CHAPTER 2 The article punishes acts whether

done willfully or negligently. As per Article

HUMAN RELATIONS
2176 of the Civil Code, “Whoever by act or
omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
Article 19. EVERY PERSON MUST, IN THE for the damage done.”
EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS AND IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, ACT WITH Torts
JUSTICE, GIVE EVERYONE HIS DUE, AND
- a private or civil wrong or injury, other
OBSERVE HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH.
than breach of contract, for which the
Abuse of Right Doctrine court will provide a remedy in the form of
an action for damages.
Provides a rule of conduct that is
consistent with an orderly and harmonious When No Action for Damages Would
relationship between and among men and Prosper
women.
- if someone be damaged, he does not
Sets certain standards which may necessarily have the right to be
be observed not only in the exercise of indemnified. It is essential that some
one's rights but also in the performance of rights of his be impaired.
one's duties.
When Judiciary Can Interfere in Decisions
Elements of abuse of rights: of Religious Tribunals

There is a legal right or duty; - Civil Courts, according to the Highest

Tribunal, have jurisdiction to inquire into
Which is exercised in bad faith; the jurisdiction of religious tribunals and
the regularity of their procedure; and may
For the sole intent if prejudicing or
even subject their decisions to the test of
injuring another
fairness or to the test furnished by the
Constitution and laws of the Church.
However, civil courts cannot pass upon
Article 20. EVERY PERSON WHO, the abandonment of faith by a member of
CONTRARY TO LAW, WILLFULLY OR the church nor upon restatement of
NEGLIGENTLY CAUSES DAMAGE TO articles of religion since these are
ANOTHER, SHALL INDEMNIFY THE LATTER unquestionably ecclesiastical matters
FOR THE SAME which are outside the province of the civil
Willfully or negligently causes courts.
damage to another

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.

Willful or Negligent Acts

1
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.
Article 21 Distinguished from Article 20
1. In Article 21, the act is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy. In
Article 20, the act is contrary to law.
2. In Article 21, the act is done willfully
(“Willful” means not merely voluntary but
with a bad purpose). In Article 20, the act
is done either willfully or negligently.
“Misconduct” - implies a wrongful
intention and not mere error of of
judgment. Thus, even if a judge is not
correct in his legal conclusions, his judicial
actuations cannot be regarded as grave
misconduct, unless the contrary
sufficiently appears.
A party injured by filing of a court
case against him, even if he is later on
absolved, may file a case for damages
grounded either on the principle of abuse
of rights, or on malicious prosecution.
Regarding the latter, it is well-settled that
one cannot be held liable for maliciously
instituting a prosecution where one has
acted with probable cause. (“Probable
Cause” is the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief,
in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts
within the knowledge of the prosecutor,
that the person charged was guilty of the
crime for which he was prosecuted.)
There is nothing wrong in
preventively suspending an officer prior to
the hearing of formal charges against him
as long as there are reasonable grounds
to believe his guilt. This is to prevent his
office from hampering the normal course
of the investigation.
Can There Be An Action for Breach of
Promise to Marry?
1. For the recovery of actual damages,
YES. Thus, if a teacher resigns from her
position because of a ma’s promise to
marry her, she can recover indemnity for
damages if later on the promise is not
fulfilled.
2. Recovery of Moral Damages
- the Supreme Court held that under the
Civil Code, there can be no recovery of
moral damages for a breach of promise to
marry. However, if there be seduction (act
of man enticing woman to have unlawful
intercourse with him by means of
persuasion, solicitation, promises, bribes,
or other means without employment of
force), moral damages may be recovered
under Article 2219, paragraph 3 of the
Civil Code. The court, however, implied
that if there be moral seduction as
distinguished from criminal seduction,
there MAY BE a grant of moral damages,
possibly under Article 21. However, if it
was the woman who virtually seduced the
man, or if there was “mutual lust” then
there can be no recovery of moral
damages.
3. Sue for ACTUAL damages, should there
be any, such as the expenses for the
wedding preparations.
When there has been NO carnal
knowledge, there may be an action for
actual and moral damages under CERTAIN
conditions, as when there has been
deliberate desire to inflict loss or injury, or
when there has been an evident abuse of
a right. Thus, a man who deliberately fails
to appear at the altar during the
scheduled wedding simply because it was
his intention to embarrass or humiliate the
girl no doubt inflicts irreparable injury to
2
her honor and reputation, wounds her
feelings, and leads the way for her
Article 22. EVERY PERSON WHO THROUGH
possible social ostracism. The girl ins such
AN ACT OF PERFORMANCE BY ANOTHER,
a case can recover not only actual but also
OR ANY OTHER MEANS, ACQUIRES OR
moral and exemplary damages.
COMES INTO POSSESSION OF
SOMETHING AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
LATTER WITHOUT JUST OR LEGAL
Breach of Promise of Employment
GROUND, SHALL RETURN THE SAME TO
- in order that an action for breach of HIM.
promise of employment may succeed,
Prevention of unjust
nothing short of an actual, clear, and
enrichment
positive promise on the part of the
prospective employer must be shown by
competent evidence. His unjustified
Duty to Return What Was Acquired
hopes, perhaps inspired by courteous
Unjustly or Illegally
dealings of the other party, do not
constitute a promise of employment - no person should unjustly enrich
whose breach is actionable at law. himself at the expense of another. (Nemo
cum alterius detrimento protest). It ought
to be noted that when the property is
Sexual Harassment obtained by virtue of a final judgment of a
court, Article 22 cannot apply.
- RA 7877 is an act declaring sexual
harassment unlawful in the employment, - In the same breadth, this Article
education or training environment. embodies the maxim Nemo ex alteriusi
incommode debet lecupletari (“No man
-Sexual harassment is committed in two
ought to be made rich out of another’s
kinds of environments, namely:
injury”).
1. Work Related (e.g., hiring,
Essential Requisites of an “Accion in Rem
reemployment, promotion of employees);
Verso”
and
1. One party must be enriched and the
2. Education or training (e.g., in case of a
other made poorer.
student - giving of a passing grade by the
offender-teacher or the granting of 2. There must be a casual relation
honors/scholarships. between the two.

