CASE NO. 35 Poe-Llamanzares v.

Comelec, After a few months, specifically on 13

GR. No. 221697 March 8, 2016 December 2004, petitioner rushed back to the
Philippines upon learning of her father's
FACTS: Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe- deteriorating medical condition. 17 Her father
Llamanzares (petitioner) was found abandoned slipped into a coma and eventually expired.
as a newborn infant in the Parish Church of The petitioner stayed in the country until 3
Jaro, Iloilo by a certain Edgardo Militar February 2005 to take care of her father's
(Edgardo) on 3 September 1968. funeral arrangements as well as to assist in the
When she was 5 years old, she was adopted settlement of his estate.18
by the celebrity spouses Fernando Poe and According to the petitioner, the untimely
Susan Roces the petition for adoption was files demise of her father was a severe blow to her
in the MTC of San Juan City. entire family. In her earnest desire to be with
Having reached the age of eighteen (18) years her grieving mother, the petitioner and her
in 1986, petitioner registered as a voter with husband decided to move and reside
the local COMELEC Office in San Juan City. permanently in the Philippines sometime in the
first quarter of 2005
Initially, the petitioner enrolled and pursued a
degree in Development Studies at the In early 2006, petitioner and her husband
University of the Philippines8 but she opted to acquired a 509-square meter lot in Corinthian
continue her studies abroad and left for the Hills, Quezon City where they built their family
United States of America (U.S.) in 1988. home34 and to this day, is where the couple
Petitioner graduated in 1991 from Boston and their children have been residing.35 A
College in Chestnuts Hill, Massachusetts Transfer Certificate of Title covering said
where she earned her Bachelor of Arts degree property was issued in the couple's name by
in Political Studies.9 the Register of Deeds of Quezon City on 1June
2006.
On 27 July 1991, petitioner married Teodoro
Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares (Llamanzares), On 7 July 2006, petitioner took her Oath of
a citizen of both the Philippines and the U.S., Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
at Sanctuario de San Jose Parish in San Juan pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the
City. 10 Desirous of being with her husband Citizenship Retention and Re- acquisition Act
who was then based in the U.S., the couple of 2003.36 Under the same Act, she filed with
flew back to the U.S. two days after the the Bureau of Immigration (BI) a sworn petition
wedding ceremony or on 29 July 1991. 11 to reacquire Philippine citizenship together with
petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of
On 18 October 2001, petitioner became a her three minor children on 10 July 2006.37 As
naturalized American citizen. can be gathered from its 18 July 2006 Order,
the BI acted favorably on petitioner's petitions
On 8 April 2004, the petitioner came back to
and declared that she is deemed to have
the Philippines together with Hanna to support
reacquired her Philippine citizenship while her
her father's candidacy for President in the May
children are considered as citizens of the
2004 elections. It was during this time that she
Philippines.38 Consequently, the BI issued
gave birth to her youngest daughter Anika. She
Identification Certificates (ICs) in petitioner's
returned to the U.S. with her two daughters on
name and in the names of her three (3)
8 July 2004. 16
children. 39
petitioner registered as a voter of Barangay On 15 October 2015, petitioner filed her COC
Santa Lucia, San Juan City on 31 August for the Presidency for the May 2016 Elections.
2006. 56 In her COC, the petitioner declared that she
is a natural-born citizen and that her residence
On 6 October 2010, President Benigno S. in the Philippines up to the day before 9 May
Aquino III appointed petitioner as Chairperson 2016 would be ten (10) years and eleven (11)
of the Movie and Television Review and months counted from 24 May 2005.57 The
Classification Board (MTRCB).43 Before petitioner attached to her COC an "Affidavit
assuming her post, petitioner executed an Affirming Renunciation of U.S.A. Citizenship"
"Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the subscribed and sworn to before a notary public
United States of America and Renunciation of in Quezon City on 14 October 2015. 58
American Citizenship" before a notary public in
Pasig City on 20 October 2010,44 in Petitioner's filing of her COC for President in
satisfaction of the legal requisites stated in the upcoming elections triggered the filing of
Section 5 of R.A. No. 9225.45 The following several COMELEC cases against her which
day, 21 October 2010 petitioner submitted the were the subject of these consolidated cases.
said affidavit to the BI46 and took her oath of
office as Chairperson of the MTRCB.47 From A day after petitioner filed her COC for
then on, petitioner stopped using her American President, Estrella Elamparo (Elamparo) filed a
passport.48 petition to deny due course or cancel said COC
which was docketed as SPA No. 15-001 (DC)
On 12 July 2011, the petitioner executed and raffled to the COMELEC Second
before the Vice Consul of the U.S. Embassy in Division.59She is convinced that the
Manila an "Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of COMELEC has jurisdiction over her petition.60
Nationality of the United States."49 On that Essentially, Elamparo's contention is that
day, she accomplished a sworn questionnaire petitioner committed material
before the U.S. Vice Consul wherein she misrepresentation when she stated in her COC
stated that she had taken her oath as MTRCB that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen and
Chairperson on 21 October 2010 with the that she is a resident of the Philippines for at
intent, among others, of relinquishing her least ten (10) years and eleven (11) months up
American citizenship.50 In the same to the day before the 9 May 2016 Elections.61
questionnaire, the petitioner stated that she
had resided outside of the U.S., specifically in On the issue of citizenship, Elamparo argued
the Philippines, from 3 September 1968 to 29 that petitioner cannot be considered as a
July 1991 and from May 2005 to present.51 natural-born Filipino on account of the fact that
she was a foundling.62 Elamparo claimed that
On 2 October 2012, the petitioner filed with the international law does not confer natural-born
COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) status and Filipino citizenship on foundlings.63
for Senator for the 2013 Elections wherein she Following this line of reasoning, petitioner is
answered "6 years and 6 months" to the not qualified to apply for reacquisition of
question "Period of residence in the Philippines Filipino citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 for she
before May 13, 2013."53 Petitioner obtained is not a natural-born Filipino citizen to begin
the highest number of votes and was with.64Even assuming arguendo that petitioner
proclaimed Senator on 16 May 2013. was a natural- born Filipino, she is deemed to
have lost that status when she became a
naturalized American citizen.65 According to
Elamparo, natural-born citizenship must be
continuous from birth.66

