Upload
kristelle-kua
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
1/36
G.R.No.86720September2,1994
MHP GARMENTS, INC., and LARRY C. DE GUZMAN, Petitioners, vs. THEHONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, AGNES VILLA CRUZ, MIRASOL
LUGATIMAN,andGERTRUDESGONZALES,Respondents.
PUNO,J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The constitutional protection of our people against unreasonable search andseizureisnotmerelyapleasingplatitude.Itvouchsafesourrighttoprivacyanddignityagainstundesirableintrusionscommittedbyanypublicofficerorprivateindividual. An infringement of this right justifies an award fordamages.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
OnFebruary22,1983,petitionerMHPGarments,Inc.,wasawardedbytheBoyScouts of the Philippines, the exclusive franchise to sell and distribute official
Boy Scouts uniforms, supplies, badges, and insignias. In their MemorandumAgreement, petitioner corporation was given the authority to "undertake orcause tobeundertaken the prosecution in courtofall illegal sources ofscoutuniformsandotherscoutingsupplies."1chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sometime in October 1983, petitioner corporation received information thatprivate respondents Agnes Villa Cruz, Mirasol Lugatiman, and GertrudesGonzalesweresellingBoyScoutsitemsandparaphernaliawithoutanyauthority.Petitioner de Guzman, an employee of petitioner corporation, was tasked toundertake the necessary surveillance and to make a report to the PhilippineConstabulary(PC).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
OnOctober25,1983,atabout10:30A.M.,petitionerdeGuzman,CaptainRenatoM.Peafiel,andtwo(2)otherconstabularymenoftheReactionForceBattalion,SikatunaVillage,Diliman,QuezonCitywenttothestoresofrespondentsattheMarikinaPublicMarket.Withoutanywarrant,theyseizedtheboyandgirlscoutspants,dresses,andsuitsondisplayatrespondents'stalls.Theseizurecausedacommotionandembarrassedprivaterespondents.Receiptswereissuedfortheseizeditems.TheitemswerethenturnedoverbyCaptainPeafieltopetitionercorporation for safekeeping.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
A criminal complaint for unfair competition was then filed against privaterespondents.2Duringitspendency,petitionerdeGuzmanexactedfromprivaterespondent Lugatiman the sum of THREE THOUSANDONE HUNDRED PESOS(P3,100.00)inorder tobedroppedfromthecomplaint.OnDecember6,1983,after a preliminary investigation, the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal dismissed thecomplaint against all the private respondents. On February 6, 1984, he alsoorderedthereturnoftheseizeditems.Theseizeditemswerenotimmediatelyreturned despite demands. 3Private respondents had to go personally topetitioners'placeofbusinesstorecovertheirgoods.Eventhen,notalltheseizeditems were returned. The other items returned were of inferior
quality.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
2/36
Privaterespondentsthen filedCivilCaseNo. 51144against the petitionersforsums ofmoneyand damages. 4In its Decisiondated January9,1987, the trialcourtruledfortheprivaterespondents,thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against
defendants, ordering the latter jointly and severally: chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
1.ToreturntheamountofP3,100.00toplaintiffMirasolLugatimanwithinterestat12% per annumfrom January12, 1984, the dateof the last receipt issued,untilfullypaid;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2.TopayplaintiffAgnesVillaCruzthesumofP2,000.00forthe26piecesofgirlscoutitemsnotreturned;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
3. To pay plaintiffs the amount of P50,000.00 for and as moral damages and
P15,000.00forandasexemplarydamages;andchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
4. P5,000.00 for and as attorney's fees and litigationexpenses.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Costsagainstthedefendants.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtual lawlibrary
SOORDERED.
The decision was appealed to the respondent court. On January 18, 1989, its
FifthDivision,5
affirmedtheDecisionwithmodification,thus:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMEDwith MODIFICATION;and, as modified, the dispositive portion thereof now reads as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs (private respondents) andagainst defendants (petitioners), ordering the latter jointly and severally;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1. To return the amount of P3,100.00 to plaintiff (respondent) Mirasol
Lugatimanandcancelherapplicationfordistributor'slicense;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2.Topayplaintiff(respondent)AgnesVillaCruzthesumofP2,000.00fortheunreturned26piecesofgirlscoutsitemswithinterestat12%perannumfromJune 4, 1984 (date the complaint was filed) until it is fully paid; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
3.Topayplaintiffs(respondents)the amountofP10,000.00each,oratotalofP30,000.00, for and as moral damages; and P5,000.00 each, or a total ofP15,000.00,forandasexemplarydamages;andchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
4. To pay plaintiffs (respondents) P5,000.00 for and as attorney's fees and
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
3/36
litigationexpenses.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Costsofthecaseaquoandtheinstantappealareassessedjointlyandseverallyagainst defendants-appellants (petitioners) MHP Garments, Inc. and Larry deGuzman.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SOORDERED.
Inthispetitionforcertiorari,petitionerscontend:
FIRSTASSIGNMENTOFERROR
THE COURTOFAPPEALS ERRED IN IMPUTINGLIABILITY FOR DAMAGES TOTHE PETITIONERS WHO DID NOT EFFECT THE SEIZURE OF THE SUBJECTMERCHANDISE.
SECONDASSIGNMENTOFERROR
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT MADE A FINDING THAT THEMANNERWITHWHICHTHECONFISCATIONOFPRIVATERESPONDENTSWASTORTIOUS BUT PENALIZED INSTEAD THE PETITIONERS WHO DID NOTCOMMITTHEACTOFCONFISCATION.
THIRDASSIGNMENTOFERROR
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND FOR THE PRIVATERESPONDENTSANDAGAINSTTHEPETITIONERS.
Weaffirm.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
ArticleIII,section2,oftheConstitutionprotectsourpeoplefromunreasonablesearchandseizure.Itprovides:
Therightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,papers,andeffectsagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizuresofwhatevernatureforanypurposeshallbeinviolable,andnosearchwarrantorwarrantofarrestshallissueexceptuponprobablecausetobedeterminedpersonallybythejudgeafterexaminationunderoathoraffirmationofthecomplainantandthewitnesseshemayproduce,
andparticularlydescribingtheplacetobesearchedandthepersonsorthingstobeseized.
Thisprovisionprotectsnotonlythosewhoappeartobeinnocentbutalsothosewhoappeartobeguiltybutareneverthelesstobepresumedinnocentuntilthecontrary is proved. 6In the case at bench, the seizurewasmade without anywarrant.UndertheRulesofCourt,7awarrantlesssearchcanonlybeundertakenunderthefollowingcircumstance:
Sec.12.Search incidenttoalawfularrest.-Aperson lawfullyarrestedmaybesearchedfordangerousweaponsoranythingwhichmaybeusedasproofofthe
commissionofanoffense,withoutasearchwarrant.
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
4/36
Weholdthattheevidencedidnotjustifythewarrantlesssearchandseizureofprivate respondents' goods. Petitioner corporation received information thatprivaterespondentswereillegallysellingBoyScoutsitemsandparaphernaliainOctober 1983. The specific date and time are not established in the evidenceadducedbythe parties.PetitionerdeGuzman thenmadeasurveillanceof the
storesofprivaterespondents.TheyreportedtothePhilippineConstabularyandonOctober25,1983,theraidwasmadeonthestoresofprivaterespondentsandthe supposed illicit goods were seized. The progression of time between thereceipt of the information and the raid of the stores of private respondentsshowstherewassufficienttimeforpetitionersandthePCraidingpartytoapplyforajudicialwarrant.Despitethesufficiencyoftime,theydidnotapplyforawarrantandseizedthegoodsofprivaterespondents.Indoingso,theytooktheriskofasuitfordamagesincasetheseizurewouldbeprovedtoviolatetherightofprivaterespondentsagainstunreasonablesearchandseizure.Inthecaseatbench,thesearchandseizurewereclearlyillegal.Therewasnoprobablecausefortheseizure.Probablecauseforasearchhasbeendefinedas"suchfactsandcircumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man tobelieve that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought inconnectionwiththeoffenseareintheplacesoughttobesearched." 8Thesefactsandcircumstanceswerenotinanywayshownbythepetitionerstojustifytheirwarrantless search and seizure. Indeed, after a preliminary investigation, theProvincial Fiscal ofRizal dismissedtheircomplaintforunfair competition andlater ordered the return of the seized goods.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Petitioners would deflect their liability with the argument that it was the
PhilippineConstabularythatconductedtheraidandtheirparticipationwasonlyto report the alleged illegal activity of privaterespondents.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
While undoubtedly, the members of the PC raiding team should have beenincludedinthecomplaintforviolationoftheprivaterespondents'constitutionalrights, still, the omission will not exculpatepetitioners.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
InthecaseofLimvs.PoncedeLeon,9weruledfortherecoveryofdamagesforviolation of constitutional rights and liberties from public officer or private
individual,thus:
Art.32.Anypublicofficeror employee,oranyprivateindividual,whodirectlyorindirectlyobstructs,defeats,violatesorinanymannerimpedesorimpairsanyofthefollowingrightsandlibertiesofanotherpersonshallbeliabletothelatterfordamages.
xxxxxxxxxchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(9) The rights tobesecure inone'sperson,house,papers, and effectsagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizures.
xxxxxxxxxchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
5/36
The indemnity shall includemoraldamages.Exemplary damagesmay also beadjudged.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogouscases:
xxxxxxxxxchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(6)Illegalsearch;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1)Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and35.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Pursuanttotheforegoingprovisions,apersonwhoseconstitutionalrightshavebeen violated or impaired is entitled to actual and moral damages from thepublicofficeror employeeresponsibletherefor.Inaddition,exemplarydamages
mayalsobeawarded.
xxxxxxxxxchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
TheverynatureofArticle32isthatthewrongmaybecivilorcriminal.Itisnotnecessary therefore that thereshouldbemalice orbad faith. Tomake such arequisite would defeat themain purpose of Article 32which is the effectiveprotection of individual rights. Public officials in the past have abused theirpowersonthepretextofjustifiablemotivesorgoodfaithintheperformanceoftheirduties.Precisely,theobjectoftheArticleistoputanendtoofficialabusebypleaofthegoodfaith.IntheUnitedStatesthisremedyisinthenatureofatort.
