PADILLA V.
CA
FACTS:
1. Petitioners Padilla, et al. were charged for an
information of grave coercion by the City
prosecutor. The information alleged that Padilla
prevented the closing of the stall of Vergara. They
forcibly opened it and demolished and destroyed
said stall including the furniture therein by axes
and massive instruments, and carrying away goods
and merchandize to the prejudice of Vergara.
2. RTC found them guilty of the crime of grave
coercion but upon appeal the decision of the lower
court was revered and acquitting Padilla finding
that the facts did not constitute grave coercion but
of threat or malicious mischief. It ordered Padilla
for actual damages only in the amount of 9,600
php.
3. Padilla filed a motion for reconsideration
contending that the acquittal as to criminal liability
results in the extinction of their civil liability. CA
denied the motion for reconsideration.
4. Padilla contended that civil liability is a
consequence of the criminal act. and when he was
acquitted on the criminal case, civil liability could
not be imposed upon him.
ISSUE: Whether Padilla is required to pay civil
indemnity to the complainants after being acquitted
from the criminal charge.
RULING:
1. WAIVER OR RESERVATION OF THE CIVIL
ACTION. Civil action for recovery of civil liability
arising from the offense charged is impliedly
instituted with it. Unless waives of reserves his
right to institute it separately.
2. EX DELITO LIABILITY. Extinction of civil
liability from the acquittal of the criminal offense
refers only to ex delito liability. The civil liability is
extinguished if the facts establishes it arise from
the act as a crime.
3. Reasonable doubt for criminal offense and
preponderance of evidence for civil liabilities.
4. NO SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION IS
REQUIRED. Facts has already been established in
the criminal prosecution. Due process his highly
accorded in criminal proceedings. To require
otherwise would entail clogging of court dockets
and duplication of litigation.
5. Art. 29 of the civil code expressly provide a
remedy for the plaintiff. What it emphasizes is that
the civil action for damages is not precluded by an
acquittal for the same criminal act or omission.
The Civil Code provision does not state that the
remedy can be availed of only in a separate civil
action. A separate civil case may be filed but there
is no statement that such separate filing is the only
and exclusive permissible mode of recovering
damages.
6. WHEN SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION IS
WARRANTED:
a. Additional facts have to be established or
more evidence has to be adduced.
b. Where the criminal case has been fully
terminated and separate complain would
be efficacious or more expedient than
remand.
Juan syquia v. CA and Manila Memorial Park
Cemetery, Inc.
FACTS:
1. preparatory to transferring the said remains to a
newly purchased family plot also at the Manila
Memorial Park Cemetery, the concrete vault
encasing the coffin of the deceased was removed
from its niche underground. As the concrete vault
was being raised from the niche, the family of the
deceased discovered a hole at one of the walls of
the vault causing water drained out of the hole.
The family became agitated and upset. The water
caused ill effects to the remains of the deceased.
2. The family filed a suit for damages invoking article
2176 of the NCC and alleging that there was a
malicious breach of the defendant of its obligation
to deliver a defect-free concrete vault.
ISSUE:
Whether the Manila Memorial Park Cemetery breached its
contract with petitioner; or alternatively whether it was guilt
of a tort.
RULING:
1. CULPA AQUILIANA. The Syquias and Manila
Memorial Park Cemetery entered into a contract.
That agreement governed the relations of the
parties and defined their respective rights and
obligation. Hence, it would NOT BE HELD
LIABLE for culpa aquiliana or quasi delicts but for
culpa contractual.
2. CULPA CONTRACTUAL. Those who in
performance of their obligations are guilty of
fraud, NEGLIGENCE, or delay, and those who
in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are
liable for damages.
3. The rule provided for the defendant is that there
must be installed a concrete vault. The defendant
provided the vault. However, the petitioners
alleged that there was a breach of contract because
the brochure provided for a sealed vault and what
was actually provided is not sealed, that is, not
waterproof.
4. The word seal is not identical as the word
waterproof.
5. NEGLIGENCE. Negligence is defined as the
omission of the diligence required by the nature of
the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time, and of
the place. In the absence of stipulation, what is
required is diligence of a good father of a family.
6. From the facts, the defendant exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family in preventing
the accumulation of water inside the vault which
would have resulted in that caving in of earth
around the grave filling the same with earth.

BAKSH V. CA

Breach of promise to marry

RULING:

1. MORAL SEDUCTION. There must be presence

of Moral seduction
2. Article 21 fills in the gaps in which the damages or
injuries suffered by persons which is not sanction
by positive law. The law affords protection in the
form of article 21
3. IN PARI DELICTO. The doctrine is not
applicable because she had consented to his
deception because she is in dire need of financial
help from the foreigner.