3. The enrichment must not be justifiable

(so if the law itself allows the enrichment,
of if the enrichment results from a
contract or from the impoverished
person’s own negligence, there can be no
recovery).

4. There must be no other way to recover

(so if, for example, a tort action or a
quasi-contract is proper, it is not
necessary to file a claim in rem verso.

3
5. The indemnity cannot exceed the loss disadvantaged with the end in view that
or enrichment, whichever is less. any decision will be in consonance with
what is right and what is legal.

Reason for the Courts’ Protection of the

Article 23. EVEN WHEN AN ACT OR EVENT
Underdog
CAUSING DAMAGE TO ANOTHER’S
PROPERTY WAS NOT DUE TO THE FAULT - “Parens Patria” - the phrase refers to the
OR NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT, sovereign power of the state in
THE LATTER SHALL BE LIABLE FOR safeguarding the rights of person under
INDEMNITY IF THROUGH THE ACT OR disability, such as the insane and tine
EVENT HE WAS BENEFITED. incompetent.

Unjust enrichment. No person can

claim what is not validly and legally his or
Meaning of “Vigilant for His Protection”
hers.
- the phrase in general means that in case
Nemo cum alterius detrimento
of doubt, the doubt must be resolved in
locupletari potest. No one shall enrich
favor of the underdog.
himself at the expense of another.
Ex. If undue influence intervenes in a will,
Duty to Indemnify Because of Benefit
the will is void; if in a contract, the
Received
contract is voidable.
- unless there is a duty to indemnify,
unjust enrichment will occur.
Inadmissibility of Confessions Obtained
Ex. Without A’s knowledge, a flood drives
through Coercion
his cattle to the cultivated highland of B.
A’s cattle are saved, but B’s crops are - a confession obtained through coercion,
destroyed. True, A was not at fault, but he whether physical, mental, or emotional is
was benefited. It is but right and equitable inadmissible.
that he should indemnify B.

