PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

When a public officer violates your rights, can you claim damages? The general rule is, if what is involved is a "duty owing to the public in general", an individual cannot have a cause of action for damages against the public officer, even though he may have been injured by the action or inaction of the officer. (Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco, G.R. No. 141309, December 23, 2008) In such a case, there is damage to the individual but no wrong to him. In performing or failing to perform a public duty, the officer has touched his interest to his prejudice; but the officer owes no duty to him as an individual. (Mechem, A Treatise on the Law of Public Offices and Officers (1890), pp. 386-387) The remedy in this case is not judicial but political. (Cruz, The Law of Public Officers, 2007 ed., p. 223) The exception to this rule occurs when the complaining individual suffers a particular or special injury on account of the public officer's improper performance or non-pe

There are two kinds of duties exercised by public officers: the "duty owing to the public collectively" (the body politic), and the "duty owing to particular individuals, thus: 1. Of Duties to the Public. - The first of these classes embraces those officers whose duty is owing primarily to the public collectively --- to the body politic --- and not to any particular individual; who act for the public at large, and who are ordinarily paid out of the public treasury. The officers whose duties fall wholly or partially within this class are numerous and the distinction will be readily recognized. Thus, the governor owes a duty to 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, and many others of a like nature, are duties which he owes to the public at large and no one individual could single hi

The 1987 Constitution has self-executing provisions and those which are not. Those which are not self-executing require an enabling law. Although provisions under the Bill of Rights are self-executing (not requiring enabling laws), they are only enforceable against the Government, the Constitution being a contract against the Sovereign Filipino People and the Government of the Philippine Islands. Nevertheless, the New Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386) upholds many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights even in private law. According to the Code Commission, democracy is upheld under the New Civil Code. "It may at first sight seem strange that a civil code should concern itself with democracy, which it may be argued, is properly a matter for a political code. But democracy being more than a mere form of government, affecting as it does, the very foundations of human life and happiness, cannot be overlooked by an integral civil code,

According to the Code Commission that drafted the Civil Code of the Philippines, the provisions thereof prioritize "the spirit that giveth life" over "the letter that killeth." (Report, page 26) This means that equity and justice are above strict adherence to the literal meaning of the law. According to Aquino (2005), these general considerations are embodied in Articles 21 and 26 of the Civil Code. Therefore, justice and equity demand that persons who may have been damaged by the wrongful or negligent act of another are compensated. These guidelines in human relations demand and require that justice be given and done. This may be in the form of compensation, restitution, indemnification or any other relief. For example, a person made poorer by another who has been benefited, with or without fault or negligence, must be indemnified. This example is called the principle of unjust enrichment. According to Hulst v. PR Builders (G.R. No. 156364,

When the law provides for compensation to another for personal injuries, the law is protecting the person’s interest over his body . A person is entitled to the physical integrity of his or her body ; if the integrity is violated or diminished, actual injury is suffered for which actual or compensatory damages are due and assessable. ( G.R. No. 56487, October 21, 1991 ) However, although tort law is mainly concerned with providing compensation for personal injury and property damage caused by negligence, it also protects other interests such as reputation, personal freedom, enjoyment of property, and commercial interests . (A Dictionary of Law, Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 401) There are matters dealt with under the Civil Code (mandated by the interest to protect people) such as: 1. Physical injury (Article 32 and Article 2176); 2. Distress (Articles 2217-2220); 3. Reputation (Article 33); 4. Privacy (Article 26); 5. Malicious prosecution (Articles 20 and 21); 6. Nuisance

Qualified immunity was initially given to a government official who was able to prove that at the time of the commission of the act complained of, he possessed a good faith belief that his actions were lawful. This was known to be the subjective element. (Orenstein, A., Presidential Immunity from Civil Liability, Nixon v. Fitzgerald. Cornell Law Review, Vol. 68, Issue 2, Article 7, January 1983 68 Cornell L. Rev. 236 (1983), pp. 23-238) The US Supreme Court enhanced the criteria on when to invoke qualified immunity. In Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308. (1975), the US Supreme Court ruled that aside from the aforementioned subjective test, it is also important to show if the public official should have known that his act constituted a violation of the rights of the claimant. If the government official should have known that his acts violated the claimant's rights, then immunity is not granted to the government official; otherwise, the government official is entitled

