, the respondent judge had not been informed of the defense Paras was raising in the civil action. Judge Barcelona could not have ascertained then if the issue raised in the civil action would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. It is worth remarking that not every defense raised in the civil action will raise a prejudicial question to justify suspension of the criminal action. The defense must involve an issue similar or intimately related to the same issue raised in the criminal action and its resolution should determine whether or not the latter action may proceed. The order dismissing the criminal action without a motion for suspension in accordance with Rule 111, Section 6, of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended, and even without the accused indicating his

69

defense in the civil case for the annulment of the second sale, suggests not only ignorance of the law but also bias on the part of the respondent judge. Judge Alfredo D. Barcelona, Sr. is sternly reminded that under the Code of Judicial Conduct, "a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence" and "should administer justice impartially." He is hereby reprimanded for his questionable conduct in the case at bar, with the warning that commission of similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order issued by Judge Alfredo D. Barcelona, Sr. dated April 17, 1991, dismissing Criminal Case No. 1902-G, and the Order dated April 30, 1991, denying the motion for reconsideration, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Criminal Case No. 1902-G is ordered REINSTATED for further proceedings, but to be assigned to a different judge. SO ORDERED.

70

G.R. No. 110544 October 17, 1995 REYNALDO V. TUANDA, Mayor of the Municipality of Jimalalud, Negros Oriental, HERMINIGILDO FABURADA, (former Vice-Mayor), SANTOS A. VILLANUEVA, Incumbent Member of the Sangguniang Bayan, MANUEL LIM, NICANOR R. AGOSTO, ERENIETA K. MENDOZA MAXIMINO A. VIERNES, HACUBINA V. SERILLO, ILUMINADO D. ESTRELLANES, and FORMER MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF JIMALALUD, NEGROS ORIENTAL, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, (THIRD DIVISION), BARTOLOME BINAOHAN and DELIA ESTRELLANES, respondents. KAPUNAN, J.: Petitioners institute this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to set aside the resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated 17 February 1992 and its orders dated 19 August 1992 and 13 May 1993 in Criminal Case No. 16936 entitled "People of the Philippines versus Reynaldo Tuanda, et al." denying petitioners' motion for suspension of their arraignment. The present controversy arose from the following antecedents: On 9 February 1989, private respondents Delia Estrellanes and Bartolome Binaohan were designated as industrial labor sectoral representative and agricultural labor sectoral representative respectively, for the Sangguniang Bayan of Jimalalud, Province of Negros Oriental by then Secretary Luis T. Santos of the Department of Local Government. Private respondents Binaohan and Estrellanes took their oath of office on 16 February 1989 and 17 February 1989, respectively. Subsequently, petitioners filed an undated petition with the Office of the President for review and recall of said designations. The latter, however, in a letter dated 20 March 1989, denied the petition and enjoined Mayor Reynaldo Tuanda to recognize private respondents as sectoral representatives. On 4 May 1990, private respondents filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 35, docketed as Special Civil Action No. 9661, for recognition as members of the Sangguniang Bayan. It was dismissed on 23 July 1991. Thereafter, on 20 June 1991, petitioners filed an action with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City to declare null and void the designations of private respondents as sectoral representatives, docketed as Civil Case No. 9955 entitled "Reynaldo Tuanda, et al. versus Secretary of the Department of Local Government, et al." On 21 July 1991, an information was filed before the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 16936 entitled "People of the Philippines versus Reynaldo Tuanda, et al." charging petitioners thus: INFORMATION The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer of the Special Prosecutor, hereby accuses REYNALDO V. TUANDA, HERMENEGILDO G. FABURADA, MANUEL LIM, NICANOR P. AGOSTO, ERENIETA K. MENDOZA, MAXIMO

VIERNES, HACUBINA V. SERILLO, and SANTOS A. VILLANUEVA of Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, committed as follows: That during the period from February 1989 to February 1991 and subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Jimalalud, Negros Oriental, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused, all public officers, Mayor REYNALDO V. TUANDA, ViceMayor HERMENEGILDO G. FABURADA, Sangguniang Members MANUEL LIM, NICANOR P. AGOSTO, ERENIETA K. MENDOZA, MAXIMO A. VIERNES, HACUBINA V. SERILLO, ILUMINADO D. ESTRELLANES and SANTOS A. VILLANUEVA while in the performance of their official functions and taking advantage of their public positions, with evident bad faith, manifest partiality, and conspiring and confederating with each other did, then and there, wilfully and unlawfully cause undue injury to Sectoral Members Bartolome M. Binaohan and Delia T. Estrellanes by refusing to pay despite demand the amount of NINETY FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P95,350.00) and ONE HUNDRED EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED PESOS (P108,900.00) representing respectively their per diems, salaries and other privileges and benefits, and such undue injury continuing to the present to the prejudice and damage of Bartolome Binaohan and Delia Estrellanes. CONTRARY TO LAW. 1 On 9 September 1991, petitioners filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan for suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 16936 on the ground that a prejudicial question exists in Civil Case No. 9955 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City. 2 On 16 January 1992, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision declaring null and void ab initio the designations issued by the Department of Local Government to the private respondents as sectoral representatives for having been done in violation of Section 146 (2) of B.P. Blg. 337, otherwise known as the Local Government Code. 3 The trial court expounded thus: The Supreme Court in the case of Johnny D. Supangan Jr. v. Luis T. Santos, et al., G.R. No. 84663, along with 7 companion cases of similar import, (G.R. Nos. 05012, 87601, 87602, 87792, 87935, 88072, and 90205) all promulgated on August 24, 1990, ruled that: B.P. Blg. 337 explicitly required that before the President (or the Secretary of the Department of Local Government) may appoint members of the local legislative bodies to represent the Industrial and Agricultural Labor

71

Sectors, there must be a determination to be made by the Sanggunian itself that the said sectors are of sufficient number in the city or municipality to warrant representation after consultation with associations and persons belonging to the sector concerned. The Supreme Court further ruled For that matter, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code even prescribe the time and manner by which such determination is to be conducted by the Sanggunian. Consequently, in cases where the Sanggunian concerned has not yet determined that the Industrial and Agricultural Labor Sectors in their particular city or municipality are of sufficient number to warrant representation, there will absolutely be no basis for the designation/appointments. In the process of such inquiry as to the sufficiency in number of the sector concerned to warrant representation, the Sanggunian is enjoined by law (B.P. Blg. 337) to consult with associations and persons belonging to the sector concerned. Consultation with the sector concerned is made a pre-requisite. This is so considering that those who belong to the said sector are the ones primarily interested in being represented in the Sanggunian. In the same aforecited case, the Supreme Court considers such prior determination by the Sanggunian itself (not by any other person or body) as a condition sine qua non to a valid appointment or designation. Since in the present case, there was total absence of the required prior determination by the Sangguniang Bayan of Jimalalud, this Court cannot help but declare the designations of private defendants as sectoral representatives null and void. This verdict is not without precedence. In several similar cases, the Supreme Court invariably nullified the designations where the requirements of Sec. 146 (2), B.P. Blg. 337 were not complied with. Just to cite one case, the Supreme Court ruled: There is no certification from the Sangguniang Bayan of Valenzuela that the sectors concerned are of sufficient number to warrant representation and there was no consultation whatsoever with the associations and persons belonging to the Industrial and Agricultural Labor Sectors. Therefore, the appointment of private respondents Romeo F. Bularan and Rafael Cortez are null and void (Romeo Llanado, et al. v. Hon. Luis Santos, et al., G.R. No. 86394, August 24, 1990). 4 Private respondents appealed the aforestated decision

to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 36769, where the same is currently pending resolution. Meanwhile, on 17 February 1992, respondent Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying the motion for suspension of proceedings filed by petitioners. Said respondent Sandiganbayan: Despite the pendency of Civil Case No. 9955 of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, it appears, nevertheless, that the private complainants have been rendering services on the basis of their respective appointments as sectoral members of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Jimalalud, Negros Oriental; and that their said appointments enjoy the presumption of regularity. Having rendered such services, the private complainants are entitled to the salaries attached to their office. Even assuming arguendo that the said Regional Trial Court shall later decide that the said appointments of the private complainants are null and void, still the private complainants are entitled to their salaries and compensation for service they have actually rendered, for the reason that before such judicial declaration of nullity, the private complainants are considered at least de facto public officers acting as such on the basis of apparently valid appointments issued by competent authorities. In other words, regardless of the decision that may be rendered in Civil Case No. 9955, the private complainants are entitled to their withheld salaries for the services they have actually rendered as sectoral representatives of the said Sangguniang Bayan. Hence, the decision that may be rendered by the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 9955 would not be determinative of the innocence or guilt of the accused. WHEREFORE, the subject Petition for the Suspension of Proceedings in Virtue of Prejudicial Question filed by the accused through counsel, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. 5 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned resolution in view of the decision promulgated by the trial court nullifying the appointments of private respondents but it was, likewise, denied in an order issued by respondent Sandiganbayan on 19 August 1992 on the justification that the grounds stated in the said motion were a mere rehash of petitioners' original motion to hold the case in abeyance. 6 The dispositive portion of its order reads as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the arraignment of the accused which was scheduled today is cancelled. Mayor Reynaldo Tuanda, Hermenegildo Faburada, Nicanor P. Agosto, Erenieta K. Mendoza, Hacubina V. Serillo and Iluminado Estrellanes are, however, hereby ordered to show cause in writing within ten (10) days from service hereof why they should not be cited for contempt of court for their failure to appear in court today for arraignment.

72

In case of an adverse resolution on the motion to quash which is to be filed by the counsel for the defense, set this case for arraignment, pretrial and trial on January 4 & 5, 1993, on all dates the trial to start at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. SO ORDERED. 7 On 19 February 1993, respondent Sandiganbayan issued an order holding consideration of all incidents pending the issuance of an extended resolution. 8 No such resolution, however, was issued and in its assailed order dated 13 May 1992, respondent Sandiganbayan set the arraignment of petitioners on 30 June 1993. The dispositive portion of the order reads: WHEREFORE, considering the absence of the accused from the scheduled hearing today which We deem to be excusable, reset this case for arraignment on June 30, 1993 and for trial on the merits on June 30 and July 1 and 2, 1993, on all dates the trial to start at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. Give proper notice to the accused and principal counsel, Atty. Alfonso Briones. Considering that the accused come all the way from Himalalud, Negros Oriental, no postponement will be allowed. SO ORDERED. 9 Hence, this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition where petitioners attribute to respondent Sandiganbayan the following errors: A. The Respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' motions for the suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 16936 in spite of the pendency of a prejudicial issue before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 36769; B. The Respondent Court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in refusing to suspend the proceedings that would entail a retrial and rehearing by it of the basic issue involved, i.e., the validity of the appointments of private respondents and their entitlement to compensation which is already pending resolution by the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CV No. 36769; and C. The Respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion and/or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in effectively allowing petitioners to be prosecuted under two alternative theories that private respondents are de jure and/or de facto officers in violation of petitioners' right to due process. 10 In sum, the only issue in the case at bench is whether or not the legality or validity of private respondents' designation as sectoral representatives which is pending resolution in CA-G.R. No. 36769 is a prejudicial question justifying suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case against petitioners. A prejudicial question is one that must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or before it may proceed (see Art. 36, Civil Code) because a decision on that point is vital to the eventual judgment in the criminal case. Thus, the resolution of the

prejudicial question is a logical antecedent of the issues involved in said criminal case. 11 A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. 12 It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from "the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. It comes into play generally in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case." 13 The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. 14 It has two essential elements: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. 15 Applying the foregoing principles to the case at bench, we find that the issue in the civil case, CA-G.R. CV No. 36769, constitutes a valid prejudicial question to warrant suspension of the arraignment and further proceedings in the criminal case against petitioners. All the elements of a prejudicial question are clearly and unmistakably present in this case. There is no doubt that the facts and issues involved in the civil action (No. 36769) and the criminal case (No. 16936) are closely related. The filing of the criminal case was premised on petitioners' alleged partiality and evident bad faith in not paying private respondents' salaries and per diems as sectoral representatives, while the civil action was instituted precisely to resolve whether or not the designations of private respondents as sectoral representatives were made in accordance with law. More importantly, ,the resolution of the civil case will certainly determine if there will still be any reason to proceed with the criminal action. Petitioners were criminally charged under the AntiGraft & Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, sec, 3[e]) due to their refusal, allegedly in bad faith and with manifest partiality, to pay private respondents' salaries as sectoral representatives. This refusal, however, was anchored on petitioners' assertion that said designations were made in violation of the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) and thus, were null and void. Therefore, should the Court of Appeals uphold the trial court's decision declaring null and void private respondents' designations as sectoral representatives for failure to comply with the provisions of the Local

