Torts and Damages Case Digest: Lazatin vs. Twano 2 SCRA 842 (1961)

G.R. No. L-12736             July 31, 1961

Lessons Applicable: Definition and Concept of Damages (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable: Art. 2208, Article 2219 of the civil code (old laws)

FACTS:

• Angel C. Twaño and Gregorio T. Castro for the recovery of P35,000 plus interest against F. L. Lazatin, et al. for their purchase from the U.S. government of 225 auto-trucks. 
• CFI: dismissed the complaint as well as intervention
• CA: reversed - Twaño and Castro are co-owners in the business of buying and selling surplus auto-trucks, and ordered the Lazatin  to pay P10K so it was levied on his properties and was subsequently sold at the public auction where Twaño and Castro were the purchasers
• Before the expiration of the redemption period, Lazatin deposited the redemption price 
• Lazatin filed to recover from Twaño and Castro the balance of P19,676.09 representing the proceeds of auto-trucks sold directly to the purchasers by Twaño and Castro and secured a writ of attachment alleging that no security whatsoever for the payment claimed in the complaint and that they are removing or are about to remove or dispose of their property with intent to defraud their creditors and that the sheriff refused to deliver the amount deposited
• Lower court granted the Urgent Motion to Dissolve the Writ of Preliminary Attachment and dissolved the writ
• May 9, 1953: Lazatin died
• March 10, 1954: Gil Gotiangco was appointed and qualified as administrator of plaintiff's estate
• RTC: Lazatin and Central Surety and Insurance Co. solidarily liable to pay P3,000 for attorney's fees, P500 for moral damages, 6% interest and costs.
• CA: affirmed

ISSUE: W/N Lazatin is liable for the damages

HELD: YES. Affirmed with modification: elimination of moral damages

• Article 2197 mentions the kind of damages recoverable, among which are (1) actual or compensatory and 
• (2) moral Article 2219 provides that moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases . . . 
• malice is an essential ingredient
• (3) malicious prosecution
• There is an abundance of case holding that the action to recover damages from the attachment plaintiff, for the wrongful issuance and levy of an attachment (malicious attachment) is identical or is analogous to the ordinary action for malicious prosecution 
• court did not make any finding that the said petition was maliciously sued out therefore not entitled to moral damages
• In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be covered, except: . . .

(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff.

(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered." (Art. 2208, Civil Code).

• without cause, the good and honest motive, which should be presumed, when a litigant goes to court for the determination of his alleged right
• considering the fact that defendants-appellant lees were drawn into this litigation by plaintiff-appellant and were compelled to hire an attorney to protect and defend them, and taking into account the work done by said attorney, as reflected in the record, throughout the proceedings, we deem it just and equitable to award at attorney's fees for defendants-appellees

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Delfin Lim, et al., v. Francisco Ponce De Leon, et al., (1975)

G.R. No. L-22554 August 29, 1975
Lessons Applicable: Violation of Civil and Political Rights (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable: Articles 32 and 2219 of the New Civil Code

FACTS:

• Jikil Taha sold to a certain Alberto Timbangcaya of Brooke's Point, Palawan a motor launch named M/L "SAN RAFAEL"
• Alberto Timbangcaya filed a complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Palawan alleging that after the sale Jikil Taha forcibly took away the motor launch from him
• Criminal Case for Robbery the Force and Intimidation upon Persons against Jikil Taha with the CFI
• Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon, upon being informed that the motor launch was in Balabac, Palawan, wrote the Provincial Commander of Palawan requesting him to direct the detachment commander-in Balabac to impound and take custody of the motor launch. He reiterated this and explaining that its subsequent sale to a third party, Delfin Lim cannot prevent the court from taking custody of the same
• Delfin Lim and Jikil Taha filed against Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon and Orlando Maddela, for violation of constitutional rights alleging that on July 6, 1962 Orlando Maddela entered the premises of Delfin Lim without a search warrant and then and there took away the hull of the motor launch without his consent; that he effected the seizure upon order of Fiscal Ponce de Leon who knew fully well that his office was not vested with authority to order the seizure of a private property; that said motor launch was purchased by Delfin Lim from Jikil Taha in consideration of P3,000 (P2,000 advance payment)
• The motor launch had been moored  at the Balabac Bay, Palawan and because of exposure to the elements it had become worthless and beyond repair
• RTC: upholding the validity of the seizure of the motor launch on the ground that "the authority to impound evidences or exhibits or corpus delicti in a case pending investigation is inherent in the Provincial Fiscal who controls the prosecution and who introduces those exhibits in the court

ISSUE: W/N Fiscal de Leon had the power to order the seizure of the motor launch in question without a warrant of search and seizure even if the same was admittedly the corpus delicti of the crime so he is not liable for damage

