Far East Bank and Trust Company v Themistocles worries and sleepless nights" entitling him to an award

Pacilan, Jr. of damages.

G.R. No. 157314
July 29, 2005 In their answer, petitioner bank and Villadelgado
maintained that the respondent’s current account was
Facts: Pacilan opened a current account with Far Eastern subject to petitioner bank’s Rules and Regulations
Bank’s Bacolod Branch on May 23, 1980. He issued Governing the Establishment and Operation of Regular
several postdated checks to different payees drawn Demand
against his account. Sometime in March 1988, he issues Deposits which provide that "the Bank reserves the right
a check in the amount of 680 pesos and the same was to close an account if the depositor frequently draws
presented for payment to the bank on April 4, 1988. checks against insufficient funds and/or uncollected
deposits" and that "the Bank reserves the right at any
The present check was dishonored by the petitioner time to return checks of the depositor which are drawn
bank. The next day, the respondent deposited to his against insufficient funds or for any reason.”
current account the amount of 800 pesos. The amount
was accepted by the bank, increasing Pacilan’s balance to They showed that the respondent had improperly and
1,501.43 pesos. irregularly handled his current account. For example, in
1986, the respondent’s account was overdrawn 156
Subsequently, when the respondent verified with times, in 1987, 117 times and in 1988, 26 times. In all
petitioner bank about the dishonor of Check, he these instances, the account was overdrawn due to the
discovered that his current account was closed on the issuance of checks against insufficient funds. The
ground that it was "improperly handled." respondent had also signed several checks with a
different signature from the specimen on file for dubious
The records of the bank disclosed that between the reasons.
perod of March 30, 1988 and April 5, 1988, Pacilan issued
four checks amounting to: 6,000 pesos, 50 pesos, 680 Issue: WON the far eastern bank acted in good faith and
pesos, and another 680 pesos; garnering a total of 7, 410. in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
Pesos. the operation of a regular demand deposit when it closed
Pancila’s account.
At the time, however, the respondent’s current account
with petitioner bank only had a deposit of ₱6,981.43. Held: Yes. The facts, as found by the court a quo and the
Thus, the total amount of the checks presented for appellate court, do not establish that, in the exercise of
payment on April 4, 1988 exceeded the balance of the this right, petitioner bank committed an abuse thereof.
respondent’s deposit in his account. For this reason, Specifically, the second and third elements for abuse of
petitioner bank, through its branch accountant, rights are not attendant in the present case. The
Villadelgado, closed the respondent’s current account evidence presented by petitioner bank negates the
effective the evening of April 4, 1988 as it then had an existence of bad faith or malice on its part in closing the
overdraft of ₱428.57. On April 18, 1988, the respondent respondent’s account on April 4, 1988 because on the
wrote to petitioner bank complaining that the closure of said date the same was already overdrawn.
his account was unjustified.
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his
The respondent further alleged that prior to the closure rights and in the performance of his duties, act
of his current account, he had issued several other with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
postdated checks. The petitioner bank’s act of closing his honesty and good faith.
current account allegedly preempted the deposits that
he intended to make to fund those checks. Further, the The elements of abuse of rights are the following: (a) the
petitioner bank’s act exposed him to criminal existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in
prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or
injuring another.7 Malice or bad faith is at the core of the
The alleged malicious acts of petitioner bank said provision.8 The law always presumes good faith and
besmirched the respondent’s reputation and caused him any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to
"social humiliation, wounded feelings, insurmountable acts of another has the burden of proving that the latter
acted in bad faith or with ill-motive.
Ernesto Ramas Uypitching v Ernest Quiamco Article 19, also known as the "principle of abuse of right,"
G.R. No. 146322 prescribes that a person should not use his right unjustly
December 6, 2006 or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise he
opens himself to liability. It seeks to preclude the use of,
Facts: In 1982, Ernesto C. Quiamco was approach by Juan or the tendency to use, a legal right (or duty) as a means
Davalan, Josefino Gabutero, and Raul Generoso to settle to unjust ends.
the civil aspect of a criminal case for robbery filed by
Quiamco against them. They surrendered to him a red In this case, the manner by which the motorcycle was
Honda XL-100 motorcycle and a photocopy of its taken at petitioners’ instance was not only attended by
certificate of registration. Respondent asked for the bad faith but also contrary to the procedure laid down by
original certificate of registration but the three accused law. Considered in conjunction with the defamatory
never came to see him again. Meanwhile, the motorcycle statement, petitioners’ exercise of the right to recover
was parked in an open space inside respondent’s the mortgaged vehicle was utterly prejudicial and
business establishment, Avesco-AVNE Enterprises, injurious to respondent. On the other hand, the
where it was visible and accessible to the public. precipitate act of filing an unfounded complaint could
not in any way be considered to be in accordance with
It turned out that, in October 1981, the motorcycle had the purpose for which the right to prosecute a crime was
been sold on installment basis to Gabutero by petitioner established.
Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc., a family-owned corporation
managed by petitioner Atty. Ernesto Ramas Uypitching. Cebu Country Club, Inc. v Ricardo F. Elizagaque
G.R. No. 160273
Nine years later, on January 26, 1991, petitioner January 18, 2008
Uypitching, accompanied by policemen,5 went to
Avesco-AVNE Enterprises to recover the motorcycle. Facts: Cebu Country Club, Inc. (CCCI) is a domestic
corporation operating as a non-profit and non-stock
On learning that respondent was not in Avesco-AVNE private membership club in Banilad, Cebu City. The
Enterprises, the policemen left to look for respondent in petitioners are the Board of Directors.
his residence while petitioner Uypitching stayed in the
establishment to take photographs of the motorcycle. In 1987, San Miguel Corporation, a special company
Unable to find respondent, the policemen went back to member, designated Ricardo G. Elizagaque as its Senior
Avesco-AVNE Enterprises and, on petitioner Uypitching’s Vice President for the Visayas and Mindanao operations
instruction and over the clerk’s objection, took the as a special non-propriety member. Ricardo applied for a
motorcycle. propriety membership.