73

Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337, sec. 146[2]), the charges against petitioners would no longer, so to speak, have a leg to stand on. Petitioners cannot be accused of bad faith and partiality there being in the first place no obligation on their part to pay private respondents' claims. Private respondents do not have any legal right to demand salaries, per diems and other benefits. In other words, the Court of Appeals' resolution of the issues raised in the civil action will ultimately determine whether or not there is basis to proceed with the criminal case. Private respondents insist that even if their designations are nullified, they are entitled to compensation for actual services rendered. 16 We disagree. As found by the trial court and as borne out by the records, from the start, private respondents' designations as sectoral representatives have been challenged by petitioners. They began with a petition filed with the Office of the President copies of which were received by private respondents on 26 February 1989, barely eight (8) days after they took their oath of office. 17 Hence, private respondents' claim that they have actually rendered services as sectoral representatives has not been established. Finally, we find unmeritorious respondent Sandiganbayan's thesis that even in the event that private respondents' designations are finally declared invalid, they may still be considered de facto public officers entitled to compensation for services actually rendered. The conditions and elements of de facto officership are the following: 1) There must be a de jure office; 2) There must be color of right or general acquiescence by the public; and 3) There must be actual physical possession of the office in good faith. 18 One can qualify as a de facto officer only if all the aforestated elements are present. There can be no de facto officer where there is no de jure office, although there may be a de facto officer in a de jure office. 19 WHEREFORE, the resolution dated 17 February 1992 and orders dated 19 August 1992 and 13 May 1993 of respondent Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 16936 are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent Sandiganbayan is enjoined from proceeding with the arraignment and trial of petitioners in Criminal Case No. 16936 pending final resolution of CA-G.R. CV No. 36769. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 138509 July 31, 2000 IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS, petitioner, vs. ISAGANI D. BOBIS, respondent. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: On October 21, 1985, respondent contracted a first marriage with one Maria Dulce B. Javier. Without said marriage having been annulled, nullified or terminated, the same respondent contracted a second marriage with petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis on January 25, 1996 and allegedly a third marriage with a certain Julia Sally Hernandez. Based on petitioner's complaint-affidavit, an

information for bigamy was filed against respondent on February 25, 1998, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q98-75611 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 226, Quezon City. Sometime thereafter, respondent initiated a civil action for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage on the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage license. Respondent then filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case for bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullity of the first marriage as a prejudicial question to the criminal case. The trial judge granted the motion to suspend the criminal case in an Order dated December 29, 1998.1 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner argues that respondent should have first obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage before entering into the second marriage, inasmuch as the alleged prejudicial question justifying suspension of the bigamy case is no longer a legal truism pursuant to Article 40 of the Family Code.2 The issue to be resolved in this petition is whether the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy. A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein.3It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.4 It must appear not only that the civil case involves facts upon which the criminal action is based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would necessarily be determinative of the criminal case.5 Consequently, the defense must involve an issue similar or intimately related to the same issue raised in the criminal action and its resolution determinative of whether or not the latter action may proceed.6 Its two essential elements are:7 (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. A prejudicial question does not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused but simply tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case. A party who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted that all the essential elements of a crime have been adequately alleged in the information, considering that the prosecution has not yet presented a single evidence on the indictment or may not yet have rested its case. A challenge of the allegations in the information on the ground of prejudicial question is in effect a question on the merits of the criminal charge through a non-criminal suit. Article 40 of the Family Code, which was effective at the time of celebration of the second marriage, requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before a party may remarry. The clear implication of this is that it is not for the parties, particularly the accused, to determine the validity or invalidity of the marriage.8 Whether or not the first

74

marriage was void for lack of a license is a matter of defense because there is still no judicial declaration of its nullity at the time the second marriage was contracted. It should be remembered that bigamy can successfully be prosecuted provided all its elements concur two of which are a previous marriage and a subsequent marriage which would have been valid had it not been for the existence at the material time of the first marriage.9 In the case at bar, respondent's clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage and thereafter to invoke that very same judgment to prevent his prosecution for bigamy. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to do is to disregard Article 40 of the Family Code, contract a subsequent marriage and escape a bigamy charge by simply claiming that the first marriage is void and that the subsequent marriage is equally void for lack of a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first. A party may even enter into a marriage aware of the absence of a requisite - usually the marriage license and thereafter contract a subsequent marriage without obtaining a declaration of nullity of the first on the assumption that the first marriage is void. Such scenario would render nugatory the provisions on bigamy. As succinctly held in Landicho v. Relova:10 (P)arties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, only competent courts having such authority. Prior to such declaration of nullity, the validity of the first marriage is beyond question. A party who contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. Respondent alleges that the first marriage in the case before us was void for lack of a marriage license. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that her marriage to respondent was exempt from the requirement of a marriage license. More specifically, petitioner claims that prior to their marriage, they had already attained the age of majority and had been living together as husband and wife for at least five years.11 The issue in this case is limited to the existence of a prejudicial question, and we are not called upon to resolve the validity of the first marriage. Be that as it may, suffice it to state that the Civil Code, under which the first marriage was celebrated, provides that "every intendment of law or fact leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds." 12 [] Hence, parties should not be permitted to judge for themselves the nullity of their marriage, for the same must be submitted to the determination of competent courts. Only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists.13 No matter how obvious, manifest or patent the absence of an element is, the intervention of the courts must always be resorted to. That is why Article 40 of the Family Code requires a "final judgment," which only the courts can render. Thus, as ruled in Landicho v. Relova,14 he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy, and in such a case the criminal case may not be suspended on the ground of the pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity. In a recent case for concubinage, we held that the pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage is not a prejudicial question.15 This ruling

applies here by analogy since both crimes presuppose the subsistence of a marriage. Ignorance of the existence of Article 40 of the Family Code cannot even be successfully invoked as an excuse.16 The contracting of a marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment is an act penalized by the Revised Penal Code.17 The legality of a marriage is a matter of law and every person is presumed to know the law. As respondent did not obtain the judicial declaration of nullity when he entered into the second marriage, why should he be allowed to belatedly obtain that judicial declaration in order to delay his criminal prosecution and subsequently defeat it by his own disobedience of the law? If he wants to raise the nullity of the previous marriage, he can do it as a matter of defense when he presents his evidence during the trial proper in the criminal case. The burden of proof to show the dissolution of the first marriage before the second marriage was contracted rests upon the defense,18 but that is a matter that can be raised in the trial of the bigamy case. In the meantime, it should be stressed that not every defense raised in the civil action may be used as a prejudicial question to obtain the suspension of the criminal action. The lower court, therefore, erred in suspending the criminal case for bigamy. Moreover, when respondent was indicted for bigamy, the fact that he entered into two marriage ceremonies appeared indubitable. It was only after he was sued by petitioner for bigamy that he thought of seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage. The obvious intent, therefore, is that respondent merely resorted to the civil action as a potential prejudicial question for the purpose of frustrating or delaying his criminal prosecution. As has been discussed above, this cannot be done.1awphi1 In the light of Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent, without first having obtained the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, can not be said to have validly entered into the second marriage. Per current jurisprudence, a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any party can marry again; otherwise the second marriage will also be void.19 The reason is that, without a judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. In the case at bar, respondent was for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a married man at the time he contracted his second marriage with petitioner.20 Against this legal backdrop, any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question. As stated above, respondent cannot be permitted to use his own malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against him.21 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The order dated December 29, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 226 of Quezon City is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the trial court is ordered to IMMEDIATELY proceed with Criminal Case No. Q98-75611. SO ORDERED.

75

G.R. No. 137567 June 20, 2000 MEYNARDO L. BELTRAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HON. JUDGE FLORENTINO TUAZON, JR., being the Judge of the RTC, Brach 139, Makati City, respondents. BUENA, J.: This petition for review, filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, seeks to review and set aside the Order dated January 28, 1999 issued by Judge Florentino A. Tuazon, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 139 in Special Civil Case No. 983056, entitled "Meynardo Beltran vs. People of the Philippines and Hon. Judge Alden Cervantes of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 61." The said Order denied petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin Judge Cervantes from proceeding with the trial of Criminal Case No. 236176, a concubinage case against petitioner on the ground that the pending petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by petitioner against his wife constitutes a prejudicial question. The antecedent facts of the case are undisputed: Petitioner Meynardo Beltran and wife Charmaine E. Felix were married on June 16, 1973 at the Immaculate Concepcion Parish Church in Cubao, Quezon City.1 On February 7, 1997, after twenty-four years of marriage and four children,2 petitioner filed a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code before Branch 87 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-97-30192.3 In her Answer to the said petition, petitioner's wife Charmaine Felix alleged that it was petitioner who abandoned the conjugal home and lived with a certain woman named Milagros Salting.4 Charmaine subsequently filed a criminal complaint for concubinage5 under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code against petitioner and his paramour before the City Prosecutor's Office of Makati who, in a Resolution dated September 16, 1997, found probable cause and ordered the filing of an Information6 against them. The case, docketed as Criminal Case No. 236176, was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 61.1awphi1 On March 20, 1998, petitioner, in order to forestall the issuance of a warrant for his arrest, filed a Motion to Defer Proceedings Including the Issuance of the Warrant of Arrest in the criminal case. Petitioner argued that the pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity of his marriage posed a prejudicial question to the determination of the criminal case. Judge Alden Vasquez Cervantes denied the foregoing motion in the Order7 dated August 31, 1998. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the said Order of denial was likewise denied in an Order dated December 9, 1998. In view of the denial of his motion to defer the proceedings in the concubinage case, petitioner went to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 139 on certiorari, questioning the Orders dated August 31, 1998 and December 9, 1998 issued by Judge Cervantes and praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.8 In an Order9 dated January 28, 1999, the Regional Trial Court of Makati denied the petition for

certiorari. Said Court subsequently issued another Order 10 dated February 23, 1999, denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his petition. Undaunted, petitioner filed the instant petition for review. Petitioner contends that the pendency of the petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage based on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is a prejudicial question that should merit the suspension of the criminal case for concubinage filed against him by his wife. Petitioner also contends that there is a possibility that two conflicting decisions might result from the civil case for annulment of marriage and the criminal case for concubinage. In the civil case, the trial court might declare the marriage as valid by dismissing petitioner's complaint but in the criminal case, the trial court might acquit petitioner because the evidence shows that his marriage is void on ground of psychological incapacity. Petitioner submits that the possible conflict of the courts' ruling regarding petitioner's marriage can be avoided, if the criminal case will be suspended, until the court rules on the validity of marriage; that if petitioner's marriage is declared void by reason of psychological incapacity then by reason of the arguments submitted in the subject petition, his marriage has never existed; and that, accordingly, petitioner could not be convicted in the criminal case because he was never before a married man. Petitioner's contentions are untenable. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two essential elements: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. 11 The pendency of the case for declaration of nullity of petitioner's marriage is not a prejudicial question to the concubinage case. For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the latter pending the final determination of the civil case, it must appear not only that the said civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the aforesaid civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. Art. 40 of the Family Code provides: The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. In Domingo vs. Court of Appeals, 12 this Court ruled that the import of said provision is that for purposes of remarriage, the only legally acceptable basis for declaring a previous marriage an absolute nullity is a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void, whereas, for purposes of other than remarriage, other evidence is acceptable. The pertinent portions of said Decision read: . . . Undoubtedly, one can conceive of other instances where a party might well invoke the absolute nullity of a previous marriage for purposes other than

76

remarriage, such as in case of an action for liquidation, partition, distribution and separation of property between the erstwhile spouses, as well as an action for the custody and support of their common children and the delivery of the latters' presumptive legitimes. In such cases, evidence needs must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a previous marriage an absolute nullity. These needs not be limited solely to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring such previous marriage void. So that in a case for concubinage, the accused, like the herein petitioner need not present a final judgment declaring his marriage void for he can adduce evidence in the criminal case of the nullity of his marriage other than proof of a final judgment declaring his marriage void. With regard to petitioner's argument that he could be acquitted of the charge of concubinage should his marriage be declared null and void, suffice it to state that even a subsequent pronouncement that his marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense. Analogous to this case is that of Landicho vs. Relova cited in Donato vs. Luna 14 where this Court held that:
1

DECISION CARPIO MORALES, J.: On June 6, 1994, a Memorandum of Understanding1 (MOU) was entered into by a consortium of private telecommunications carriers and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) represented by then Secretary Jesus B. Garcia, Jr. relative to the launching, ownership, operation and management of a Philippine satellite by a Filipinoowned or controlled private consortium or corporation. Pursuant to Article IV of the MOU, the consortium of private telecommunications carriers formed a corporation and adopted the corporate name Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. (PASI), herein petitioner. By letter2 dated June 28, 1996, PASI president Rodrigo A. Silverio (Silverio) requested the then DOTC Secretary Amado S. Lagdameo, Jr. for official government confirmation of the assignment of Philippine orbital slots 161E and 153E to PASI for its AGILA satellites. In response to Silverios letter, Secretary Lagdameo, by letter3 dated July 3, 1996, confirmed the governments assignment of Philippine orbital slots 161E and 153E to PASI for its AGILA satellites. PASI thereupon undertook preparations for the launching, operation and management of its satellites by, among other things, obtaining loans, increasing its capital, conducting negotiations with its business partners, and making an initial payment of US$ 3.5 million to Aerospatiale, a French satellite manufacturer. Michael de Guzman (de Guzman), PASI President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), later informed Jesli Lapuz (Lapuz), President and CEO of the Landbank of the Philippines, by letter4 of December 3, 1996, of the governments assignment to PASI of orbital slots 161E and 153E and requested the banks confirmation of its participation in a club loan in the amount of US$ 11 million, the proceeds of which would be applied to PASIs interim satellite. It appears that Lapuz sent a copy of De Guzmans letter to then DOTC Undersecretary Josefina T. Lichauco, (Lichauco) who, by letter5 of December 5, 1996, wrote Lapuz as follows: 1. Kindly be informed that there is simply no basis for Michael de Guzman to allege that the DOTC has assigned two (2) slots to PASI. He conveniently neglected to attach as another annex, in addition to Sec. Lagdameos letter of 3 July 1996 (Annex "A") the letter of 28 June (Annex "B") in response to which the July 3rd letter had been sent to PASI. Annex "B" precisely provides that one slot (153 E, to which the interim satellite was supposed to migrate) was to be used for the migration of the Russian satellite in time for the APEC Leaders Summit. This particular endeavor was not successful. The interim satellite "Gorizont" never moved from its orbital location of 130E Longitude. Annex "C" is a letter from an official of the Subic Bay Satellite Systems Inc., with its attachments, addressed to me stating that as of the 13th of November, no such voyage to 153E orbital slot had been commenced. In fact DHI hid this fact from me, and in fact stated that Gorizont had already moved and was on its way to 153E. Since this timely migration did not happen in time

. . . Assuming that the first marriage was null and void on the ground alleged by petitioner, that fact would not be material to the outcome of the criminal case. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of the competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. Thus, in the case at bar it must also be held that parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of the competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists for all intents and purposes. Therefore, he who cohabits with a woman not his wife before the judicial declaration of nullity of the marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for concubinage. The lower court therefore, has not erred in affirming the Orders of the judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court ruling that pendency of a civil action for nullity of marriage does not pose a prejudicial question in a criminal case for concubinage. WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 134887 July 27, 2006 PHILIPPINE AGILA SATELLITE, INC. represented by MICHAEL C. U. DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. SEC. JOSEFINA TRINIDAD LICHAUCO and the HON. OMBUDSMAN, respondents.