Article 24. IN ALL CONTRACTUAL,

PROPERTY OR OTHER RELATIONS, WHEN
ONE OF THE PARTIES IS AT
DISADVANTAGE ON ACCOUNT OF HIS
MORAL DEPENDENCE, IGNORANCE,
INDIGENCE, MENTAL WEAKNESS, TENDER
AGE OR OTHER HANDICAP, THE COURTS
MUST BE VIGILANT FOR HIS
PROTECTION.

Protecting the rights of the

disadvantage

Court vigilance. The court must

render justice, therefore, must be vigilant
in protecting the rights of the

4

Article 25. THOUGHTLESS
EXTRAVAGANCE IN 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.
Extravagance during emergency
Reason for Curtailing Thoughtless
Extravagance
- thoughtless extravagance during
emergencies may incite the passions of
those who cannot afford to spend.
Who Can Bring The Action
- Only a charitable institution (whether
government or private) may bring the
action.
Article 26. EVERY PERSON SHALL
RESPECT THE DIGNITY, PERSONALITY,
PRIVACY AND PEACE OF MIND OF HIS
NEIGHBORS AND OTHER PERSONS. THE
FOLLONG AND SIMILAR ACTS, THOUGH
THEY MY NOT CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL
FFENCE, SHALL PRODUCE A CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR DAMAGES, PREVENTION AND
OTHER RELIEF:
1. PRYING INTO THE PRIVACY
ANOTHER’S RESIDENCE;
2. MEDDLING WITH OR DISTURBING THE
PRIVATE LIFE O FAMILY RELATIONS OF
ANOTHER;
3. INTRIGUING TO CAUSE ANOTHER TO
BE ALIENATED FROM HIS FRIENDS;
4. 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.
Remedies
1. An action for damages;
2. An action for prevention;
3. Any other relief.
Scope
1. Prying into the privacy of another’s
residence - includes by implication respect
for another’s name, picture, or personality
except insofar as is needed for publication
of information and pictures of legitimate
news value.
2. Meddling with or disturbing the private
life or family relations of another -
includes alienation of the affections of the
husband or the wife. (Thus, a girl who
makes love to a married man, even if
there be no carnal relations, disturbs his
family life, and damages may therefore be
asked of her.) Intriguing against another’s
honor (gossiping) is also included.
3. Intriguing to cause another to be
alienated from his friends - includes
OF
gossiping, and reliance on hearsay.
4. Vexing or Humiliating - includes
criticism of one’s health or features
without justifiable legal cause. Religious
freedom does not authorize anyone to
heap obloquy and disrepute upon another
by reason of the latter’s religion.
5