Issue: WON the complaint for qualified theft and/or As the price of a proprietary share was around the P5
violation of the Anti-Fencing Law warranted the award of million range, Benito Unchuan, then president of CCCI,
moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and offered to sell respondent a share for only P3.5 million.
costs in favor of respondent. Respondent, however, purchased the share of a certain
Dr. Butalid for only P3 million.
Held: Yes. As they never questioned the findings of the
RTC and CA that malice and ill will attended not only the Ricardo’s application for propriety membership was
public imputation of a crime to respondent but also the deferred and eventually disapproved. He wrote several
taking of the motorcycle, petitioners were deemed to letters of reconsideration to CCI but, they kept silent to
have accepted the correctness of such findings. This his requests.
alone was sufficient to hold petitioners liable for
damages to respondent. Issue: WON in disapproving respondent’s application for
propriety membership with CCCI held them liable for
Nevertheless, to address petitioners’ concern, we also damages
find that the trial and appellate courts correctly ruled
that the filing of the complaint was tainted with malice Held: Yes. In rejecting respondent’s application for
and bad faith. Petitioners themselves in fact described proprietary membership, we find that petitioners
their action as a "precipitate act." violated the rules governing human relations, the basic
principles to be observed for the rightful relationship Ten (10) months later, Calatagan made the initial step to
between human beings and for the stability of social collect Clemente’s back accounts by sending a demand
order. The trial court and the Court of Appeals aptly held letter dated 21 September 1992. It was followed by a
that petitioners committed fraud and evident bad faith second letter dated 22 October 1992. Both letters were
in disapproving respondent’s applications. This is sent to Clemente’s mailing address as indicated in his
contrary to morals, good custom or public policy. Hence, membership application but were sent back to sender
petitioners are liable for damages pursuant to Article 19 with the postal note that the address had been closed.
in relation to Article 21 of the same Code.
Calatagan declared Clemente delinquent for having
It bears stressing that the amendment to Section 3(c) of failed to pay his monthly dues for more than sixty (60)
CCCI’s Amended By-Laws requiring the unanimous vote days, specifically ₱5,600.00 as of 31 October
of the directors present at a special or regular meeting 1992. alatagan’s board of directors adopted a resolution
was not printed on the application form respondent filled authorizing the foreclosure of shares of delinquent
and submitted to CCCI. What was printed thereon was members, including Clemente’s; and the public auction
the original provision of Section 3(c) which was silent on of these shares.
the required number of votes needed for admission of an
applicant as a proprietary member. Calatagan sent another letter of notice to Clemente. The
letter contains a warning that unless Clemente settles his
It is thus clear that respondent was left groping in the outstanding dues, his share would be included among
dark wondering why his application was disapproved. He the delinquent shares to be sold at public auction on 15
was not even informed that a unanimous vote of the January 1993. On 5 January 1993, a notice of auction sale
Board members was required. When he sent a letter for was posted on the Club’s bulletin board, as well as on the
reconsideration and an inquiry whether there was an club’s premises. The auction sale took place as scheduled
objection to his application, petitioners apparently on 15 January 1993, and Clemente’s share sold for
ignored him. Certainly, respondent did not deserve this ₱64,000.
kind of treatment. Having been designated by San Miguel
Corporation as a special non-proprietary member of Clemente learned of the sale of his share only in
CCCI, he should have been treated by petitioners with November of 1997. He filed a claim with the Securities
courtesy and civility. At the very least, they should have and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking the restoration
informed him why his application was disapproved. of his shareholding in Calatagan with damages.

Calatagan Golf Club, Inc v Sixto Clemente Issue: WON the action of Celmente had prescribed
G. R. No. 165443 pursuant to Section 69 of the Corporation Code. And that
April 16, 2009 the requisite notices under both the law and the by-laws
had been rendered to Clemente.
Facts: Clemente applied to purchase one share of stock
of Calatagan, indicating in his application for Held: No. Clemente cites our aphorism-like
membership his mailing address at Phimco Industries, pronouncement in Rizal Commercial Banking
Inc, complete residential address, and office and Corporation v. Court of Appeals that "[a] simple
residence telephone numbers. Calatagan issued his telephone call and an ounce of good faith x x x could have
certificate after paying 120, 000 pesos for the share. prevented this present controversy." That memorable
observation is quite apt in this case.
Calatagan charges monthly dues on its members to meet
expenses for general operations, as well as costs for Calatagan’s bad faith and failure to observe its own By-
upkeep and improvement of the grounds and facilities. Laws had resulted not merely in the loss of Clemente’s
The provision on monthly dues is incorporated in privilege to play golf at its golf course and avail of its
Calatagan’s Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws. amenities, but also in significant pecuniary damage to
him. For that loss, the only blame that could be thrown
When Clemente became a member the monthly charge Clemente’s way was his failure to notify Calatagan of the
stood at ₱400.00. He paid ₱3,000.00 for his monthly dues closure of the P.O. Box.
on 21 March 1991 and another ₱5,400.00 on 9 December
1991. Then he ceased paying the dues. At that point, his The utter bad faith exhibited by Calatagan brings into
balance amounted to ₱400.00. operation Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code,16 under
the Chapter on Human Relations. These provisions, disconnected, coupled with her failure to warn or at least
which the Court of Appeals did apply, enunciate a notify respondent spouses of such intention. On the part
general obligation under law for every person to act fairly of COWD and Gonzalez, it is their failure to give prior
and in good faith towards one another. A non-stock notice of the impending disconnection and their
corporation like Calatagan is not exempt from that subsequent neglect to reconnect respondent spouses'
obligation in its treatment of its members. The obligation water supply despite the latter's settlement of their
of a corporation to treat every person honestly and in delinquent account.
good faith extends even to its shareholders or members,
even if the latter find themselves contractually bound to The Spouses Pastorfide are entitled to moral damages
perform certain obligations to the corporation. A based on the provisions of Article 2219, in connection
certificate of stock cannot be a charter of with Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code.
dehumanization.
Raul H. Sesbreno v CA & VECO
Joyce V. Ardiente v Spouses Javier and Ma. Theresa G. R. No. 160689
Pastorfide March 26, 2014
G.R. No. 161921
July 17, 2013 Facts: VECO was a public utility corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the Philippines. VECO
Facts: Joyce Ardiente and her husband are owners of a engaged in the sale and distribution of electricity within
housing unit at Emily homes, Cagayan De Oro City. Joyce Metropolitan Cebu. Sebreno was one of their customers
entered into a memorandum of agreement selling, under the metered service contract. Vicente E. Garcia
transferring, and conveying in favor of Ma. Theresa was VECO’s President and Chairman of its Board of
Pastorfide all their rights and interest in the housing unit. Directors. Jose E Garcia was Vice-President.
For four years, Ma. Theresa’s use of the water in the
name of Joyce was never questioned until March 12, To ensure that its electric meters were properly
1999, without notice, her water connection got cut off. functioning, and that none of it meters had been
tampered with, VECO employed respondents Engr.
Proceeding to the office of the Cagayan de Oro Water Felipe Constantino and Ronald Arcilla as violation of
District (COWD) to complain, a certain Mrs. Madjos told contract (VOC) inspectors.
Ma. Theresa that she was delinquent for three (3)
months corresponding to the months of December 1998, At around 4 in the afternoon of May 11, 1989, the VOC
January 1999, and February 1999. She argued that her team of Contantino and Arcilla and their escorts
due date was March 18, 1999. Mrs. Madjos later told her conducted a routine inspection of the houses in La
that it was at the instance of Joyce Ardiente that the Paloma Village for illegal icontections, meter tampering,
water line was cut off seals, conduit pipes, jumpers, wiring connections, and
meter installations. After Sesbreno’s maid let the
Ma. Theresa paid the delinquent bills. Afterwards,s she inspectors inside their gate, they noticed that their
wrote a letter to the COWD to explain who authorized electric meter has been turned upside down. They took
the cutting of her water supply. They (COWD) answered photos and replaced it with a new one. They asked
and said that it was because of Joyce. permission to enter their house to determine the
electrical load of their household appliances.
In the meantime, Ma. Theresa Pastorfide's water line was
only restored and reconnected when the [trial] court Sesbreno claims that there was nothing proper with what
issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction on the VOC team did in his house. house. Their entry to his
December 14, 1999 . house and the surrounding premises was effected
without his permission and over the objections of his
Issue: WON the CA erred when it disregarded the fact maids. They threatened, forced or coerced their way into
that spouses Pastorfide are likewise bound to observe his house. They unscrewed the electric meter, turned it
article 19 of the new civil code upside down and took photographs thereof. They then
replaced it with a new electric meter. They searched the
Held: No. , petitioner's acts which violated the house and its rooms without his permission or a search
abovementioned provisions of law is her unjustifiable act warrant. They forced a visitor to sign two documents,
of having the respondent spouses' water supply making her appear to be his representative or agent.
Afterwards, he found that some of his personal effects property was mortgaged by respondent to RBAI, that the
were missing, apparently stolen by the VOC Team when bank had subsequently foreclosed on the property, and
they searched the house. that complainant should therefore vacate the property.5