77

for the APEC Leaders Meeting on 24 November, this 153E Longitude slot can no longer be assigned to PASI. The other slot 161E Longitude is the one that can be made available for PASIs eventual launch, in 1998 most likely, in exchange for one free satellite transponder unit utilization, for all requirements of Government. These have yet to be embodied in a contract between PASI and the DOTC. 2. I understand from my meeting with DHI/PASI this morning, and from the de Guzman letter you sent to me, that the latter are still interested in pursuing their "interim satellite project" and are applying for a loan with your bank. Of course they can always pursue this as a business venture of DHI/PASI which is their own corporate business decision. The DOTC supports this venture but they will be getting only one orbital slot for both the Interim Satellite Project and for the Launch Project. I understand from todays meeting with them that this is technically feasible. 3. As regards the use of the name "Agila", Mr. de Guzmans allegation that DHI/PASI has registered "Agila" as a "corporate alias/trademark" is FALSE. There is no such thing as registration of a "corporate alias". Nor for that matter can the trade name of a satellite be registered for just any satellite, where it was the President who chose the name for the first Philippine satellite in orbit. No one else coined that name but he. He has therefore given the name "Agila I" to the Mabuhay satellite now in orbit at 144E, being the first Philippine satellite in orbit. He made this announcement in the presence of all the APEC Heads of State just before the presentation to him of the Manila Action Plan for APEC. (Underscoring supplied) Lichauco subsequently issued, in December 1997, a Notice of Offer6 for several orbital slots including 153E. PASI, claiming that the offer was without its knowledge and that it subsequently came to learn that another company whose identity had not been disclosed had submitted a bid and won the award for orbital slot 153E, filed on January 23, 1998 a complaint7 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City against Lichauco and the "Unknown Awardee," for injunction to enjoin the award of orbital slot 153E, declare its nullity, and for damages. PASI also filed on February 23, 1998 a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Secretary Josefina Trinidad Lichauco. In his affidavit-complaint, de Guzman charged Lichauco with gross violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended, reading: (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of officers or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. The complaint was docketed as OMB Case No. 0-980416. The Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation

Bureau (EPIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman, by Evaluation Report8 dated April 15, 1998, found the existence of a prejudicial question after considering that "the case filed with the RTC involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based and that the guilt or the innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined in the resolution of the issues raised in the civil case." It thus concluded that the filing of the complaint before the Ombudsman "is premature since the issues involved herein are now subject of litigation in the case filed with the RTC," and accordingly recommended its dismissal. Then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto approved on April 24, 1998 the recommendation of the EPIB. PASI moved to reconsider9 the dismissal of the complaint, but was denied by Order10 dated July 17, 1998. In the meantime, a motion to dismiss the civil case against respondent was denied by the trial court. On elevation of the order of denial to the Court of Appeals, said court, by Decision dated February 21, 2000, ordered the dismissal of the case. This Court, by Decision dated May 3, 2006, ordered the reinstatement of the case, however.11 PASI is now before this Court via petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the Ombudsman erred in dismissing the complaint. In issue are 1) whether there exists a prejudicial question and, if in the affirmative, 2) whether the dismissal of the complaint on that account is in order. Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. The rationale for the principle of prejudicial question is that although it does not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused, it tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint or information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case.12 Hence, the need for its prior resolution before further proceedings in the criminal action may be had. PASI concedes that the issues in the civil case are similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal case. It contends, however, that the resolution of the issues in the civil case is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of Lichauco, it arguing that even if she is adjudged liable for damages, it does not necessarily follow that she would be convicted of the crime charged. To determine the existence of a prejudicial question in the case before the Ombudsman, it is necessary to examine the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for which Lichauco was charged and the causes of action in the civil case. Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which was earlier quoted has the following elements: 1. The accused is a public officer discharging administrative or official functions or private persons charged in conspiracy with them;

78

2. The public officer committed the prohibited act during the performance of his official duty or in relation to his public position; 3. The public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross, inexcusable negligence; and 4. His action caused undue injury to the Government or any private party, or gave any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to such parties.13 The civil case against Lichauco on the other hand involves three causes of action. The first, for injunction, seeks to enjoin the award of orbital slot 153E, the DOTC having previously assigned the same to PASI; the second, for declaration of nullity of award, seeks to nullify the award given to the undisclosed bidder for being beyond Lichaucos authority; and the third, for damages arising from Lichaucos questioned acts. If the award to the undisclosed bidder of orbital slot 153E is, in the civil case, declared valid for being within Lichaucos scope of authority to thus free her from liability for damages, there would be no prohibited act to speak of nor would there be basis for undue injury claimed to have been suffered by petitioner. The finding by the Ombudsman of the existence of a prejudicial question is thus well-taken. Respecting the propriety of the dismissal by the Ombudsman of the complaint due to the pendency of a prejudicial question, PASI argues that since the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman is silent on the matter, the Rules of Court, specifically Section 6, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, which now reads: SECTION 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. (Underscoring supplied), applies in a suppletory character. The Ombudsman, on the other hand, argues that the above-quoted provision of the Rules of Court applies to cases which are at the preliminary or trial stage and not to those, like the case subject of the present petition, at the evaluation stage. The Ombudsman goes on to proffer that at the evaluation stage, the investigating officer may recommend any of several causes of action including dismissal of the complaint for want of palpable merit or subjecting the complaint to preliminary investigation, and the evaluation of the complaint involves the discretion of the investigating officer which this Court cannot interfere with. While the evaluation of a complaint involves the discretion of the investigating officer, its exercise should not be abused14 or wanting in legal basis. Rule II, Section 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman reads: SECTION 2. Evaluation. Upon evaluating the complaint, the investigating officer shall

recommend whether it may be: a) dismissed outright for want of palpable merit; b) referred to respondent for comment; c) indorsed to the proper government office or agency which has jurisdiction over the case; d) forwarded to the appropriate office or official for fact-finding investigation; e) referred for administrative adjudication; or f) subjected to a preliminary (Underscoring supplied) investigation.

From the above-quoted provision, a complaint at the evaluation stage may be dismissed outright only for want of palpable merit. Want of palpable merit obviously means that there is no basis for the charge or charges. If the complaint has prima facie merit, however, the investigating officer shall recommend the adoption of any of the actions enumerated above from (b) to (f).15 When, in the course of the actions taken by those to whom the complaint is endorsed or forwarded, a prejudicial question is found to be pending, Section 6, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court should be applied in a suppletory character.16 As laid down in Yap v. Paras,17 said rule directs that the proceedings may only be suspended, not dismissed, and that it may be made only upon petition,and not at the instance of the judge alone or as in this case, the investigating officer. To give imprimatur to the Ombudsmans dismissal of petitioners criminal complaint due to prejudicial question would not only run counter to the provision of Section 6 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. It would sanction the extinguishment of criminal liability, if there be any, through prescription under Article 89 vis a vis Articles 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code which respectively read: ART. 89. How extinguished. extinguished: criminal Criminal liability liability is is totally totally

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment; 2. By service of the sentence; 3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects; 4. By absolute pardon; 5. By prescription of the crime; 6. By prescription of the penalty; 7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code. (Underscoring supplied) ART. 90. Prescription of crimes. Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years. Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years. Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.

79

The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year. The offenses of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months. Light offenses prescribe in two months. When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second, and third paragraphs of this article. x x x ART. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him. x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) WHEREFORE, the Order dated July 17, 1998 of respondent Ombudsman dismissing OMB Case No. 0-980416 against respondent then Secretary Josefina Trinidad Lichauco is SET ASIDE. The Ombudsman is ORDERED to REINSTATE to its docket for further proceedings, in line with the foregoing ratiocination, OMB Case No. 0-98-0416. SO ORDERED G.R. No. 148072 July 10, 2007 FRANCISCO MAGESTRADO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ELENA M. LIBROJO Respondents. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse the (1) Resolution1 dated 5 March 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63293 entitled, "Francisco Magestrado v. Hon. Estrella T. Estrada, in her capacity as the Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 83 of Quezon City, People of the Philippines and Elena M. Librojo," which dismissed petitioner Francisco Magestrados Petition for Certiorari for being the wrong remedy; and (2) Resolution2 dated 3 May 2001 of the same Court denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. Private respondent Elena M. Librojo filed a criminal complaint3 for perjury against petitioner with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, which was docketed as I.S. No. 98-3900. After the filing of petitioners counter-affidavit and the appended pleadings, the Office of the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of an information for perjury against petitioner. Thus, Assistant City Prosecutor Josephine Z. Fernandez filed an information for perjury against petitioner with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. Pertinent portions of the information are hereby quoted as follows: That on or about the 27th day of December, 1997, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, did then and

there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly make an untruthful statement under oath upon a material matter before a competent officer authorized to receive and administer oath and which the law so require, to wit: the said accused subscribe and swore to an Affidavit of Loss before Notary Public Erlinda B. Espejo of Quezon City, per Doc. No. 168, Page No. 35, Book No. CLXXIV of her notarial registry, falsely alleging that he lost Owners Duplicate Certificate of TCT No. N-173163, which document was used in support of a Petition For Issuance of New Owners Duplicate Copy of Certificate of Title and filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, docketed as LRC# Q-10052 (98) on January 28, 1998 and assigned to Branch 99 of the said court, to which said Francisco M. Mag[e]strado signed and swore on its verification, per Doc. 413 Page 84 Book No. CLXXV Series of 1998 of Notary Public Erlinda B. Espejo of Quezon City; the said accused knowing fully well that the allegations in the said affidavit and petition are false, the truth of the matter being that the property subject of Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-173163 was mortgaged to complainant Elena M. Librojo as collateral for a loan in the amount of P 758,134.42 and as a consequence of which said title to the property was surrendered by him to the said complainant by virtue of said loan, thus, making untruthful and deliberate assertions of falsehoods, to the damage and prejudice of the said Elena M. Librojo.4 The case was raffled to the MeTC of Quezon City, Branch 43, where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 90721 entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Francisco Magestrado." On 30 June 1999, petitioner filed a motion5 for suspension of proceedings based on a prejudicial question. Petitioner alleged that Civil Case No. Q-9834349, a case for recovery of a sum of money pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 84, and Civil Case No. Q-98- 34308, a case for Cancellation of Mortgage, Delivery of Title and Damages, pending before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 77, must be resolved first before Criminal Case No. 90721 may proceed since the issues in the said civil cases are similar or intimately related to the issues raised in the criminal action. On 14 July 1999, MeTC-Branch 43 issued an Order6 denying petitioners motion for suspension of proceedings, thus: Acting on the "Motion for Suspension of Proceedings" filed by the [herein petitioner Magestrado], thru counsel, and the "Comment and Opposition thereto, the Court after an evaluation of the same, finds the aforesaid motion without merit, hence, is hereby DENIED, it appearing that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil actions is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence, the trial of this case shall proceed as previously scheduled on July 19 and August 2, 1993 at 8:30 in the morning. On 17 August 1999, a motion7 for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but was denied by the MeTC in an Order8 dated 19 October 1999. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari9 under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, with a prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 83, docketed as

80

Civil Case No. Q-99-39358, on the ground that MeTC Judge Billy J. Apalit committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying his motion to suspend the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90721. On 14 March 2000, RTC-Branch 83 dismissed the petition and denied the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, reasoning thus: Scrutinizing the complaints and answers in the civil cases abovementioned, in relation to the criminal action for PERJURY, this Court opines and so holds that there is no prejudicial question involved as to warrant the suspension of the criminal action to await the outcome of the civil cases. The civil cases are principally for determination whether or not a loan was obtained by petitioner and whether or not he executed the deed of real estate mortgage involving the property covered by TCT No. N-173163, whereas the criminal case is for perjury which imputes upon petitioner the wrongful execution of an affidavit of loss to support his petition for issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 173163. Whether or not he committed perjury is the issue in the criminal case which may be resolved independently of the civil cases. Note that the affidavit of loss was executed in support of the petition for issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of TCT No. N 173163 which petition was raffled to Branch 99 of the RTC. x x x.10 Again, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration11 but this was denied by RTC- Branch 83 in an Order12 dated 21 December 2000. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari13 under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 63293. Petitioner alleged that RTC Judge Estrella T. Estrada committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358, and in effect sustaining the denial by MeTC-Branch 43 of petitioners motion to suspend the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90721, as well as his subsequent motion for reconsideration thereof. On 5 March 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed14 the Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 63293 on the ground that petitioners remedy should have been an appeal from the dismissal by RTC-Branch 83 of his Petition for Certiorari in Q-99-39358. The Court of Appeals ruled that: Is this instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 the correct and appropriate remedy? We rule negatively. The resolution or dismissal in special civil actions, as in the instant petition, may be appealed x x x under Section 10, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and not by petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same rules. Thus, the said rule provides: Section 10. Time for filing memoranda on special cases. In certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus cases, the parties shall file in lieu of briefs, their respective memoranda within a nonextendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice issued by the clerk that all the evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to the record x x x. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing

premises, the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby DISMISSED.15 The Court of Appeals denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration16 in a Resolution17 dated 3 May 2001. Hence, petitioner comes before us via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court raising the following issues: 1. Whether or not the Orders of Judge Estrella T. Estrada dated March 14, 2000 denying petitioners Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and her subsequent Order dated December 21, 2000, denying the Motion for Reconsideration thereafter filed can only be reviewed by the Court of Appeals thru appeal under Section 10, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. Whether or not Judge Estrella T. Estrada of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 83, Quezon City, had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of her jurisdiction in denying the Petition for Certiorari and petitioners subsequent motion for reconsideration on the ground of a prejudicial question pursuant to the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the prevailing jurisprudence. After consideration of the procedural and substantive issues raised by petitioner, we find the instant petition to be without merit. The procedural issue herein basically hinges on the proper remedy which petitioner should have availed himself of before the Court of Appeals: an ordinary appeal or a petition for certiorari. Petitioner claims that he correctly questioned RTC-Branch 83s Order of dismissal of his Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 through a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Private respondent and public respondent People of the Philippines insist that an ordinary appeal was the proper remedy. We agree with respondents. We hold that the appellate court did not err in dismissing petitioners Petition for Certiorari, pursuant to Rule 41, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court (and not under Rule 44, Section 10, invoked by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated 5 March 2001). The correct procedural recourse for petitioner was appeal, not only because RTC-Branch 83 did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 but also because RTC-Branch 83s Order of dismissal was a final order from which petitioners should have appealed in accordance with Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court. An order or a judgment is deemed final when it finally disposes of a pending action, so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In other words, the order or judgment ends the litigation in the lower court. Au contraire, an interlocutory order does not dispose of the case completely, but leaves something to be done as regards the merits of the latter.18 RTC-Branch 83s Order dated 14 March 2001 dismissing petitioners Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 finally disposes of the said case and RTC-Branch 83 can do nothing more with the case. Under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal may be