(emphasissupplied)
In the subsequent case ofAberca vs. Ver, 10the Court En Banc explained theliabilityofpersonsindirectlyresponsible,viz:
[T]hedecisivefactorinthiscase,inourview,isthelanguageofArticle32.Thelawspeaksofanofficeroremployeeorperson"directlyorindirectly"responsiblefortheviolationoftheconstitutionalrightsandlibertiesofanother.Thus,itisnot the actor alone (i.e., the one directly responsible) who must answer fordamagesunderArticle32;thepersonindirectlyresponsiblehasalsotoanswerforthedamagesorinjurycausedtotheaggrievedparty.
xxxxxxxxxchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Whileitwouldcertainly betoonaivetoexpect thatviolatorsofhumanrightswould easily be deterred by the prospect of facing damages suits, it shouldnonethelessbemadeclearinnouncertaintermsthatArticle32oftheCivilCodemakes the persons who are directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for thetransgressionjointtortfeasors.
xxxxxxxxxchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[N]either can it be said that only those shown tohave participated "directly"shouldbeheldliable.Article32oftheCivilCodeencompasseswithintheambit
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
6/36
ofitsprovisionsthosedirectly,aswellasindirectly,responsibleforitsviolations.(emphasissupplied)
Applying the aforecited provisions and leading cases, the respondent courtcorrectly granted damages to private respondents. Petitionerswere indirectly
involvedintransgressingtherightofprivaterespondentsagainstunreasonablesearchandseizure.Firstly,theyinstigatedtheraidpursuanttotheircovenantintheMemorandumAgreementtoundertaketheprosecutionincourtofallillegalsourcesofscoutingsupplies.11Ascorrectlyobservedbyrespondentcourt:
Indeed, the acts committed by the PCsoldiersofunlawfully seizing appellees'(respondents') merchandise and of filing the criminal complaint for unfaircompetitionagainstappellees(respondents)werefortheprotectionandbenefitofappellant(petitioner)corporation.Suchbeingthecase,it is,thus,reasonablyfairtoinferfromthoseactsthat itwasuponappellant(petitioner)corporation'sinstancethat the PCsoldiersconducted the raidand effectedthe illegal seizure.
Thesecircumstancesshouldanswerthetrialcourt'squery-posedinitsdecisionnowunderconsideration-astowhythePCsoldiersimmediatelyturnedovertheseized merchandise to appellant (petitioner) corporation. 12 chanrobles virtuallawlibrary
Theraidwasconductedwiththeactiveparticipationoftheiremployee.LarrydeGuzmandidnotliftafingertostoptheseizureoftheboyandgirlscoutsitems.Bystandingbyandapparentlyassentingthereto,hewasliabletothesameextentas the officers themselves. 13So with the petitioner corporation which evenreceivedforsafekeepingthegoodsunreasonablyseizedbythePCraidingteamand de Guzman, and refused to surrender them for quite a time despite thedismissal of its complaint for unfair competition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Secondly,LetterofInstructionNo.1299waspreciselycraftedonMarch9,1983tosafeguardnotonlytheprivilegeoffranchiseholderofscoutingitemsbutalsothecitizen'sconstitutionalrights,towit:
TITLE: APPREHENSION OF UNAUTHORIZED MANUFACTURERS ANDDISTRIBUTORS OF SCOUT PARAPHERNALIA AND IMPOUNDING OF SAIDPARAPHERNALIA.
ABSTRACT:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Directs all law enforcement agencies of the Republic of the Philippines, toapprehend immediately unauthorizedmanufacturersanddistributors of Scoutparaphernalia, upon proper application by the Boy Scouts of the Philippinesand/orGirlScoutsofthePhilippinesforwarrantofarrestand/orsearchwarrant
withajudge,orsuchotherresponsibleofficerasmaybeauthorizedbylaw;andtoimpound the said paraphernalia to be used as evidence in court or otherappropriate administrative body. Orders the immediate and strict compliancewiththeInstructions.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Undertheaboveprovisionandasaforediscussed,petitionersmiserablyfailedto
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
7/36
report the unlawful peddling of scouting goods to the Boy Scouts of thePhilippinesfortheproperapplicationofawarrant.Privaterespondents'rightsareimmutableandcannotbesacrificedtotransientneeds.15Petitionersdidnothave the unbridled license tocausethe seizureofrespondents' goodswithoutanywarrant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Andthirdly,ifpetitionersdidnothaveahandintheraid,theyshouldhavefiledathird-party complaint against the raiding team for contribution or any otherrelief, 16in respect of respondents' claim for Recovery of Sum of Money withDamages.Again,theydidnot.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Wehaveconsistentlyruledthatmoraldamagesarenotawardedtopenalizethedefendantbuttocompensatetheplaintifffortheinjurieshemayhavesuffered.17Conformablywithourrulingin Limvs.PoncedeLeon,op.cit.,moraldamagescanbeawardedinthecaseatbench.Therecanbenodoubtthatpetitionersmust
have suffered sleepless nights, serious anxiety, and wounded feelingsdue thetortious raid caused by petitioners. Private respondents' avowals ofembarrassment andhumiliationduring theseizure of theirmerchandiseweresupportedbytheirtestimonies.RespondentCruzdeclared:
Ifeltverynervous.Iwascryingtoloss(sic)mygoodsandcapitalbecauseIamdoingbusinesswithborrowedmoneyonly,therewascommotioncreatedbytheraidingteamandtheyevensteppedonsomeofthepantsanddressesondisplayfor sale. All passersby stopped to watch and stared at me with accusingexpressions.Iwastremblingandterriblyashamed,sir. 18chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
RespondentLugatimantestified:
Ifeltverynervous.IwascryingandIwasverymuchashamedbecausemanypeoplehavebeenwatchingthePCsoldiershaulingmyitems,andmany/I(sic)heardsay "nakaw palaangmga iyan" forwhich I amclaimingP25,000.00 fordamages.19chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WhilerespondentGonzalezstatedthus:
Idonot likethewaytheraidwasconductedbytheteamsirbecauseit lookedlike that what I have been selling were stolen items that they should beconfiscatedbyuniformedsoldiers.Manypeoplewerearoundandthemoretheconfiscationwasmadeinascandalousmanner;everyclothes,T-shirts,pantsanddresseseventhosenotwrappeddroppedtotheground.Iwasterriblyshamedinthepresenceofmarketgoersthatmorning.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Needlestostate,thewantonnessofthewrongfulseizurejustifiestheawardofexemplarydamages.21Itwillalsoserveasasternremindertoallandsundrythattheconstitutionalprotectionagainstunreasonablesearchandseizureisavirilerealityandnotamereburstofrhetoric.Theallencompassingprotectionextends
against intrusionsdirectlydonebothbygovernmentand indirectlybyprivateentities.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
8/36
INVIEWWHEREOF,theappealeddecisionisAFFIRMEDWITHMODIFICATION.We impose a SIX PERCENT (6%) interest from January 9, 1987 on the TWOTHOUSANDPESOS(P2,000.00)fortheunreturnedtwenty-six(26)piecesofgirlscoutsitemsandaTWELVEPERCENT(12%)interest,inlieuofSIXPERCENT(6%),onthesaidamountuponfinalityofthisDecisionuntilthepaymentthereof.
22Costs against petitioners.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,Padilla,Regalado,andMendoza,JJ.,concur.
G.R.No.104513August4,1993
SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABORRELATIONS COMMISSION AND GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATION OF
WORKERS IN HOTEL RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES(GLOWHRAIN), SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CHAPTER, ROGELIO M.
SOLUTA,ELMERC.LABOG,JOSELITOA.SANTOS,FLORENTNOP.MATILLA,
EDNAB.DACANAY,HENRYM.BABAY,RAYANTONIOE.ROSAURA,DENNIS
C. COSICO, VICENTE M. DELOSA, IRENE V. RAGAY, APOLONIO BONDOC,
QUINTOS B. BARRA, ALFREDO S. BAUTISTA, RICHARD T. GALIGO, JOHN
DOESANDJANEDOES,Respondents.