Article 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.
Refusal or Neglect in the Performance of
Official Duty
- The article refers to a public servant or
employee. The purpose of Article 27 is to
end the pabagsak or bribery system,
where the public official for some flimsy
excuse, delays or refuses the performance
of his duty until he gets some ind of
“pabagsak”.
Three kinds of bribes:
1. The pabagsak - the gift given so that an
illegal thing may be done.
2. The pampadulas - the gift given to
facilitate or expedite the doing of a legal
thing.
3. The pampasalamat - the gift given in
appreciation of a thing already done.
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
HIGH-HANDED METHOD SHALL GIVE RISE
TO A RIGHT OF ACTION BY THE PERSON
WHO THEREBY SUFFERS DAMAGES.
Necessary in a system of free
enterprise to give others fair chance to
engage in business or earn a living.
Reason for Preventing Unfair Competition
- the above provision is necessary in a
system of free enterprise.
Scope
1. Agricultural enterprises
2. Commercial enterprises
3. Industrial enterprises
4. Labor
Thus, the following acts, among others,
are not allowed:
1. A strike prematurely declared
2. A strike for trivial, unjust, or
unreasonable cause.
3. A strike carried out through force,
intimidation or other unlawful means.
4. A strike in order to circumvent valid
obligations entered into a collective
bargaining contract.
5. Cutthroat competition (where one is
ready to lose if only to drive somebody
else out of business).
6. The making of any false statement in
the course of trad to discredit the goods,
business, or service of another.
7. The making of goods so as to deceive
purchasers (and by “purchasers,” the law
means “ordinary of average purchasers”
and not necessarily “intelligent buyers”).
8. Selling goods above the maximum
prices set by the State.
6
Test of Unfair Competition
- the test of unfair competition is whether
a certain goods have been intentionally
clothed with an appearance which is likely
to deceive the ordinary purchasers
exercising ordinary care.
Article 29. WHEN THE ACCUSED IN A
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.
Note: An acquittal on the ground that the
guilt of the defendant “has not been
satisfactorily established” is equivalent to
one on reasonable doubt, and does not
preclude or prevent a civil suit under
Article 29.
Note: Article 29 does not speak of an
independent civil action.
Example of Civil Action After Acquittal In a
Criminal Case
- Mr. A was accused of theft, but he was
acquitted because his guilt had not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mr.B,
the offended party, can institute the civil
action for damages for the same act and
this time, mere preponderance of
evidence is sufficient.
Criminal and Civil Liabilities
- under the Revised Penal Code (Article
100) a person criminally liable is also
civilly liable. The two liabilities are
separate and distinct from each other; the
criminal aspect affects the social order;
the civil, private rights. Once is for the
punishment or correction of the offender,
while the other is for reparation of
damages suffered by the aggrieved part.
Thus, even if the accused be acquitted
because of prescription of the crime, he is
released only from the criminal
responsibility, not the civil liability;
otherwise, the victim would be prejudiced.
Note: Extinction of the penal action does
not carry with t the extinction of civil
liability unless the extinction proceeds
from a declaration in a final judgment that
the fact from which the civil case might
arise did not exist.
7
Note: The Supreme Court has ruled that
when the decision of the lower court
provides “that the evidence throws no
light on the cause of fire, and that was an
unfortunate accident for which the
accused cannot be held responsible,” this
declaration practically means that the
accused cannot be liable, even civilly.
Note: Civil liability in a criminal
case may exist only if there is a criminal
liability. It was therefore improper to
enforce the civil liability in a criminal case.
However, should one desire, the offended
party may institute the corresponding civil
suit for the recovery of the amount
involved in the contractual loan or
agreement.
Note: If in a criminal case, the
accused is acquitted because the fact from
which any civil liability could arise di not
exist, a civil case subsequently brought
must be dismissed. This is not a mere
case of acquittal because of reasonable
doubt.
Rule in Tax Cases
- in the Internal Revenue Code, civil
liability arises first, i.e., civil liability to pay
taxes arises from the fact that one has
earned income or has engaged in business
and not because of any criminal act
committed by him. In other words,
criminal liability comes only after failure of
the debtor to satisfy his civil obligation.
Article 30. 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.
Civil obligation arising from a
criminal offense.
In short, civil obligation arising
from a criminal offense only needs a
preponderance of evidence as a quantum
of proof.
Article 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.
- 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.
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.
Meaning of “Independent Civil Action”
- An independent civil action is one
that is brought distinctly and separately
from a criminal case allowed for
considerations of public policy, because
8
the proof needed for civil cases is less while in the second the obligation to
than that required for criminal cases; but return the money arises ex delicto.
with the injunction in general that success
in financially recovering in one case should
prevent a recovery of damages in the
other. It should be noted that the bringing
of the independent civil action is
permissive, not compulsory.

Instances When the Law Grants an

Independent Civil Action
Article 32. ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR
1. Article 32
EMPLOYEE, OR ANY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL,
- (breach of constitutional and other WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
rights) OBSTRUCTS, DEFEATS, VIOLATES OR IN
ANY MANNER IMPEDES OR IMPAIRS ANY
2. Article 33 OF THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS AND
LIBERTIES OF ANOTHER PERSON SHALL
- (defamation, fraud, physical injuries)
BE LIABLE TO THE LATTER FOR
3. Article 34 DAMAGES:

- (refusal or failure of city or municipal

1. FREEDOM OF RELIGION;
police to give protection)

4. Article 2177 2. FREEDOM OF SPEECH;

- (quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana) 1. FREEDOM TO WRITE FOR THE