81

taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by the Revised Rules of Court to be appealable. The manner of appealing an RTC judgment or final order is also provided in Rule 41 as follows: Section 2. Modes of appeal. (a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner. Certiorari generally lies only when there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy available to petitioners. Here, appeal was available. It was adequate to deal with any question whether of fact or of law, whether of error of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion or error of judgment which the trial court might have committed. But petitioners instead filed a special civil action for certiorari. We have time and again reminded members of the bench and bar that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court lies only when "there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."19 Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy,20 certiorari not being a substitute for lost appeal.21 As certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal, we have repeatedly emphasized that the perfection of appeals in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and that the failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision of the trial court final and executory. This rule is founded upon the principle that the right to appeal is not part of due process of law but is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. Neither can petitioner invoke the doctrine that rules of technicality must yield to the broader interest of substantial justice. While every litigant must be given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from constraints of technicalities, the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. It raises a jurisdictional problem as it deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal.22 The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.23 A party cannot substitute the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for the remedy of appeal. The existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availability of the special civil action for certiorari.24 As this Court held in Fajardo v. Bautista25 : Generally, an order of dismissal, whether right or wrong, is a final order, and hence a proper subject of appeal, not certiorari. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Accordingly, although the special civil action

of certiorari is not proper when an ordinary appeal is available, it may be granted where it is shown that the appeal would be inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order complained of, or where appeal is inadequate and ineffectual. Nevertheless, certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, where such loss is occasioned by the petitioners own neglect or error in the choice of remedies. On 21 December 2000, petitioner received a copy of the Order of the RTC-Branch 83 denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358; hence, he had until 18 January 2001 within which to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner on 19 February 2001 with the Court of Appeals cannot be a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. As petitioner failed to file a timely appeal, RTCBranch 83s dismissal of his Petition for Certiorari had long become final and executory. For this procedural lapse, the Court of Appeals correctly denied outright the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner before it. Moreover, there are even more cogent reasons for denying the instant Petition on the merits. In the Petition at bar, petitioner raises several substantive issues. Petitioner harps on the need for the suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90721 for perjury pending before MeTC-Branch 43 based on a prejudicial question still to be resolved in Civil Case No. Q-98-34308 (for cancellation of mortgage) and Civil Case No. Q-98-34349 (for collection of a sum of money) which are pending before other trial courts.1avvphi1 For clarity, we shall first discuss the allegations of petitioner in his complaint in Civil Case No. Q-98-34308 (for cancellation of mortgage) and that of private respondent in her complaint in Civil Case No. Q-9834349 (for collection of a sum of money). Civil Case No. Q-98-34308 is a complaint for Cancellation of Mortgage, Delivery of Title and Damages filed on 8 May 1988 by petitioner against private respondent with RTC-Branch 77. Petitioner alleges that he purchased a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-173163 thru private respondent, a real estate broker. In the process of negotiation, petitioner was pressured to sign a Deed of Sale prepared by private respondent. Upon signing the Deed of Sale, he noticed that the Deed was already signed by a certain Cristina Gonzales as attorney-in-fact of vendor Spouses Guillermo and Amparo Galvez. Petitioner demanded from private respondent a special power of attorney and authority to sell, but the latter failed to present one. Petitioner averred that private respondent refused to deliver the certificate of title of the land despite execution and signing of the Deed of Sale and payment of the consideration. Petitioner was thus compelled to engage the services of one Modesto Gazmin, Jr. who agreed, for P100,000.00 to facilitate the filing of cases against private respondent; to deliver to petitioner the certificate of title of the land; and/or to cancel the certificate of title in possession of private respondent. However, Mr. Gazmin, Jr., did nothing upon receipt of the amount of P100,000.00 from petitioner. In fact, petitioner was even charged with perjury before

82

the Office of the City Prosecutor, all because of Mr. Gazmin, Jr.s wrongdoing. Petitioner further alleged that he discovered the existence of a spurious Real Estate Mortgage which he allegedly signed in favor of private respondent. Petitioner categorically denied signing the mortgage document and it was private respondent who falsified the same in order to justify her unlawful withholding of TCT No. N-173163 from petitioner. Thus, petitioner prayed for: 1. The cancellation of Real Estate Mortgage dated August 2, 1997 as null and void; 2. As well as to order [herein private respondent] to DELIVER the Owners Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-173163 to [herein petitioner]; 3. Condemning [private [petitioner] the sums of respondent] to pay

complaint; P200,000.00 as moral damages; P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; twenty (20%) of the principal claim as attorneys fees plus P2,500.00 per appearance honorarium; and P60,000.00 as litigation expense before this Honorable Court. [Petitioner] prays for such further relief in law, justice and equity. As to whether it is proper to suspend Criminal Case No. 90721 for perjury pending final outcome of Civil Case No. Q-98-34349 and Civil Case No. Q-98-34308, we take into consideration Sections 6 and 7, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court, which read: Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions.27 A prejudial question is defined as that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.28 For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. Thus, for a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the civil case, the following requisites must be present: (1) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.29 If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or there is no necessity "that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case," therefore, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question.30 Neither is

a) P100,000.00 as MORAL DAMAGES; b) P50,000.00 as EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; c) P50,000.00 as Attorneys fees and d) Cost of suit. 4. A general relief is likewise prayed for (sic) just and equitable under the premises. Civil Case No. Q-98-34349,26 on the other hand, is a complaint for a sum of money with a motion for issuance of a writ of attachment filed by private respondent against petitioner on 14 May 1988 before RTC-Branch 84. Private respondent alleges that petitioner obtained a loan from her in the amount of P758,134.42 with a promise to pay on or before 30 August 1997. As security for payment of the loan, petitioner executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage covering a parcel of land registered under TCT No. N173163. Petitioner pleaded for additional time to pay the said obligation, to which respondent agreed. But private respondent discovered sometime in February 1998 that petitioner executed an affidavit of loss alleging that he lost the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. N-173163, and succeeded in annotating said affidavit on the original copy of TCT No. N-173163 on file with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. Private respondent further alleges that she also discovered that petitioner filed a petition for issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of TCT No. N-173163 with the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 98, docketed as LRC Case No. Q10052. Private respondent demanded that petitioner pay his obligation, but the latter refused to do so. Resultantly, private respondent prayed for the following: A. That upon filing of this Complaint as well as the Affidavit of attachment and a preliminary hearing thereon, as well as bond filed, a writ of preliminary attachment is (sic) by the Honorable Court ordering the Sheriff to levy [herein petitioner] property sufficient to answer [herein private respondents] claim in this action; B. That after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered in [private respondents] favor as against [petitioner], ordering the latter to pay the former the sum of P758,134.42 plus interest thereon at 5% per month from September 1997 up to the date of actual payment; actual damages in the sums of P70,000.00 each under paragraphs 11 and 12 of the

83

there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.31 However, the court in which an action is pending may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and upon proper application for a stay of that action, hold the action in abeyance to abide by the outcome of another case pending in another court, especially where the parties and the issues are the same, for there is power inherent in every court to control the disposition of cases on its dockets with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. Where the rights of parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until the questions raised in the first action are settled, the second action should be stayed.32 The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its dockets, considering its time and effort, those of counsel and the litigants. But if proceedings must be stayed, it must be done in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and prevent vexatious litigations, conflicting judgments, confusion between litigants and courts. It bears stressing that whether or not the trial court would suspend the proceedings in the criminal case before it is submitted to its sound discretion.33 Indeed, a judicial order issued pursuant to the courts discretionary authority is not subject to reversal on review unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion. As the United States Supreme Court aptly declared in Landis v. North American Co., "the burden of making out the justice and wisdom from the departure from the beaten truck lay heavily on the petitioner, less an unwilling litigant is compelled to wait upon the outcome of a controversy to which he is a stranger. It is, thus, stated that only in rare circumstances will a litigant in one case is compelled to stand aside, while a litigant in another, settling the rule of law that will define the rights of both is, after all, the parties before the court are entitled to a just, speedy and plain determination of their case undetermined by the pendency of the proceedings in another case. After all, procedure was created not to hinder and delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice."34 As stated, the determination of whether the proceedings may be suspended on the basis of a prejudicial question rests on whether the facts and issues raised in the pleadings in the civil cases are so related with the issues raised in the criminal case such that the resolution of the issues in the civil cases would also determine the judgment in the criminal case. A perusal of the allegations in the complaints show that Civil Case No. Q-98-34308 pending before RTC-Branch 77, and Civil Case No. Q-98-34349, pending before RTCBranch 84, are principally for the determination of whether a loan was obtained by petitioner from private respondent and whether petitioner executed a real estate mortgage involving the property covered by TCT No. N-173163. On the other hand, Criminal Case No. 90721 before MeTC-Branch 43, involves the determination of whether petitioner committed perjury in executing an affidavit of loss to support his request for issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of TCT No. N-173163. It is evident that the civil cases and the criminal case can

proceed independently of each other. Regardless of the outcome of the two civil cases, it will not establish the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal case for perjury. The purchase by petitioner of the land or his execution of a real estate mortgage will have no bearing whatsoever on whether petitioner knowingly and fraudulently executed a false affidavit of loss of TCT No. N-173163. MeTC-Branch 43, therefore, did not err in ruling that the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-98-34308 for cancellation of mortgage before the RTC-Branch 77; and Civil Case No. Q-98-34349 for collection of a sum of money before RTC-Branch 84, do not pose a prejudicial question in the determination of whether petitioner is guilty of perjury in Criminal Case No. 90721. RTC-Branch 83, likewise, did not err in ruling that MeTC-Branch 43 did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners motion for suspension of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90721. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Resolutions dated 5 March 2001 and 3 May 2001of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63293 are hereby AFFIRMED and the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 43, is hereby directed to proceed with the hearing and trial on the merits of Criminal Case No. 90721, and to expedite proceedings therein, without prejudice to the right of the accused to due process. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED G.R. No. 159323 July 31, 2008 COCA-COLA BOTTLERS (PHILS.), INC. and ERIC MONTINOLA, Petitioners, vs. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION and DR. DEAN CLIMACO, Respondents. DECISION REYES, R.T., J.: WE are confronted with triple remedial issues on prejudicial question, forum shopping, and litis pendentia. We review on certiorari the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) upholding the order of the Social Security Commission (SSC),2 denying petitioners motion to dismiss respondent Climacos petition for compulsory coverage with the Social Security System (SSS). The Facts Petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of softdrink beverages.3 Co-petitioner Eric Montinola was the general manager of its plant in Bacolod City.4 Respondent Dr. Dean Climaco was a former retainer physician at the companys plant in Bacolod City.5 In 1988, petitioner company and Dr. Climaco entered into a Retainer Agreement6 for one year, with a monthly compensation of P3,800.00,7 where he "may charge professional fees for hospital services rendered in line with his specialization."8 The agreement further provided that "either party may terminate the contract upon giving thirty (30)-day written notice to the other."9 In consideration of the retainers fee, Dr. Climaco

84

"agrees to perform the duties and obligations" 10 enumerated in the Comprehensive Medical Plan, 11 which was attached and made an integral part of the agreement. Explicit in the contract, however, is the provision that no employee-employer relationship shall exist between the company and Dr. Climaco while the contract is in effect.12 In case of its termination, Dr. Climaco "shall be entitled only to such retainer fee as may be due him at the time of termination."13 Dr. Climaco continuously served as the company physician, performing all the duties stipulated in the Retainer Agreement and the Comprehensive Medical Plan. By 1992, his salary was increased to P7,500.00 per month.14 Meantime, Dr. Climaco inquired with the Department of Labor and Employment and the SSS whether he was an employee of the company. Both agencies replied in the affirmative.15 As a result, Dr. Climaco filed a complaint16 before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Bacolod City. In his complaint, he sought recognition as a regular employee of the company and demanded payment of his 13th month pay, cost of living allowance, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, Christmas bonus and all other benefits.17 During the pendency of the complaint, the company terminated its Retainer Agreement with Dr. Climaco. Thus, Dr. Climaco filed another complaint18 for illegal dismissal against the company before the NLRC Bacolod City. He asked that he be reinstated to his former position as company physician of its Bacolod Plant, without loss of seniority rights, with full payment of backwages, other unpaid benefits, and for payment of damages.19 The Labor Arbiter, in each of the complaints, ruled in favor of petitioner company.20 The first complaint was dismissed after Labor Arbiter Jesus N. Rodriguez, Jr. found that the company did not have the power of control over Dr. Climacos performance of his duties and responsibilities. The validity of the Retainer Agreement was also recognized. Labor Arbiter Benjamin Pelaez likewise dismissed the second complaint in view of the dismissal of the first complaint.1avvphi1 On appeal, the NLRC, Fourth Division, Cebu City, affirmed the Arbiter disposition.21 On petition for review before the CA, the NLRC ruling was reversed. 22 The appellate court ruled that using the four-fold test, an employer-employee relationship existed between the company and Dr. Climaco. Petitioners elevated the case through a petition for review on certiorari23 before this Court. Meantime, on November 9, 1994, while the NLRC cases were pending, Dr. Climaco filed with the SSC in Bacolod City, a petition24 praying, among others, that petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. be ordered to report him for compulsory social security coverage. On April 12, 1995, petitioners moved for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. They argued that there is no employer-employee relationship between the company and Dr. Climaco; and that his services were engaged by virtue of a Retainer Agreement.25 Dr. Climaco opposed the motion.26 According to Dr. Climaco, "[t]he fact that the petitioner [i.e., respondent

Dr. Climaco] does not enjoy the other benefits of the company is a question that is being raised by the petitioner in his cases filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Bacolod City, against the respondent [i.e., petitioner company]."27 On July 24, 1995, the SSC issued an order stating among others, that the resolution of petitioner companys motion to dismiss is held in abeyance "pending reception of evidence of the parties."28 In view of the statements of Dr. Climaco in his opposition to the companys motion to dismiss, petitioners again, on March 1, 1996, moved for the dismissal of Dr. Climacos complaint, this time on the grounds of forum shopping and litis pendentia.29 SSC and CA Dispositions On January 17, 1997, the SSC denied petitioners motion to dismiss, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the respondents Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied for lack of merit. Accordingly, let this case be remanded to SSS Bacolod Branch Office for reception of evidence of the parties pursuant to the Order dated July 24, 1995. SO ORDERED.30 Petitioners motion for reconsideration31 received the same fate.32 On April 29, 1997, the company filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. On March 15, 2002, the CA dismissed the petition, with a fallo reading: WHEREFORE, under the premises, the Court holds that public respondent Social Security Commission did not act with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the disputed orders, and the herein petition is therefore DISMISSED for want of merit. SO ORDERED.33 Hence, the present recourse. Issues Petitioners raise the following issues for Our consideration: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RENDERING THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS, HAVING DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT, CONSIDERING THAT: I. THE PREVIOUS COMPLAINT FOR REGULARIZATION AND/OR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL, WHICH IS NOW PENDING RESOLUTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, POSES A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION TO THE SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT CASE. II. GIVEN THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPONDENT CLIMACO IS GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING, WHICH THEREBY CALLED FOR THE OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL OF HIS PETITION BEFORE THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION. III.