Issue: WON Sesbreno’s entitled to recover damages for Issue: WON Atty. Astorga has the legal right to mortgage
abuse of rights? the property to other persons

Held: No. Clearly, Sesbreño did not establish his claim for Held: Yes. Respondent, as owner of the property, had the
damages if the respondents were not guilty of abuse of right to mortgage it to complainant but, as a lawyer, he
rights. should have seen to it that his agreement with
complainant is embodied in an instrument that clearly
The assertion of Sesbreño is improper for consideration expresses the intent of the contracting parties. A lawyer
in this appeal. The RTC and the CA unanimously found who drafts a contract must see to it that the agreement
the testimonies of Sesbreño’s witnesses implausible faithfully and clearly reflects the intention of the
because of inconsistencies on material points; and even contracting parties. Otherwise, the respective rights and
declared that the non-presentation of Garcia as a witness obligations of the contracting parties will be uncertain,
was odd if not suspect. Considering that such findings which opens the door to legal disputes between the said
related to the credibility of the witnesses and their parties. Indeed, the uncertainty caused by respondent’s
testimonies, the Court cannot review and undo them poor formulation of the "Deed of Sale with Right to
now because it is not a trier of facts, and is not also Repurchase" was a significant factor in the legal
tasked to analyze or weigh evidence all over again. controversy between respondent and complainant. Such
poor formulation reflects at the very least negatively on
Only when Sesbreño could make a clear showing of the legal competence of respondent.
abuse in their appreciation of the evidence and records
by the trial and the appellate courts should the Court do Respondent dealt with complainant with bad faith,
the unusual review of the factual findings of the trial and falsehood, and deceit when he entered into the "Deed of
appellate courts. Sale with Right to Repurchase" dated December 2, 1981
with the latter. He made it appear that the property was
Florencio A. Saladaga v Atty. Arturo Astorga covered by TCT No. T-662 under his name, even giving
AC No. 4697 complainant the owner’s copy of the said certificate
November 25, 2014 oftitle, when the truth is that the said TCT had already
been cancelled some nine years earlier by TCT No. T-3211
Facts: Florencio A. Saladaga and Atty. Arturo Astorga in the name of PNB. He did not evencare to correct the
entered into a “Deed of sale with Right to Repurchase” wrong statement in the deed when he was subsequently
where respondent sold to florencio a parce of coconut issued a new copy of TCT No. T-7235 on January 4, 1982,
land located in Leyte for 15, 000 pesos. Under the said or barely a month after the execution of the said deed.
deed, respondent represented that he has "the perfect All told, respondent clearly committed an act of gross
right to dispose as owner in fee simple" the subject dishonesty and deceit against complainant.
property and that the said property is "free from all liens
and encumbrances." The deed also provided that Noel Buenaventura v CA and Isabel Buenaventura
respondent, as vendor a retro, had two years within G. R. No. 127358
which to repurchase the property, and if not repurchased March 31, 2005
within the said period, "the parties shall renew [the]
instrument/agreement." Facts: Noel Buenaventura filed a petition for declaration
of nullity of marriage on the ground of alleged
Respondent failed to exercise his right of repurchase psychological incapacity of his wife, Isabel Singh. He
within the period provided in the deed, and no renewal stated that both he and his wife were psychologically
of the contract was made even after complainant sent incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of
respondent a final demand dated May 10, 1984 for the marriage. Isabel filed an answer denying his allegations.
latter to repurchase the property. Complainant remained
in peaceful possession of the property until December Issue: WON the CA erred in awarding moral damages to
1989 when he received letters from the Rural Bank of defendant-appellee without any legal and moral basis
Albuera (Leyte), Inc. (RBAI) informing him that the
Held: Yes. The trial court referred to Article 21 because Bliss Development Corp v Montano Diaz et. al.
Article 2219 of the Civil Code enumerates the cases in G. R. No. 213233
which moral damages may be recovered and it mentions August 05, 2015
Article 21 as one of the instances. It must be noted that
Article 21 states that the individual must willfully cause Facts: Bliss development corporation is the registered
loss or injury to another. There is a need that the act is owner of Lot No. 27, Block 30, New Capitol Estates in
willful and hence done in complete freedom. Quezon City. On October 19, 1984, it entered into and
executed a Deed of Sale over the said property in favor
On the other hand, the trial court declared the marriage of Spouses Emiliano and Leonila Melgazo, both of whom
of the parties null and void based on Article 36 of the are now deceased.
Family Code, due to psychological incapacity of the
petitioner, Noel Buenaventura. On May 7, 1991, Rodolfo Nacua sent a letter to BDC
saying that the spouses transferred to him their rights
The Court of Appeals and the trial court considered the over the property. He further expressed willingness to
acts of the petitioner after the marriage as proof of his pay the outstanding obligations of Sps. Melgazo to BDC.
psychological incapacity, and therefore a product of his Before the property was fully paid, however, Nacua sold
incapacity or inability to comply with the essential his rights to Olivia Garcia (Garcia), through a Deed of
obligations of marriage. Nevertheless, said courts Transfer of Rights. Later, Garcia transferred her rights to
considered these acts as willful and hence as grounds for Elizabeth Reyes (Reyes). Reyes then transferred her
granting moral damages. It is contradictory to rights to Domingo Tapay (Tapay), who then later sold his
characterize acts as a product of psychological rights to herein respondent Montano Diaz (Diaz) for Six
incapacity, and hence beyond the control of the party Hundred Thousand Pesos.
because of an innate inability, while at the same time
considering the same set of acts as willful. Diaz then paid BDC the amortizations due on the
property, amounting to P406,915.15, and BDC issued a
The award of moral damages should be predicated, not permit to occupy the property in favor of Diaz. Diaz then
on the mere act of entering into the marriage, but on introduced improvements on the property, amounting to
specific evidence that it was done deliberately and with P700,000.00.
malice by a party who had knowledge of his or her
disability and yet willfully concealed the same. No such On April 14, 1992, BDC executed a Contract to Sell in
evidence appears to have been adduced in this case. favor of Diaz.3 On April 15, 1994, however, BDC informed
Diaz that respondent Edgar Arreza (Arreza) was claiming
For the same reason, since psychological incapacity that the heirs of Sps. Melgazo sold to him the rights over
means that one is truly incognitive of the basic marital the property.4 BDC then placed Diaz’s account in
covenants that one must assume and discharge as a “inactive status.”
consequence of marriage, it removes the basis for the
contention that the petitioner purposely deceived the BDC filed a complaint before the RTC of Makati City. It
private respondent. If the private respondent was ruled that the signatures of the spouses transferring their
deceived, it was not due to a willful act on the part of the rights to Nacua were mere forgeries. Thus, Arreza had a
petitioner. Therefore, the award of moral damages was better right over the property.
without basis in law and in fact.
Issue: WON BDC is liable to return the amortization paid
Since the grant of moral damages was not proper, it by Diaz, under the doctrine of unjust enrichment
follows that the grant of exemplary damages cannot
stand since the Civil Code provides that exemplary Held: Yes. BDC is liable to return to him the
damages are imposed in addition to moral, temperate, amortizations which he already paid on the property,
liquidated or compensatory damages applying the rule on unjust enrichment.