Issues: Did the petitioner failed to meet with

the requirements specified in filing for COC for
presidency? Residency, Natural born citizen?

Law: Article 15 NCC

Ruling – No in favor of the petitioner. Adoption

deals with status and a Philippine adoption
court will have jurisdiction only if the adoptee is
a Filipino. Foundlings are among the Filipino
children that can be adopted. Her adoptive
parents who were Naturally born Filipinos are
given to be her birth parents to be stated in her
birth certificate.
CASE NO. 36 Orion Savings Bank v Suzuki. Before long, Suzuki learned that CCT No. 9118
GR. No. 205487 Nov 12 2014 representing the title to the Parking Slot No. 42
contained no annotations although it remained
FACTS: In the first week of August 2003, under the name of Cityland Pioneer.
respondent Shigekane Suzuki (Suzuki), a
Japanese national, met with Ms. Helen Soneja This notwithstanding, Cityland Pioneer, through
(Soneja) to inquire about a condominium unit Assistant Vice President Rosario D. Perez,
and a parking slot at Cityland Pioneer, certified that Kang had fully paid the purchase
Mandaluyong City, allegedly owned by Yung price of Unit. No. 53610 and Parking Slot No.
Sam Kang (Kang), a Korean national and a 42.11 CCT No. 18186 representing the title to
Special Resident Retiree's Visa (SRRV) holder. the condominium unit had no existing
encumbrance, except for anannotation under
At the meeting, Soneja informed Suzuki that Entry No. 73321/C-10186 which provided that
Unit No. 536 [covered by Condominium any conveyance or encumbrance of CCT No.
Certificate of Title (CCT) No. 18186]4 and 18186 shall be subject to approval by the
Parking Slot No. 42 [covered by CCT No. Philippine Retirement Authority (PRA).
9118]5 were for sale for ₱3,000,000.00. Soneja Although CCT No. 18186 contained Entry No.
likewise assured Suzuki that the titles to the 66432/C-10186 dated February 2, 1999
unit and the parking slot were clean. After a representing a mortgage in favor of Orion for a
brief negotiation, the parties agreed to reduce ₱1,000,000.00 loan, that annotation was
the price to ₱2,800,000.00. On August 5, 2003, subsequently cancelled on June 16, 2000 by
Suzuki issued Kang a Bank of the Philippine Entry No. 73232/T. No. 10186. Despite the
Island (BPI) Check No. 833496 for One cancellation of the mortgage to Orion, the titles
Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱100,000.00) as to the properties remained in possession of
reservation fee.7 On August 21, 2003, Suzuki Perez.
issued Kang another check, BPI Check No.
83350,8 this time for ₱2,700,000.00 To protect his interests, Suzuki thenexecuted
representing the remaining balance of the an Affidavit of Adverse Claim12 dated
purchase price. Suzuki and Kang then September 8, 2003, withthe Registry of Deeds
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated of Mandaluyong City, annotated as Entry No.
August 26, 20039covering Unit No. 536 and 3292/C-No. 18186 in CCT No. 18186. Suzuki
Parking Slot No. 42. Soon after, Suzuki took then demanded the delivery of the titles.13
possession of the condominium unit and Orion, (through Perez), however, refused to
parking lot, and commenced the renovation of surrender the titles, and cited the need to
the interior of the condominium unit. consult Orion’s legal counsel as its reason.