85

THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN DISMISSED OUTRIGHT ON THE GROUND OF LITIS PENDENTIA, AS THERE ARE OTHER ACTIONS PENDING BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES FOR THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION.34 (Underscoring supplied) Our Ruling The petition fails. The Court notes that petitioners, in their petition, averred that the appeal from the NLRC and CA dispositions on the illegal dismissal of respondent Climaco is still pending with this Court. Upon verification, however, it was unveiled that the said case had already been decided by this Courts First Division on February 5, 2007. While we deplore the failure of petitioners and counsel in updating the Court on the resolution of the said related case, We hasten to state that it did not operate to moot the issues pending before Us. We take this opportunity to address the questions on prejudicial question, forum shopping, and litis pendentia. No prejudicial question exists. Petitioners allege that Dr. Climaco previously filed separate complaints before the NLRC seeking recognition as a regular employee. Necessarily then, a just resolution of these cases hinge on a determination of whether or not Dr. Climaco is an employee of the company.35 The issue of whether Dr. Climaco is entitled to employee benefits, as prayed for in the NLRC cases, is closely intertwined with the issue of whether Dr. Climaco is an employee of the company who is subject to compulsory coverage under the SSS Law. Hence, they argue, said regularization/illegal dismissal case is a prejudicial question. The argument is untenable. Our concept of prejudicial question was lifted from Spain, where civil cases are tried exclusively by civil courts, while criminal cases are tried exclusively in criminal courts. Each kind of court is jurisdictionally distinct from and independent of the other. In the Philippines, however, courts are invariably tribunals of general jurisdiction. This means that courts here exercise jurisdiction over both civil and criminal cases. Thus, it is not impossible that the criminal case, as well as the civil case in which a prejudicial question may rise, may be both pending in the same court. For this reason, the elements of prejudicial question have been modified in such a way that the phrase "pendency of the civil case in a different tribunal" has been eliminated.36 The rule is that there is prejudicial question when (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.37 It comes into play generally in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action both pend and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed. This is so because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.38

Here, no prejudicial question exists because there is no pending criminal case.39 The consolidated NLRC cases cannot be considered as "previously instituted civil action." In Berbari v. Concepcion,40 it was held that a prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which must precede the criminal action, that which requires a decision with which said question is closely related. Neither can the doctrine of prejudicial question be applied by analogy. The issue in the case filed by Dr. Climaco with the SSC involves the question of whether or not he is an employee of Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. and subject to the compulsory coverage of the Social Security System. On the contrary, the cases filed by Dr. Climaco before the NLRC involved different issues. In his first complaint,41 Dr. Climaco sought recognition as a regular employee of the company and demanded payment of his 13th month pay, cost of living allowance, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, Christmas bonus and all other benefits.42 The second complaint43 was for illegal dismissal, with prayer for reinstatement to his former position as company physician of the companys Bacolod Plant, without loss of seniority rights, with full payment of backwages, other unpaid benefits, and for payment of damages.44 Thus, the issues in the NLRC cases are not determinative of whether or not the SSC should proceed. It is settled that the question claimed to be prejudicial in nature must be determinative of the case before the court.45 There is no forum shopping. Anent the second issue, petitioners posit that since the issues before the NLRC and the SSC are the same, the SSC cannot make a ruling on the issue presented before it without necessarily having a direct effect on the issue before the NLRC. It was patently erroneous, if not malicious, for Dr. Climaco to invoke the jurisdiction of the SSC through a separate petition.46 Thus, petitioners contend, Dr. Climaco was guilty of forum shopping. Again, We turn down the contention. Forum shopping is a prohibited malpractice and condemned as trifling with the courts and their processes.47 It is proscribed because it unnecessarily burdens the courts with heavy caseloads. It also unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the judiciary. It mocks the judicial processes, thus, affecting the efficient administration of justice.48 The grave evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping is the rendition by two (2) competent tribunals of two (2) separate and contradictory decisions. Unscrupulous litigants, taking advantage of a variety of competent tribunals, may repeatedly try their luck in several different fora until a favorable result is reached.49 It is well to note that forum shopping traces its origin in private international law on choice of venues, which later developed to a choice of remedies. In First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 50 the Court had occasion to outline the origin of the rule on forum shopping. Said the Court: x x x forum shopping originated as a concept in private international law, where non-resident litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for various reasons or excuses, including to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to

86

select a more friendly venue. To combat these less than honorable excuses, the principle of forum non conveniens was developed whereby a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. xxxx In the Philippines, forum shopping has acquired a connotation encompassing not only a choice of venues, as it was originally understood in conflicts of laws, but also to a choice of remedies. As to the first (choice of venues), the Rules of Court, for example, allow a plaintiff to commence personal actions "where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff" (Rule 4, Sec. 2[b]). As to remedies, aggrieved parties, for example, are given a choice of pursuing civil liabilities independently of the criminal, arising from the same set of facts. A passenger of a public utility vehicle involved in a vehicular accident may sue on culpa contractual, culpa aquiliana or culpa criminal each remedy being available independently of the others although he cannot recover more than once. "In either of these situations (choice of venue or choice of remedy), the litigant actually shops for a forum of his action. This was the original concept of the term forum shopping. "Eventually, however, instead of actually making a choice of the forum of their actions, litigants, through the encouragement of their lawyers, file their actions in all available courts, or invoke all relevant remedies simultaneously. This practice had not only resulted to (sic) conflicting adjudications among different courts and consequent confusion enimical (sic) to an orderly administration of justice. It had created extreme inconvenience to some of the parties to the action. "Thus, forum-shopping had acquired a different concept which is unethical professional legal practice. And this necessitated or had given rise to the formulation of rules and canons discouraging or altogether prohibiting the practice." What therefore started both in conflicts of laws and in our domestic law as a legitimate device for solving problems has been abused and misused to assure scheming litigants of dubious reliefs.51 Thus, in order to prevent forum shopping, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure now provide: SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasijudicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.52

Forum shopping is not only strictly prohibited but also condemned. So much so that "[f]ailure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt as well as a cause for administrative sanctions."53 There is forum shopping when one party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely, by some other court.54 In short, forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.55 There is res judicata when (1) there is a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment or order is on the merits; and (4) there is between the two cases identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.56 Measured by the foregoing yardstick, Dr. Climaco is not guilty of forum shopping. While it is true that the parties are identical in the NLRC and in the SSC, the reliefs sought and the causes of action are different. Admittedly, Dr. Climacos basis in filing the cases before the NLRC and the SSC is his Retainer Agreement with the company. This does not mean, however, that his causes of action are the same: x x x Some authorities declare the distinction between demands or rights of action which are single and entire and those which are several and distinct to be that the former arise out of one and the same act or contract and the latter out of different acts or contracts. This rule has been declared to be unsound, however, and as evidence of its unsoundness, reference has been made to the fact that several promissory notes may, and often do, grow out of one and the same transaction, and yet they do not constitute an entire demand. The better rule is that the bare fact that different demands spring out of the same or contract does not ipso facto render a judgment on one a bar to a suit on another, however distinct. It is clear that the right of a plaintiff to maintain separate actions cannot be determined by the fact that the claims might have been prosecuted in a single action. A plaintiff having separate demands against a defendant may, at his election, join them in the same action, or he may prosecute them separately, subject of the power of the court to order their consolidation. There may be only one cause of action although the plaintiff is entitled to several forms and kinds of relief, provided there is not more than one primary right sought to be enforced or one subject of controversy presented for adjudication.57 (Underscoring supplied) As the SSC and the CA correctly observed, different laws are applicable to the cases before the two tribunals. The

87

Labor Code and pertinent social legislations would govern the cases before the NLRC, while the Social Security Law would govern the case before the SSC. Clearly, as the issues pending before the NLRC and the SSC are diverse, a ruling on the NLRC cases would not amount to res judicata in the case before the SSC. The elements of litis pendentia are absent. Lastly, petitioners contend that the petition of Dr. Climaco before the SSC is defective because there were pending actions between the same parties and involving the same issues in different fora.58 For litis pendentia to exist, there must be (1) identity of the parties or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief founded on the same facts; and (3) identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.59 In the case under review, there is no litis pendentia to speak of. As previously explained, although the parties in the cases before the NLRC and the SSC are similar, the nature of the cases filed, the rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for in each tribunal, are different.lawp++il As a last attempt, however, petitioners invoke Rule 16, Section 1(e) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioners contend that the petition Dr. Climaco lodged with the SSC is "another action" prohibited by the Rule.60 In Solancio v. Ramos,61 the issue centered on whether the pending administrative case before the Bureau of Lands is "another action," which would justify the dismissal of the complaint of plaintiff against defendants before the then Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Cagayan. Ruling in the negative, the Court noted that "both parties as well as the trial court have missed the extent or meaning of the ground of the motion to dismiss as contemplated under the Rules of Court."62 Mr. Justice Regala, who wrote the opinion of the Court, explained the phrase "another action" in this wise: This is not what is contemplated under the law because under Section 1(d), Rule 16 (formerly Rule 8) of the Rules of Court, [now Rule 1, Section 16(e) of the Rules of Court, supra] one of the grounds for the dismissal of an action is that "there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause." Note that the Rule uses the phrase "another action." This phrase should be construed in line with Section 1 of Rule 2, which defines the word action, thus "Action means an ordinary suit in a court of justice, by which one party prosecutes another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. Every other remedy is a special proceeding."63 Evidently, there is no "another action" pending between petitioners and Dr. Climaco at the time when the latter filed a petition before the SSC. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the appealed decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 159186 June 5, 2009 JESSE Y. YAP, Petitioner,

vs. HON. MONICO G. CABALES, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, General Santos City; MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, Branch 1, General Santos City; COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOVITA DIMALANTA and MERGYL MIRABUENO, Respondents. DECISION PERALTA, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or issuance of status quo order seeking to annul and set aside the Resolution1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated July 17, 2003 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Decision2 dated April 30, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 68250. The facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner Jesse Y. Yap and his spouse Bessie Yap are engaged in the real estate business through their company Primetown Property Group. Sometime in 1996, petitioner purchased several real properties from a certain Evelyn Te (Evelyn). In consideration of said purchases, petitioner issued several Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) postdated checks to Evelyn. Thereafter, spouses Orlando and Mergyl Mirabueno and spouses Charlie and Jovita Dimalanta, rediscounted the checks from Evelyn. In the beginning, the first few checks were honored by the bank, but in the early part of 1997, when the remaining checks were deposited with the drawee bank, they were dishonored for the reason that the "Account is Closed." Demands were made by Spouses Mirabueno and Spouses Dimalanta to the petitioner to make good the checks. Despite this, however, the latter failed to pay the amounts represented by the said checks. On December 8, 1997, Spouses Mirabueno filed a civil action for collection of sum of money, damages and attorney's fee with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City, docketed as Civil Case No. 6231.3 On December 15, 1997, Spouses Dimalanta followed suit and instituted a similar action, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 6238.4 Subsequently, on various dates, the Office of the City Prosecutor of General Santos City filed several informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 22 against the petitioner with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), General Santos City. The criminal complaints were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 34873, 34874, 34862 to 34869, and Criminal Case No. 35522-I.5 In the criminal cases, petitioner filed separate motions to suspend proceedings on account of the existence of a prejudicial question and motion to exclude the private prosecutor from participating in the proceedings.6 Petitioner prayed that the proceedings in the criminal cases be suspended until the civil cases pending before the RTC were finally resolved. The MTCC, in its Orders7 dated June 21, 2000 and July 4, 2000, denied the motions for lack of merit. Petitioner filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration8 relative to Criminal Case Nos. 34873, 34874, 34862 to 34869 and a

88

Motion for Reconsideration of the Part of the Order Denying the Motion to Suspend Proceedings on Account of the Existence of a Prejudicial Question relative to Criminal Case No. 35522-I.9 The subsequent motions were denied in the Order10 dated October 18, 2000. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with a Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction11 before the RTC, docketed as SPL. Civil Case No. 539, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MTCC Judge. On July 2, 2001, the RTC issued an Order12 denying the petition. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration,13 which was denied in an Order dated October 18, 2001.14 Thereafter, petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari Prohibition and Mandamus with Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of Status Quo Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction,15 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 68250. On April 30, 2003, the CA rendered a Decision16 dismissing the petition for lack of merit. The CA opined that Civil Case Nos. 6231 and 6238 did not pose a prejudicial question to the prosecution of the petitioner for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The CA ruled: In the instant case, a careful perusal of Civil Cases Nos. 6231 and 6238 reveals that the issue involved therein is not the validity of the sale as incorrectly pointed out by the petitioner, but it is, whether or not the complainants therein are entitled to collect from the petitioner the sum or the value of the checks which they have rediscounted from Evelyn Te. It behooves this Court to state that the sale and the rediscounting of the checks are two transactions, separate and distinct from each other. It so happened that in the subject civil cases it is not the sale that is in question, but rather the rediscounting of the checks. Therefore, petitioner's contention that the main issue involved in said civil cases is the validity of the sale stands on hollow ground. Furthermore, if it is indeed the validity of the sale that is contested in the subject civil cases, then, We cannot fathom why the petitioner never contested such sale by filing an action for the annulment thereof or at least invoked or prayed in his answer that the sale be declared null and void. Accordingly, even if Civil Cases Nos. 6231 and 6238 are tried and the resolution of the issues therein is had, it cannot be deduced therefrom that the petitioner cannot be held liable anymore for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.17 Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,18 which was denied in the Order19 dated July 17, 2003. Hence, the petition assigning the following errors: 1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE IS NO PREJUDICIAL QUESTION IN THE CIVIL CASES (FOR COLLECTION OF SUMS OF MONEY INSTITUTED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS OVER CHECKS ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER, CIVIL CASE NOS. 6238 AND 6231) THAT WOULD WARRANT SUSPENSION OF THE CRIMINAL CASES (CASE NO. 35522-1, FOR VIOLATION OF B.P. 22, SUBJECT OF WHICH ARE THE VERY SAME CHECKS). 2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR

STATUS QUO ORDER.20 The main contention of the petitioner is that a prejudicial question, as defined by law and jurisprudence, exists in the present case. It is the petitioner's assertion that Civil Case Nos. 6231 and 6238 for collection of sum of money and damages were filed ahead of the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. He further alleged that, in the pending civil cases, the issue as to whether private respondents are entitled to collect from the petitioner despite the lack of consideration, is an issue that is a logical antecedent to the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. For if the court rules that there is no valid consideration for the check's issuance, as petitioner contends, then it necessarily follows that he could not also be held liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner further avers that B.P. Blg. 22 specifically requires, among other elements, that the check should have been issued for account or for value. There must be a valid consideration; otherwise, no violation of the said law could be rightfully pursued. Petitioner said that the reason for the dishonor of the checks was his order to the drawee bank to stop payment and to close his account in order to avoid necessary penalty from the bank. He made this order due to the failure of Evelyn to deliver to him the titles to the purchased properties to him. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that there is no prejudicial question in Civil Case Nos. 6231 and 6238 which would warrant the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against the petitioner. The issue in the civil cases is not the validity of the sale between the petitioner and Evelyn, but whether the complainants therein are entitled to damages arising from the checks. These checks were issued by the petitioner in favor of Evelyn, who, thereafter, negotiated the same checks to private complainants. The checks were subsequently dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. The OSG maintains that the resolution of such issue has absolutely no bearing on the issue of whether petitioner may be held liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.21 The present case hinges on the determination of whether there exists a prejudicial question that necessitates the suspension of the proceedings in the MTCC. We find that there is none and, thus, we resolve to deny the petition. A prejudicial question generally exists in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former an issue that must be preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two essential elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (ii) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.22 If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues, or the issue in one is intimately related to the issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial question would likely

89

exist, provided the other element or characteristic is satisfied. It must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or if there is no necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question. 23 Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.24 The issue in the criminal cases is whether the petitioner is guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22, while in the civil case, it is whether the private respondents are entitled to collect from the petitioner the sum or the value of the checks that they have rediscounted from Evelyn.lavvphil The resolution of the issue raised in the civil action is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal cases against him, and there is no necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal cases. In the aforementioned civil actions, even if petitioner is declared not liable for the payment of the value of the checks and damages, he cannot be adjudged free from criminal liability for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The mere issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to support the checks is in itself an offense.25 In Jose v. Suarez,26 the prejudicial question under determination was whether the daily interest rate of 5% was void, such that the checks issued by respondents to cover said interest were likewise void for being contra bonos mores, and thus the cases for B.P. Blg. 22 will no longer prosper. In resolving the issue, We ruled that "whether or not the interest rate imposed by petitioners is eventually declared void for being contra bonos mores will not affect the outcome of the BP Blg. 22 cases because what will ultimately be penalized is the mere issuance of bouncing checks. In fact, the primordial question posed before the court hearing the B.P. Blg. 22 cases is whether the law has been breached; that is, if a bouncing check has been issued." Further, We held in Ricaforte v. Jurado,27 that: The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check; that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. In Lozano v. Martinez, we have declared that it is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making and circulation of worthless checks. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order. In People v. Nitafan, we said that a check issued as an evidence of debt - though not intended to be presented for payment - has the same effect as an ordinary check and would fall within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22. x x x The mere act of issuing a worthless check -

whether as a deposit, as a guarantee or even as evidence of pre-existing debt - is malum prohibitum. To determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in banking communities. So what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued or the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.28 Moreover, petitioner's reliance on Ras v. Rasul29 is misplaced. The case of Ras involves a complaint for nullification of a deed of sale on the ground of an alleged double sale. While the civil case was pending, an information for estafa was filed against Ras (the defendant in the civil case) arising from the same alleged double sale, subject matter of the civil complaint. The Court ruled that there was a prejudicial question considering that the defense in the civil case was based on the very same facts that would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the estafa case. The instant case is different from Ras, inasmuch as the determination of whether the petitioner is liable to pay the private respondents the value of the checks and damages, will not affect the guilt or innocence of the petitioner because the material question in the criminal cases is whether petitioner had issued bad checks, regardless of the purpose or condition of its issuance. Guided by the following legal precepts, it is clear that the determination of the issues involved in Civil Case Nos. 6231 and 6238 for collection of sum of money and damages is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the petitioner in the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. In addition, petitioner's claim of lack of consideration may be raised as a defense during the trial of the criminal cases against him. The validity and merits of a partys defense and accusation, as well as the admissibility and weight of testimonies and evidence brought before the court, are better ventilated during trial proper. Precisely, the reason why a state has courts of law is to ascertain the respective rights of the parties, to examine and to put to test all their respective allegations and evidence through a well designed machinery termed "trial." Thus, all the defenses available to the accused should be invoked in the trial of the criminal cases. This court is not the proper forum that should ascertain the facts and decide the case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 filed against the petitioner. In fine, the CA committed no reversible error in affirming the decision of the RTC. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Decision dated April 30, 2003 and the Resolution dated July 17, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68250 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 184861 June 30, 2009 DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, vs. CLEOFE S. JANIOLA and HON. ARTHUR A. FAMINI,

90

Respondents. DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: The Case Petitioner Dreamwork Construction, Inc. seeks the reversal of the August 26, 2008 Decision1 in SCA No. 080005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 253 in Las Pias City. The Decision affirmed the Orders dated October 16, 20072 and March 12, 20083 in Criminal Case Nos. 55554-61 issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Branch 79 in Las Pias City. The Facts On October 18, 2004, petitioner, through its President, Roberto S. Concepcion, and Vice-President for Finance and Marketing, Normandy P. Amora, filed a Complaint Affidavit dated October 5, 20044 for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) against private respondent Cleofe S. Janiola with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Pias City. The case was docketed as I.S. No. 042526-33. Correspondingly, petitioner filed a criminal information for violation of BP 22 against private respondent with the MTC on February 2, 2005 docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 55554-61, entitled People of the Philippines v. Cleofe S. Janiola. On September 20, 2006, private respondent, joined by her husband, instituted a civil complaint against petitioner by filing a Complaint dated August 20065 for the rescission of an alleged construction agreement between the parties, as well as for damages. The case was filed with the RTC, Branch 197 in Las Pias City and docketed as Civil Case No. LP-06-0197. Notably, the checks, subject of the criminal cases before the MTC, were issued in consideration of the construction agreement. Thereafter, on July 25, 2007, private respondent filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings dated July 24, 2007 6 in Criminal Case Nos. 55554-61, alleging that the civil and criminal cases involved facts and issues similar or intimately related such that in the resolution of the issues in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. In other words, private respondent claimed that the civil case posed a prejudicial question as against the criminal cases. Petitioner opposed the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal cases in an undated Comment/Opposition to Accuseds Motion to Suspend Proceedings based on Prejudicial Question7 on the grounds that: (1) there is no prejudicial question in this case as the rescission of the contract upon which the bouncing checks were issued is a separate and distinct issue from the issue of whether private respondent violated BP 22; and (2) Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court states that one of the elements of a prejudicial question is that "the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action"; thus, this element is missing in this case, the criminal case having preceded the civil case. Later, the MTC issued its Order dated October 16, 2007, granting the Motion to Suspend Proceedings, and reasoned that: Should the trial court declare the rescission of contract

and the nullification of the checks issued as the same are without consideration, then the instant criminal cases for alleged violation of BP 22 must be dismissed. The belated filing of the civil case by the herein accused did not detract from the correctness of her cause, since a motion for suspension of a criminal action may be filed at any time before the prosecution rests (Section 6, Rule 111, Revised Rules of Court).8 In an Order dated March 12, 2008,9 the MTC denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration dated November 29, 2007. Petitioner appealed the Orders to the RTC with a Petition dated May 13, 2008. Thereafter, the RTC issued the assailed decision dated August 26, 2008, denying the petition. On the issue of the existence of a prejudicial question, the RTC ruled: Additionally, it must be stressed that the requirement of a "previously" filed civil case is intended merely to obviate delays in the conduct of the criminal proceedings. Incidentally, no clear evidence of any intent to delay by private respondent was shown. The criminal proceedings are still in their initial stages when the civil action was instituted. And, the fact that the civil action was filed after the criminal action was instituted does not render the issues in the civil action any less prejudicial in character.10 Hence, we have this petition under Rule 45. The Issue WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT PERCEIVING GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE INFERIOR COURT, WHEN THE LATTER RULED TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIM. CASE NOS. 55554-61 ON THE BASIS OF "PREJUDICIAL QUESTION" IN CIVIL CASE NO. LP-06-0197.11 The Courts Ruling This petition must be granted. The Civil Action Must Precede the Filing of the Criminal Action for a Prejudicial Question to Exist Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended by Supreme Court Resolutions dated June 17, 1988 and July 7, 1988, the elements of a prejudicial question are contained in Rule 111, Sec. 5, which states: SEC. 5. Elements of prejudicial question. The two (2) essential elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. Thus, the Court has held in numerous cases 12 that the elements of a prejudicial question, as stated in the above-quoted provision and in Beltran v. People,13 are: The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two essential elements: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. On December 1, 2000, the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, however, became effective and the above

91

provision was amended by Sec. 7 of Rule 111, which applies here and now provides: SEC. 7. Elements of prejudicial question.The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner interprets Sec. 7(a) to mean that in order for a civil case to create a prejudicial question and, thus, suspend a criminal case, it must first be established that the civil case was filed previous to the filing of the criminal case. This, petitioner argues, is specifically to guard against the situation wherein a party would belatedly file a civil action that is related to a pending criminal action in order to delay the proceedings in the latter. On the other hand, private respondent cites Article 36 of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 36. Pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which the Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code. (Emphasis supplied.) Private respondent argues that the phrase "before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed" must be interpreted to mean that a prejudicial question exists when the civil action is filed either before the institution of the criminal action or during the pendency of the criminal action. Private respondent concludes that there is an apparent conflict in the provisions of the Rules of Court and the Civil Code in that the latter considers a civil case to have presented a prejudicial question even if the criminal case preceded the filing of the civil case. We cannot agree with private respondent. First off, it is a basic precept in statutory construction that a "change in phraseology by amendment of a provision of law indicates a legislative intent to change the meaning of the provision from that it originally had."14 In the instant case, the phrase, "previously instituted," was inserted to qualify the nature of the civil action involved in a prejudicial question in relation to the criminal action. This interpretation is further buttressed by the insertion of "subsequent" directly before the term criminal action. There is no other logical explanation for the amendments except to qualify the relationship of the civil and criminal actions, that the civil action must precede the criminal action. Thus, this Court ruled in Torres v. Garchitorena15 that: Even if we ignored petitioners procedural lapse and resolved their petition on the merits, we hold that Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying their omnibus motion for the suspension of the proceedings pending final judgment in Civil Case No. 7160. Section 6, Rule lll of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, reads: Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. - A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When

the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. - The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. Under the amendment, a prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the criminal action and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which said question is closely connected. The civil action must be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action. In this case, the Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan ahead of the complaint in Civil Case No. 7160 filed by the State with the RTC in Civil Case No. 7160. Thus, no prejudicial question exists. (Emphasis supplied.) Additionally, it is a principle in statutory construction that "a statute should be construed not only to be consistent with itself but also to harmonize with other laws on the same subject matter, as to form a complete, coherent and intelligible system."16 This principle is consistent with the maxim, interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi modus or every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.171 a vv p h i l In other words, every effort must be made to harmonize seemingly conflicting laws. It is only when harmonization is impossible that resort must be made to choosing which law to apply. In the instant case, Art. 36 of the Civil Code and Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court are susceptible of an interpretation that would harmonize both provisions of law. The phrase "previously instituted civil action" in Sec. 7 of Rule 111 is plainly worded and is not susceptible of alternative interpretations. The clause "before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed" in Art. 36 of the Civil Code may, however, be interpreted to mean that the motion to suspend the criminal action may be filed during the preliminary investigation with the public prosecutor or court conducting the investigation, or during the trial with the court hearing the case. This interpretation would harmonize Art. 36 of the Civil Code with Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court but also with Sec. 6 of Rule 111 of the Civil Code, which provides for the situations when the motion to suspend the criminal action during the preliminary investigation or during the trial may be filed. Sec. 6 provides: SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. Thus, under the principles of statutory construction, it is this interpretation of Art. 36 of the Civil Code that should govern in order to give effect to all the relevant

92

provisions of law. It bears pointing out that the circumstances present in the instant case indicate that the filing of the civil action and the subsequent move to suspend the criminal proceedings by reason of the presence of a prejudicial question were a mere afterthought and instituted to delay the criminal proceedings. In Sabandal v. Tongco,18 we found no prejudicial question existed involving a civil action for specific performance, overpayment, and damages, and a criminal complaint for BP 22, as the resolution of the civil action would not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. In resolving the case, we said: Furthermore, the peculiar circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the filing of the civil case was a ploy to delay the resolution of the criminal cases. Petitioner filed the civil case three years after the institution of the criminal charges against him. Apparently, the civil action was instituted as an afterthought to delay the proceedings in the criminal cases.19 Here, the civil case was filed two (2) years after the institution of the criminal complaint and from the time that private respondent allegedly withdrew its equipment from the job site. Also, it is worth noting that the civil case was instituted more than two and a half (2 ) years from the time that private respondent allegedly stopped construction of the proposed building for no valid reason. More importantly, the civil case praying for the rescission of the construction agreement for lack of consideration was filed more than three (3) years from the execution of the construction agreement. Evidently, as in Sabandal, the circumstances surrounding the filing of the cases involved here show that the filing of the civil action was a mere afterthought on the part of private respondent and interposed for delay. And as correctly argued by petitioner, it is this scenario that Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court seeks to prevent. Thus, private respondents positions cannot be left to stand. The Resolution of the Civil Case Is Not Determinative of the Prosecution of the Criminal Action In any event, even if the civil case here was instituted prior to the criminal action, there is, still, no prejudicial question to speak of that would justify the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case. To reiterate, the elements of a prejudicial question under Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court are: (1) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; and (2) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. Petitioner argues that the second element of a prejudicial question, as provided in Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules, is absent in this case. Thus, such rule cannot apply to the present controversy. Private respondent, on the other hand, claims that if the construction agreement between the parties is declared null and void for want of consideration, the checks issued in consideration of such contract would become mere scraps of paper and cannot be the basis of a criminal prosecution.