Unjust enrichment exists when a person unjustly

retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when
a person retains money or property of another
against the fundamental principles of justice,
equity and good conscience. Under Article 22 of
 the Civil Code, there is unjust enrichment when Issue: WON the CA should have ordered, as a matter of
(1) a person is unjustly benefited and (2) such law, to return to petitioners what they have received
benefit is derived at the expense of or with
damages to another. Held: Yes. The rule is settled that the declaration of
nullity of a contract which is void ab initio operates to
Allowing BDC to keep the amortizations paid by Diaz is restore things to the state and condition in which they
tantamount to unjust enrichment. It would result in BDC were found before the execution thereof. Petitioner is
receiving amortizations twice the amount it should have correct in its argument that allowing respondents to
received, that is, the amortizations paid by Diaz and keep the amount received from petitioner is tantamount
Arreza. While BDC claims that it did not receive to judicial acquiescence to unjust enrichment.
amortizations from both Diaz and Arreza covering the
same period, such a claim is self-serving, and is not amply Domingo Gonzalo v John Tarnate, Jr.
supported by any documentary evidence. G.R. No. 160600
January 15, 2014
Filinvest Land, Inc. v Ngilay
G. R. No. 174715 Facts: The Department of Public Works and Highways
October 11, 2012 had awarded the contract for the improvement of the
Sadsadan-Maba-ay Section of the Mountain Province-
Facts: Respondents were grantees of agricultural public Benguet Road. Petitioner Dominago, subcontracted to
lands located in Tambler, General Santos City through respondent John Tarnate, Jr, the supply of materials and
Homestead and Fee patents sometime in 1986 and 1991. labor for the project under JNT aggregates. Their
agreement stipulated, among others, that Tarnate would
Negotiations were made by petitioner, represented by pay to Gonzalo eight percent and four percent of the
Lina de Guzman-Ferrer with the patriarch of the Ngilays, contract price, respectively, upon Tarnate s first and
Hadji Gulam Ngilay sometime in 1995. Eventually, a Deed second billing in the project.
of Conditional Sale of the above- enumerated properties
in favor of petitioner Filinvest Land, Inc. was executed. In furtherance of their agreement, Gonzalo executed on
Upon its execution, respondents were asked to deliver to April 6, 1999 a deed of assignment whereby he, as the
petitioner the original owner's duplicate copy of the contractor, was assigning to Tarnate an amount
certificates of title of their respective properties. equivalent to 10% of the total collection from the DPWH
for the project.
A few days after the execution of the aforestated deeds
and the delivery of the corresponding documents to In the deed of assignment, Gonzalo authorized Tarnate
petitioner, respondents came to know that the sale of to use the official receipt of construction in the
their properties was null and void, because it was done processing of the documents relative to the collection of
within the period that they were not allowed to do so and the 10% retention fee and in encashing the check to be
that the sale did not have the approval of the Secretary issued by the DPWH for that purpose. During the
of the Department of Environment and Natural processing of the documents for the retention fee,
Resources (DENR) prompting them to file a case for the however, Tarnate learned that Gonzalo had unilaterally
declaration of nullity of the deeds of conditional and rescinded the deed of assignment by means of an
absolute sale. affidavit of cancellation of deed of assignment; and that
the disbursement voucher for the 10% retention fee had
On the other hand, petitioner claims that sometime in then been issued in the name of Gonzalo, and the
1995, the representative of Hadji Ngilay approached retention fee released to him.
petitioner to propose the sale of a portion of his
properties. Petitioner was willing to purchase the Issue: WON the CA erred in holding Gonzalo liable to pay
properties but seeing that some of the properties were Tarnate the equivalent amount of the retention fee.
registered as land grants through homestead patents,
representatives of petitioner informed Ngilay that they Held: Nonetheless, the application of the doctrine of in
would return to General Santos City in a few months to pari delicto is not always rigid. An accepted exception
finalize the sale arises when its application contravenes well-established
public policy.
The prevention of unjust enrichment is a recognized Insulted, Tan filed a complaint for grave oral defamation
public policy of the State, for Article 22 of the Civil Code in the office of the prosecutor in Mandaluyong.
explicitly provides that "[e]very person who through an
act of performance by another, or any other means, Issue: WON the CA erred in taking cognizance of the
acquires or comes into possession of something at the petition for inasmuch as the OSG raised errors of
expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall judgement but failed to prove that the RTC committed
return the same to him." GAD .