Kang thereafter made several representations On October 14, 2003, Suzuki received a letter
with Suzuki to deliver the titles to the from Orion’s counsel dated October 9, 2003,
properties, which were then allegedly in stating that Kang obtained another loan in the
possession of Alexander Perez (Perez, Orion’s amount of ₱1,800,000.00. When Kang failed to
Loans Officer) for safekeeping. Despite several pay, he executed a Dacion en Pagodated
verbal demands, Kang failed to deliver the February 2, 2003, in favorof Orion covering
documents. Suzuki later on learned that Kang Unit No. 536. Orion, however, did not register
had left the country, prompting Suzuki to verify the Dacion en Pago, until October 15, 2003.
the status of the properties with the
Mandaluyong City Registry of Deeds.
On October 28, 2003, Suzuki executed an
Affidavit of Adverse Claim over Parking Slot
No. 42 (covered by CCT No. 9118) and this
was annotated as Entry No. 4712/C-No. 9118
in the parking lot’s title.

On January 27, 2004, Suzuki filed a complaint

for specific performance and damages against
Kang and Orion

Issue: Did the respondent didn’t have the

rights to the properties he acquired?

Ruling It is a universal principle that real or

immovable property is exclusively subject to
the laws of the country or state where it is
located. The reason is found in the very nature
of immovable property — its immobility.
Immovables are part of the country and so
closely connected to it that all rights over them
have their natural center of gravity there.22

Thus, all matters concerning the title and

disposition of real property are determined by
what is known as the lex loci rei sitae, which
can alone prescribe the mode by which a title
can pass from one person to another, or by
which an interest therein can be gained or lost.
This general principle includes all rules
governing the descent, alienation and transfer
of immovable property and the validity, effect
and construction of wills and other
conveyances.
CASE NO. 37 Industrial Personnel and ISSUE: Can a foreign law govern an overseas
Management Services Inc. v. De Vera, GR. employment contract
No. 205703 Mar 7, 2016
RULING:
FACTS: Arriola was offered by SNC-Lavalin,
through its letter, 5 dated May 1, 2008, the NLRC RULING: all Filipino workers enjoyed
position of Safety Ofcer in its Ambatovy Project the protective mantle of Philippine labor and
site in Madagascar. social legislation, contract stipulations to the
contrary notwithstanding. Thus, the Labor
Arriola was then hired by SNC-Lavalin, through Code of the Philippines and Republic Act ( R .
its local manning agency, IPAMS, and his A .) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers Act, as
overseas employment contract was processed amended, should be applied. Moreover, the
with the Philippine Overseas Employment NLRC added that the overseas employment
Agency ( P O E A ) . 6 In a letter of contract of Arriola was processed in the POEA.
understanding, 7 dated June 5, 2008, SNC-
Lavalin conrmed Arriola's assignment in the CA RULING:
Ambatovy Project. According to Arriola, he The petitioners failed to comply with the rest
signed the contract of employment in the requisite because no foreign law was expressly
Philippines. 8 On June 9, 2008, Arriola started stipulated in the overseas employment contract
working in Madagascar. cSaAT with Arriola. In its pleadings, the petitioners did
After three months, Arriola received a notice of not directly cite any specific provision or
pre-termination of employment, 9 dated stipulation in the said labor contract which
September 9, 2009, n from SNC-Lavalin. It indicated the applicability of the Canadian labor
stated that his employment would be pre- laws
terminated effective September 11, 2009 due It is apparent that the petitioners were simply
to diminishing workload in the area of his attempting to stretch the overseas employment
expertise and the unavailability of alternative contract of Arriola, by implication, in order that
assignments the alleged foreign law would apply.
Aggrieved, Arriola led a complaint against the Further, it was shown that the overseas labor
petitioners for illegal dismissal and non- contract was executed by Arriola at his
payment of overtime pay, vacation leave and residence in Batangas and it was processed at
sick leave pay before the Labor Arbiter ( L A ) . the POEA on May 26, 2008. 47 Considering
He claimed that SNC-Lavalin still owed him that no foreign law was specified in the
unpaid salaries equivalent to the three-month contract and the same was executed in the
unexpired portion of his contract, amounting to, Philippines, the doctrine of l e x l o c i c e l e b r
more or less, One Million Sixty-Two Thousand a t i o ni s applies and the Philippine laws shall
Nine Hundred Thirty-Six Pesos govern the overseas employment of Arriola.
(P1,062,936.00). He asserted that SNC-Lavalin
never offered any valid reason for his early
termination and that he was not given sufcient
notice regarding the same. Arriola also insisted
that the petitioners must prove the applicability
of Canadian law before the same could be
applied to his employment contract.
CASE NO. 39 RCPI v. CA, Aug 29, 1986 143
SCRA 657
ISSUE: Did the CA erred in holding the liability
FACTS: The basis of the complaint against the of petitioner-company- employer is predicated
defendant corporation is a telegram sent on Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code
through its Manila Office to the offended party,
Loreto Dionela, reading as follows: RULING

176 AS JR 1215PM 9 PAID MANDALUYONG The cause of action of the private respondent
JUL 22-66 LORETO DIONELA CABANGAN is based on Arts. 19 and 20 of the New Civil
LEGASPI CITY Code (supra). As well as on respondent's
breach of contract thru the negligence of its
WIRE ARRIVAL OF CHECK FER own employees.