We find for petitioner. It must be remembered that the elements of the crime punishable under BP 22 are as follows: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue there are no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.20 Undeniably, the fact that there exists a valid contract or agreement to support the issuance of the check/s or that the checks were issued for valuable consideration does not make up the elements of the crime. Thus, this Court has held in a long line of cases21 that the agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of BP 22. In Mejia v. People,22 we ruled: It must be emphasized that the gravamen of the offense charge is the issuance of a bad check. The purpose for which the check was issued, the terms and conditions relating to its issuance, or any agreement surrounding such issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction of petitioner. To determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring havoc in trade and in banking communities. The clear intention of the framers of B.P. 22 is to make the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum. Lee v. Court of Appeals23 is even more poignant. In that case, we ruled that the issue of lack of valuable consideration for the issuance of checks which were later on dishonored for insufficient funds is immaterial to the success of a prosecution for violation of BP 22, to wit: Third issue. Whether or not the check was issued on account or for value. Petitioners claim is not feasible. We have held that upon issuance of a check, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the same was issued for valuable consideration. Valuable consideration, in turn, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the party who makes the contract, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or some responsibility, to act, or labor, or service given, suffered or undertaken by the other side. It is an obligation to do, or not to do in favor of the party who makes the contract, such as the maker or indorser. In this case, petitioner himself testified that he signed several checks in blank, the subject check included, in exchange for 2.5% interest from the proceeds of loans that will be made from said account. This is a valuable consideration for which the check was issued. That there was neither a pre-existing obligation nor an obligation incurred on the part of petitioner when the subject check was given by Bautista to private complainant on July 24, 1993 because petitioner was no longer connected with Unlad or Bautista starting July

93

1989, cannot be given merit since, as earlier discussed, petitioner failed to adequately prove that he has severed his relationship with Bautista or Unlad. At any rate, we have held that what the law punishes is the mere act of issuing a bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. This is because the thrust of the law is to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them into circulation.24 (Emphasis supplied.) Verily, even if the trial court in the civil case declares that the construction agreement between the parties is void for lack of consideration, this would not affect the prosecution of private respondent in the criminal case. The fact of the matter is that private respondent indeed issued checks which were subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds. It is this fact that is subject of prosecution under BP 22.lawphil.net Therefore, it is clear that the second element required for the existence of a prejudicial question, that the resolution of the issue in the civil action would determine whether the criminal action may proceed, is absent in the instant case. Thus, no prejudicial question exists and the rules on it are inapplicable to the case before us. WHEREFORE, we GRANT this petition. We hereby REVERSE and SET ASIDE the August 26, 2008 Decision in SCA No. 08-0005 of the RTC, Branch 253 in Las Pias City and the Orders dated October 16, 2007 and March 12, 2008 in Criminal Case Nos. 55554-61 of the MTC, Branch 79 in Las Pias City. We order the MTC to continue with the proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 55554-61 with dispatch. No costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 172060 September 13, 2010 JOSELITO R. PIMENTEL, Petitioner, vs. MARIA CHRYSANTINE L. PIMENTEL and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Case Before the Court is a petition for review1 assailing the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 20 March 2006, in CA-G.R. SP No. 91867. The Antecedent Facts The facts are stated in the Court of Appeals decision: On 25 October 2004, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel y Lacap (private respondent) filed an action for frustrated parricide against Joselito R. Pimentel (petitioner), docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-04-130415, before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, which was raffled to Branch 223 (RTC Quezon City). On 7 February 2005, petitioner received summons to appear before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 72 (RTC Antipolo) for the pre-trial and trial of Civil Case No. 04-7392 (Maria Chrysantine Lorenza L. Pimentel v. Joselito Pimentel) for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Section 36 of the Family Code on the

ground of psychological incapacity. On 11 February 2005, petitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings before the RTC Quezon City on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question. Petitioner asserted that since the relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in parricide, the outcome of Civil Case No. 04-7392 would have a bearing in the criminal case filed against him before the RTC Quezon City. The Decision of the Trial Court The RTC Quezon City issued an Order dated 13 May 20053 holding that the pendency of the case before the RTC Antipolo is not a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case before it. The RTC Quezon City held that the issues in Criminal Case No. Q04-130415 are the injuries sustained by respondent and whether the case could be tried even if the validity of petitioners marriage with respondent is in question. The RTC Quezon City ruled: WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, the Motion to Suspend Proceedings On the [Ground] of the Existence of a Prejudicial Question is, for lack of merit, DENIED. SO ORDERED.4 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 22 August 2005 Order,5 the RTC Quezon City denied the motion. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with application for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order before the Court of Appeals, assailing the 13 May 2005 and 22 August 2005 Orders of the RTC Quezon City. The Decision of the Court of Appeals In its 20 March 2006 Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals ruled that in the criminal case for frustrated parricide, the issue is whether the offender commenced the commission of the crime of parricide directly by overt acts and did not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. On the other hand, the issue in the civil action for annulment of marriage is whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The Court of Appeals ruled that even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent would be declared void, it would be immaterial to the criminal case because prior to the declaration of nullity, the alleged acts constituting the crime of frustrated parricide had already been committed. The Court of Appeals ruled that all that is required for the charge of frustrated parricide is that at the time of the commission of the crime, the marriage is still subsisting. Petitioner filed a petition for review before this Court assailing the Court of Appeals decision. The Issue The only issue in this case is whether the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide against petitioner. The Ruling of this Court The petition has no merit.

94

Civil Case Must be Instituted Before the Criminal Case Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure6 provides: Section 7. Elements of Prejudicial Question. - The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. The rule is clear that the civil action must be instituted first before the filing of the criminal action. In this case, the Information7 for Frustrated Parricide was dated 30 August 2004. It was raffled to RTC Quezon City on 25 October 2004 as per the stamped date of receipt on the Information. The RTC Quezon City set Criminal Case No. Q-04-130415 for pre-trial and trial on 14 February 2005. Petitioner was served summons in Civil Case No. 04-7392 on 7 February 2005.8 Respondents petition9 in Civil Case No. 04-7392 was dated 4 November 2004 and was filed on 5 November 2004. Clearly, the civil case for annulment was filed after the filing of the criminal case for frustrated parricide. As such, the requirement of Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure was not met since the civil action was filed subsequent to the filing of the criminal action. Annulment of Marriage is not a Prejudicial Question in Criminal Case for Parricide Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the criminal action. There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.10 A prejudicial question is defined as: x x x one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.11 The relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in the crime of parricide,12 which punishes any person "who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse." 13 The relationship between the offender and the victim distinguishes the crime of parricide from murder14 or homicide.15 However, the issue in the annulment of marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for parricide. Further, the relationship between the offender and the victim is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code is whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The issue in parricide is whether the accused killed the victim. In this case, since petitioner was charged with frustrated parricide, the issue is whether he performed all the acts of execution which would have killed respondent as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of petitioners will. 16 At the time of the commission of the alleged crime, petitioner and respondent were married. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage, in case the petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 is granted, will have no effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the time of the subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to respondent.1avvphi1 We cannot accept petitioners reliance on Tenebro v. Court of Appeals17 that "the judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is concerned x x x." First, the issue in Tenebro is the effect of the judicial declaration of nullity of a second or subsequent marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on a criminal liability for bigamy. There was no issue of prejudicial question in that case. Second, the Court ruled in Tenebro that "[t]here is x x x a recognition written into the law itself that such a marriage, although void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences."18 In fact, the Court declared in that case that "a declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is of absolutely no moment insofar as the States penal laws are concerned."19 In view of the foregoing, the Court upholds the decision of the Court of Appeals. The trial in Criminal Case No. Q04-130415 may proceed as the resolution of the issue in Civil Case No. 04-7392 is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of petitioner in the criminal case. WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 20 March 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 91867. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 26795 July 31, 1970 CARMEN QUIMIGUING, Suing through her parents, ANTONIO QUIMIGUING and JACOBA CABILIN, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FELIX ICAO, defendant-appellee. Torcuato L. Galon for plaintiffs-appellants. Godardo Jacinto for defendant-appellee. REYES, J.B.L., J.: Appeal on points of law from an order of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte (Judge Onofre Sison Abalos, presiding), in its Civil Case No. 1590,

95

dismissing a complaint for support and damages, and another order denying amendment of the same pleading. The events in the court of origin can be summarized as follows: Appellant, Carmen Quimiguing, assisted by her parents, sued Felix Icao in the court below. In her complaint it was averred that the parties were neighbors in Dapitan City, and had close and confidential relations; that defendant Icao, although married, succeeded in having carnal intercourse with plaintiff several times by force and intimidation, and without her consent; that as a result she became pregnant, despite efforts and drugs supplied by defendant, and plaintiff had to stop studying. Hence, she claimed support at P120.00 per month, damages and attorney's fees. Duly summoned, defendant Icao moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action since the complaint did not allege that the child had been born; and after hearing arguments, the trial judge sustained defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint. Thereafter, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to allege that as a result of the intercourse, plaintiff had later given birth to a baby girl; but the court, sustaining defendant's objection, ruled that no amendment was allowable, since the original complaint averred no cause of action. Wherefore, the plaintiff appealed directly to this Court. We find the appealed orders of the court below to be untenable. A conceived child, although as yet unborn, is given by law a provisional personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it, as explicitly provided in Article 40 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The unborn child, therefore, has a right to support from its progenitors, particularly of the defendant-appellee (whose paternity is deemed admitted for the purpose of the motion to dismiss), even if the said child is only "en ventre de sa mere;" just as a conceived child, even if as yet unborn, may receive donations as prescribed by Article 742 of the same Code, and its being ignored by the parent in his testament may result in preterition of a forced heir that annuls the institution of the testamentary heir, even if such child should be born after the death of the testator Article 854, Civil Code). ART. 742. Donations made to conceived and unborn children may be accepted by those persons who would legally represent them if they were already born. ART. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual, without prejudice to the right of 'representation. It is thus clear that the lower court's theory that Article 291 of the Civil Code declaring that support is an obligation of parents and illegitimate children "does not contemplate support to children as yet unborn," violates Article 40 aforesaid, besides imposing a condition that

nowhere appears in the text of Article 291. It is true that Article 40 prescribing that "the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it" adds further "provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article" (i.e., that the foetus be alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb). This proviso, however, is not a condition precedent to the right of the conceived child; for if it were, the first part of Article 40 would become entirely useless and ineffective. Manresa, in his Commentaries (5th Ed.) to the corresponding Article 29 of the Spanish Civil Code, clearly points this out: Los derechos atribuidos al nasciturus no son simples expectativas, ni aun en el sentido tecnico que la moderna doctrina da a esta figura juridica sino que constituyen un caso de los propiamente Ilamados 'derechos en estado de pendenci'; el nacimiento del sujeto en las condiciones previstas por el art. 30, no determina el nacimiento de aquellos derechos (que ya existian de antemano), sino que se trata de un hecho que tiene efectos declarativos. (1 Manresa, Op. cit., page 271) A second reason for reversing the orders appealed from is that for a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to his lust (as averred in the original complaint in this case) constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that entitles her to claim compensation for the damage caused. Says Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines: ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. The rule of Article 21 is supported by Article 2219 of the same Code: ART 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (3) Seduction, lascivious acts: xxx xxx xxx (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28 .... Thus, independently of the right to Support of the child she was carrying, plaintiff herself had a cause of action for damages under the terms of the complaint; and the order dismissing it for failure to state a cause of action was doubly in error. WHEREFORE, the orders under appeal are reversed and set aside. Let the case be remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings conformable to this decision. Costs against appellee Felix Icao. So ordered. G.R. No. 182836 October 13, 2009 CONTINENTAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. HON. ACCREDITED VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR ALLAN S. MONTAO and NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG CENTRO STEEL CORPORATIONSOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (NMCSC-SUPER), abduction, rape or other

96

Respondents. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision1 dated 27 February 2008 and the Resolution2 dated 9 May 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101697, affirming the Resolution3 dated 20 November 2007 of respondent Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Atty. Allan S. Montao (Montao) granting bereavement leave and other death benefits to Rolando P. Hortillano (Hortillano), grounded on the death of his unborn child. The antecedent facts of the case are as follows: Hortillano, an employee of petitioner Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation (Continental Steel) and a member of respondent Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Centro Steel Corporation-Solidarity of Trade Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (Union) filed on 9 January 2006, a claim for Paternity Leave, Bereavement Leave and Death and Accident Insurance for dependent, pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) concluded between Continental and the Union, which reads: ARTICLE X: LEAVE OF ABSENCE xxxx Section 2. BEREAVEMENT LEAVEThe Company agrees to grant a bereavement leave with pay to any employee in case of death of the employees legitimate dependent (parents, spouse, children, brothers and sisters) based on the following: 2.1 Within Metro Manila up to Marilao, Bulacan - 7 days 2.2 Provincial/Outside Metro Manila - 11 days xxxx ARTICLE XVIII: OTHER BENEFITS xxxx Section 4. DEATH AND ACCIDENT INSURANCEThe Company shall grant death and accidental insurance to the employee or his family in the following manner: xxxx 4.3 DEPENDENTSEleven Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Pesos (Php11,550.00) in case of death of the employees legitimate dependents (parents, spouse, and children). In case the employee is single, this benefit covers the legitimate parents, brothers and sisters only with proper legal document to be presented (e.g. death certificate).4 The claim was based on the death of Hortillanos unborn child. Hortillanos wife, Marife V. Hortillano, had a premature delivery on 5 January 2006 while she was in the 38th week of pregnancy.5 According to the Certificate of Fetal Death dated 7 January 2006, the female fetus died during labor due to fetal Anoxia secondary to uteroplacental insufficiency.6 Continental Steel immediately granted Hortillanos claim for paternity leave but denied his claims for bereavement leave and other death benefits, consisting of the death and accident insurance.7 Seeking the reversal of the denial by Continental Steel of Hortillanos claims for bereavement and other death benefits, the Union resorted to the grievance machinery