There is no question that Tarnate provided the Held: Yes. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
equipment, labor and materials for the project in punishment for the same offense.
compliance with his obligations under the subcontract
and the deed of assignment; and that it was Gonzalo as In this case, the OSG merely assailed the RTC's finding on
the contractor who received the payment for his contract the nature of petitioner's statement, that is, whether it
with the DPWH as well as the 10% retention fee that constituted grave or slight oral defamation. The OSG
should have been paid to Tarnate pursuant to the deed premised its allegation of grave abuse of discretion on
of assignment. Considering that Gonzalo refused despite the RTC's "erroneous" evaluation and assessment of the
demands to deliver to Tarnate the stipulated 10% evidence presented by the parties. What the OSG
retention fee that would have compensated the latter for therefore questioned were errors of judgment.
the use of his equipment in the project, Gonzalo would
be unjustly enriched at the expense of Tarnate if the Because the OSG did not raise errors of jurisdiction, the
latter was to be barred from recovering because of the CA erred in taking cognizance of its petition and, worse,
rigid application of the doctrine of in pari delicto. The in reviewing the factual findings of the RTC.
prevention of unjust enrichment called for the exception
to apply in Tarnate’s favor. Consequently, the RTC and At most, petitioner could have been liable for damages
the CA properly adjudged Gonzalo liable to pay Tarnate under Article 26 of the Civil Code.
the equivalent amount of the 10% retention fee (
Jessie T. Campugan v Atty. Federico Tolentino
Jerome Castro v People A.C. No. 8261
G.R. No. 180832 March 11, 2016
July 23, 2008
Facts: Atty. Victorio Jr. replaced Atty. Edgardo as counsel
Facts: On November 2002, Reedley International School in a civil action they brought seeking the annulment of
dismissed Tan’s son, Justin Albert for violating the terms the transfer certificate of title in Quezon City. They
of his disciplinary probation. RIS imposed a non- impleaded as defendants Ramon and Josefina Ricafort,
appealable resolution and excluded Justin from Juliet Vargas and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
participating in the graduation ceremonies.
The children of Antionio and Nemesia Torres, inherited
Tan filed a complaint in DepEd for violation of the Manual upon the deaths of their parents a residential low in
of Regulation of Private Schools, Education Act of 1982 Quezon City. They discovered that the transfer certificate
and Article 19 of the Civil code. He alleged that the has been unlawfully cancelled and replaced under the
dismissal of his son was undertaken with malice, bad names of Ramon and Josefina Ricafort. It appears that
faith and evident premeditation. After investigation, the the parties entered into an amicable settlement during
Dep-Ed found that RIS' code violation point system the pendency of Civil Case in order to end their dispute
allowed the summary imposition of unreasonable where they agreed to sell the property and the proceed
sanctions. Hence, the DepEd nullified it and ordered RIS would be equally divide between the parties.
to readmit Justin. Thus, he was able to participate in the
graduation ceremonies. The complainants alleged that from the time of the
issuance by the RTC of the order, they could no longer
Ching telephoned petitioner sometime the first week of locate Atty. Victorio Jr despite making several phone calls
April and told him that Tan was planning to sue the and visit to his office. They discovered that new
officers of RIS in their personal capacities annotations were made to their transfer certificate. They
filed a complaint with the Land Registration authority
assailing the unlawful cancellation of their notice of People v Bayotas
adverse claim and their notice of lis pendens. G.R. No. 102007
September 2, 1994
Unable to receive any response or assistance from Atty.
Victorio, Jr. despite their having paid him for his Facts: Rogelio Bayotas Cordova was charged with rape
professional services, the complainants felt that said and eventually convicted by Judge manuel E. Autajay. He
counsel had abandoned their case. They submitted that died on February 4, 1992 at the National Bilibid Hospital
the cancellation of their notice of adverse claim and their due to cardio respiratory arrest. . Consequently, the
notice of lis pendens without a court order specifically Supreme Court in its Resolution of May 20, 1992
allowing such cancellation resulted from the connivance dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. However, it
and conspiracy between Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. required the Solicitor General to file its comment with
Tolentino, Jr. regard to Bayotas' civil liability arising from his
commission of the offense charged.
Issue: WON the attorneys should be held liable
The Soc. Ge. claims that the death of accused-appellant
Held: No. Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule did not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his
that a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct commission of the offense charged.
committed either in his professional or private
capacity. he test is whether his conduct shows him to be Issue: WON the death of the accused pending appeal of
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good his conviction extinguished his civil liability?
demeanor, or whether his conduct renders him
unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court. Held: No. We see no merit in the plea that the civil
liability has been extinguished, in view of the provisions
The complainants' allegations of the respondents' acts of the Civil Code of the Philippines of 1950 (Rep. Act No.
and omissions are insufficient to establish any 386) that became operative eighteen years after the
censurable conduct against them. revised Penal Code. it allowed the appeal to proceed with
respect to the civil liability of the accused,
If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives notwithstanding the extinction of his criminal liability
him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be due to his death pending appeal of his conviction.
performed, such duty is discretionary, not ministerial.
The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires It is, thus, evident that as jurisprudence evolved from
neither the exercise of official discretion nor the exercise Castillo to Torrijos, the rule established was that the
of judgment. survival of the civil liability depends on whether the same
can be predicated on sources of obligations other than
In view of the foregoing, we find no abuse of authority or delict. Stated differently, the claim for civil liability is also
irregularity committed by Atty. Quilala, Atty. Cunanan, extinguished together with the criminal action if it were
and Atty. Caluya, Jr. with respect to the cancellation of solely based thereon, i.e., civil liability ex delicto.
the notice of adverse claim and the notice of lis
pendens annotated on TCT No. N-290546. Article 30 of the Civil Code provides:
When a separate civil action is brought to
There is no issue that the complainants engaged the demand civil liability arising from a criminal
services of Atty. Victorio, Jr. as their counsel in Civil Case offense, and no criminal proceedings are
No. Q-07-59598. Atty. Victorio, Jr. served as such instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a
counsel. With Atty. Victorio, Jr. assistance, the preponderance of evidence shall likewise be
complainants obtained a fair settlement consisting in sufficient to prove the act complained of.
receiving half of the proceeds of the sale of the
property in litis, without any portion of the proceeds Clearly, the text of Article 30 could not possibly lend
accruing to counsel as his legal fees. The complainants support to the ruling in Sendaydiego. Nowhere in its text
did not competently and persuasively show any is there a grant of authority to continue exercising
unfaithfulness on the part of Atty. Victorio, Jr. as far as appellate jurisdiction over the accused's civil liability ex
their interest in the litigation was concerned. Hence, delicto when his death supervenes during appeal. What
Atty. Victorio, Jr. was not liable for abandonment. Article 30 recognizes is an alternative and separate civil
action which may be brought to demand civil liability
arising from a criminal offense independently of any Rodolfo Basilonia v. Hon. Delano F. Villaruz
criminal action. G.R. No. 191370-71
August 10, 2015
The claim for civil liability springs out of and is dependent
upon facts which, if true, would constitute a crime. Such Facts: A decision was promulgated against petitioners in
civil liability is an inevitable consequence of the criminal a criminal case where the court found them guilty
liability and is to be declared and enforced in the criminal beyond reasonable doubt as principals for the murder of
proceeding. This is to be distinguished from that which is Atty. Isagani Roblete on September 1983 in Roxas City.
contemplated under Article 30 of the Civil Code which
refers to the institution of a separate civil action that Petitioners filed a notice of appeal but was dismissed for
does not draw its life from a criminal proceeding. failure to file their brief despite being given extensions.
Almost two decades passed from the entry of judgment,
Antonio L. Daluraya v Marla Oliva on May 11, 2009, private respondent Dixon C. Roblete,
G.R No. 210148 claiming to be the son of the deceased victim, Atty.
December 8, 2014 Roblete, filed a Motion for Execution of Judgment.