LORETO DIONELA-CABANGAN-WIRE There is a clear case of breach of contract by

ARRIVAL OF CHECK-PER the petitioner in adding extraneous and libelous
matters in the message sent to the private
115 PM respondent. As a corporation, the petitioner
SA IYO WALANG PAKINABANG DUMATING can act only through its employees. Hence the
KA DIYAN-WALA-KANG PADALA DITO acts of its employees in receiving and
KAHIT BULBUL MO transmitting messages are the acts of the
petitioner. To hold that the petitioner is not
Plaintiff-respondent Loreto Dionela alleges that liable directly for the acts of its employees in
the defamatory words on the telegram sent to the pursuit of petitioner's business is to deprive
him not only wounded his feelings but also the general public availing of the services of
caused him undue embarrassment and the petitioner of an effective and adequate
affected adversely his business as well remedy.
because other people have come to know of
said defamatory words.

Defendant corporation as a defense, alleges

that the additional words in Tagalog was a
private joke between the sending and receiving
operators and that they were not addressed to
or intended for plaintiff and therefore did not
form part of the telegram and that the Tagalog
words are not defamatory. The telegram sent
through its facilities was received in its station
at Legaspi City. Nobody other than the
operator manned the teletype machine which
automatically receives telegrams being
transmitted. The said telegram was detached
from the machine and placed inside a sealed
envelope and delivered to plaintiff, obviously as
is. The additional words in Tagalog were never
noticed and were included in the telegram
when delivered.
CASE NO. 40 Meralco v. CA, L-39019, Jan Past 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon of April
22, 1988 21,1965, MERALCO caused the electric
service in plaintiff's residence to be
FACTS: Petitioner Manila Electric Company discontinued and the power line cut off.
(MERALCO) is a public utility corporation
providing electric power for the consumption of The next day, April 22, 1965, at about 9:00
the general public in Metro Manila. Petitioner a.m., plaintiff Rosendo O. Chaves went to the
Pedro Yambao is a bill collector of MERALCO. MERALCO main office and paid the amount of
P7.20 for the bill marked as Exhibit "C-l", and
Private respondents Isaac Chaves and Juana the sum of P7.00 for the subsequent bill
O. Chaves, husband and wife, filed the corresponding to the period from March 10 up
complaint for damages, together with their to April 8, 1965 (Exhibit "C-2") after his
children, attention was called to the latter account.
Plaintiff Isaac Chaves became a customer of Rosendo O. Chaves then sought the help of
defendant MERALCO in the year 1953 when Atty. Lourdy Torres, one of the defendants'
he and his family were residing at No. 211-D counsel, and, thereafter, the power line was
Rubi, Manila. In connection with the contract reconnected and electric service restored to
for electrical service, he deposited the sum of the Chaves residence at about 7:00 p.m. of
P5.00 (Exh. "A") with defendant MERALCO on that same day. 1
February 12, 1953. This deposit in the name of ISSUE: Whether or not in the absence of bad
plaintiff Isaac Chaves was retained by faith in disconnecting the service to Chavez
MERALCO and made to apply to subsequent and Family, MERALCO and Yambao could be
contracts for electrical service entered into held liable for damages
after subsequent transfers of the Chaves family
to other residences and up to the time this RULING: Yes, Meralco and Yambao can be
family went to reside at the place held liable
aforementioned, at No. 2656 Mercedes Street,
Singalong, Manila. ... a prior written notice to the customer is
required before disconnection of the service.
At or about the end of March, 1965, defendant Failure to give such prior notice amounts to a
Pedro Yambao went to the residence of tort
plaintiffs and presented two overdue bills, one
for January 11 to February 9,1965, for the sum The prematurity of the action is indicative of an
of P7.90 (Exhibit "C"), and the other for intent to cause additional mental and moral
suffering to private respondent. This is a clear
February 9 to March 10, 1965, for the amount violation of Article 21 of the Civil Code
of P7.20 (Exhibit "C"). Juana O. Chaves,
however, informed Yambao that these bills
would be paid at the MERALCO main office.