PRESS OF TO MAINTAIN A PERIODICAL
PUBLICATION;
Scope of Article 31 (Obligation Not Arising
From a Crime) 3. FREEDOM FROM ARBITRARY OR
ILLEGAL DETENTION;
- Article 31 contemplates a case
where the obligation does not arise from a 4. FREEDOM FROM SUFFRAGE;
crime, but from some other act - like a
contract or a legal duty. 5. THE RIGHT AGAINST
DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS OF LAW;
Examples:
6. THE RIGHT TO A JUST
1. A civil complaint for separation
COMPENSATION WHEN PRIVATE
of property can continue even if a criminal
PROPERTY IS TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE;
action for concubinage is subsequently
filed.
7. THE RIGHT TO THE EQUAL
2. A civil action for recovery of PROTECTION OF THE LAWS;
government funds in the hands of a
postmaster can prosper independently of 8. THE RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN
a charge of malversation, since the first, ONE’S PERSON, HOUSE, PAPERS, AND
the obligation arises from law (ex lege), EFFECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES;

9
 9. THE LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF 18. FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO TH
CHANGING OF THE SAME; COURTS.

10. THE PRIVACY OF IN ANY OF THE CASES REFERRED

COMMUNICATION AND
CORRESPONDENCE;
11. THE RIGHT TO BECOME A
MEMBER OF ASSOCIATIONS OR
SOCIETIES FOR PURPOSES NOT
CONTRARY TO LAW;
12. THE RIGHT TO TAKE PART IN A
PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY TO PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OR
GRIEVANCES;
13. THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IN ANY FORM;
14. THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED
AGAINST EXCESSIVE BAIL;
15. THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED
TO BE HEART 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;
16. FREEDOM FROM BEING
COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST
ONE’S SELF, OR FROM BEING FORCES 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;
17. FREEDOM FROM EXCESSIVE
FINES, OR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT, UNLESS THE SAME IS
IMPOSE OR INFLICTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH A STATUTE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN
JUDICIALLY DECLARED AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL; AND
TO IN THIS ARTICLE, WHETHER OR NOT
THE DEFENDANT’S ACT OR OMISSION
CONSTITUTES 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 PROSECTION (IF THE
LATTER BE INSTITUTED), AND MAY BE
PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF
EVIDENCE..
THE INDEMNITY SHALL INCLUDE
MORAL DAMAGES. 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.
Art 32 renders any public officer of
employee or any private individual liable
in damages for violating the constitutional
rights and liberties of another.
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.
The “cardinal primary” requirements of
due process in administrative proceedings
are:
1. The right to a hearing which includes
the right to present one’s case and submit
evidence to support thereof;

