Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The
source of the obligation sought to be enforced
PETITIONERS: Candida Virata in Civil Case No. B-134 is quasi-delict, not an
Tomas Virata act or omission punishable by law. Under
Manolito Virata Article 1157 of the Civil Code of the
Ederlinda Virata Philippines, quasi-delict and an act or
Napoleon Virata omission punishable by law are two
Aracely Virata different sources of obligation.
Zenaida Virata o Moreover, for the petitioners to prevail in the
Luzminda Virata action for damages, Civil Case No. B-134, they
Pacita Virata have only to establish their cause of action by
Evangelina Virata preponderance of the evidence.
RESPONDENTS: Victorio Ochoa o WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal
Maximo Borilla appealed from is hereby set aside and Civil
The Court of First Instance of Cavite, Case No. B-134 is reinstated and remanded
7th Judicial District, Branch V to the lower court for further proceedings,
stationed @ Bacoor, Cavite with costs against the private respondents.
DOCKET NO.: G.R. No. L46179
PROMUL. DATE: January 31, 1978
PONENTE: Fernandez, J.
FACTS:
September 24, 1975 ARSENIO VIRATA died as a
result of having been bumped while walking along Taft
Avenue, Pasay City by a passenger jeepney driven by
MAXIMO BORILLA and registered in the name of
VICTORIO OCHOA.
o Borilla is the employer of Ochoa.
o For the death of Arsenio, an action for Homicide
through Reckless Imprudence was instituted on
September 25, 1975 against Borillo in CFI of
Rizal, at Pasay City (Crim. Case No. 3162-P).
HELD:
o A carful examination of the complaint shows hat
the civil action is one under Articles 2176 and
2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. All the
elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit:
(a) damages suffered by the plaintiff,
WYLIE V RARANG Wylie, Williams, and the Naval Base filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ff grounds:
PETITIONERS: M.H. Wylie o 1. Wylie and Williams acted in the performance
Capt. James Williams of their official functions as officers of the US
RESPONDENTS: Aurora I. Rarang Navy and are immune from suit
The Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court o 2. The US Naval Base is an instrumentality of
DOCKET NO.: G.R. No. 74135 the US government which cannot be sued
PROMUL. DATE: May 28, 1992 without its consent
PONENTE: Gutierrez, Jr., J. o 3. lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties.
FACTS: o MOTION DENIED.
AT THE NAVAL BASE.
o February 1978, petnr M.H. Wylie was the TRIAL COURT
assistant administrative officer and Capt. o the acts of Wylie and Williams werent official
James Williams was the commanding officer of acts of the US government in the operation and
the US Naval Base in Subic Bay, Olongapo control of the Base but personal and tortious
City. acts which are exceptions to the general rule
o Aurora I. Rarang was employed as a that a sovereign country cant be sued in the
merchandise control guard in the Office of the court of another country without its consent.
Provost Marshal. Thus their acts werent imputable against the
Wylie, in his capacity as the asst. admin. officer, US government but were done in their
supervised the publication of the Naval Base stations individual and personal capacities
Plan of the Day (POD), which featured important o They were ordered to pay Rarang P100K moral
announcements, necessary precautions, and and exemplary damages, and P30K attorneys
general matters of interest to military personnel. fees.
One of its regular features was the action line inquiry. o However, the suit against the US Naval Base
February 3, 1978 the POD published, under the was dismissed.
NAVSTA Action Line Inquiry, the ff:
Question: I have observed that Merchandise APPEAL
Control inspector/inspectress are (sic) o Wylie and Williams asserted that they are
consuming for their own benefit things they immune from suit since the publication was
have confiscated from Base Personnel. The made in their official capacities as officers of the
observation is even more aggravated by U. S. Navy, and that they did not intentionally
consuming such confiscated items as and maliciously cause the publication.
cigarettes and food stuffs PUBLICLY. This is o Rarang also appealed as she wasnt satisfied
not to mention Auring who is in herself, a with the award.
disgrace to her division and to the Office of the
Provost Marshal. In lieu of this observation, THE IAC MODIFIED THE TCS DECISION - Rarang
may I therefore, ask if the head of the was awarded P175K moral damages and P60K
Merchandise Control Division is aware of this exemplary damages.
malpractice?
PETITION FOR REVIEW
Answer: Merchandise Control Guards and all o they made the publication in the performance of
other personnel are prohibited from their official functions as administrative
appropriating confiscated items for their own assistant (Wylie) and commanding officer
consumption or use. Two locked containers are (Williams) of the US Navy and were, therefore,
installed at the Main Gate area for deposit of immune from suit for their official actions.
confiscated items and the OPM evidence
custodian controls access to these containers. ISSUE:
o WON Wylie and Williams are liable for the
Merchandise Control Guards are permitted to published article in the POD
eat their meals at their worksite due to heavy o WON the grant of rights, power, and authority
workload. Complaints regarding merchandise to the US under the RP-US Bases Treaty cover
control guards procedure or actions may be immunity of its officers from crimes and torts
made directly at the Office of the Provost
Marshal for immediate and necessary action. HELD:
Specific dates and time along with details of o YES, and NO, respectively.
suspected violations would be most o The general rule is that public officials can be
appreciated. Telephone 4-3430/4-3234 for held personally accountable for acts claimed to
further information or to report noted or have been performed in connection with official
suspected irregularities. Exhibits E & E-1. duties where they have acted ultra vires or
where there is showing of bad faith (Chavez v.
o Aurora Rarang was the Auring being referred Sandiganbayan).
to here, as she was the only one with that name o It may be argued, as a general rule, that Capt.
in the Office of the Provost Marshall, which was Williams as commanding officer of the naval
conclusively proven when on February 7, 1978, base was far removed in the chain of command
petitioner M. H. Wylie wrote her a letter of from the offensive publication and it would be
apology for the inadvertent publication. asking too much to hold him responsible for
everything which goes wrong on the base.
Rarang instituted an action for damages in the CFI of However, in this particular case, the records
Zambales against Wylie, Capt. James Williams, and the show that the offensive publication was sent to
US Naval Base. She prayed for P300K moral damages, the commanding officer for approval and that he
exemplary damages, and P50K attorneys fees. approved it.
o RARANGS ALLEGATIONS: the article o Petitioner Wylie himself admitted that the Office
constituted false, injurious, and malicious of the Provost Marshal explicitly recommended
defamation and libel tending to impeach her the deletion of the name Auring if the article
honesty, virtue and reputation exposing her to will be published. The petitioners, however,
public hatred, contempt and ridicule. were NEGLIGENT because under their
o the libel was published and circulated in the direction, they issued the publication without
English language and read by almost all the deleting the said name. Such act or omission
U.S. Naval Base personnel.
was ULTRA VIRES and CANNOT be deemed
part of official duty. It was a TORTIOUS ACT
which ridiculed the private respondent. As a
result of petitioners act, PR suffered
besmirched reputation, serious anxiety,
wounded feelings and social humiliation,
especially so, since the article was baseless
and false. The petitioners, alone, in their
personal capacities, are liable for the damages
they caused the Private Respondent.