Accordingly, on April 2, 1965, Isaac Chaves

went to the defendant's main office at San
Marcelino, Manila, but paid only the bill marked
as Exhibit 'C" leaving the other bill Identified as
Exhibit "C-l" unpaid.
CASE NO. 41 Loreta Serrano v. CA [Link]., one Tomasa de Leon, exhibiting the
GR. No. 45125, April 22, 1991 appropriate pawnshop ticket, to redeem the
jewelry.
FACTS: Sometime in early March 1968,
petitioner Loreta Serrano bought some pieces ISSUE: Did the CA committed a reversible
of jewelry for P48,500.00 from Niceta Ribaya. error
On 21 March 1968, petitioner, then in need of
money, instructed her private secretary, RULING:
Josene Rocco, to pawn the jewelry. Josena The SC found that the CA’s rejection of the
Rocco went to private respondent Long Life testimony of petitioner and Detective Mateo as
Pawnshop, Inc. ("Long Life"), pledged the well as for faulting Loreta for failing to report
jewelry for P22,000.00 with its principal owner the said loss of jewelry immediately was
and General Manager, Yu An Kiong, and then erroneous as Rocco had simply disappeared
absconded with said amount and the pawn with the money and ticket.
ticket. The pawnshop ticket issued to Josena
Rocco stipulated that it was redeemable "on Also the petitioner had no way to no whether
presentation by the bearer." Three (3) months the jewelry was misappropriated. Additionally
later, Gloria Duque and Amalia Celeste the CA’s reliance on the lack of evidence for
informed Niceta Ribaya that a pawnshop ticket the notice given to Yu An Kiong was of no
issued by private respondent was being offered great importance
for sale. They told Niceta the ticket probably
Additionally, the SC held that the burden of
covered jewelry once owned by the latter which
proof had been discharged by petitioner and it
jewelry had been pawned by one Josena
was credible.
Rocco. Suspecting that it was the same jewelry
she had sold to petitioner, Niceta informed the Petition is granted.
latter of this offer and suggested that petitioner
go to the Long Life pawnshop to check the
matter out. Petitioner claims she went to
private respondent pawnshop, veried that
indeed her missing jewelry was pledged there
and told Yu An Kiong not to permit anyone to
redeem the jewelry because she was the lawful
owner thereof. Petitioner claims that Yu An
Kiong agreed. On 9 July 1968, petitioner went
to the Manila Police Department to report the
loss, and a complaint rst for qualied theft and
later changed to estafa was subsequently led
against Josena Rocco. On the same date,
Detective Corporal Oswaldo Mateo of the
Manila Police also claims to have gone to the
pawnshop, showed Yu An Kiong petitioner's
report and left the latter a note asking him to
hold the jewelry and notify the police in case
someone should redeem the same. The next
day, on 10 July 1968, Yu An Kiong permitted
CASE NO 42 Bunag, Jr. v. CA [Link]., GR. No. compelled her to go back to her parents on
101749, July 10, 1992 October 3, 1973. Plaintiff was ashamed when
she went home and could not sleep and eat
FACTS: On the afternoon of September 8, because of the deception done against her by
1973, defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr. brought defendants-appellants
plaintiff- appellant to a motel or hotel where
they had sexual intercourse. Later that
evening, said defendant-appellant brought
plaintiff-appellant to the house of his ISSUE whether since action involves a breach
grandmother Juana de Leon in Pamplona, Las of promise to marry, the trial court erred in
Piñas, Metro Manila, where they lived together awarding damages.
as husband and wife for 21 days, Based on the RULING: It is true that in this jurisdiction, we
evidence on record, the following facts are adhere to the time-honored rule that an action
considered indisputable: On the afternoon of for breach of promise to marry has no standing
September 8, 1973, defendant-appellant in the civil law, apart from the right to recover
Bunag, Jr. brought plaintiff- appellant to a money or property advanced by the plaintiff
motel or hotel where they had sexual upon the faith of such promise. 8 Generally,
intercourse. Later that evening, said defendant- therefore, a breach of promise to marry per se
appellant brought plaintiff-appellant to the is not actionable, except where the plaintiff has
house of his grandmother Juana de Leon in actually incurred expenses for the wedding and
Pamplona, Las Piñas, Metro Manila, where the necessary incidents thereof.
they lived together as husband and wife for 21
days, or until September 29, 1973. On However, the award of moral damages is
September 10, 1973, defendant- appellant allowed in cases specified in or analogous to
Bunag, Jr. and plaintiff-appellant filed their those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil
respective applications for a Code. Correlatively, under Article 21 of said
Code, in relation to paragraph 10 of said Article
marriage license with the Office of the Local 2219, any person who wilfully causes loss or
Civil Registrar of Bacoor, Cavite. On October injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
1, 1973, after leaving plaintiff-appellant, morals, good customs or public policy shall
defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr. filed an affidavit compensate the latter for moral damages. 9
withdrawing his application for a marriage Article 21 was adopted to remedy the
license. countless gaps in the statutes which leave so
Plaintiff-appellant contends that on the many victims of moral wrongs helpless even
afternoon of September 8, 1973, defendant- though they have actually suffered material
appellant Bunag, Jr., together with an and moral injury, and is intended to vouchsafe
unidentified male companion, abducted her in adequate legal remedy for that untold number
the vicinity of the San Juan de Dios Hospital in of moral wrongs which is impossible for human
Pasay City and brought her to a motel where foresight to specifically provide for in the
she was raped. The court a quo, which statutes.
adopted her evidence, summarized the same Under the circumstances obtaining in the case
which we paraphrased as follows: at bar, the acts of petitioner in forcibly
On September 29, 1973 defendant Bunag, Jr. abducting private respondent and having
left and never returned, humiliating plaintiff and carnal knowledge with her against her will, and
thereafter promising to marry her in order to
escape criminal liability, only to thereafter
renege on such promise after cohabiting with
her for twenty-one days, irremissibly constitute
acts contrary to morals and good customs.
These are grossly insensate and reprehensible
transgressions which indisputably warrant and
abundantly justify the award of moral and
exemplary damages, pursuant to Article 21 in
relation to paragraphs 3 and 10, Article 2219,
and Article 2229 and 2234 of Civil Code.

