Notes on
Articles 19 to 36
Human Relations
Art. 19. Abuse of Right Doctrine
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights, in the performance
of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
good faith.
Provides a rule of conduct that is consistent with an orderly and
harmonious relationship between and among men and women.
Sets certain standards which may be observed not only in the
exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties.
Elements of abuse of rights:
- There is a legal right or duty;
- Which is exercised in bad faith;
- For the sole intent if prejudicing or injuring another
Art. 20. Willfully or negligently
causes damage to another
Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which
do not especially provide for their own sanction.
Designed to fill in the countless gaps in the statutes, which leave
so many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even though they have actually
suffered material and moral injury.
Art. 21. Contrary to good customs,
moral, public policy
Any person who willfully causes losses or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
Deals with the acts contra bonus mores or against good morals.
Elements:
- There is an act which is legal
- But which is contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy;
- And it is done with the intent to injure.
- Arts 19, 20, 21 are related to each other and under these articles an act which causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages
Art. 22. Prevention of unjust
enrichment
Every person who, through an act or performance by another, or any
other means acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of
the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
Art. 23.
Even when an act or even causing damage to another's property was
not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable
for indemnify if through the act or event he was benefited.
Unjust enrichment. No person can claim what is not validly and
legally his or hers.
Nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest. No one shall enrich
himself at the expense of another.
Art. 24. Protecting the rights of the disadvantage
In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the
parties as at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance,
indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be
vigilant for his protection.
Court vigilance. The court must render justice, therefore, must be
vigilant in protecting the rights of the disadvantaged with the end in view
that any decision will be in consonance with what is right and what is legal.
Art. 25. Extravagance during emergency.
Thoughtless extravagance in the expenses for pleasure or display
during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of
the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.
The law seeks to prevent
inconsiderate and ostentatious activities during times of emergency.
Art. 26.
Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and
peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar
acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause
of action for damages, prevention and other relief.
- Prying into the privacy of another's residence'
- Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
- Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
- Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
Protection of human dignity. Meant to regard human life and safety,
to forestall human suffering or to try to protect persons from being unjustly
humiliated.
Art. 27.
Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant
or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official
duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter,
without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.
Relief against public officials. A public official is supposed to be
a representation of the government, and therefore, the law exacts on him an
obligation to be vigilant and just so that the public can be assured that the
government is truly effective in servicing their needs.
Any person, suffering from the refusal or neglect of any public
servant to perform his duties, is entitle to damages.
Article 28.
Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial
enterprises, or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit,
machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give
rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.
Necessary in a system of free enterprise to give others fair chance
to engage in business or earn a living.
Art. 29. Civil action when guilt is
not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
When the accuse in criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground
that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for
damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires
only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may
require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the
complaint should be found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon
reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration
to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not
the acquittal is due to that ground.
Civil Action. When the guilt of the accused is not proven beyond
reasonable doubt, civil action to prove the civil liability can still be filed
where only preponderance of evidence is needed.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt. The amount of proof which forms an
abiding moral certainty that the accused committed the crime charge. It is not
absolute certainty.
Preponderance of evidence. The evidence adduced by one side
outweighs the other.
Art. 30. Civil obligation arising from a criminal offense.
When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability
arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted
during the pendency of civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise
be sufficient to prove the act complained of.
Even if a civil obligation arose from a criminal offense, the
required quantum of evidence in a civil suit to claim such civil obligation is
not proof beyond reasonable doubt but merely preponderance of evidence.
In short, civil obligation arising from a criminal offense only
needs a preponderance of evidence as a quantum of proof.
Art. 31.
When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the
act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed
independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the
latter.
Civil action not arising from felony. Article 31 seeks to give an
aggrieved party a remedy and a cause of action in this kind of situations.
Civil action arises not from felony if there is no pre-existing
contractual relations between the parties ---> quasi-dilect.
This provision is evidently refers to a civil action based, not on
the act or omission charged as a felony in a criminal case, but to one based on
obligation arising from other sources, such as law or contract. The first is
governed by the provisions of the Civil Code, and not those of the RPC.
An independent civil action is an action based upon the same
criminal act as in the case of Arts 32, 33, 34.