NOCON,J.:
MaytheFirstDivisionoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)order
thereinstatementofemployeesdismissedforleadingand/orparticipatinginanillegalstrike,inaninjunctioncase 1whichisseparateanddistinctfromtheillegalcase2againstthemandwhichispendingappeal?chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In this instant petition for certiorariand prohibition, the answer to the mainissuestatedabovedetermineswhetherornotthepublicrespondent-NLRCactedwithoutorinexcessofitsjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretioninissuingsuchanorder.3chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The petitioner Silahis International Hotel Inc. is the employer of privaterespondent employees. Respondent-Union Genuine Labor Organization ofWorkers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries (GLOWHRAIN)-SilahisInternational Hotel Chapter, is the exclusive bargaining representative of therank-and-fileemployeesinthecompany.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Theantecedentfactsareasfollows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On November 16, 1990, respondent-Union filed a notice of strike againstpetitioner-SilahisHotelforunfairlaborpractices:violationofCBA,dismissalofunionofficers/members,masstermination/illegallockout,andunionbusting.4chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On the sameday, private respondents staged a strike, picketing and allegedly
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
9/36
obstructing the ingress to and egress from the hotel. 5 chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
On November 28, 1990, the Secretary of Labor and Employment assumedjurisdiction and issued an order certifying the dispute to the NLRC for
consolidationwith an earlier case and for all striking employees to return towork.6Accordingly,onNovember29,1990,theemployeesendedthestrikeandreturntowork.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
OnFebruary1,1991,petitionerSilahisHotelfiledacomplaintforillegalstrike(NLRC NCR Case No. 02-00717-91) against respondent-Union, fourteen (14)namedemployeesrepresentingtheunionofficersandJohnDoesandJaneDoesrepresentingalltheotheremployeeswhojoinedthestrike.7chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
InadecisiondatedFebruary12,1992,LaborArbiterCornelioL.Linsanganfound
private respondents guilty of illegal strike and declared the union officers tohavelostandforfeitedtheiremployment.8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
OnFebruary14,1992,thedaytheprivaterespondentslearnedofthedecision,petitioner-Silahis Hotel barred them from entering the hotel and terminatedtheirservices.Respondent-Unionandprivaterespondent-employees filed theirappeal onFebruary19,1992,wellwithin the ten-dayperiod for perfectionofappealprovidedbylaw.9chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
And on February 27, 1992, herein private respondents filed a Very UrgentPetition10fortheissuanceofawritofpreliminarymandatoryinjunctionunder
Art.218(e)oftheLaborCode,notintheillegalstrikecasethenonappeal,11butas NLRC NCR IC No. 00-0235-92. In that petition, respondents (petitionerstherein) allege that petitioner-Silahis Hotel terminated the employment ofrespondents on February 14, 1992 even before the illegal strike decision12becamefinalandexecutoryandthatmostoftheemployeesterminatedwerenotunionofficersnorprovedtobeparticipantsinthestrike.Theterminationofrespondents'employmentwouldcausegraveorirreparableinjurywhichcanbecorrected by the writ of preliminary mandatoryinjunction.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
ThefirstdivisionoftheNLRCissued,inaMinuteResolution,anorderinfavorofrespondentsdatedMarch11,1992,thedispositivepartofwhichreads:
Wherefore,weighing the relativepositionof the parties vis-a-vis the equitablereliefsavailable,weherebyrulesubject.topetitioners'postingofabondofFiftyThousand(P50,000.00)Pesos toanswer forwhatever liability the respondentmay suffer should it appear that they are not entitled to the reliefs herebygranted,directingtherespondentcompany:(1)toreinstateeitherphysicallyoronpayroll,atrespondent'soption,toreinstate(sic)RogelioM.Soluta,JoselitoASantos, Florentino P. Matilla, Edna B. Dacanay, Dennis C. Cosico, Alfredo S.BautistaandRichardT.Galigo;and(2)toreinstate,withfullbackwages,allthe
otherpetitionerstotheirpositionsheldasofFebruary14,1992.LaborArbiterAdolfoC.Babianois herebydirectedtohearthe incidentof temporaryand/or
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
10/36
permanent injunction, and to submit a report and recommendation thereonwithin ten (10) days from the conclusion of thehearing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This Order shall be effective for a period of only twenty (20) days from
petitioners'submissionoftherequiredbond.13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
OnMarch16,1992,petitioner-SilahisHotelfiledaMotionforReconsiderationofthe Order above, but the same was not and has not been actedupon.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Petitioner-Silahis Hotel assails this Order and on March 25, 1992, filed theinstant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for temporaryrestraining order.Thefollowingday,we issued a temporary restraining ordercontinuing until further orders from the Court, enjoining the NLRC fromenforcingtheOrderdatedMarch11,1992inNLRCNCRCaseNo.00-0235-92
and from further proceeding with aforesaid case. 14 chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
Petitionercontendsthat:
THERESPONDENTNLRCACTEDWITHOUTORINEXCESSOFJURISDICTIONORWITHGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONINORDERINGTHEREINSTATEMENTOFPRIVATERESPONDENTS,CONSIDERINGTHAT:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
A. The questioned Order illegally confers a relief on private respondents, inviolation ofpetitioners right todue process. Injunction is not the appropriate
remedy to order the reinstatement of privaterespondents.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
B.The questionedOrderoperatesasanadjudication on themerits ofprivaterespondents'appealfromtheLaborArbiter'sdecision,whichraisestheissueastothescopeofthedeclaration.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
C.Respondents,beknowinglyfilingtheinjunctioncaseduringthependencyofthe appeal in the illegal strike case are guilty of forum-shopping.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
D.ThequestionedorderwasissuedinclearandpalpableviolationofArt.218oftheLaborCode.15chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The resolutionof the instantpetitiondepends onwhetherpublic respondent-NLRCcanvalidlyentertainthe"VeryUrgentPetition"16filedbyrespondentsandissue the Order 17reinstating the respondents, assailed bypetitioner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Theappealfromthedecisionofthelaborarbiterintheillegalstrikecase(NLRCNCR Case No. 02-00717-91) was pending when respondents filed its "Very
Urgent Petition" as NLRC IC No. 00-0235-92.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
11/36
Petitionerclaimsthatfilingthe"VeryUrgentPetition"asanotherinjunctioncaseandnotwiththeappealedcaseis"forum-shopping"andcannotbedoneforsuchpracticehas, longbeencondemned as"contrary tothe interestof justice."18Itfurther argues that the issue of respondents' employment status and/ordismissal is pending in the appealed strike case and that respondents were
dismissedpreciselybecauseofsaidillegalstrikeconductedbythem.Hence,they(respondents)cannotseekrelieffromtheeffectsofthedismissalinanentirelynewsuitthe(injunctioncase).19chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On the other hand, private respondents contend that they are not guilty offorum-shopping because the issues involved in the appealed case and theinjunctioncaseare different.Theyclaimthat the issuesinthe appealedillegalstrikecasearewhetherthefindingofillegalstrikeandthedeclarationthattheunion officers have lost and forfeited their employment are correct. And theissue in the injunction case, which arose the decision of the labor arbiter, iswhetherthisdecisioncanbeexecutedorimplementedbythepetitionerevenifthesamewasnotfinalandexecutory.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The labor arbiter ruled that the strike staged by the respondentswas illegal.After receiving notice of a favorable decision, petitioner-hotel dismissed therespondent-employeesforhavingparticipatedinthisillegalstrike.Respondentsthen filed its appeal from this decision. And within the same month, therespondents filed their petition for injunction as a new injunctioncase.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Itisnotverydifficulttoseethattheissuesinthesetwocasesareinterrelated.Becauseofthisrelevantconnection,thereliefprayedforbytherespondents, i.e.,injunction restraining the petitioner from dismissing them, could have beenproperlygrantedordeniedinthecaseonappeal.Therewasinfactnoreasonforthe respondents to file a new injunction case before the sameagency.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Bydoing this, they effectively soughtanother forum togrant them relief. TheCourt cannot but proscribe this as a species of forumshopping.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
InVillanuevav.Adre,21wesaidthat:
There is forum shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in oneforum,apartyseeksafavorableopinion(otherthanbyappealor certiorari)inanother.Theprincipleappliesnotonlywithrespect tosuits filedin the courtsbut also in connection with litigations commenced in the courts while anadministrative proceeding is pending, as in this case, in order to defeatadministrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrativerulingandafavorablecourtruling.22
AndinGabrielv.CourtofAppeals, 23weadded that "filingofmultiplepetitionsconstitutesabuseof the court'sprocesses and improperconduct that tendsto
impede,obstructanddegradetheadministrationofjusticeandwillbepunishedascontemptofcourt."24
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
12/36
We have consistently ruled that a party should not be allowed to pursuesimultaneousremediesintwodifferentforums.Althoughmostofthecasesandhaveruleduponregardingforumshoppinginvolvedpetitionsinthecourtsandadministrative agencies, 25the rule prohibiting it applies equally to multiplepetitionsinthesametribunaloragency.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles
virtuallawlibrary
Byfiling,anotherpetitioninvolvingthesameessentialfactsandcircumstancesin the same agency, as in this case where respondents filed their appeal andinjunctioncaseseparately in theNLRC, respondents approached twodifferentforainordertoincreasetheirchancesobtainingafavorabledecisionoraction.This practice cannot be tolerated and should becondemned.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Publicrespondent-NLRCerredwhenitentertainedtheseparateinjunctioncasefiled by respondents. Moreover, it should have consolidated the petition for
injunction with the case already on appeal, for the fact of appeal and theattendantcircumstanceswerestatedinthepetitionandevenacknowledgedinthequestionedResolutionoftheNLRC.26chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Whilewefindtheactiontakenbytherespondentswasill-suitedhowever,thisdoes not mean that the petitioner-hotel's act of dismissing respondent-employeesbeforethedecisionofthelaborarbiterbecamefinalandexecutoryshouldbesanctioned.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Despite our proscription against forum shopping, the respondents should beallowedtohaverecoursetotheprocessesoflawandtoseekrelieffromtheirdismissalasthisallowancewillbetterservetheendsofjustice.Theproprietyofthe hotel's act of dismissing the respondents and the resulting consequencesmay still bepassed upon, in conjunctionwith the appealedcase after filing aproper petition therein.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
However, the culpability of respondent's counsel, who are charged with theknowledge of the law andwith the duty of assisting in the administration ofjustice, is clearly manifest. Because of the cunning practice they employed,respondents' lawyers, Attys. Potenciano A. Flores, Jr. and A.E. Dacanay are
herebywarned and admonished tobemore circumspect in theirprofessionalconcerns otherwise a penalty more severe shall befall them for similaracts.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Theother issuesraisedbypetitionernolongerbearany significance aftertheresolutionofthemainproblemabove.Nofurtherdiscussionregardingthemwillthereforebemade.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED and theruling of the respondent National Labor Relations Commission is hereby setaside. The temporary restraining order dated March 26, 1992 is made
permanent.Nocosts.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
13/36
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,C.J.,Padilla,RegaladoandPuno,JJ.,concur.
LIWAYWAYVINZONS-CHATO,G.R.No.141309
Petitioner,Present:
-versus-Ynares-Santiago,J.(Chairperson),
cralawAustria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,and
Nachura,JJ.
FORTUNETOBACCO
CORPORATION,Promulgated:
Respondent.
cralawJune19,2007
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.:
PetitionerassailstheMay7,1999Decision[1]oftheCourtofAppealsinCA-
G.R.SPNo.47167,whichaffirmedtheSeptember29,1997Order[2]ofthe
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofMarikina,Branch272, inCivilCaseNo. 97-
341-MK, denying petitioners motion to dismiss.The complaint filed by
respondent sought to recover damages for the alleged violation of its
constitutional rights arising from petitioners issuance of Revenue
MemorandumCircularNo. 37-93 (RMC37-93),which the Courtdeclared
invalid in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of
Appeals.[3]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Petitioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato was then the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue while respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation is an
entityengagedinthemanufactureofdifferentbrandsofcigarettes,among
whichareChampion,Hope,andMorecigarettes.