Facts: Daluraya was charged for Reckless imprudence He alleged, among others, that despite his request to the
resulting in homicide in connection with the death of City Prosecutor to file a motion for execution, the
Marina Oliva. Marina Oliva was crossing the street when judgment has not been enforced because said
a Nissan Vanette, traversing EDSA near the Quezon prosecutor has not acted upon his request.
avenue flyover, ran her over. While Marina Oliva was
rushed to the hospital to receive medical attention,she Issue: WON the civil liability from arising from the crime
eventually died, prompting her daughter, herein has been extinguished
respondent Marla Oliva (Marla), to file a criminal case for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide against Held: No. Elementary is the rule that every person
Daluraya. criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

Issue: WON the CA was correct in finding Daluraya civilly An action for revival of judgment is not intended to
liable for Marina Oliva’s death despite his acquittal in the reopen any issue affecting the merits of the case or the
criminal case. propriety or correctness of the first judgment.30 The
purpose is not to re-examine and re-try issues already
Held: Yes. Every person criminally liable for a felony is decided but to revive the judgment; its cause of action is
also civilly liable. The acquittal of an accused of the crime the judgment itself and not the merits of the original
charged, however, does not necessarily extinguish his action.31 However, being a mere right of action, the
civil liability. judgment sought to be revived is subject to defenses and
counterclaims like matters of jurisdiction and those
The acquittal of the accused does not automatically arising after the finality of the first judgment or which
preclude a judgment against him on the civil aspect of may have arisen subsequent to the date it became
the case.1âwphi1The extinction of the penal action does effective such as prescription, payment, or counterclaims
not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where: arising out of transactions not connected with the former
(a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only controversy.
preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court
declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and It is obvious that the heirs of Atty. Roblete did not file a
(c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or motion for execution within the five-year period or an
is not based upon the crime of which the accused is action to revive the judgment within the ten-year period.
acquitted. However, the civil action based on delict may Worse, other than the bare allegation that the judgment
be deemed extinguished if there is a finding on the final has not been enforced because the public prosecutor has
judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission not acted on the request to file a motion for execution,
from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or no persuasive and compelling reason was presented to
where the accused did not commit the acts or omission warrant the exercise of Our equity jurisdiction.
imputed to him. Unfortunately for private respondent Roblete, the
instant case does not fall within the exceptions afore-
stated. It cannot be claimed that the delay in execution
was entirely beyond their control or that petitioners have
any hand in causing the same. The entitlement to moral damages having been
established, the award of exemplary damages is proper.
Bobie Rose V. Frias v Flora San Diego-Sison Exemplary damages may be imposed upon petitioner by
G.R. No. 155223 way of example or correction for the public good.
April 4, 2007
People v. Armando Dionaldo
Facts: Bobie is the owner of a house in Batangas East, G.R. No. 207949
Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila which she July 23, 2014
acquired from Island Masters Realty and Development
Corporation by virtue of a Deed of Sale. Bobie and Flora Facts: Roderick Navarro dropped his brother, Edwin
entered into a memorandum of agreement over the Navarro, off at the Healh is Wealth Gym in Caloocan City.
property. Thirty minutes later, he received a text message from
another brother who told him that Edwin had been
Bobie received 2 million pesos in cash and 1 milion pesos kidnapped. Three (3) men, later identified as Armando,
in a post-dated check dated February 28, 1990, instead Renato, and Mariano, forcibly dragged a bloodied Edwin
of 1991, which rendered said check stale. Respondent down the stairway of the gym and pushed him inside a
decided not to purchase the property and notified dark green Toyota car with plate number UKF 194.
petitioner through a letter dated March 20, 1991, which
petitioner received only on June 11, 1991, reminding In the morning of the same day, he received a phone call
petitioner of their agreement that the amount of two from Edwin‟s kidnappers who threatened to kill Edwin if
million pesos which petitioner received from respondent he should report the matter to the police.
should be considered as a loan payable within six
months. Petitioner subsequently failed to pay The following day, Roderick received another call from
respondent the amount of two million pesos. the kidnappers, who demanded the payment of ransom
money in the amount of ₱15,000,000.00. Roderick told
Flora filed a complaint with the RTC of Manila for sum of them he had no such money, as he only had ₱50,000.00.
many with preliminary attachments against petitioner. In On May 19, 2003, after negotiations over the telephone,
an Order dated April 6, 1993, the Executive Judge of the the kidnappers agreed to release Edwin in exchange for
RTC of Manila issued a writ of preliminary attachment the amount of ₱110,000.00. Roderick was then
upon the filing of a bond in the amount of two million instructed to bring the money to Batangas and wait for
pesos. their next call.

Issue: WON respondent is entitled to moral damages Roderick was on his way to Batangas to deliver the
ransom money. He was told to park beside the libingan
Held: No. While petitioner was acquitted in the false ng mga bayani. After several house, a car pulled up in
testimony and perjury cases filed by respondent against from of his vehicle where four men alighted. Roderick
her, those actions are entirely distinct from the collection saw one of the men take a phone utter the word “alat”
of sum of money with damages filed by respondent and then drove away.
against petitioner.
Rodolfo, an employee at the Health Is Wealth Gym,
We agree with the findings of the trial court and the CA confessed to PO3 Acebuche that he was part of the plan
that petitioner’s act of trying to deprive respondent of to kidnap Edwin.
the security of her loan by executing an affidavit of loss
of the title and instituting a petition for the issuance of a During the trial, the death of the victim, Edwin, was
new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 168173 entitles established through a death certificate, showing that he
respondent to moral damages.1a\^/phi1.net Moral died from a gunshot wound on the head.
damages may be awarded in culpa contractual or breach
of contract cases when the defendant acted fraudulently Issue: WON the petitioner should be award civil
or in bad faith. Bad faith does not simply connote bad indemnity and moral damages to the family of the victim.
judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose
or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong. It Held: Yes. In the present case, considering that both the
partakes of the nature of fraud. qualifying circumstances of ransom and the death of the
victim during captivity were duly alleged in the Held: Yes. we find that the issue in the civil case, CA-G.R.
information and proven during trial, civil indemnity in the CV No. 36769, constitutes a valid prejudicial question to
amount of ₱100,000.00 must therefore be awarded to warrant suspension of the arraignment and further
the family of the victim, to conform with prevailing proceedings in the criminal case against petitioners.
jurisprudence.
All the elements of a prejudicial question are clearly and
The Court explained that even if the death unmistakably present in this case. There is no doubt that
penalty was not to be imposed on accused- the facts and issues involved in the civil action (No.
appellants in view of the prohibition in RA 9346, 36769) and the criminal case (No. 16936) are closely
the award of civil indemnity was nonetheless related. The filing of the criminal case was premised on
proper, not being dependent on the actual petitioners' alleged partiality and evident bad faith in not
imposition of the death penalty but on the fact paying private respondents' salaries and per diems as
that qualifying circumstances warranting the sectoral representatives, while the civil action was
imposition of the death penalty attended the instituted precisely to resolve whether or not the
commission of the crime. designations of private respondents as sectoral
representatives were made in accordance with law.
Reynaldo V. Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 110544 More importantly, ,the resolution of the civil case will
October 1,1995 certainly determine if there will still be any reason to
proceed with the criminal action.
Facts: Delia Estrellanes and Bartolome Binaohan were
designated as industrial labor sectoral representative Meynardo L. Beltran v People
and agricultural labor sectoral representative G.R. No. 137567
respectively, for the Sangguniang Bayan of Jimalalud, June 20, 2000
Province of Negros Oriental by then Secretary Luis T.
Santos of the Department of Local Government. Facts: Meynardo Beltran and wife Charmaine E. Felix
were married on June 16, 1973 at the Immaculate
They took their oath of office on February 16 1989 and Concepcion Parish Church in Cubao, Quezon City. After
February 17 1989. 24 years o marriage and four children, petitioner filed a
petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of
Petitioners filed an undated petition with the Office of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
the President for review and recall of said designations. Code.
The latter, however, in a letter dated 20 March 1989,
denied the petition and enjoined Mayor Reynaldo Charmaine alleged that it was him who abandoned the
Tuanda to recognize private respondents as sectoral conjugal home and lived with a certain woman named
representatives. Milagros Slating. Charmaine filed a criminal complaint for
concubinage against petitioner and his paramour.
Petitioners filed an action with the Regional Trial Court
of Dumaguete City to declare null and void the Petitioner, in order to forestall the issuance of a warrant
designations of private respondents as sectoral for his arrest, filed a Motion to Defer Proceedings
representatives Including the Issuance of the Warrant of Arrest in the
criminal case. Petitioner argued that the pendency of the
On 9 September 1991, petitioners filed a motion with the civil case for declaration of nullity of his marriage posed
Sandiganbayan for suspension of the proceedings in a prejudicial question to the determination of the
Criminal Case No. 16936 on the ground that a prejudicial criminal case.
question exists in Civil Case No. 9955 pending before the
Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City. Issue: WON there is a prejudicial question that should
merit the suspension of the criminal case for
Issue: WON the court committed GAD in denying concubinage filed against him by his wife.
petitioners motions for the suspension of the
proceedings in spite of the pendency of a prejudicial Held: NO. The pendency of the case for declaration of
issue before the CA. nullity of petitioner's marriage is not a prejudicial
question to the concubinage case. For a civil case to be
considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the Lichauco issued a notice of offer for several slots
suspension of the latter pending the final determination including 153 E.
of the civil case, it must appear not only that the said civil
case involves the same facts upon which the criminal PASI, claiming that the offer was without its knowledge
prosecution would be based, but also that in the and that it came to learn that another company
resolution of the issue or issues raised in the aforesaid submitted a bid and won the award filed a complaint for
civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would injunction to enjoin in the award of the orbital slot,
necessarily be determined. declare its nullity and for damages.