Quasi-delict is culpa aquiliana
and is separate and distinct from criminal negligence, which is a delict, which
is punishable under the RPC.
This article also applies to culpa contractual.
Art. 32.
Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who
directly or indirectly obstruct defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or
impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be
liable to the latter for damages:
- Freedom of religion;
- Freedom of speech;
- Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
- Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
- Freedom of suffrage;
- Freedom against deprivation of property without due process of law;
- The right to just compensation when private property is taken for public use;
- The right to the equal protection of the laws;
- The right to be secure in one's person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
- The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
- The privacy of communication and correspondence;
- The right to become a member of any associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;
- The right to take part in peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances;
- The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
- The right of the accused against excessive bail;
- The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
- Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;
- Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel or unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
- Freedom of access to the courts.
In any case referred to in this article, whether or not the
defendant's act or omission constitute a criminal offense, the aggrieved party
has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for
damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of
any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and my be proved by a
preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damage. Exemplary damages may also
be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge
unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other
penal statute.
Separate civil action for violation of constitutional rights. 1947
Code Commission found it imperative that a separate civil action is necessary
for the violation of the individual's constitutional rights.
Art 32 renders any public officer of employee or any private
individual liable in damages for violating the constitutional rights and
liberties of another.
Reasons:
- Threat to freedom originates from abuses of power of government officials. The citizen had to depend upon the prosecution attorney for the institution of criminal proceedings, in order that the wrongful act might be punished under the RPC and the civil liability exacted.
- Even when the prosecuting attorney filed a criminal action, the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt often prevented the appropriate punishment.
- Direct and open violations of the Penal Code trampling upon the freedoms named are not so frequent as those indirect ways which do not come within the pale of penal law
Good faith not a defense. The very nature of Art 32 is that the
wrong may be civil or criminal. It is not necessary therefore that there should
be malice or bad faith.
Art 33. Civil action for violation
of private rights
In case of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action
for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be
brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of
the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
Principle is allow the citizen to enforce his rights in a private
action brought by him, regardless of the action of the State attorney.
Defamation, fraud, and physical injuries and are understood in their
ordinary sense. Fraud, estafa; defamatory, libel; physical injuries, death or
crime of homicide, but it cannot include reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide. Why? Because it is not listed
in the crimes under Art 33.
This article authorizes the institution of an independent civil
action for damages, which shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution and shall be proved by a preponderance evidence.
Art. 34. Members of the police
force.
When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails
to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or
property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the
city or municipality shall be subsidiary responsible therefor. The civil action
herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceeding, and a
preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.
Refusal to render needed assistance whenever a citizen go to seek
help can be a basis for claiming damages against them. The city or municipality
shall be subsidiary responsible therefor.
Art. 35. Reservation of civil
action.
When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges
another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this
Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable
grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney
refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complainant may bring
civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action shall
be supported by preponderance of
evidence. Upon the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to
file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to
be malicious.
During the pendency of the civil action, an information should be
presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended
until the termination of the criminal proceedings.
Rules of the Court sets out the procedure with respect to the
reservations in criminal cases with respect to civil liability of the accused:
- Institution of criminal and civil actions.
- When separate civil action is suspended
- When civil action may proceed independently
- Effect of death on civil actions.
Art. 36. Prejudicial Question.
Article 36. Pre-judicial questions, which must be decided before any
criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by
rules of court which the Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not be
in conflict with the provisions of this Code.
- The general rule is
that the criminal case takes precedence; an exception would be if there exist
prejudicial questions, which should be resolved before the criminal case.
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION: That
which must precede the criminal action that which requires a decision before a
final judgment is rendered in the principal action where the said question is
closely connected. The resolution of the Prejudicial question will determine if
the criminal action may proceed.
Ex. A and B got married. B then married C. A filed a case for bigamy
against B. B also filed a civil case against C (the second spouse) contending
that she was intimidated into marrying C. The civil case to determine whether
there was intimidation or not must necessary be resolved before the bigamy
case. If B was indeed intimidated in marrying C, there is no bigamy.
- Persons and Family Relations, 2009, Sta. Maria, Melencio S.