THE CIVIL CODE
RA. No. 386
Preliminary Title
Chapter 1
Effect and Application of Laws
Article 32. Any public officer or
employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following
rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for
damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to
maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal
detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of
property without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when
private property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of
the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's
person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing
the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and
correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of
associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable
assembly to petition the Government for redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary
servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against
excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard
by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance
of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a
witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from
being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession,
except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or
cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in
accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred 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 prosecution (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.
In addition to echoing the basic
rights guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution, Article 32 of the Civil Code
specifically provides that moral and exemplary damages can be recovered from any public or private individual who
may have directly or indirectly
violated such rights. Even if the
violation of these rights does not amount
to a criminal offense, the violators may still be held liable thru a civil
action in which allegations are proven by preponderance
of evidence.
Articles 2217 to 2220 of the Civil
Code provides instances when moral damages can be recoverable. As restated by
the Supreme Court in Ventanilla vs. Centeno (G.R. No. L-14333 January 28, 1961):
“Moral damages are recoverable only when physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shocks,
social humiliation, and similar injury are the proximate result of a criminal
offense resulting in physical injuries, quasi-delicts causing physical
injuries, seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts, adultery or
concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest, illegal search, libel,
slander or any other form of defamation, malicious prosecution, disrespect for
the dead or wrongful interference with funerals, violation of specific
provisions of the Civil Code on human relations, and willful injury to
property. To this we may add that where a mishap occurs resulting in the death
of a passenger being transported by a common carrier, the spouse, descendants
and ascendants of the deceased passenger are entitled to demand moral damages
for mental anguish by reason of the passenger's death.”
Articles 2229 to 2235 of the Civil
Code provides the definition of exemplary damages and the instances when the
same can be recovered. In People vs Catubig (G.R. No. 137842. August 23, 2001),
the Supreme Court explains the nature of exemplary damage: “Also known as
‘punitive’ or ‘vindictive’ damages, exemplary or corrective damages are
intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication
of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a
punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. These terms are generally, but not always,
used interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in the use of
exemplary damages when the award is to account for injury to feelings and for
the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an
injury that has been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory being that
there should be compensation for the hurt caused by the highly reprehensible
conduct of the defendant - associated with such circumstances as willfulness,
wantonness, malice, gross negligence or recklessness, oppression, insult or
fraud or gross fraud - that intensifies the injury. The terms punitive or vindictive damages are
often used to refer to those species of damages that may be awarded against a
person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either case, these damages are intended in
good measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar conduct in
the future.”
For
exemplary damages to be recoverable, the following requisites must be
satisfied:
“(1)
they may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory damages, and
only after the claimant's right to them has been established;
(2)
that they cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their determination
depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the
claimant; and
(3)
the act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent,
oppressive or malevolent manner.” (Arco vs. Lim G.R. No. 206806 June 25, 2014)
In
the case law, FEBTC vs. Chante (G.R. No. 170598 October 9, 2013), a succinct
definition of preponderant
evidence is provided. Following the words of Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules
of Court, the Supreme Court states that “preponderant evidence refers to
evidence that is of greater weight, or more convincing, than the evidence
offered in opposition to it. It is proof that leads the trier of facts to find
that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its
nonexistence.”
Case Digest
MHP Garments, Inc. et al vs CA et al, G.R.
No. 86720 September 2, 1994
Facts:
MHP Garments, Inc. secured an
exclusive franchise agreement with the Boy of the Philippines (BSP), to the
sell to sell and distribute official Boy Scouts uniforms, supplies, badges, and
insignias. The company was also given the authority to "undertake or cause
to be undertaken the prosecution in court of all illegal sources of scout uniforms
and other scouting supplies" as stipulated in the Memorandum of Agreement
the company signed with the BSP.
In October 1983, Larry de Guzman, an
employee of MHP Garments, Inc. undertook surveillance and verified that Agnes
Villa Cruz, Mirasol Lugatiman, and Gertrudes Gonzales were selling Boy Scouts
items and paraphernalia without any authority. Then on October 25, 1983, accompanied
by de Guzman, three men from the Philippine Constabulary (PC) seized the illegally
sold items and were turned over to MHP Garments for safekeeping.
The warrantless seizure ensued in a commotion
and as result of which Cruz, Lugatiman and Gonzales were embarrassed and deeply
humiliated. They “suffered sleepless nights, serious anxiety, and wounded
feelings.”
Issue:
Can Cruz, Lugatiman and Gonzales recover
moral and exemplary damages from de Guzman and MHP Garments as provided for
under Article 32 of the Civil Code?
Held:
Yes. Cruz, Lugatiman and Gonzales can
recover moral and exemplary damages from de Guzman and MHP Garments as provided
for under Article 32 of the Civil Code.
Even though de Guzman and MHP Garments did
not do the seizure themselves, they were held to account for their indirect participation
and were ordered to jointly and severally satisfy the payment of damages. They
did not do anything to prevent the violation of Cruz’ (et al) rights against
unreasonable search and seizure. They even initiated the act that resulted to the
violation. They cannot excuse themselves from liability even though the three
PC men were not yet held directly responsible for the violation.
Anyone can be held to account for directly
or indirectly violating the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and under
Article 32 of the Civil Code.
Reference:
Albano, Ed Vincent (2017). Persons and Family Relations. Central Book Supply Inc.: Manila
-------------------------
by Permanent Class Number 4 in Persons and Family Relations, LSPU, First Semester, SY2019-2020
Date Last Updated: 29Nov2019