10
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
3. The decision must have something to
support itself;
4. The evidence must be substantial,
which means such evidence as a
reasonable mind must accept as adequate
to support a conclusion;
5. The decision must be based on the
evidence presented at the hearing, or at
least contained in the record and disclosed
to the parties affected;
6. The tribunal or body or any of its
judges must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and
facts of the controversy, and not simply
accept the views of a subordinate; and
7. The board or body should in all
controversial questions, render its
decisions in such manner that the parties
to the proceeding can know the various
issues involved, and the reason for the
decision rendered.
Note: Article 32, which renders any
public officer or employee or any public
individual liable in damages for violation
the constitutional rights and liberties of
another, as enumerated therein, does not
exempt military officials and offices from
responsibility.
Note: In a custodial investigation,
if an accused makes an extrajudicial
confession the same must be in the
presence of and assistance of counsel.
The waiver of this right, if the waiver is to
be valid, should be in writing and must be
made in the presence of his counsel.
Scope
It should be noted that the following can
be made liable:
1. Any public officer or employee
2. Any private individual even if he
be in good faith;
Note: A civil action against a public
official would mean that the defendant is
not the state, but the public officer
involved. Hence, the consent of the state
is not required.
Reason for the Creation of an Independent
Civil Action under Article 32
1. Sometimes the fiscal
(prosecutor) is afraid to prosecute fellow
public officials, and the citizen may be left
without redress.
2. Even when the fiscal
(prosecutor) files a criminal case, still said
case requires proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, a requirement much
harder to comply with than mere
preponderance of evidence.
3. There are many unconstitutional
acts which are not yet made crimes. The
remedy for this is clearly a civil action.
Article 33. 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.
Article 33 does not refer to
unintentional acts or those without
malice.
11
Article 33 speaks of:
1. Defamation (or libel or slander or
intrigue against honor)
2. Fraud (or estafa or swindling)
3.Physical injuries including
consummated, frustrated and attempted
homicide, murder, parricide, infanticide -
so long as there was physical injury.
Note: A separate civil action for
damages based on injuries arising from
reckless driving should be dismissed if the
driver-accused had been acquitted in the
criminal action on the ground that he was
not negligent the entire mishap being a
“pure accident”.
Article 34. 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 SUBSIDIARILY
RESPONSIBLE THEREFOR. THE CIVIL
ACTION HEREIN RECOGNIZED SHALL BE
INDEPENDENT OF ANY CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS, AND A PREPONDERANCE
OF EVIDENCE SHALL SUFFICE TO
SUPPORT SUCH ACTION.
Note: This Article does not grant to the
government the defense of due diligence
in the selection and supervision of the
policemen.
Does the Article apply to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Force and to
National Government? - NO.
Article 35. 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 A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES
AGAINST THE ALLEGED OFFENDER. SUCH
CIVIL ACTION MAY BE SUPPORTED BY A
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.
IF 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.
Rule if no Independent Civil Action is
Granted
- this Article applies to cases when
there is no independent civil action (such
as when the liability sought to be
recovered arises from a crime); and not to
12
a tortuious action such as that provided
for under Article 33.
Example:
A woman accused her classmate of
committing against her the crime of
unintentional abortion. But the fiscal
refused to institute criminal proceedings.
She may bring a civil action for damages
against the alleged offender, but if in the
course of the trial, an information should
be presented by the fiscal, charging the
classmate with the crime, the civil action
shall be suspended until the termination of
the criminal proceedings.
Case
FACTS: In a criminal case, the aggrieved party
reserved the right to file a separate civil action.
Despite this reservation, the court sentenced
the accused to pay civil indemnity.
ISSUE: Is the judgment res judicata?
HELD: The judgment, except as to the fact of
commission by the accused of the act charged
therein CANNOT be res judicata, constituting a