Petitioner would, however, belabor the fact that

said damages were awarded by the trial court
on the basis of a finding that he is guilty of
forcible abduction with rape, despite the prior
dismissal of the complaint therefor filed by
private respondent with the Pasay City Fiscal's
Office.

Generally, the basis of civil liability from crime

is the fundamental postulate of our law that
every person criminally liable for a felony is
also civilly liable. In other words, criminal
liability will give rise to civil liability ex delicto
only if the same felonious act or

omission results in damage or injury to another

and is the direct and proximate cause thereof.
11 Hence, extinction of the penal action does
not carry with it the extinction of civil liability
unless the extinction proceeds from a
declaration in a final judgment that the fact
from which the civil might arise did not exist.
CASE NO 43 Garciano v CA [Link]., GR No. On July 9, 1982, the president, vice president,
96126 Aug 10, 1992 secretary, and three members of the Board of
Directors, out of a membership of nine (9),
FACTS: The petitioner was hired to teach resigned their positions from the Board "for the
during the 1981-82 school year in the reason that the ICI Faculty, has reacted acidly
Immaculate Concepcion Institute in the Island to the Board's deliberations for the
of Camotes. On January 13, 1982, or before reinstatement of Mrs. Esteria F. Garciano,
the school year ended, she applied for an thereby questioning the integrity of the Board's
indefinite leave of absence because her decision
daughter was taking her to Austria where her
daughter was employed (Exh. B). The On September 3, 1982, petitioner filed a
application was recommended for approval by complaint for damages in the Regional Trial
the school principal, Emerito O. Labajo, and Court, Cebu, Branch XI, against Fr. Wiertz,
approved by the President of the school's Emerito Labajo, and some members of the
Board of Directors faculty of the school for discrimination and
unjust and illegal dismissal.
On June 1, 1982, Emerito Labajo addressed a
letter to the petitioner through her husband, ISSUE: Whether or not Court of Appeals
Sotero Garciano (for she was still abroad), gravely erred in absolving the private
informing her of the decision of Fr. Joseph respondents from liability by faulting the
Wiertz, the school's founder, concurred in by petitioner for her failure to report back to her
the president of the Parent-Teachers work.
Association and the school faculty, to terminate
her services as a member of the teaching staff RULING: No, Liability for damages under
because of: (1) the absence of any written Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code arises
contract of employment between her and the only from unlawful, willful or negligent acts that
school due to her refusal to sign one; and (2) are contrary to law, or morals, good customs or
the difficulty of getting a substitute for her on a public policy.
temporary basis as no one would accept the The Court of Appeals was correct in finding
position without a written contract that petitioner's discontinuance from teaching
Upon her return from Austria in the later part of was her own choice. While the respondents
June, 1982, she received the letter informing admittedly wanted her service terminated, they
her that her services at the Immaculate actually did nothing to physically prevent her
Concepcion Institute had been terminated. from reassuming her post, as ordered by the
school's Board of Directors.
on July 7, 1982, the members of the Board of
Directors of the school, with the exception of With respect to petitioner's claim for moral
Fr. Joseph Wiertz, signed a letter notifying her damages, the right to recover them under
that she was "reinstated to report and do your Article 21 is based on equity, and he who
usual duties as Classroom Teacher . . . comes to court to demand equity, must come
effective July 5, 1982," and that "any letter or with clean hands.
notice of termination received by you before The trial court's award of exemplary damages
this date has no sanction or authority by the to her was not justified for she is not entitled to
Board of Directors of this Institution, therefore it moral, temperate or compensatory damages.
is declared null and void . (Art. 2234, Civil Code).
In sum, the Court of Appeals correctly set
aside the damages awarded by the trial court
to the petitioner for they did not have any legal
or factual basis.

