Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Saint Martin Polyclinic is an eye-opener that we cannot just simply invoke Art.

19 in relation to 20 and
21. Because Art. 20 refers to law. 21 refers to morals, public order, public policy. If you go back to the
cases, in Far East Bank vs. Pacilan, there is a contractual relation between Far East Bank and Pacilan. Ano
contractual relation nila? Creditor-debtor relationship.

In Uypitching, creditor and debtor relationship with respect to the persons who delivered the
motorcycle to Mr. Quiamco, which was actually the basis for seizure by Mr. Uypitching because he
claimed to be the unpaid creditor.

In Cebu Country Club, there is no contractual relationship yet. So, the basis of the award will be Art. 21.

There is contractual relationship between Calatagan and Clemente. Clemente is a member of the golf

Ardiente? Yes, because the water utility is still under the name of Mr. Ardiente. It was not transferred to

Sesbreno? Because there’s a contract between Sesbreno and VECO. Isn’t it?

Saldaga, likewise. Is there? Yes. The deed of sale with to pacto de retro.

So, in the case of Saint Martin Polyclinic, there is no contractual relationship with LWV and Saint Martin.
Because Saint Martin is an acreditted clinic of GAMCA. So, the relationship actually… the contract
between GAMCA and Saint Martin. But those who would wish to send workers to Saudi Arabia can
choose any of those accredited GAMCA clinics and have chosen Saint Martin. So, there’s no basis to
claim damages pursuant to the provisions on Human Relations because of the absence of contractual
relation between the parties. Instead, it should be Art. 2176 on quasi-contract.

Now, in Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court said that Isabel is not entitled to
damages under Art. 21 because, yes, but is psychologically incapacitated to comply, which is an innate
inability on the part of the spouse who is alleged to be psychologically incapacitated. To… …payment of
damages or to award damages under either Art. 20 or 21, the act must be wilful or negligent. So, there
is… that will be contrary to considers acts in the case of the psychologically incapacitated as wilful when
the disability or incapacity is innate or inherent in him.

Now, we go to unjust enrichment. For unjust enrichment to arise there are two elements. What are

1. the person has been unjustly benefited

2. the benefit is derived at the expense of another person

So, in the case of Filinvest vs. Ngilay, while it is true that the contract is void by reason of violation of the
prohibition on sale of property subject to homestead patent within 5 years from the award. But
nonetheless, Filinvest is entitled to recover the purchase price; otherwise the seller would be unjustly
enriched at the expense of the buyer. Now even if the parties thereto are in pari delicto, this is one
exception by reason of public policy and unjust enrichment even if the parties… What was the ruling of
the court in Gonzalo vs. Tarnate, Jr.? Both Tarnate and Gonzalo are in bad faith. They were aware of the
prohibition on subcontracting without first obtaining the consent of the Secretary of the DPWH. But
nonetheless, went on with the agreement. But because according to the Court, both are in pari delicto,
no damages may be awarded to Tarnate.

Likewise, in Bliss Development, why was Diaz allowed to recover what he had paid to Bliss
Development? Diaz is not a buyer in good faith, diba? Because he did not exercise the due diligence
required from a buyer. He was in fact the fourth. But what he bought is not the property itself; it is the
right on the property. Different from Mr. Arete (Arreza?), who bought the property from the heirs of the
original owner. So, yet Bliss was found to be in bad faith by the Supreme Court, why? It accepted
payments from both. So, they were aware that there were conflicting claimants over the property but it
still accepted payment by Diaz and allowed Diaz introduce improvements to the property amounting to
about 400,000 or 700, 000 pesos. So, there was really bad faith

Article 23, an involuntary act does not create an obligation but… but… but… what is the exception? If the
author is enriched, he should indemnify for the damage caused up to the extent of his enrichment.

Then we have Art. 24, on Doctrine of Parens Patriae. So, here is the… father of the State. What does it
mean? The State is to provide protection to incapacitated persons, such as minors. Always remember
that Art. 3 of the Civil Code is not applied with equal severity to minors. So, the same holds true in the
Doctrine of Parens Patriae. So, the State has to protect those incapacitated persons.