OnJune10,1993,thelegislatureenactedRepublicActNo.7654(RA7654),
whichtookeffect on July 3,1993.Prior to its effectivity,cigarettebrands
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
14/36
Champion,Hope,andMorewereconsideredlocalbrands subjected toan
advaloremtaxattherateof20-45%.However,onJuly1,1993,ortwodays
before RA 7654 took effect, petitioner issued RMC 37-93 reclassifying
Champion, Hope, and More as locallymanufactured cigarettes bearing a
foreignbrandsubject to the55%advalorem tax.[4]RMC37-93 ineffect
subjected Hope, More, and Champion cigarettes to the provisions of RA
7654,specifically,toSec.142,[5](c)(1)onlocallymanufacturedcigarettes
whicharecurrentlyclassifiedandtaxedat55%,andwhichimposesanad
valoremtaxof55%providedthattheminimumtaxshallnotbelessthan
FivePesos(P5.00)perpack.[6]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
OnJuly2,1993,atabout5:50p.m.,BIRDeputyCommissionerVictor
A.Deoferio,Jr.sent viatelefaxacopyofRMC37-93toFortuneTobaccobut
itwasaddressedtonooneinparticular.OnJuly15,1993,FortuneTobacco
received,byordinarymail,acertifiedxeroxcopyofRMC37-93.OnJuly20,
1993,respondentfiledamotionforreconsiderationrequestingtherecall
ofRMC37-93,butwasdenied ina letterdatedJuly30,1993.[7]Thesame
letter assessed respondent for ad valorem tax deficiency amounting to
P9,598,334.00 (computed on the basis of RMC 37-93) and demanded
payment within 10 days from receipt thereof.[8]On August 3, 1993,
respondentfiledapetitionforreviewwiththeCourtofTaxAppeals(CTA),
which on September 30, 1993, issued an injunction enjoining the
implementationofRMC37-93.[9]InitsdecisiondatedAugust10,1994,the
CTA ruled that RMC 37-93 is defective, invalid, and unenforceable and
furtherenjoinedpetitionerfromcollectingthedeficiency taxassessment
issuedpursuanttoRMCNo.37-93.ThisrulingwasaffirmedbytheCourtof
Appeals, and finally by this Court inCommissionerof InternalRevenuev.
CourtofAppeals .[10]Itwasheld,amongothers,thatRMC37-93,hasfallen
shortoftherequirementsforavalidadministrativeissuance.
On April 10, 1997, respondent filed before the RTC a complaint[11] for
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
15/36
damagesagainstpetitionerinherprivatecapacity.Respondentcontended
that thelattershould beheld liable for damagesunderArticle 32ofthe
Civil Code considering that the issuance of RMC 37-93 violated its
constitutionalrightagainstdeprivationofpropertywithoutdueprocessof
lawandtherighttoequalprotectionofthelaws.
Petitioner filedamotion todismiss[12] contending that: (1) respondent
hasno causeof action against her because she issued RMC37-93 in the
performance of her official function and within the scope of her
authority.SheclaimedthatsheactedmerelyasanagentoftheRepublicand
therefore the latter istheone responsibleforheracts; (2)thecomplaint
statesnocauseofactionforlackofallegationofmaliceorbadfaith;and(3)
the certification against forum shopping was signed by respondents
counselinviolationoftherulethatitistheplaintiffortheprincipalparty
whoshouldsignthesame.
OnSeptember29,1997,theRTCdeniedpetitionersmotiontodismiss
holding that to rule on the allegations of petitioner would be to
prematurelydecidethemeritsofthecasewithoutallowingthepartiesto
presentevidence.Itfurtherheldthatthedefectinthecertificationagainst
forum shopping was cured by respondents submission of the corporate
secretarys certificate authorizing its counsel to execute the certification
againstforumshopping.Thedispositiveportionthereof,states:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the
motion to dismiss filed by the defendant Liwayway
Vinzons-Chatoandthemotiontostrikeoutandexpunge
from the record the said motion to dismiss filed by
plaintiffFortuneTobaccoCorporationarebothdeniedon
the grounds aforecited.The defendant is ordered to file
her answer to the complaintwithin ten (10) days from
receiptofthisOrder.
SOORDERED.[13]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
16/36
The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals via a petition for
certiorariunderRule65.However,samewasdismissedonthegroundthat
underArticle32oftheCivilCode,liabilitymayariseevenifthedefendant
didnot actwithmaliceorbad faith.Theappellate courtratiocinated that
Section38,BookIoftheAdministrativeCodeisthegenerallawonthecivil
liabilityofpublicofficerswhileArticle32oftheCivilCodeisthespeciallaw
thatgovernstheinstantcase.Consequently,maliceorbadfaithneednotbe
allegedinthecomplaintfordamages.ItalsosustainedtherulingoftheRTC
thatthedefectofthecertificationagainstforumshoppingwascuredbythe
submission of the corporate secretarys certificate giving authority to its
counseltoexecutethesame.
cralaw
Undaunted,petitionerfiledthe instantrecoursecontendingthatthesuitis
groundedonheractsdoneintheperformanceofherfunctionsasapublic
officer, hence, it is Section 38, Book I of the Administrative Code which
should be applied. Under this provision, liability will attach only when
thereisaclearshowingofbadfaith,malice,orgrossnegligence.Shefurther
averredthattheCivilCode,specifically,Article32whichallowsrecoveryof
damages for violation of constitutional rights, is a general law on the
liability ofpublicofficers;whileSection38, Book I oftheAdministrative
Codeisa special lawonthe superiorpublicofficersliability,suchthat,if
thecomplaint,asintheinstantcase,doesnotallegebadfaith,malice,or
gross negligence, the same is dismissible for failure to state a cause of
action.As to the defect of the certification against forum shopping, she
urgedtheCourttostrictlyconstruetherulesandtodismissthecomplaint.
Conversely,respondentarguedthatSection38whichtreatsingeneralthe
public officersacts fromwhichcivil liabilitymay arise, isa general law;
whileArticle32whichdealsspecificallywiththepublicofficersviolationof
constitutional rights, is a special provision which should determine
whetherthecomplaintstatesacauseofactionornot.CitingthecaseofLim
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
17/36
v.PoncedeLeon,[14]respondentallegedthatunderArticle32oftheCivil
Code,itisenoughthattherewasaviolationoftheconstitutionalrightsof
theplaintiffanditisnotrequiredthatsaidpublicofficershouldhaveacted
withmaliceorinbadfaith.Hence,itconcludedthatevengrantingthatthe
complaint failed to allegebad faith or malice, themotion to dismiss for
failuretostateacauseofactionshouldbedeniedinasmuchasbadfaithor
malicearenotnecessarytoholdpetitionerliable.
Theissuesforresolutionareasfollows:
(1)cralawMay apublic officerbevalidly sued inhis/herprivate capacity for acts done in connection with the
dischargeofthefunctionsofhis/heroffice?
(2)cralawWhichasbetween Article 32of theCivil Code
andSection38,BookIoftheAdministrativeCodeshould
govern in determining whether the instant complaint
statesacauseofaction?
(3)cralawShouldthecomplaintbedismissedforfailureto
comply with the rule on certification against forum
shopping?
(4)cralawMaypetitionerbeheldliablefordamages?
cralaw
Onthefirstissue,thegeneralruleisthatapublicofficerisnotliablefor
damageswhicha personmay sufferarisingfromthejustperformanceof
hisofficialdutiesandwithinthescopeofhisassignedtasks.[15]Anofficer
whoactswithinhisauthoritytoadministertheaffairsoftheofficewhich
he/she heads is not liable for damages that may have been caused to
another,asitwouldvirtuallybeachargeagainsttheRepublic,whichisnot
amenable to judgment for monetary claims without its
consent.[16]However,apublicofficerisbylawnotimmunefromdamages
inhis/herpersonalcapacityforactsdoneinbadfaithwhich,beingoutside
the scope of his authority, are no longer protected by the mantle of
immunityforofficialactions.[17]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
18/36
Specifically, under Section 38, Book I of the Administrative Code, civil
liabilitymayarisewherethereisbadfaith,malice,orgrossnegligenceon
the part of a superior public officer.And, under Section 39 of the same
Book,civilliabilitymayarisewherethesubordinatepublicofficersactis
characterizedbywillfulnessornegligence.Thus
Sec.38.LiabilityofSuperiorOfficers.(1)Apublicofficer
shallnotbecivillyliableforactsdoneintheperformance
ofhisofficialduties,unlessthereisaclearshowingofbad
faith,maliceorgrossnegligence.
xxxx
Section 39.Liability of Subordinate Officers. No
subordinateofficeroremployeeshallbecivillyliablefor
actsdonebyhimingoodfaithintheperformanceofhis
duties.However,heshallbeliableforwillfulornegligent
acts done by him which are contrary to law, morals,
public policy and good customs even if he acts under
ordersorinstructionsofhissuperior.
Inaddition,theCourtheldinCojuangco,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,[18]thata
publicofficerwhodirectlyorindirectlyviolatestheconstitutionalrightsof
another,maybevalidlysuedfordamagesunderArticle32oftheCivilCode
evenifhisactswerenotsotaintedwithmaliceorbadfaith.
Thus,theruleinthisjurisdictionisthatapublicofficermaybevalidlysued
inhis/herprivatecapacityforactsdoneinthecourseoftheperformance
of the functions of the office, where said public officer: (1) acted with
malice,badfaith,ornegligence;or(2)wherethepublicofficerviolateda
constitutionalrightoftheplaintiff.
Anent the second issue, we hold that the complaint filed by respondent
statedacauseofactionandthatthedecisiveprovisionthereonisArticle32
oftheCivilCode.