petition is DISMISSED
CASE NO 44 Gashem Shookat Baksh v CA the amount of not less than P45,000.00,
and Marilou Gonzales GR. No. 97336 Feb reimbursement for actual expenses amounting
19, 1993 to P600.00, attorney's fees and costs, and
granting her such other relief and remedies as
FACTS: On 27 October 1987, private may be just and equitable.
respondent, without the assistance of counsel,
filed with the aforesaid trial court a complaint2 Petitioners argument: In his Answer with
for damages against the petitioner for the Counterclaim,3 petitioner admitted only the
alleged violation of their agreement to get personal circumstances of the parties as
married. averred in the complaint and denied the rest of
the allegations either for lack of knowledge or
Respondents argument:She alleges in said information sufficient to form a belief as to the
complaint that: she is twenty-two (22) years truth thereof or because the true facts are
old, single, Filipino and a pretty lass of good those alleged as his Special and Affirmative
moral character and reputation duly respected Defenses. He thus claimed that he never
in her community; petitioner, on the other hand, proposed marriage to or agreed to be married
is an Iranian citizen residing at the Lozano with the private respondent; he neither sought
Apartments, Guilig, Dagupan City, and is an the consent and approval of her parents nor
exchange student taking a medical course at forced her to live in his apartment; he did not
the Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan maltreat her, but only told her to stop coming to
City; before 20 August 1987, the latter courted his place because he discovered that she had
and proposed to marry her; she accepted his deceived him by stealing his money and
love on the condition that they would get passport; and finally, no confrontation took
married; they therefore agreed to get married place with a representative of the barangay
after the end of the school semester, which captain. Insisting, in his Counterclaim, that the
was in October of that year; petitioner then complaint is baseless and unfounded and that
visited the private respondent's parents in as a result thereof, he was unnecessarily
Bañaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan to secure their dragged into court and compelled to incur
approval to the marriage; sometime in 20 expenses, and has suffered mental anxiety and
August 1987, the petitioner forced her to live a besmirched reputation, he prayed for an
with him in the Lozano Apartments; she was a award of P5,000.00 for miscellaneous
virgin before she began living with him; a week expenses and P25,000.00 as moral damages.
before the filing of the complaint, petitioner's
attitude towards her started to change; he ISSUE: whether or not damages may be
maltreated and threatened to kill her; as a recovered for a breach of promise to marry on
result of such maltreatment, she sustained the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the
injuries; during a confrontation with a Philippines.
representative of the barangay captain of
Guilig a day before the filing of the complaint, RULING: sincere belief that he would keep
petitioner repudiated their marriage agreement said promise, and it was likewise these (sic)
and asked her not to live with him anymore fraud and deception on appellant's part that
and; the petitioner is already married to made plaintiff's parents agree to their
someone living in Bacolod City. daughter's living-in with him preparatory to their
supposed marriage. And as these acts of
Private respondent then prayed for judgment appellant are palpably and undoubtedly against
ordering the petitioner to pay her damages in morals, good customs, and public policy, and
are even gravely and deeply derogatory and
insulting to our women, coming as they do from
a foreigner who has been enjoying the
hospitality of our people and taking advantage
of the opportunity to study in one of our
institutions of learning, defendant-appellant
should indeed be made, under Art. 21 of the
Civil Code of the

Philippines, to compensate for the moral

damages and injury that he had caused
plaintiff, as the lower court ordered him to do in
its decision in this case.

Art. 23. Any person who wilfully 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.
CASE NO 45. Nikko Hotel Manila Garden Petitioners argument: Ruby Lim, for her part,
[Link]., v Roberto Reyes alias “Amay admitted having asked Mr. Reyes to leave the
Bisaya”, GR. No. 154259, Feb 28, 2005 party but not under the ignominious
circumstance painted by the latter. Ms. Lim
FACTS: Respondents argument: Plaintiff narrated that she was the Hotel’s Executive
thereat (respondent herein) Roberto Reyes, Secretary for the past twenty (20) years.18
more popularly known by the screen name One of her functions included organizing the
"Amay Bisaya," alleged that at around 6:00 birthday party of the hotel’s former General
o’clock in the evening of 13 October 1994, Manager, Mr. Tsuruoka.19 The year 1994 was
while he was having coffee at the lobby of no different. For Mr. Tsuruoka’s party, Ms. Lim
Hotel Nikko,5 he was spotted by his friend of generated an exclusive guest list and extended
several years, Dr. Violeta Filart, who then invitations accordingly.20 The guest list was
approached him.6 Mrs. Filart invited him to join limited to approximately sixty (60) of Mr.
her in a party at the hotel’s penthouse in Tsuruoka’s closest friends and some hotel
celebration of the natal day of the hotel’s employees and that Mr. Reyes was not one of
manager, Mr. Masakazu Tsuruoka.7 Mr. Reyes those invited.21 At the party, Ms. Lim first
asked if she could vouch for him for which she noticed Mr. Reyes at the bar counter ordering a
replied: "of course."8 Mr. Reyes then went up drink.22 Mindful of Mr. Tsuruoka’s wishes to
with the party of Dr. Filart carrying the basket keep the party intimate, Ms. Lim approached
of fruits which was the latter’s present for the Mr. Boy Miller, the "captain waiter," to inquire
celebrant.9 At the penthouse, they first had as to the presence of Mr. Reyes who was not
their picture taken with the celebrant after invited.23 Mr. Miller replied that he saw Mr.
which Mr. Reyes sat with the party of Dr. Reyes with the group of Dr. Filart.24 As Dr.
Filart.10 After a couple of hours, when the Filart was engaged in conversation with
buffet dinner was ready, Mr. Reyes lined-up at another guest and as Ms. Lim did not want to
the buffet table but, to his great shock, shame interrupt, she inquired instead from the sister of
and embarrassment, he was stopped by Dr. Filart, Ms. Zenaida Fruto, who told her that
petitioner herein, Ruby Lim, who claimed to Dr. Filart did not invite Mr. Reyes.25 Ms. Lim
speak for Hotel Nikko as Executive Secretary then requested Ms. Fruto to tell Mr. Reyes to
thereof.11 In a loud voice and within the leave the party as he was not invited.26 Mr.
presence and hearing of the other guests who Reyes, however, lingered prompting Ms. Lim to
were making a queue at the buffet table, Ruby inquire from Ms. Fruto who said that Mr. Reyes
Lim told him to leave the party ("huwag ka did not want to leave.27 When Ms. Lim turned
nang kumain, hindi ka imbitado, bumaba ka na around, she saw Mr. Reyes conversing with a
lang").12 Mr. Reyes tried to explain that he was Captain Batung whom she later approached.28
invited by Dr. Filart.13 Dr. Filart, who was Believing that Captain Batung and Mr. Reyes
within hearing distance, however, completely knew each other, Ms. Lim requested from him
ignored him thus adding to his shame and the same favor from Ms. Fruto, i.e., for Captain
humiliation.14 Not long after, while he was still Batung to tell Mr. Reyes to leave the party as
recovering from the traumatic experience, a he was not invited.29 Still, Mr. Reyes lingered.
Makati policeman approached and asked him When Ms. Lim spotted Mr. Reyes by the buffet
to step out of the hotel.15 Like a common table, she decided to speak to him herself as
criminal, he was escorted out of the party by there were no other guests in the immediate
the policeman. vicinity.30 However, as Mr. Reyes was already
helping himself to the food, she decided to
wait.31 When Mr. Reyes went to a corner and
started to eat, Ms. Lim approached him and
said: "alam ninyo, hindo ho kayo dapat nandito.
Pero total nakakuha na ho kayo ng pagkain,
ubusin na lang ninyo at pagkatapos kung
pwede lang po umalis na kayo."32 She then
turned around trusting that Mr. Reyes would
show enough decency to leave, but to her
surprise, he began screaming and making a
big scene, and even threatened to dump food
on her