Now, 25, thoughtless extravagance.

Liability of public servant or employee under Art. 27. When is the public official liable? Neglects or
refuses to perform his duty without just cause. There must be that three words “without just cause”. It
must be present, otherwise, that would be wrong. But the job or the official function refers to what kind
of function? Purely ministerial. One that would not require discretion, and the said official refuses to
perform the function without just cause. Which was true in the case of Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals.
True or False? True. There was refusal on the part of Ledesma to award the honors due Delmo even if
there has been several communications coming from the Bureau of Public Schools. What was the
defense raised by Ledesma? He failed to receive the said notices. Such much as arrogance on the part of
Ledesma. In fact, Delmo here did not receive the honors due her because she eventually died.

Now, how do will you classify that act? Nonfeasance, different from malfeasance or misfeasance.

In Campugan vs. Tolentino, the act or the duty was merely to register an instrument presented before
the office of the Register of Deeds. The Registry of Deeds has no right to use discretion. It is a purely
ministerial act. So, as soon as he receives that letter for the cancellation of the adverse claim he has no
other duty but to comply with what is found in the document.

So, unfair competition we have discussed this in relation to Coca Cola.

Now, we go to Art. 29. Article 29, refers to a situation whereby there was judgment with respect to the
criminal case, but prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the
judgement of acquittal does not include in it the damages that is supposed to be awarded to the
offended party and thus, because the acquittal is not based on the fact that: no crime has been
committed; the accused is not the author of the crime, and; the fact from which the civil liability might
arise does not exists, then Art. 29 grants the offended party the right to institute a separate civil action
for damages which would only require the preponderance of evidence, although the defendant may
motion before the court that the plaintiff file a bond to answer for damages in the event that the
complaint is found to be malicious. The bond is made to answer in the event that the civil complaint is
found to be malicious. This is different from the succeeding provisions, Art. 30 and 35; because the
provisions therein refer to the civil actions arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony.
So, the basis for the civil action is based on the act or omission complained of as felony. And thus while
it is true, the general rule is the civil action is deemed impliedly to have been instituted with the criminal
proceedings, however the offended party may choose to file the civil actions ahead of the criminal
proceedings or to reserve the right to institute a separate civil action or waive the right to file a separate
civil action for damages. The exception here with respect to reservation or filing ahead is with respect to
violations with respect to Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The law itself does not allow reservation when civil
action is related to BP Blg. 22. So, if it is filed ahead and then subsequently the criminal case is filed
there is suspension of the civil action because the civil action is dependent on the resolution of the
criminal case. That was why in the case of Daluraya, there was no award for damages because it was not
established that Daluraya was the author of the crime. No one can pinpoint if he was really the driver of
the van that caused the death of Oliva. And when we talk about reservation, when can reservation be
made? It is to be made before the prosecution started to present its evidence. So, in the case of People
vs. Bayotas, the ruling thereof was reiterated by the Supreme Court in case of People vs. Calomia where
if there was prior conviction but the accused appealed in the Appellate Court and dies during the
pendency of the appeal, then it does not only carry with it the extinction of the criminal case but it also
carries with it the extinction of the civil case because as stated with Supreme Court, in People vs
Bayotas, the civil action is based on the act or omission complained of as a felony. It arises from the very
act complained of as a felony.

Now, in the case of Frias vs. San Diego-Sison, why is the… ano issue dito? If he cannot return the
downpayment… if he cannot return, it would be treated as a loan with the house and lot as security. He
executed found liable for damages. So what was the basis for damages? Anong basis ng damages?

In People vs. Dionaldo, ito yung namatay kinidnap. So where the heirs entitled to damages?

If the Court says that there is no conspiracy, can you still sue for damages?

Supposed they were accused they conspired to commit the crime but the Supreme Court said that there
was no conspiracy.