bar to the civil action to enforce the subsidiary
or primary liability of the defendants who were
not parties to the criminal case.
Article 36. PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS,
WHICH MUST BE DECIDED BEFORE ANY
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION MAY BE
INSTITUTED OR MAY PROCEED, SHALL BE
GOVERNED BY THE 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.
Definition of a “Prejudicial Question”
- a prejudicial question is one which must
be decided first before a criminal action
may be instituted or may proceed because
a decision therein is vital to the judgment
in the criminal case.
- the Supreme Court defined it as one
which arises in a case, the resolution of
which question is a logical antecedent of
the issues involved in said case and the
cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal.
Note: Neither is there a prejudicial question if
the civil and criminal action can, according to
law, proceed independently of each other.
Two Elements:
1. The prejudicial question must be
determinative of the case before the
Court;
2. Jurisdiction to try said question must be
lodged in another tribunal
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 former, it must
appear not only that the civil case involves
the same facts upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based, but also that
in the resolution of the issues raised in
said civil action, the guilt or innocence of
the accused would necessarily be
determined.
A prejudicial question is a question
which is based on a fact distinct and
separate from the crime but so intimately
connected with it that its resolution is
determinative of the guilt of innocence of
the accused.
Requisites of Prejudicial Questions
1. The civil case involves facts intimately
related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based;
13
2. In the resolution of the issue or issues there was no fault or negligence on their
raised in the civil actions, the guilt or part.
innocence of the accused would
necessarily be determined; and Should there be no person having such
insane, imbecile or minor under his
3. Jurisdiction to try said question must be authority, legal guardianship or control, or
lodged in another tribunal.
if such person be insolvent, said insane,
imbecile, or minor shall respond with their
own property, excepting property exempt
Example
from execution, in accordance with the
In an action for bigamy, for example, if civil law.
the accused claims that the first marriage is
null and void, and the right to decide such Second. In cases falling within
validity is vested in another tribunal, the civil subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for
action for nullity must first be decided before whose benefit the harm has been
the action for bigamy can proceed; hence, the prevented shall be civilly liable in
validity of the first marriage is a prejudicial
proportion to the benefit which they may
question.
have received.
CIVIL LIABILITY
The courts shall determine, in sound
discretion, the proportionate amount for
Chapter One
which each one shall be liable.
PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
(REVISED PENAL CODE)
When the respective shares cannot be
equitably determined, even
approximately, or when the liability also
Article 100. Civil liability of a person
attaches to the Government, or to the
guilty of felony. - Every person criminally
majority of the inhabitants of the town,
liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
and, in all events, whenever the damages
have been caused with the consent of the
authorities or their agents, indemnification
Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability
shall be made in the manner prescribed by
in certain cases. - The exemption from
special laws or regulations.
criminal liability established in subdivisions
1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in
Third. In cases falling within
subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code
subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the
does not include exemption from civil
persons using violence or causing the
liability, which shall be enforced subject to
fears shall be primarily liable and
the following rules:
secondarily, or, if there be no such
persons, those doing the act shall be
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2,
liable, saving always to the latter that part
and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for
of their property exempt from execution.
acts committed by an imbecile or insane
person, and by a person under nine years
of age, or by one over nine but under
fifteen years of age, who has acted
without discernment, shall devolve upon
those having such person under their legal
authority or control, unless it appears that