Ageneralstatuteisonewhichembracesa classofsubjectsorplacesand
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
19/36
does not omit any subject or place naturally belonging to such class.A
specialstatute,asthetermisgenerallyunderstood,isonewhichrelatesto
particularpersonsorthingsofaclassortoaparticularportionorsection
ofthestateonly.[19]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
A general lawandaspecial lawon the samesubjectarestatutes inpari
materia and should, accordingly, be read together and harmonized, if
possible,withaviewtogivingeffecttoboth.Theruleisthatwherethere
are twoacts,oneofwhichisspecialandparticularandtheothergeneral
which,ifstandingalone,wouldincludethesamematterandthusconflict
with the special act, the special law must prevail since it evinces the
legislativeintentmoreclearlythanthatofageneralstatuteandmustnot
betakenasintendedtoaffectthemoreparticularandspecificprovisions
oftheearlieract,unlessitisabsolutelynecessarysotoconstrueitinorder
togiveitswordsanymeaningatall.[20]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Thecircumstancethatthespeciallawispassedbeforeorafterthegeneral
actdoesnotchangetheprinciple.Wherethespeciallawislater,itwillbe
regardedasanexceptionto,oraqualificationof,thepriorgeneralact;and
where the general act is later, the special statute will be construed as
remaining an exception to its terms, unless repealed expressly or by
necessaryimplication.[21]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Thus,inCityofManilav.Teotico,[22]theCourtheldthatArticle2189ofthe
CivilCodewhichholdsprovinces,cities,andmunicipalitiescivillyliablefor
death or injuries by reason of defective conditions of roads and other
publicworks, isa specialprovision and should prevail over Section4 of
RepublicActNo.409,theCharterofManila,indeterminingtheliabilityfor
defectivestreetconditions.UndersaidCharter,thecityshallnotbeheldfor
damagesorinjuriesarisingfromthefailureofthelocalofficialstoenforce
the provisionofthecharter, law,orordinance,or fromnegligencewhile
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
20/36
enforcingorattemptingtoenforcethesame.AsexplainedbytheCourt:
Manila maintains that the former provision should
prevail over the latter, because Republic Act 409 is a
special law, intended exclusively for the City ofManila,whereastheCivilCodeisagenerallaw,applicabletothe
entirePhilippines.
The Court of Appeals, however, applied the Civil Code,
and, we think, correctly. It is true that, insofar as its
territorialapplicationisconcerned,RepublicActNo.409
isa special law and theCivilCodea general legislation;
but,asregardsthesubjectmatteroftheprovisionsabove
quoted, Section 4 of Republic Act 409 establishes a
generalruleregulatingtheliabilityoftheCityofManila
fordamagesorinjurytopersonsorpropertyarisingfromthefailureofcityofficerstoenforcetheprovisionsofsaid
Actoranyotherlaworordinance,orfromnegligenceof
thecityMayor,Municipal Board, orotherofficerswhile
enforcingorattemptingtoenforcesaidprovisions.Upon
theotherhand,Article2189oftheCivilCodeconstitutes
a particular prescription making provinces, cities and
municipalities. . . liable fordamages for thedeathof,or
injury sufferedby, any person by reason specifically of
thedefective condition of roads, streets,bridges,public
buildings,andotherpublicworksundertheircontrolor
supervision. In other words, said section 4 refers to
liabilityarisingfromnegligence,ingeneral,regardlessof
theobjectthereof,whereasArticle2189governsliability
due todefective streets, inparticular.Sincethepresent
action isbasedupontheallegeddefectiveconditionofa
road,saidArticle2189isdecisivethereon.[23]
In the case ofBagatsingv.Ramirez,[24] the issuewaswhich law should
govern the publication of a tax ordinance, the City Charter of Manila, aspecial act which treats ordinances in general and which requires their
publication before enactment and after approval, or the Tax Code, a
generallaw,whichdealsinparticularwithordinanceslevyingorimposing
taxes, fees or other charges, and which demands publication only after
approval.InholdingthatitistheTaxCodewhichshouldprevail,theCourt
elucidatedthat:
ThereisnoquestionthattheRevisedCharteroftheCity
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
21/36
ofManilaisaspecialactsinceitrelatesonlytotheCityof
Manila, whereas the Local Tax Code is a general law
because it applies universally to all local governments.
Blackstone defines general law as a universal rule
affecting the entire community and special law as one
relatingtoparticularpersonsorthingsofaclass.Andtherule commonly said is that a prior special law is not
ordinarilyrepealedbyasubsequentgenerallaw.Thefact
that one is special and the other general creates a
presumption that the special is to be considered as
remaining anexception ofthe general,one asageneral
law of the land, the other as the law of a particular
case.However,therulereadilyyieldstoasituationwhere
the special statute refers to a subject in general,which
thegeneral statute treats inparticular.Th[is] exactly is
thecircumstanceobtaininginthecaseatbar.Section17
of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila speaks of
ordinance ingeneral, i.e., irrespectiveofthenature and
scopethereof,whereas,Section43oftheLocalTaxCode
relates toordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or
other charges in particular. In regard, therefore, to
ordinancesingeneral,theRevisedCharteroftheCityof
Manila is doubtless dominant, but, that dominant force
loses its continuity when it approaches the realm of
ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other
chargesinparticular.There,theLocalTaxCodecontrols.
Here,asalways, ageneral provisionmust giveway toaparticularprovision.Specialprovisiongoverns.
Letusexaminetheprovisionsinvolvedinthecaseatbar.Article32ofthe
CivilCodeprovides:
ART. 32.Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual,who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,
violates,orinanymannerimpedesorimpairsanyofthe
following rightsand libertiesofanotherperson shallbeliabletothelatterfordamages:
xxxx
(6)cralawThe right against deprivation of property
withoutdueprocessoflaw;
xxxx
(8)cralawTherighttotheequalprotectionofthelaws;
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
22/36
xxxx
TherationaleforitsenactmentwasexplainedbyDeanBocobooftheCode
Commission,asfollows:
DEAN BOCOBO. Article 32, regarding individual rights,
Attorney Cirilo Paredes proposes that Article 32 be so
amendedastomakeapublicofficialliableforviolationof
another persons constitutional rights only if the public
official acted maliciously or in bad faith. The Code
Commissionopposesthissuggestionforthesereasons:
The very nature of Article 32 is that thewrongmaybe
civilorcriminal.Itisnotnecessarythereforethatthere
shouldbemalice orbad faith.TomakesucharequisitewoulddefeatthemainpurposeofArticle32whichisthe
effectiveprotectionofindividualrights.Publicofficialsin
the past have abused their powers on the pretext of
justifiable motives or good faith in the performance of
theirduties.Precisely,theobjectoftheArticleistoputan
end to official abuse by the plea of good faith. In the
UnitedStatesthisremedyisinthenatureofatort.
Mr.Chairman,thisarticleisfirmlyoneofthefundamental
articles introduced in the New Civil Code to implementdemocracy.Thereisnorealdemocracyifapublicofficial
is abusing and we made the article so strong and so
comprehensive that it concludes an abuse of individual
rightsevenifdoneingoodfaith,thatofficialisliable.Asa
matter of fact, we know that there are very few public
officials who openly and definitely abuse the individual
rightsofthecitizens.Inmostcases,theabuseisjustified
onapleaofdesiretoenforcethelawtocomplywithones
duty.And so, ifwe should limitthe scopeof thisarticle,
that would practically nullify the object of the article.
Precisely,theopeningobjectofthearticleistoputanendtoabuseswhicharejustifiedbyapleaofgoodfaith,which
is in most cases the plea of officials abusing individual
rights.[25]
TheCodeCommissiondeemeditnecessarytoholdnotonlypublicofficers
but also private individuals civilly liable for violation of the rights
enumerated in Article 32 of the Civil Code.It is not necessary that the
defendant under thisArticle should have actedwithmalice orbad faith,
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
23/36
otherwise, it would defeat its main purpose, which is the effective
protection of individual rights.It suffices that there is a violation of the
constitutionalrightoftheplaintiff.[26]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Article 32 was patterned after the tort in American law.[27]A tort is a
wrong, a tortious act which has been defined as the commission or
omissionofanactbyone,withoutright,wherebyanotherreceivessome
injury,directlyorindirectly,inperson,property,orreputation.[28]There
arecasesinwhichithasbeenstatedthatcivilliabilityintortisdetermined
bytheconductandnotbythementalstateofthetortfeasor,andthereare
circumstancesunderwhichthemotiveofthedefendanthasbeenrendered
immaterial.Thereasonsometimesgivenfortheruleisthatotherwise,the
mental attitude of the alleged wrongdoer, and not the act itself, would
determinewhethertheactwaswrongful.[29]Presenceofgoodmotive,or
rather,theabsenceofanevilmotive,doesnotrenderlawfulanactwhichis
otherwiseaninvasionofanotherslegalright;thatis,liabilityintortisnot
precluded by the fact that defendant acted without evil
intent.[30]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The clear intention therefore of the legislature was to create a distinct
causeofaction inthenature oftort for violationofconstitutionalrights,
irrespective of the motive or intent of the defendant.[31]This is a
fundamental innovation in the Civil Code, and in enacting the
Administrative Code pursuant to the exercise of legislative powers, then
President Corazon C. Aquino, could not have intended to obliterate this
constitutionalprotectiononcivilliberties.
InAbercav.Ver,[32]itwasheldthatwiththeenactmentofArticle32,the
principle of accountability of public officials under the Constitution
acquiresaddedmeaningandassumesalargerdimension.Nolongermaya
superiorofficial relaxhis vigilance orabdicatehis duty to supervisehis
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
24/36
subordinates,secureinthethoughtthathedoesnothavetoanswerforthe
transgressions committed by the latter against the constitutionally
protected rights and liberties of the citizen. Part of the factors that
propelledpeoplepowerinFebruary1986wasthewidelyheldperception
that the government was callous or indifferent to, if not actually
responsible for, the rampant violations of human rights.While itwould
certainlybetoonaivetoexpectthatviolatorsofhumanrightswouldeasily
bedeterredbytheprospectoffacingdamagesuits,itshouldnonetheless
bemadeclearinnouncertaintermsthatArticle32oftheCivilCodemakes
the persons who are directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for the
transgression,jointtortfeasors.
Ontheotherhand,Sections38and39,BookIoftheAdministrativeCode,
laiddowntheruleonthecivilliabilityofsuperiorandsubordinatepublic
officersforactsdoneintheperformanceoftheirduties.Forbothsuperior
and subordinate public officers, the presence of bad faith, malice, and
negligencearevitalelementsthatwillmakethemliablefordamages.Note
that while said provisions deal in particular with the liability of
government officials, the subject thereof is general, i.e.,acts done in the
performanceofofficial duties,without specifying theaction oromission
thatmaygiverisetoacivilsuitagainsttheofficialconcerned.