So that in a case for concubinage, the accused, like the PASI also filed on February 23, 1998 a complaint before
herein petitioner need not present a final judgment the Office of the Ombudsman against Secretary Josefina
declaring his marriage void for he can adduce evidence Trinidad Lichauco. In his affidavit-complaint, de Guzman
in the criminal case of the nullity of his marriage other charged Lichauco with gross violation of Section 3(e) of
than proof of a final judgment declaring his marriage Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-
void. Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

With regard to petitioner's argument that he could be Issue: WON there is a prejudicial question present in the
acquitted of the charge of concubinage should his complaints
marriage be declared null and void, suffice it to state that
even a subsequent pronouncement that his marriage is Held: Yes. To determine the existence of a prejudicial
void from the beginning is not a defense. question in the case before the Ombudsman, it is
necessary to examine the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A.
Philippine Agila Satellite Inc. (PASI) v Josefina Trinidad- 3019 for which Lichauco was charged and the causes of
Lichauco action in the civil case
G.R. No. 134887
July 27, 2006 Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which was earlier quoted has
the following elements:
Facts: A memorandum of understanding was entered
into by a consortium of private telecommunications 1. The accused is a public officer discharging
carries and the DOTC regarding the launching, administrative or official functions or private
ownership, operation, and management of a Philippine persons charged in conspiracy with them;
satellite by a Filipino-owned or controlled private 2. The public officer committed the prohibited act
corporation. during the performance of his official duty or in
relation to his public position;
PASI President Rodrigo A. Silverio (Silverio) requested the 3. The public officer acted with manifest
then DOTC Secretary Amado S. Lagdameo, Jr. for official partiality, evident bad faith or gross, inexcusable
government confirmation of the assignment of negligence; and
Philippine orbital slots 161ºE and 153ºE to PASI for its 4. His action caused undue injury to the
AGILA satellites. Government or any private party, or gave any
party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or
PASI undertook preparations for the launching, preference to such parties
operation and management of its satellites by, among
other things, obtaining loans, increasing its capital, The civil case against Lichauco on the other hand involves
conducting negotiations with its business partners, and three causes of action. The first, for injunction, seeks to
making an initial payment of US$ 3.5 million to enjoin the award of orbital slot 153ºE, the DOTC having
Aerospatiale, a French satellite manufacturer. previously assigned the same to PASI; the second, for
declaration of nullity of award, seeks to nullify the award
Michael De Guzman informed Jesli Lapuz of the given to the undisclosed bidder for being beyond
government’s assignment to PASI of orbital slots 161 E Lichauco’s authority; and the third, for damages arising
and 153 E and requested the bank’s confirmation of its from Lichauco’s questioned acts.
participation in a club loan in the amount of 11 millions
US dollars. If the award to the undisclosed bidder of orbital slot
153ºE is, in the civil case, declared valid for being within
Lichauco’s scope of authority to thus free her from action must be instituted prior to the institution of the
liability for damages, there would be no prohibited act to criminal action. In this case, the Information was filed
speak of nor would there be basis for undue with the Sandiganbayan ahead of the complaint in Civil
injury claimed to have been suffered by petitioner. The Case No. 7160 filed by the State with the RTC in Civil Case
finding by the Ombudsman of the existence of a No. 7160. Thus, no prejudicial question exists.
prejudicial question is thus well-taken.
Additionally, it is a principle in statutory construction
Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v Cleofe. Janiola that "a statute should be construed not only to be
G.R. No. 184861 consistent with itself but also to harmonize with other
June 30, 2009 laws on the same subject matter, as to form a complete,
coherent and intelligible system."
Facts: Roberto S. Concepcion and Normandy P. Amora
filed a complaint for violation of BP 22 against Cleofe In the instant case, Art. 36 of the Civil Code and Sec. 7 of
Janiola with the Office of the City Prosec In Las Pinas. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court are susceptible of an
Correspondingly, petitioner filed a criminal information interpretation that would harmonize both provisions of
for violation of BP 22 against private respondent. law. The phrase "previously instituted civil action" in Sec.
7 of Rule 111 is plainly worded and is not susceptible of
Cleofe, joined by her husband, filed a civil complaint alternative interpretations. The clause "before any
against petitioner for the rescisiion of an alleged criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed"
construction agreement between the parties as well as in Art. 36 of the Civil Code may, however, be interpreted
for damages. to mean that the motion to suspend the criminal action
may be filed during the preliminary investigation with the
Private respondent filed a Motion to Suspend public prosecutor or court conducting the investigation,
Proceedings alleging that the civil and criminal cases or during the trial with the court hearing the case.
involved facts and issues similar or intimately related
such that in the resolution of the issues in the civil case, Thus, under the principles of statutory construction, it is
the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily this interpretation of Art. 36 of the Civil Code that should
be determined. In other words, private respondent govern in order to give effect to all the relevant
claimed that the civil case posed a prejudicial question as provisions of law.
against the criminal cases.
It bears pointing out that the circumstances present in
Issue: WON the court erred in not perceiving GAD on the the instant case indicate that the filing of the civil action
part of the inferior court, when it ruled to suspend the and the subsequent move to suspend the criminal
proceedings on the basis of having a prejudicial question proceedings by reason of the presence of a prejudicial
question were a mere afterthought and instituted to
Held: No. delay the criminal proceedings.