provided in the CBA. Despite the series of conferences held, the parties still failed to settle their dispute, 8 prompting the Union to file a Notice to Arbitrate before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), National Capital Region (NCR).9 In a Submission Agreement dated 9 October 2006, the Union and Continental Steel submitted for voluntary arbitration the sole issue of whether Hortillano was entitled to bereavement leave and other death benefits pursuant to Article X, Section 2 and Article XVIII, Section 4.3 of the CBA.10 The parties mutually chose Atty. Montao, an Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator, to resolve said issue.11 When the preliminary conferences again proved futile in amicably settling the dispute, the parties proceeded to submit their respective Position Papers, 12 Replies,13 and Rejoinders14 to Atty. Montao. The Union argued that Hortillano was entitled to bereavement leave and other death benefits pursuant to the CBA. The Union maintained that Article X, Section 2 and Article XVIII, Section 4.3 of the CBA did not specifically state that the dependent should have first been born alive or must have acquired juridical personality so that his/her subsequent death could be covered by the CBA death benefits. The Union cited cases wherein employees of MKK Steel Corporation (MKK Steel) and Mayer Steel Pipe Corporation (Mayer Steel), sister companies of Continental Steel, in similar situations as Hortillano were able to receive death benefits under similar provisions of their CBAs. The Union mentioned in particular the case of Steve L. Dugan (Dugan), an employee of Mayer Steel, whose wife also prematurely delivered a fetus, which had already died prior to the delivery. Dugan was able to receive paternity leave, bereavement leave, and voluntary contribution under the CBA between his union and Mayer Steel.15 Dugans child was only 24 weeks in the womb and died before labor, as opposed to Hortillanos child who was already 37-38 weeks in the womb and only died during labor. The Union called attention to the fact that MKK Steel and Mayer Steel are located in the same compound as Continental Steel; and the representatives of MKK Steel and Mayer Steel who signed the CBA with their respective employees unions were the same a s the representatives of Continental Steel who signed the existing CBA with the Union. Finally, the Union invoked Article 1702 of the Civil Code, which provides that all doubts in labor legislations and labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety of and decent living for the laborer. On the other hand, Continental Steel posited that the express provision of the CBA did not contemplate the death of an unborn child, a fetus, without legal personality. It claimed that there are two elements for the entitlement to the benefits, namely: (1) death and (2) status as legitimate dependent, none of which existed in Hortillanos case. Continental Steel, relying on Articles 40, 41 and 4216 of the Civil Code, contended that only one with civil personality could die. Hence, the unborn child never died because it never acquired juridical personality. Proceeding from the same line of thought, Continental Steel reasoned that a fetus that was dead from the moment of delivery was not a person at

97

all. Hence, the term dependent could not be applied to a fetus that never acquired juridical personality. A fetus that was delivered dead could not be considered a dependent, since it never needed any support, nor did it ever acquire the right to be supported. Continental Steel maintained that the wording of the CBA was clear and unambiguous. Since neither of the parties qualified the terms used in the CBA, the legally accepted definitions thereof were deemed automatically accepted by both parties. The failure of the Union to have unborn child included in the definition of dependent, as used in the CBA the death of whom would have qualified the parent-employee for bereavement leave and other death benefits bound the Union to the legally accepted definition of the latter term. Continental Steel, lastly, averred that similar cases involving the employees of its sister companies, MKK Steel and Mayer Steel, referred to by the Union, were irrelevant and incompetent evidence, given the separate and distinct personalities of the companies. Neither could the Union sustain its claim that the grant of bereavement leave and other death benefits to the parent-employee for the loss of an unborn child constituted "company practice." On 20 November 2007, Atty. Montao, the appointed Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator, issued a Resolution17 ruling that Hortillano was entitled to bereavement leave with pay and death benefits. Atty. Montao identified the elements for entitlement to said benefits, thus: This Office declares that for the entitlement of the benefit of bereavement leave with pay by the covered employees as provided under Article X, Section 2 of the parties CBA, three (3) indispensable elements must be present: (1) there is "death"; (2) such death must be of employees "dependent"; and (3) such dependent must be "legitimate". On the otherhand, for the entitlement to benefit for death and accident insurance as provided under Article XVIII, Section 4, paragraph (4.3) of the parties CBA, four (4) indispensable elements must be present: (a) there is "death"; (b) such death must be of employees "dependent"; (c) such dependent must be "legitimate"; and (d) proper legal document to be presented.18 Atty. Montao found that there was no dispute that the death of an employees legitimate dependent occurred. The fetus had the right to be supported by the parents from the very moment he/she was conceived. The fetus had to rely on another for support; he/she could not have existed or sustained himself/herself without the power or aid of someone else, specifically, his/her mother. Therefore, the fetus was already a dependent, although he/she died during the labor or delivery. There was also no question that Hortillano and his wife were lawfully married, making their dependent, unborn child, legitimate. In the end, Atty. Montao decreed: WHEREFORE, premises considered, a resolution is hereby rendered ORDERING [herein petitioner Continental Steel] to pay Rolando P. Hortillano the amount of Four Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Nine Pesos (P4,939.00), representing his bereavement leave pay and the amount of Eleven Thousand Five Hundred

Fifty Pesos (P11,550.00) representing death benefits, or a total amount of P16,489.00 The complaint against Manuel Sy, however, is ORDERED DISMISSED for lack of merit. All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit. Further, parties are hereby ORDERED to faithfully abide with the herein dispositions. Aggrieved, Continental Steel filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review on Certiorari,19 under Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 101697. Continental Steel claimed that Atty. Montao erred in granting Hortillanos claims for bereavement leav e with pay and other death benefits because no death of an employees dependent had occurred. The death of a fetus, at whatever stage of pregnancy, was excluded from the coverage of the CBA since what was contemplated by the CBA was the death of a legal person, and not that of a fetus, which did not acquire any juridical personality. Continental Steel pointed out that its contention was bolstered by the fact that the term death was qualified by the phrase legitimate dependent. It asserted that the status of a child could only be determined upon said childs birth, otherwise, no such appellation can be had. Hence, the conditions sine qua non for Hortillanos entitlement to bereavement leave and other death benefits under the CBA were lacking. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated 27 February 2008, affirmed Atty. Montaos Resolution dated 20 November 2007. The appellate court interpreted death to mean as follows: [Herein petitioner Continental Steels] exposition on the legal sense in which the term "death" is used in the CBA fails to impress the Court, and the same is irrelevant for ascertaining the purpose, which the grant of bereavement leave and death benefits thereunder, is intended to serve. While there is no arguing with [Continental Steel] that the acquisition of civil personality of a child or fetus is conditioned on being born alive upon delivery, it does not follow that such event of premature delivery of a fetus could never be contemplated as a "death" as to be covered by the CBA provision, undoubtedly an event causing loss and grief to the affected employee, with whom the dead fetus stands in a legitimate relation. [Continental Steel] has proposed a narrow and technical significance to the term "death of a legitimate dependent" as condition for granting bereavement leave and death benefits under the CBA. Following [Continental Steels] theory, there can be no experience of "death" to speak of. The Court, however, does not share this view. A dead fetus simply cannot be equated with anything less than "loss of human life", especially for the expectant parents. In this light, bereavement leave and death benefits are meant to assuage the employee and the latters immediate family, extend to them solace and support, rather than an act conferring legal status or personality upon the unborn child. [Continental Steels] insistence that the certificate of fetal death is for statistical purposes only sadly misses this crucial point.20 Accordingly, the fallo of the 27 February 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition

98

is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Resolution dated November 20, 2007 of Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Atty. Allan S. Montao is hereby AFFIRMED and UPHELD. With costs against [herein petitioner Continental Steel].21 In a Resolution22 dated 9 May 2008, the Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration23 of Continental Steel. Hence, this Petition, in which Continental Steel persistently argues that the CBA is clear and unambiguous, so that the literal and legal meaning of death should be applied. Only one with juridical personality can die and a dead fetus never acquired a juridical personality. We are not persuaded. As Atty. Montao identified, the elements for bereavement leave under Article X, Section 2 of the CBA are: (1) death; (2) the death must be of a dependent, i.e., parent, spouse, child, brother, or sister, of an employee; and (3) legitimate relations of the dependent to the employee. The requisites for death and accident insurance under Article XVIII, Section 4(3) of the CBA are: (1) death; (2) the death must be of a dependent, who could be a parent, spouse, or child of a married employee; or a parent, brother, or sister of a single employee; and (4) presentation of the proper legal document to prove such death, e.g., death certificate. It is worthy to note that despite the repeated assertion of Continental Steel that the provisions of the CBA are clear and unambiguous, its fundamental argument for denying Hortillanos claim for bereavement leave and other death benefits rests on the purportedly proper interpretation of the terms "death" and "dependent" as used in the CBA. If the provisions of the CBA are indeed clear and unambiguous, then there is no need to resort to the interpretation or construction of the same. Moreover, Continental Steel itself admitted that neither management nor the Union sought to define the pertinent terms for bereavement leave and other death benefits during the negotiation of the CBA. The reliance of Continental Steel on Articles 40, 41 and 42 of the Civil Code for the legal definition of death is misplaced. Article 40 provides that a conceived child acquires personality only when it is born, and Article 41 defines when a child is considered born. Article 42 plainly states that civil personality is extinguished by death. First, the issue of civil personality is not relevant herein. Articles 40, 41 and 42 of the Civil Code on natural persons, must be applied in relation to Article 37 of the same Code, the very first of the general provisions on civil personality, which reads: Art. 37. Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost. We need not establish civil personality of the unborn child herein since his/her juridical capacity and capacity to act as a person are not in issue. It is not a question before us whether the unborn child acquired any rights or incurred any obligations prior to his/her death that were passed on to or assumed by the childs parents.

The rights to bereavement leave and other death benefits in the instant case pertain directly to the parents of the unborn child upon the latters death. Second, Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Civil Code do not provide at all a definition of death. Moreover, while the Civil Code expressly provides that civil personality may be extinguished by death, it does not explicitly state that only those who have acquired juridical personality could die. And third, death has been defined as the cessation of life.24 Life is not synonymous with civil personality. One need not acquire civil personality first before he/she could die. Even a child inside the womb already has life. No less than the Constitution recognizes the life of the unborn from conception,25 that the State must protect equally with the life of the mother. If the unborn already has life, then the cessation thereof even prior to the child being delivered, qualifies as death. Likewise, the unborn child can be considered a dependent under the CBA. As Continental Steel itself defines, a dependent is "one who relies on another for support; one not able to exist or sustain oneself without the power or aid of someone else." Under said general definition,26 even an unborn child is a dependent of its parents. Hortillanos child could not have reached 38-39 weeks of its gestational life without depending upon its mother, Hortillanos wife, for sustenance. Additionally, it is explicit in the CBA provisions in question that the dependent may be the parent, spouse, or child of a married employee; or the parent, brother, or sister of a single employee. The CBA did not provide a qualification for the child dependent, such that the child must have been born or must have acquired civil personality, as Continental Steel avers. Without such qualification, then child shall be understood in its more general sense, which includes the unborn fetus in the mothers womb. The term legitimate merely addresses the dependent childs status in relation to his/her parents. In Angeles v. Maglaya,27 we have expounded on who is a legitimate child, viz: A legitimate child is a product of, and, therefore, implies a valid and lawful marriage. Remove the element of lawful union and there is strictly no legitimate filiation between parents and child. Article 164 of the Family Code cannot be more emphatic on the matter: "Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate." (Emphasis ours.) Conversely, in Briones v. Miguel,28 we identified an illegitimate child to be as follows: The fine distinctions among the various types of illegitimate children have been eliminated in the Family Code. Now, there are only two classes of children -legitimate (and those who, like the legally adopted, have the rights of legitimate children) and illegitimate. All children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless the law itself gives them legitimate status. (Emphasis ours.) It is apparent that according to the Family Code and the afore-cited jurisprudence, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child attaches upon his/her conception. In the present case, it was not disputed that Hortillano and his wife were validly married and that their child was conceived during said marriage, hence, making said child legitimate upon her conception.1avvphi1

99

Also incontestable is the fact that Hortillano was able to comply with the fourth element entitling him to death and accident insurance under the CBA, i.e., presentation of the death certificate of his unborn child. Given the existence of all the requisites for bereavement leave and other death benefits under the CBA, Hortillanos claims for the same should have been granted by Continental Steel. We emphasize that bereavement leave and other death benefits are granted to an employee to give aid to, and if possible, lessen the grief of, the said employee and his family who suffered the loss of a loved one. It cannot be said that the parents grief a nd sense of loss arising from the death of their unborn child, who, in this case, had a gestational life of 38-39 weeks but died during delivery, is any less than that of parents whose child was born alive but died subsequently. Being for the benefit of the employee, CBA provisions on bereavement leave and other death benefits should be interpreted liberally to give life to the intentions thereof. Time and again, the Labor Code is specific in enunciating that in case of doubt in the interpretation of any law or provision affecting labor, such should be interpreted in favor of labor.29 In the same way, the CBA and CBA provisions should be interpreted in favor of labor. In Marcopper Mining v. National Labor Relations Commission,30 we pronounced: Finally, petitioner misinterprets the declaration of the Labor Arbiter in the assailed decision that "when the pendulum of judgment swings to and fro and the forces are equal on both sides, the same must be stilled in favor of labor." While petitioner acknowledges that all doubts in the interpretation of the Labor Code shall be resolved in favor of labor, it insists that what is involved-here is the amended CBA which is essentially a contract between private persons. What petitioner has lost sight of is the avowed policy of the State, enshrined in our Constitution, to accord utmost protection and justice to labor, a policy, we are, likewise, sworn to uphold. In Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation v. NLRC [183 SCRA 451 (1990)], we categorically stated that: When conflicting interests of labor and capital are to be weighed on the scales of social justice, the heavier influence of the latter should be counter-balanced by sympathy and compassion the law must accord the underprivileged worker. Likewise, in Terminal Facilities and Services Corporation v. NLRC [199 SCRA 265 (1991)], we declared: Any doubt concerning the rights of labor should be resolved in its favor pursuant to the social justice policy. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 27 February 2008 and Resolution dated 9 May 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101697, affirming the Resolution dated 20 November 2007 of Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Atty. Allan S. Montao, which granted to Rolando P. Hortillano bereavement leave pay and other death benefits in the amounts of Four Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Nine Pesos (P4,939.00) and Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Pesos (P11,550.00), respectively, grounded on the death of his unborn child, are AFFIRMED. Costs against Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation. SO ORDERED.

100