Contrarily,Article32ofthe CivilCode specifies inclearand unequivocal
terms a particular specie of an act that may give rise to an action for
damagesagainstapublicofficer,andthatis,atortforimpairmentofrights
and liberties.Indeed, Article 32 is the special provision that deals
specifically with violation of constitutional rights by public officers.All
otheractionableactsofpublicofficersaregovernedbySections38and39
oftheAdministrativeCode.WhiletheCivilCode,specifically,theChapteron
Human Relations is a general law, Article 32 of the same Chapter is a
special and specific provision that holds a public officer liable for and
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
25/36
allows redress from a particular class of wrongful acts that may be
committed by public officers.Compared thus with Section 38 of the
Administrative Code,whichbroadlydealswithcivil liabilityarising from
errors in the performance of duties, Article 32 of the Civil Code is the
specificprovisionwhichmustbeappliedintheinstantcasepreciselyfiled
toseekdamagesforviolationofconstitutionalrights.
ThecomplaintintheinstantcasewasbroughtunderArticle32oftheCivil
Code.Consideringthatbadfaithandmalicearenotnecessaryinanaction
basedonArticle32oftheCivilCode,thefailuretospecificallyallege the
samewillnotamounttofailuretostateacauseofaction.Thecourtsbelow
thereforecorrectlydeniedthemotiontodismissonthegroundoffailureto
state a cause of action, since it is enough that the complaint avers a
violationofaconstitutionalrightoftheplaintiff.
Anenttheissueonnon-compliancewiththeruleagainstforumshopping,
the subsequent submission of the secretarys certificate authorizing the
counseltosignandexecutethecertificationagainstforumshoppingcured
thedefectofrespondentscomplaint.Besides,themeritsoftheinstantcase
justifytheliberalapplicationoftherules.[33]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,thepetitionisDENIED.TheDecision
oftheCourtofAppealsdatedMay7,1999whichaffirmedtheOrderofthe
RegionalTrialCourtofMarikina,Branch272,denyingpetitionersmotion
to dismiss, is AFFIRMED.The Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of
Marikina, Branch 272, is hereby DIRECTED to continue with the
proceedingsinCivilCaseNo.97-341-MKwithdispatch.
Withcosts.
SOORDERED.
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
26/36
CONSUELOYNARES-SANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
[G.R.No.141309,December23,2008]
LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, VS. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
NACHURA,J.:
Itisafundamentalprincipleinthelawofpublicofficersthatadutyowingtothe
publicingeneralcannotgiverisetoaliabilityinfavorofparticularindividuals.[1]
The failure to perform a public duty can constitute an individual wrong only
when a person can show that, in the public duty, a duty to himself as an
individualisalsoinvolved,andthathehassufferedaspecialandpeculiarinjury
byreasonofitsimproperperformanceornon-performance.[2]
Bythistoken,theCourtreconsidersitsJune19,2007Decision[3]inthiscase.
Asculledfromthesaiddecision,thefacts,inbrief,areasfollows:
On June 10, 1993, the legislature enacted Republic Act No. 7654 (RA 7654),
which took effect on July 3, 1993. Prior to its effectivity, cigarette brands
`Champion,""Hope,"and"More"wereconsideredlocalbrandssubjectedtoanad
valoremtaxattherateof20-45%.However,onJuly1,1993,ortwodaysbefore
RA 7654 took effect, petitioner issued RMC 37-93 reclassifying "Champion,"
"Hope,"and"More"aslocallymanufacturedcigarettesbearingaforeignbrand
subjecttothe55%advaloremtax.RMC37-93ineffectsubjected"Hope,""More,"
and"Champion"cigarettestotheprovisionsofRA7654,specifically,toSec.142,
(c)(1) on locally manufactured cigarettes which are currently classified and
taxedat55%,andwhichimposesan advaloremtaxof"55%providedthatthe
minimumtaxshallnotbelessthanFivePesos(P5.00)perpack."
OnJuly2,1993,atabout5:50p.m.,BIRDeputyCommissionerVictorA.Deoferio,
Jr.sentviatelefaxacopyofRMC37-93toFortuneTobaccobutitwasaddressed
tonooneinparticular.OnJuly15,1993,FortuneTobaccoreceived,byordinary
mail,acertifiedxeroxcopyofRMC37-93.OnJuly20,1993,respondentfileda
motionforreconsiderationrequestingtherecallofRMC37-93,butwasdeniedin
aletterdatedJuly30,1993.Thesameletterassessedrespondentfor advalorem
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
27/36
taxdeficiencyamountingtoP9,598,334.00(computedonthebasisofRMC37-
93)anddemandedpaymentwithin10daysfromreceiptthereof.OnAugust3,
1993,respondentfiledapetitionforreviewwiththeCourtofTaxAppeals(CTA),
which on September 30, 1993, issued an injunction enjoining the
implementationofRMC37-93.InitsdecisiondatedAugust10,1994,theCTAruled that RMC 37-93 is defective, invalid, and unenforceable and further
enjoined petitioner from collecting the deficiency tax assessment issued
pursuanttoRMCNo.37-93.ThisrulingwasaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals,
andfinallybythisCourtinCommissionerofInternalRevenuev.CourtofAppeals .
Itwasheld,amongothers,thatRMC37-93,hasfallenshortoftherequirements
foravalidadministrativeissuance.
On April 10, 1997, respondent filed before the RTC a complaint for damages
againstpetitionerinherprivatecapacity.Respondentcontendedthatthelatter
shouldbeheldliablefordamagesunderArticle32oftheCivilCodeconsidering
that the issuance of RMC 37-93 violated its constitutional right against
deprivation of property without due process of law and the right to equal
protectionofthelaws.
Petitionerfiledamotiontodismisscontendingthat:(1)respondenthasnocause
ofactionagainstherbecauseshe issuedRMC37-93intheperformanceofher
officialfunctionandwithinthescopeofherauthority.Sheclaimedthatsheacted
merelyasanagentoftheRepublicandthereforethelatteristheoneresponsible
forheracts;(2)thecomplaintstatesnocauseofactionforlackofallegationofmaliceorbadfaith;and(3)thecertificationagainstforumshoppingwassigned
by respondent's counsel in violation of the rule that it is the plaintiff or the
principalpartywhoshouldsignthesame.
OnSeptember29,1997,theRTCdeniedpetitioner'smotiontodismissholding
thattoruleontheallegationsofpetitionerwouldbetoprematurelydecidethe
merits of the casewithout allowingthe parties topresent evidence. It further
held that the defect in the certification against forum shoppingwas cured by
respondent'ssubmissionofthecorporatesecretary'scertificateauthorizingitscounseltoexecutethecertificationagainstforumshopping.xxxx
xxxx
ThecasewaselevatedtotheCourtofAppealsviaapetitionforcertiorariunder
Rule65.However,samewasdismissedontheground thatunderArticle32of
theCivilCode,liabilitymayariseevenifthedefendantdidnotactwithmaliceor
bad faith. The appellate court ratiocinated that Section 38, Book I of the
Administrative Code is the general law on the civil liability of public officerswhileArticle32oftheCivilCodeisthespeciallawthatgovernstheinstantcase.
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
28/36
Consequently, malice or bad faith need not be alleged in the complaint for
damages. It also sustained the ruling of the RTC that the defect of the
certification against forum shopping was cured by the submission of the
corporate secretary's certificate giving authority to its counsel to execute the
same.[4]
[Citationsandunderscoringomitted.]IntheaforesaidJune19,2007Decision,weaffirmedthedispositionoftheCourt
ofAppeals(CA)anddirectedthetrialcourttocontinuewiththeproceedingsin
CivilCaseNo.97-341-MK.[5]
Petitioner,onJuly20,2007,subsequentlymovedforthereconsiderationofthe
saiddecision.[6] Afterrespondent filed its comment, the Court, in its April 14,
2008Resolution,[7]deniedwithfinalitypetitioner'smotionforreconsideration.
Undaunted,petitionerfiled,onApril29,2008herMotiontoRefer[thecase]to
the Honorable Court En Banc.[8] She contends that the petition raises a legal
question that is novel and is of paramount importance. The earlier decision
rendered by the Court will send a chilling effect to public officers, and will
adversely affect the performance of duties of superior public officers in
departmentsoragencieswithrule-makingandquasi-judicialpowers.Withthe
saiddecision,theCommissionerofInternalRevenuewillhavereasontohesitate
or refrain from performing his/her official duties despite the due process
safeguards inSection 228of the National Internal RevenueCode.[9] Petitioner
hencemovesforthereconsiderationoftheJune19,2007Decision.[10]
InitsJune25,2008Resolution,[11]theCourtreferredthecasetothe EnBanc.
Respondentconsequentlymovedforthereconsiderationofthisresolution.
Wenowresolvebothmotions.
Therearetwokindsofdutiesexercisedbypublicofficers:the"dutyowingtothe
public collectively" (the body politic), and the "duty owing to particular
individuals,thus:
1.OfDutiestothePublic.-Thefirstoftheseclassesembracesthoseofficerswhosedutyisowingprimarilytothepubliccollectively---tothebodypolitic---
andnottoanyparticularindividual;whoactforthepublicatlarge,andwhoare
ordinarilypaidoutofthepublictreasury.
Theofficerswhosedutiesfallwhollyorpartiallywithinthisclassarenumerous
andthedistinctionwillbereadilyrecognized.Thus,thegovernorowesadutyto
the public to see that the laws are properly executed, that fit and competent
officials are appointed by him, that unworthy and ill-considered acts of the
legislature do not receive his approval, but these, andmany others of a likenature, are dutieswhichheowes to the publicat largeand noone individual
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
29/36
couldsinglehimselfoutandassertthattheyweredutiesowingtohimalone.So,
membersofthelegislatureoweadutytothepublictopassonlywiseandproper
laws,butnoonepersoncouldpretendthatthedutywasowingtohimselfrather
thantoanother.Highwaycommissionersoweadutythattheywillbegoverned
onlybyconsiderationsofthepublicgoodindecidingupontheopeningorclosingofhighways,butitisnotadutytoanyparticularindividualofthecommunity.
These illustrationsmight be greatly extended, but it is believed that they are
sufficienttodefinethegeneraldoctrine.
2.OfDutiestoIndividuals.-Thesecondclassabovereferredtoincludesthose
who,whiletheyowetothepublicthegeneraldutyofaproperadministrationof
their respective offices, yet become, by reason of their employment by a
particularindividualtodosomeactforhiminanofficialcapacity,underaspecial
andparticularobligationtohimasanindividual.Theyserveindividualschiefly
andusually receive theircompensation fromfeespaidbyeachindividualwho
employsthem.