HELD: NO. reversed and another one entered declaring the seizure illegal and ordering defendant-appellee Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon to pay to plaintiff-appellant Delfin Lim the sum of P3,000.00 as actual damages, plus P1,000.00 moral damages, and, in addition, P750.00 for attorney's fees

• search warrant to be valid: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized
• Under the old Constitution the power to issue a search warrant is vested in a judge or magistrate and in no other officer and no search and seizure can be made without a proper warrant. Republic Act No. 732 has broadened the power of provincial fiscals to conduct preliminary investigations, but said law did not divest the judge or magistrate of its power to determine, before issuing the corresponding warrant, whether or not probable cause exists therefor. Moreover, under Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court 9 which complement the constitutional provision earlier cited, two principles are made clear, namely: (1) that in the seizure of a stolen property search warrant is still necessary; and (2) that in issuing a search warrant the judge alone determines whether or not there is a probable cause. The fact that a thing is a corpus delicti of a crime does not justify its seizure without a warrant
• The mere fact that a man is an officer, whether of high or low degree, gives him no more right than is possessed by the ordinary private citizen to break in upon the privacy of a home and subject its occupant to the indignity of a search for the evidence of crime, without a legal warrant procured for that purpose. No amount of incriminating evidence whatever its source, will supply the place of such warrant.
• the fact that there was no time to secure a search warrant would not legally justify a search without one

ART. 32.    Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages.

xxx   xxx  xxx

(9)    The rights to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

xxx   xxx  xxx

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

ART. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

xxx   xxx  xxx

(6)    Illegal search;

xxx   xxx  xxx

(1)    Acts and action referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35.

• Claims of Delfin Lim amply supported by the evidence and therefore should be awarded the sum of P3,000.00 as actual damages; P1,000.00 as moral damages and P750.00 for attorney's fees. However, with respect co plaintiff Jikil Taha, he is not entitled to recover any damage which he alleged he had suffered from the unlawful seizure of the motor launch inasmuch as he had already transferred the ownership and possession of the motor launch to Delfin Lim at the time it was seized and therefore, he has no legal standing to question the validity of the seizure. 
• To be liable under Article 32 of the New Civil Code it is enough that there was a violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and it is not required that defendants should have acted with malice or bad faith.
• The very nature of Article 32 is that the wrong may be civil or criminal.
• Orlando Maddela cannot be held accountable because he impounded the motor launch upon the order of his superior officer

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Rafael Patricio v. Hon. Oscar Leviste, et al., (1989)

G.R. No. L-51832 April 26, 1989
Lessons Applicable: Public humiliation (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable: ART. 2219,Art. 21, Art. 23

FACTS:

• May 16, 1976 10 pm: During a benefit dance in celebration of the town fiesta Rafael Patricio, an ordained Catholic priest together with 2 policemen were posted near the gate of the public auditorium to check on the assigned watchers of the gate.  
• Bienvenido Bacalocos, President of the Association of Barangay Captains of Pilar, Capiz and a member of the Sangguniang Bayan who was in the state of drunkenness was also at the same gate struck a bottle of beer on the table which injured and caused his own hand to bleed.  
• Bacalocos then approached Patricio and asked him if he has seen his wounded hand and before Patricio could respond he hit Patricio's face with his bloodied hand.
• Bacalocos was brought to the Police Station
• Patricio filed a criminal case charging Bacalocos for Slander by Deed but it was dismissed so he filed for damages in the court a quo. 
• Court a quo: liable for moral damages as a result of the physical suffering, moral shock and social humiliation 
• Motion for reconsideration: Court reconsidered moral and exemplary damages, in order to merit, the plaintiff ought to have proven actual or compensatory damages
• Patricio: Being slapped in public causing him physical suffering and social humiliation, entitles him to moral damages; Actual and compensatory damages need not be proven

ISSUE: W/N Patricio should be entitled to moral damages

HELD:YES. petition is GRANTED. CA REVERSED and court a quo REINSTATED

• ART. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases

(1)    A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2)    Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

(3)    Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts.

(4)    Adultery or concubinage;

(5)    Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6)    Illegal search;

(7)    Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8)    Malicious prosecution;

(9)    Acts mentioned in article 309;

(10)  Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

• The hitting on the face is contrary to morals and good customs and causing mental anguish, moral shock, wounded feelings and social humiliation
• drunkenness is definitely no excuse and does not relieve him of his liability
• Pursuant to Art. 21 of the Civil Code in relation to par. (10) of Art. 2219 of the same Code, "any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage
• under Art. 21 of the Civil Code is to compensate the injured party for the moral injury caused upon his person
• ART. 23.    Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
• Exemplary or corrective damages are required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of the offender
• The amount of exemplary damages need not be proved where it is shown that plaintiff is entitled to either moral, temperate or compensatory damages, as the case may be
• such award cannot be recovered as a matter of right
• In cases where exemplary damages are awarded to the injured party, attorney's fees are also recoverable