14

(REVISED PENAL CODE)
Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The
following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or
rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself.
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person
or rights of his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in
the same degrees and those consanguinity
within the fourth civil degree, provided that the
first and second requisites prescribed in the
next preceding circumstance are present, and
the further requisite, in case the revocation
was given by the person attacked, that the one
making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or
rights of a stranger, provided that the first and
second requisites mentioned in the first
circumstance of this Article are present and
that the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
injury, does not act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites
are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided
actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than
that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an
order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from
criminal liability. - the following are exempt
from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the
latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has
committed an act which the law defines as a
felony (delito), the court shall order his
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus afflicted, which he
shall not be permitted to leave without first
obtaining the permission of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under
fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment,
in which case, such minor shall be proceeded
against in accordance with the provisions of
Art. 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
irresponsible, the court, in conformably with
the provisions of this and the preceding
15
paragraph, shall commit him to the care and
custody of his family who shall be charged with
his surveillance and education otherwise, he
shall be committed to the care of some
institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful
act with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of
irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of
an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act
required by law, when prevented by some
lawful insuperable cause.
THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
(As amended, December 1, 2000)
RULE 111 Prosecution of Civil Action
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.
When the offended party seeks to enforce
civil liability against the accused by way of
moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary
damages without specifying the amount
thereof in the complaint or information, the
filing fees thereof shall constitute a first lien
on the judgment awarding such damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than
actual, is specified in the complaint or
information, the corresponding filing fees
shall be paid by the offended party upon the
filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules,
no filing fees shall be required for actual
damages.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
complaint may be filed by the accused in the
criminal case, but any cause of action which
could have been the subject thereof may be
litigated in a separate civil action. (1a)
(b) The criminal action for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to
include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and
civil actions, the offended party shall pay in
full the filing fees based on the amount of
the check involved, which shall be
considered as the actual damages claimed.
Where the complaint or information also
seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal,
temperate or exemplary damages, the
offended party shall pay additional filing fees
based on the amounts alleged therein. If the
amounts are not so alleged but any of these
damages are subsequently awarded by the
court, the filing fees based on the amount
awarded shall constitute a first lien on the
judgment.
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. (cir. 57-97)
16
Section 2. When separate civil action is
suspended. — After the criminal action has
been commenced, the separate civil action
arising therefrom cannot be instituted until
final judgment has been entered in the
criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said
civil action has already been instituted, the
latter shall be suspended in whatever stage
it may be found before judgment on the
merits. The suspension shall last until final
judgment is rendered in the criminal action.
Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits
is rendered in the civil action, the same
may, upon motion of the offended party, be
consolidated with the criminal action in the
court trying the criminal action. In case of
consolidation, the evidence already adduced
in the civil action shall be deemed
automatically reproduced in the criminal
action without prejudice to the right of the
prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses
presented by the offended party in the
criminal case and of the parties to present
additional evidence. The consolidated
criminal and civil actions shall be tried and
decided jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action,
the running of the period of prescription of
the civil action which cannot be instituted
separately or whose proceeding has been
suspended shall be tolled. (n)
The extinction of the penal action does not
carry with it extinction of the civil action.
However, the civil action based on delict
shall be deemed extinguished if there is a
finding in a final judgment in the criminal
action that the act or omission from which
the civil liability may arise did not exist. (2a)
Section 3. When civil action may
proceeded independently. — In the cases
provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176
of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the
independent civil action may be brought by
the offended party. It shall proceed
independently of the criminal action and
shall require only a preponderance of
evidence. In no case, however, may the
offended party recover damages twice for
the same act or omission charged in the
criminal action. (3a)
Section 4. Effect of death on civil
actions. — The death of the accused after
arraignment and during the pendency of the
criminal action shall extinguish the civil
liability arising from the delict. However, the
independent civil action instituted under
section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is
instituted to enforce liability arising from
other sources of obligation may be continued
against the estate or legal representative of
the accused after proper substitution or
against said estate, as the case may be. The
heirs of the accused may be substituted for
the deceased without requiring the
appointment of an executor or administrator
and the court may appoint a guardian ad
litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal
representative or representatives to appear
and be substituted within a period of thirty
(30) days from notice.
A final judgment entered in favor of the
offended party shall be enforced in the
manner especially provided in these rules for
prosecuting claims against the estate of the
deceased.
If the accused dies before arraignment, the
case shall be dismissed without prejudice to
any civil action the offended party may file
against the estate of the deceased. (n)
Section 5. Judgment in civil action not a
bar. — A final judgment rendered in a civil
action absolving the defendant from civil
liability is not a bar to a criminal action
against the defendant for the same act or
omission subject of the civil action. (4a)
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
17
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. (6a)
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. (5a)
QUASI-DELICTS (NCC)
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission
causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties,
is called a quasi-delict and is governed by
the provisions of this Chapter.
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or
negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the
civil liability arising from negligence under
the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant. (n)
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or
more persons who are liable for quasi-
delict is solidary. (n)
GENERAL ORDER NO. 15
(Oct 5, 1972)
WHEREAS, one of the objectives
for the issuance of Proclamation No. 1081
dated September 21, 1972, placing the
entire country under martial law, is to
effect social, economic and political
reforms, and thus bring about the
transformation of a new society in our
country, one infused with a profound
sense of discipline, and social conscience;
WHEREAS, every citizen and
resident of the Philippines should
participate in bringing about a new and
reformed society in our country;
WHEREAS, every effort to save and
economize on the nation’s already scarce
resources should be exerted;
WHEREAS, among others, Article
25 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
(Rep. Act No. 386) enjoins against
thoughtless extravagance in expenses for
pleasure or display during a period of
emergency;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND
E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines,
by virtue of the powers vested in me by
the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief
of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081
and General Order No. 1 both dated
September 22, 1972, do hereby call upon
every resident and citizen of the
Philippines, including all elective local
officials from provincial governors and city
mayors down to barrio captains and
councilmen, to avoid and prevent, as the
case may be, ostentatious display of
wealth and extravagance, including lavish
town fiestas or social gatherings. To this
end, they are directed to limit town fiestas
and other local festivities to one day,
which should be as simple and economical
as possible.
18
 All concerned, particularly the local
executives aforementioned, are enjoined
to comply with and to enforce this Order.

Done in the City of Manila, this 5th

day of October, in the year of Our Lord,
nineteen hundred and seventy-two.

(Sgd.) FERDINAND E. MARCOS

President
Republic of the Philippines

By the President:
(Sgd.) ROBERTO V. REYES
Assistant Executive Secretary

19