Asherifforconstableinservingcivilprocessforaprivatesuitor,arecorderof
deeds in recording thedeed or mortgage of an individual, a clerk of court in
enteringupaprivatejudgment,anotarypublicinprotestingnegotiablepaper,
aninspector ofelections inpassingupon the qualificationsofanelector,each
owesageneraldutyofofficialgoodconducttothepublic,butheisalsoundera
special duty to the particular individual concerned which gives the latter apeculiarinterestinhisdueperformance.[12]
Indeterminingwhetherapublicofficerisliableforanimproperperformanceor
non-performanceofaduty,itmustfirstbedeterminedwhichofthetwoclasses
of duties is involved. For, indeed, as the eminent Floyd R. Mechem instructs,
"[t]heliabilityofapublicofficertoanindividualorthepublicisbaseduponand
isco-extensivewithhisduty totheindividualorthepublic.Iftotheoneorthe
otherheowesnoduty,tothatonehecanincurnoliability."[13]
Stated differently, when what is involved is a "duty owing to the public ingeneral", an individual cannot have a causeof action for damagesagainst the
publicofficer,eventhoughhemayhavebeeninjuredbytheactionorinactionof
theofficer.Insuchacase,thereisdamagetotheindividualbutnowrongtohim.
In performing or failing to perform a public duty, the officer has touched his
interesttohisprejudice;buttheofficerowesnodutytohimasanindividual.[14]
Theremedyinthiscaseisnotjudicialbutpolitical.[15]
The exception to this rule occurs when the complaining individual suffers a
particular or special injury on account of the public officer's improperperformanceornon-performanceofhispublicduty.Anindividualcanneverbe
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
30/36
sufferedtosueforaninjurywhich,technically,isonetothepubliconly;hemust
showawrongwhichhespeciallysuffers,anddamagealonedoesnotconstitutea
wrong.[16]Acontraryprecept(thatanindividual,intheabsenceofaspecialand
peculiarinjury,canstillinstituteanactionagainstapublicofficeronaccountof
an improper performance or non-performance of a duty owing to the publicgenerally)willleadtoadelugeofsuits,forifonemanmighthaveanaction,all
men mighthave the like--the complaining individual has no better right than
anybodyelse.[17]Ifsuchwerethecase,noonewillserveapublicoffice.Thus,the
rulerestatedisthatanindividualcannothaveaparticularactionagainstapublic
officerwithoutaparticularinjury,oraparticularright, whichare the grounds
uponwhichallactionsarefounded.[18]
JuxtaposedwithArticle32[19]oftheCivilCode,theprinciplemaynowtranslate
into the rule that an individual can hold a public officer personally liable for
damagesonaccountofanactoromissionthatviolatesaconstitutionalrightonly
ifitresultsinaparticularwrongorinjurytotheformer. Thisisconsistentwith
thisCourt'spronouncementinitsJune19,2007Decision(subjectofpetitioner's
motionforreconsideration)thatArticle32,infact,allowsadamagesuitfor"tort
forimpairmentofrightsandliberties."[20]
It may be recalled that in tort law, for a plaintiff to maintain an action for
damages for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such
injuries resultedfroma breach ofdutywhich the defendant owed the plaintiff,
meaning a concurrenceof injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the
personcausingit.Indeed,centraltoanawardoftortdamagesisthepremisethat
anindividualwas injured incontemplationof law.[21]Thus,inLimv.Poncede
Leon,[22] we granted the petitioner's claim for damages because he, in fact,
suffered the loss of his motor launch due to the illegal seizure thereof. In
Cojuangco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[23] we upheld the right of petitioner to the
recoveryofdamagesastherewasaninjurysustainedbyhimonaccountofthe
illegalwithholdingofhishorseraceprizewinnings.
Intheinstantcase,whatisinvolvedisapublicofficer'sdutyowingtothepublicingeneral.Thepetitioner,as the thenCommissioner oftheBureauofInternal
Revenue, isbeingtakento task for RevenueMemorandumCircular(RMC)No.
37-93which she issued without the requisitenotice, hearing and publication,
and which, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals,[24] we
declared as having "fallen short of a valid and effective administrative
issuance."[25]Apublicofficer,suchasthepetitioner,vestedwithquasi-legislative
orrule-makingpower,owesadutytothepublictopromulgateruleswhichare
compliantwiththerequirementsofvalidadministrativeregulations.Butitisa
dutyowednottotherespondentalone,buttotheentirebodypoliticwhowouldbeaffected,directlyorindirectly,bytheadministrativerule.
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
31/36
Furthermore,asdiscussedabove,tohaveacauseofactionfordamagesagainst
the petitioner, respondent must allege that it suffered aparticular or special
injuryon account of the non-performance by petitioner of the public duty. A
careful reading of the complaint filed with the trial court reveals that noparticularinjuryisallegedtohavebeensustainedbytherespondent.Thephrase
"financial and business difficulties"[26] mentioned in the complaint is a vague
notion,ambiguousinconcept,andcannottranslateintoa"particularinjury."In
contrast, the factsof the caseeloquentlydemonstrate that the petitioner took
nothingfromtherespondent,asthelatterdidnotpayasinglecentavoonthetax
assessmentleviedbytheformerbyvirtueofRMC37-93.
Withno"particularinjury"allegedinthecomplaint,thereis,therefore,nodelict
orwrongfulactoromissionattributabletothepetitionerthatwouldviolatethe
primaryrightsoftherespondent.Withoutsuchdelictortortiousactoromission,
thecomplaintthenfailstostateacauseofaction,becauseacauseofactionisthe
actoromissionbywhichapartyviolatesarightofanother.[27]
Acauseofactionexistsifthefollowingelementsarepresent:(1)arightinfavor
oftheplaintiffbywhatevermeansandunderwhateverlawitarisesoriscreated;
(2)anobligationonthepartofthenameddefendanttorespectornottoviolate
suchright;and(3)anactoromissiononthepartofsuchdefendantviolativeof
therightoftheplaintifforconstitutingabreachoftheobligationofdefendantto
plaintiffforwhichthelattermaymaintainanactionforrecoveryofdamages.[28]
Theremedyofapartywheneverthecomplaintdoesnotallegeacauseofaction
istosetupthisdefenseinamotiontodismiss,orintheanswer.Amotionto
dismiss based on the failure to state a cause of action in the complaint
hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged therein. However, the
hypothetical admission is limited to the "relevant and material facts well-
pleaded in the complaint and inferences deducible therefrom. The admission
does not extend to conclusions or interpretations of law; nor does it cover
allegationsoffactthefalsityofwhichissubjecttojudicialnotice."[29]
Thecomplaintmayalsobedismissedfor lackofcauseofactionifit isobvious
from the complaint and its annexes that the plaintiff is not entitled to any
relief.[30]
TheJune19,2007Decisionandthedissentherein reiteratesthatunderArticle
32oftheCivilCode,theliabilityofthepublicofficermayaccrueevenifhe/she
actedingoodfaith,aslongasthereisaviolationofconstitutionalrights,citing
Cojuangco,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,[31]
wherewesaid:Undertheaforecitedarticle,itisnotnecessarythatthepublicofficeractedwith
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
32/36
maliceorbadfaith.Tobeliable,itisenoughthattherewasaviolationofthe
constitutionalrightsofpetitioners,evenonthepretextofjustifiablemotivesor
goodfaithintheperformanceofduties.[32]
Thecomplaintinthiscasedoesnotimputebadfaithonthepetitioner.Without
any allegation of bad faith, the cause of action in the respondent's complaint(specifically,paragraph2.02thereof)fordamagesunderArticle32oftheCivil
CodewouldbepremisedonthefindingsofthisCourtinCommissionerofInternal
Revenuev.CourtofAppeals(CIRv.CA), [33]whereweruledthatRMCNo.37-93,
issuedbypetitionerin her capacityas Commissioner ofInternalRevenue, had
"fallen short of a valid and effective administrative issuance."This is a logical
inference.WithoutthedecisioninCIRv.CA,thebareallegationsinthecomplaint
thatrespondent'srightstodueprocessoflawandtoequalprotectionofthelaws
wereviolatedbythepetitioner'sadministrativeissuancewouldbeconclusions
oflaw,hencenothypotheticallyadmittedbypetitionerinhermotiontodismiss.
ButinCIRv.CA,thisCourtdidnotdeclareRMC37-93unconstitutional;certainly
not from either the due process of law or equal protection of the laws
perspective.Ondueprocess,themajority,afterdeterminingthatRMC37-93was
alegislativerule,citedanearlierRevenueMemorandumCircular(RMCNo.10-
86)requiringpriornoticebeforeRMC'scouldbecome"operative."However,this
Courtdidnotmakeanexpressfindingofviolationoftherighttodueprocessof
law.Onthe aspect ofequalprotection,CIRv.CAsaid: "Notinsignificantly,RMC
37-93mighthavelikewiseinfringedonuniformityoftaxation;"a statement that
does not amount to a positive indictment of petitioner for violation ofrespondent's constitutional right.Even if one were to ascribe a constitutional
infringementbyRMC37-93onthenon-uniformityoftaxprovisions,thenature
oftheconstitutionaltransgressionfallsunderSection28,ArticleVI--notSection
1,ArticleIII--oftheConstitution.
ThisCourt'sownsummationin CIRv.CA:"Alltaken,theCourtisconvincedthat
the hastily promulgated RMC 37-93 has fallen short of a valid and effective
administrativeissuance,"doesnotlenditselftoaninterpretationthattheRMCis
unconstitutional. Thus,thecomplaint's relianceonCIRv.CA--whichiscitedin,andacopyofwhichisannexedto,thecomplaint--assuggestiveofaviolationof
dueprocessandequalprotection,mustfail.
Accordingly,fromtheforegoingdiscussion,itisobviousthatparagraph2.02of
respondent'scomplaintlosestheneededcrutchtosustainavalidcauseofaction
againstthepetitioner,forwhatisleftoftheparagraphismerelytheallegation
that only respondent's "Champion", "Hope" and "More" cigarettes were
reclassified.