Private respondent argues that the phrase "before any Rafael Jose-Consing, Jr v People
criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed" G.R. No. 161075
must be interpreted to mean that a prejudicial question July 15, 2013
exists when the civil action is filed either before the
institution of the criminal action or during the pendency Facts: Rafael negotiated with Cecilia de la Crus various
of the criminal action. Private respondent concludes that loans totaling 18 million from Unicapital, Inc. The loans
there is an apparent conflict in the provisions of the Rules were secured by a real estate mortgage constituted on a
of Court and the Civil Code in that the latter considers a parcel of land covered by a transfer certificate of title
civil case to have presented a prejudicial question even if under the name of de la cruz.. Unicapital agreed to
the criminal case preceded the filing of the civil case. purchase one-half of the property for a total
consideration of ₱21,221,500.00. Payment was effected
Under the amendment, a prejudicial question is by off-setting the amounts due to Unicapital under the
understood in law as that which must precede the promissory notes of de la Cruz and Consisting in the
criminal action and which requires a decision before a amount of ₱18,000,000.00 and paying an additional
final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action amount of ₱3,145,946.50.
with which said question is closely connected. The civil
The other half of the property was bought by Plus does not operate as a prejudicial question that will justify
Builders, inc. the suspension of a criminal case.

Before they could develop the property, they learned Moreover, neither is there a prejudicial question if the
that the title property was realky under the names of Po civil and the criminal action can, according to law,
Willie Yu and Juanito Tan Teng who appeared to be proceed independently of each other.
spurious.
Joselit R. Pimentel v Maria Chrysantine L. Pimentel
On its part, Unicapital demanded the return of the total G.R. No. 172060
amount of ₱41,377,851.48 as of April 19, 1999 that had September 13, 2010
been paid to and received by de la Cruz and Consing, but
the latter ignored the demands Facts: Maria filed an action for frustrated parricide
against Joselite. He received summons for the pre trial
Consing filed a civil case seeking to enjoin Unicapital from and trial of civil case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
proceeding against him for the collection of the amount on the ground of Psychological Incapacity.
of money on the ground that he had acted as a mere
agent of his mother. Unicapital, on the other hand, filed He filed a motion to suspend the proceedings on the
a criminal case for estafa through falsification of public ground of the existence of a prejudicial question. He
document against Consing. Unicapital sued Consing for asserted that since the relationship between the
the recovery of a sum of many and damages. offender and the victim is a key element in parricide, the
outcome would have a bearing in the criminal case filed
Consing moved to defer his arraignment in the Makati against him before the RTC of QC.
criminal case on the ground of existence of a prejudicial
question due to the pendency of the Pasig and Makati Issue: WON the resolution of the action for annulment of
civil cases. marriage is a prejudicial question that warrants the
suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide
Issue: WON the CA err in reversing itself on the issue of against petitioner.
the existence of a prejudicial question that warranted
the suspension of the proceedings in the Makati criminal Held: No. The resolution of the civil action is not a
case? prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension
of the criminal action.
Held: No. Consing has hereby deliberately chosen to
ignore the firm holding in the ruling in G.R. No. 148193 The relationship between the offender and the victim is
to the effect that the proceedings in Criminal Case No. a key element in the crime of parricide, which punishes
00-120 could not be suspended because the Makati civil any person "who shall kill his father, mother, or child,
case was an independent civil action, while the Pasig civil whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his
case raised no prejudicial question. That was wrong for ascendants or descendants, or his spouse." The
him to do considering that the ruling fully applied to him relationship between the offender and the victim
due to the similarity between his case with Plus Builders distinguishes the crime of parricide from murder or
and his case with Unicapital. homicide. However, the issue in the annulment of
marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue
A perusal of Unicapital’s complaint in the Makati civil in the criminal case for parricide. Further, the
case reveals that the action was predicated on fraud. This relationship between the offender and the victim is not
was apparent from the allegations of Unicapital in its determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
complaint to the effect that Consing and de la Cruz had
acted in a "wanton, fraudulent, oppressive, or The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage
malevolent manner in offering as security and later under Article 36 of the Family Code is whether petitioner
object of sale, a property which they do not own, and is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
foisting to the public a spurious title." essential marital obligations. The issue in parricide is
whether the accused killed the victim. In this case, since
It is well settled that a civil action based on defamation, petitioner was charged with frustrated parricide, the
fraud and physical injuries may be independently issue is whether he performed all the acts of execution
instituted pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code, and which would have killed respondent as a consequence
but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of Held: NO. As correctly stated by the Court of Appeals,
causes independent of petitioner’s will. SEC Case No. 05-97-5659 does not present a prejudicial
question to the criminal case for estafa. It is an action for
At the time of the commission of the alleged crime, accounting of all corporate funds and assets of Anaped,
petitioner and respondent were married. The annulment of sale, injunction, receivership and damages.
subsequent dissolution of their marriage, in case the Even if said case will be decided against respondents,
petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 is granted, will have no they will not be adjudged free from criminal liability. It
effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the also does not automatically follow that an accounting of
time of the subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if corporate funds and properties and annulment of
the marriage between petitioner and respondent is fictitious sale of corporate assets would result in the
annulled, petitioner could still be held criminally liable conviction of respondents in the estafa case.
since at the time of the commission of the alleged crime,
he was still married to respondent. With respect to SEC Case No. 03-99-6259, however, we
affirm the Court of Appeals’ finding that a prejudicial
People v Victoria R. Arambulo question exists. The Complaint in SEC Case No. 03-99-
G.R. No. 186597 6259 prays for the nullification of the election of Anaped
June 17, 2015 directors and officers, including Buban. Essentially, the
issue is the authority of the aforesaid officers to act for
Facts: Victoria R. Arambulo (Victoria), Emerenciana R. and behalf of the corporation.
Gungab, Reynaldo Reyes (Reynaldo), Domingo Reyes
(Domingo), Rodrigo Reyes and Oscar Reyes (Oscar) are
the heirs of Spouses Pedro C. Reyes and Anastacia Reyes.

Anaped Estate Inc. (Anaped) was incorporated as part of

the estate planning or as conduit to hold the properties
of the estate of Pedro Reyes for and in behalf of his heirs.
ose Buban (Buban), as Vice-President and General
Manager of Anaped Estate Inc. (Anaped), filed a
complaint for estafa against Victoria and her husband
Miguel Arambulo, Jr. (Miguel). He alleged that Victoria
failed to remit the rentals collected from the time the
ownership of the commercial apartments was
transferred to Anaped.

On 14 April 2003, respondents filed a Motion to Suspend

Proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question in
view of the pendency of two intra-corporate cases
pending before the RTC of Quezon City and Makati City.

In their motion to suspend proceedings, respondents

asserted that the resolution of the SEC cases in their
favor particularly the issues of whether of the group of
Rodrigo and Buban are the lawful representatives of the
corporation and whether they are duly authorized to
make a demand for remittance would necessarily result
in their acquittal in the criminal case.

Issue: WON the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that

there exists a prejudicial question which calls for the
suspension of the criminal proceedings before the trial
court.