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are

liable for moral damages and should answer
for exemplary damages to the respondent.

whether or not Ruby Lim acted abusively in

asking Roberto Reyes, a.k.a. "Amay Bisaya,"
to leave the party where he was not invited by
the celebrant thereof thereby becoming liable
under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.

RULING: No, because the absence of any

proof of motive on the part of Ms. Lim to
humiliate Mr. Reyes and expose him to ridicule
and shame, it is highly unlikely that she would
shout at him from a very close distance. Ms.
Lim having been in the hotel business for
twenty years wherein being polite and discreet
are virtues to be emulated, the testimony of Mr.
Reyes that she acted to the contrary does not
inspire belief and is indeed incredible

Ms. Lim is guilty only of bad judgment which, if

done with good intentions, cannot amount to
bad faith.

As formulated by petitioners, however, this

doctrine does not find application to the case at
bar because even if respondent Reyes
assumed the risk of being asked to leave the
party, petitioners, under Articles 19 and 21 of
the New Civil Code, were still under obligation
to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to
unnecessary ridicule and shame.
CASE NO 46 Hongkong and Shanghai sufficiency, not the veracity of the material
Bankin Corp v. Catalan GR No. 159590 Oct allegations.24 If the allegations in the
18, 2004 complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it
can be maintained, it should not be dismissed
FACTS: The checks when deposited were regardless of the defense that may be
returned by HSBANK purportedly for reason of presented by the defendants.
"payment stopped" pending confirmation,
despite the fact that the checks were duly
funded

Thomson died and Catalan forwarded her

demand to HSBC TRUSTEE. Catalan sent
photocopies of the returned checks to HSBC
TRUSTEE. Not satisfied, HSBC TRUSTEE
through deceit and trickery, required Catalan,
as a condition for the acceptance of the
checks, to submit the original copies of the
returned checks, purportedly, to hasten
payment of her claim.

Moreover, the refusal of HSBANK and HSBC

TRUSTEE to pay the checks is equivalent to
illegal freezing of one’s deposit. On the
assurance of HSBC TRUSTEE that her claim
will soon be paid, as she was made to believe
that payments of the checks shall be made by
HSBC TRUSTEE "upon sight," the
unsuspecting Catalan left the originals of the
checks with HSBC TRUSTEE and was given
only an acknowledgment receipt

ISSUES: whether or not the complaint alleges

facts which if true would justify the relief
demanded

Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over HSBANK

and HSBC TRUSTEE? Corollary thereto, did
the filing of the answer before the RTC render
the issue of lack of jurisdiction moot and
academic?

RULING: The elementary test for failure to

state a cause of action is whether the
complaint alleges facts which if true would
justify the relief demanded. Stated otherwise,
may the court render a valid judgment upon the
facts alleged therein? 23 The inquiry is into the