If we divest the complaint of its reliance on CIR v. CA, what remains of
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
33/36
respondent's cause of action for violation of constitutional rights would be
paragraph2.01,whichreads:
2.01.OnoraboutJuly1,1993,defendantissuedRevenueMemorandumCircular
No.37-93(hereinafterreferred toasRMCNo.37-93)reclassifyingspecifically
"Champion", "Hope" and "More" as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing aforeignbrand.Acopyoftheaforesaid circularis attachedheretoandmadean
integral part hereof as ANNEX "A". The issuance of a circular and its
implementationresulted inthe"deprivationofproperty"ofplaintiff.Theywere
done withoutdueprocess of lawand in violation of the rightof plaintiff to the
equalprotectionofthelaws.(Italicssupplied.)
But,asintimatedabove,thebareallegations,"donewithoutdueprocessoflaw"
and"inviolationoftherightofplaintifftotheequalprotectionofthelaws"are
conclusionsoflaw.Theyarenothypotheticallyadmittedinpetitioner'smotion
todismissand,forpurposesofthemotiontodismiss,arenotdeemedasfacts.
InFluorDaniel,Inc.Philippinesv.EB.Villarosa&PartnersCo.,Ltd.,[34]thisCourt
declared that the test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as
constitutingacauseofactioniswhetherornot,admittingthefactsalleged,the
courtcouldrenderavalidverdictinaccordancewiththeprayerofthecomplaint.
Intheinstantcase,sincewhatremainsofthecomplaintwhichishypothetically
admitted,isonlytheallegationonthereclassificationofrespondent'scigarettes,
therewillnotbeenoughfactsforthecourttorenderavalidjudgmentaccording
totheprayerinthecomplaint.
Furthermore, in an action for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code
premisedonviolationofdueprocess,itmaybenecessarytoharmonizetheCivil
Code provision with subsequent legislative enactments, particularly those
related to taxation and tax collection. Judicial notice may be taken of the
provisionsof theNationalInternalRevenueCode,asamended,and of the law
creating the Court of Tax Appeals. Both statutes provide ample remedies to
aggrievedtaxpayers;remedieswhich,infact,wereavailedofbytherespondent--
withoutevenhavingtopaytheassessmentunderprotest--asrecountedbythis
CourtinCIRv.CA,viz.:Ina letter,dated19 July1993, addressed to the appellate divisionof theBIR,
FortuneTobaccorequestedforareview,reconsiderationandrecallofRMC37-
93.Therequestwasdeniedon29July1993.Thefollowingday,oron30July
1993,theCIRassessedFortuneTobaccoforadvaloremtaxdeficiencyamounting
toP9,598,334.00.
On03August1993,FortuneTobaccofiledapetitionforreviewwiththeCTA.[35]
Theavailabilityof theremediesagainst theassailedadministrativeaction, the
opportunity to avail of the same, and actual recourse to these remedies,contradicttherespondent'sclaimofdueprocessinfringement.
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
34/36
At this point, a brief examinationof relevantAmerican jurisprudencemay be
instructive.
42U.S. Code1983, aprovision incorporated into the CivilRights Act of1871,presentsaparalleltoourownArticle32oftheCivilCode,asitstates:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
usage,oranyStateorTerritory,subjects,orcausestobesubjected,anycitizenof
the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivationofanyrights,privilegesorimmunitiessecuredbytheConstitution
andlaws,shallbeliabletothepartyinjuredinanactionatlaw,suitinequityor
otherproperproceedingforredress.
Thisprovisionhasbeenemployedasthebasisoftortsuitsbymanypetitioners
intending towin liability casesagainst governmentofficialswhen they violate
theconstitutionalrightsofcitizens.
Webster Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Investigation,[36]hasemergedastheleadingcaseonthevictim'sentitlementto
recover money damages for any injuries suffered as a result of flagrant and
unconstitutionalabusesofadministrativepower.Inthiscase,federalnarcotics
officersbrokeintoBivens'homeat6:30a.m.withoutasearchwarrantandinthe
absenceofprobablecause.TheagentshandcuffedBivens,searchedhispremises,
employed excessive force, threatened to arrest his family, subjected him to a
visual strip search in the federal court house, fingerprinted, photographed,interrogatedandbookedhim.WhenBivenswasbroughtbeforeaUnitedStates
Commissioner, however, charges against himwere dismissed. On the issue of
whether violationof the Fourth Amendment "by a federal agentacting under
colorofauthoritygivesrisetoacauseofactionfordamagesconsequentuponhis
constitutionalconduct," the U.S. SupremeCourt held thatBivens is entitledto
recoverdamagesforinjurieshesufferedasaresultoftheagents'violationofthe
FourthAmendment.
AnumberofsubsequentdecisionshaveupheldBivens.Forinstance,inScheuerv.Rhodes,[37]aliabilitysuitformoneydamageswasallowedagainstOhioGovernor
James Rhodes by petitioners who represented three students who had been
killedbyOhioNationalGuardtroopsatKentStateUniversityastheyprotested
againstU.S.involvementinVietnam.InWoodv.Strickland,[38]localschoolboard
memberswere sued by high school students who argued that they had been
deprived of constitutional due process rights when they were expelled from
schoolforhavingspikedapunchbowlataschoolfunctionwithoutthebenefitof
afullhearing.InButzv.Economou,[39]Economou,whoseregistrationprivilegeas
a commodities futures trader was suspended, without prior warning, bySecretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, sued on a Bivens action, alleging that the
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
35/36
suspensionwas aimedat "chilling" his freedomof expression right under the
FirstAmendment.Anumberofothercases[40]withvirtuallythesameconclusion
followed.
However, it isextremely dubiouswhether aBivensaction against governmenttaxofficialsandemployeesmayprosper,ifweconsiderthepronouncementof
theU.S.SupremeCourtinSchweikerv.Chilicky,[41]thataBivensremedywillnot
be allowedwhen other "meaningful safeguards or remedies for the rights of
personssituatedas (is theplaintiff)"areavailable.Ithasalsobeenheldthata
Bivensactionisnotappropriateinthecivilservicesystem [42]orinthemilitary
justicesystem.[43]
InFrankVennesv.AnUnknownNumberofUnidentifiedAgentsoftheUnitedStates
ofAmerica,[44]petitionerVennesinstitutedaBivensactionagainstagentsofthe
InternalRevenueService(IRS)whoallegedthathe(Vennes)owed$250,000in
tax liability, instituted a jeopardy assessment, confiscated Vennes' business,
forcedatotalassetsale,andputVennesoutofbusiness,wheninfactheowed
notadime.TheU.S.CourtofAppeals,EighthCircuit,ruled:
The district court dismissed these claims on the ground that a taxpayer's
remediesundertheInternalRevenueCodeprecludesuchaBivensaction.Vennes
citestousnocontraryauthority,andwehavefoundnone.ThoughtheSupreme
Courthasnotaddressedthisprecisequestion,ithasstronglysuggestedthatthe
districtcourtcorrectlyappliedBivens:
WhenthedesignofaGovernmentprogramsuggeststhatCongresshasprovidedwhat it considers adequate remedialmechanisms for constitutional violations
thatmayoccurinthecourseofitsadministration,wehavenotcreatedadditional
Bivensremedies.
xxxx
Congress has provided specific and meaningful remedies for taxpayers who
challengeoverzealoustaxassessmentandcollectionactivities.Ataxpayermay
challenge a jeopardyassessmentbothadministrativelyandjudicially, andmay
sue the government for a tax refund, and have authorized taxpayer actionsagainst the United States to recover limited damages resulting from specific
types of misconduct by IRS employees. These carefully crafted legislative
remediesconfirmthat,inthepoliticallysensitiverealmoftaxation,Congress's
refusal to permit unrestricted damage action by taxpayers has not been
inadvertent.Thus,thedistrictcourtcorrectlydismissedVennes'sBivensclaims
againstIRSagentsfortheirtaxassessmentandcollectionactivities.
InstillanotherBivensaction,institutedbyataxpayeragainstIRSemployeesfor
allegedviolationofdueprocessrightsconcerningataxdispute,theU.S.District
CourtofMinnesotasaid:In addition, the (Tax) Code provides taxpayers with remedies, judicial and
8/3/2019 Violation of Civil and Political Rights
36/36
otherwise,forcorrectingandredressingwrongfulactstakenbyIRSemployees
in connectionwith any collection activities.Although theseprovisions donot
provide taxpayers with an all-encompassing remedy for wrongful acts of IRS
personnel, the rights establishedunder the Code illustrate that it providesall
sorts of rights against the overzealous officialdom, including, mostfundamentally,therighttosuethegovernmentforarefundifforcedtooverpay
taxes,anditwouldmakethecollectionoftaxeschaoticifataxpayercouldbypass
theremediesprovidedbyCongresssimplybybringingadamagesuitagainstIRS
employees.[45]
Americanjurisprudenceobviouslyvalidatesthecontentionofthepetitioner.
Finally,we inviteattention toSection227,RepublicActNo.8424 (TaxReform
Actof1997),whichprovides:
Section 227. Satisfaction of JudgmentRecovered Againstany InternalRevenue
Officer. -When an action is brought against any Internal Revenue officer to
recoverdamagesbyreasonofanyactdoneintheperformanceofofficialduty,
andtheCommissionerisnotifiedofsuchactionintimetomakedefenseagainst
the same, through the Solicitor General, any judgment, damages or costs
recoveredinsuchactionshallbesatisfiedbytheCommissioner,uponapproval
oftheSecretaryofFinance,orifthesamebepaidbythepersonsuedshallbe
repaidorreimbursedtohim.
Nosuchjudgment,damagesorcostsshallbepaidorreimbursed inbehalfof a
personwhohasactednegligentlyorinbadfaith,orwithwillfuloppression.Becausetherespondent'scomplaintdoesnotimputenegligenceorbadfaithto
thepetitioner,anymoneyjudgmentbythetrialcourtagainstherwillhavetobe
assumed by the Republic of the Philippines. As such, the complaint is in the
natureofasuitagainsttheState.[46]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT petitioner's motion for
reconsiderationoftheJune19,2007DecisionandDENYrespondent'smotionfor
reconsiderationoftheJune25,2008Resolution.CivilCaseNo.CV-97-341-MK,
pendingwiththeRegionalTrialCourtofMarikinaCity,isDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
Puno, C.J.,Quisumbing, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Azcuna, Tinga,
Chico-Nazario,Velasco,Jr.,Reyes,Leonardo-DeCastro,andBrion,JJ.,concur.
Ynares-Santiago,J.,seedissentingopinion.Corona,J.,onleave.