In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection. (Article 24, Civil Code) Thea above provision of the Civil Code is called by Paras as the "courts' protection of the underdog." He explained: "The law takes great interest in the welfare of the weak and the handicapped. Thus, we have parens patriae." Parens patriae is a Latin term meaning “parent of the fatherland." It is a legal term that refers to government's power to act as the legal guardian for people who are unable to care for themselves. As a rule, Philippine courts are courts are courts of law. This means that the job of the courts is to apply the law. Equity, which is justice outside legality, is the exception rather than the general rule, which is justified if and only i

The law takes great interest in the welfare of the weak and the handicapped. Thus, we have "parens patriae." Literally, "parens patria" means "father or parent of his country." In the U.S. (as in the Philippines), the phrase refers to the sovereign power of the state in safeguarding the rights of person under disability, such as the insane and the incompetent. (In re: Turner, 94 Kan. 115). Thus, were the law always to be applied strictly, there would be danger that injustice might arise (summun jus, summa injuria). (Reyes and Puno, Outline of Phil. Civil Law, p. 43, citing, Cicero, De Officiis). The State as parens patriae is under the obligation to minimize the risk to those who because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully. (People v. Baylon, L-35785, May 29, 1974)

[NO RECOMMENDED CITATION] PJP UNDOCKETED : This content is yet to be be peer reviewed and has not yet received any favorable recommendation for citation. It may or may not be queued up for citation recommendation or peer review. Caution is advised. For immediate action on requests, comments, concerns, suggestions, and other forms of feedback, please message us on Facebook at www.m.me/projectjuris . Read more about this: ATTY. SINGZON, Reeza (2015), "COMMENTARY: Can a mistress be held liable under the law?," found at https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/opinion/content/520678/commentary-can-a-mistress-be-held-liable-under-the-law. Atty. Reeza Singzon is a trial lawyer specializing in family law and civil law. For questions or comments, she may be reached at reeza.singzon@gmail.com. What then are a wife's remedies under the law? What if the mistress is feisty and manipulative

[ NO RECOMMENDED CITATION ] PJP UNDOCKETED : This content is yet to be peer reviewed and has not yet received any favorable recommendation for citation. It may or may not be queued up for citation recommendation or peer review. Caution is advised. CONTACT US : For immediate action on requests, comments, concerns, suggestions, and other forms of feedback, please message us on Facebook at www.m.me/projectjuris . Article 22 of the New Civil Code reads: Every person who, through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.In order that accion in rem verso may prosper, the essential elements must be present: (1) that the defendant has been enriched, (2) that the plaintiff has suffered a loss, (3) that the enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal ground, and (4) that the plaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi-contract, c

Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited. (Article 23, Civil Code) "Without A's knowledge, a flood drives his cattle to the cultivated highland of B. A's cattle are saved, but B's crop is destroyed. True, A was not at fault but he was benefited. It is but right and equitable that he should indemnify B." (Report of the Code Commission, pp. 41-42) According to Albano, what is contemplated by Article 23 is an involuntary act or event (or an act which is unavoidable), benefiting another person. The person who benefited from such act or event must indemnify the one whose property was damaged. This is based on equity. Article 23 does not require fault or negligence. The mere fact that an injurious act or event happened, causing damage to one and causing injury to another, gives

Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. (Article 22, Civil Code) Article 2142 provides a corresponding and analogous substantive basis for Article 22. It says: "Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another." Article 22 embodies the universal principle that injuring other people is not a good way to get rich. Nemo ex alterius incommode debet lecupletari; no man ought to be made rich out of another's injury. Basically, no person shall be unjustly enriched at the expense of another. Under the Civil Code, whoever voluntarily takes charge of the agency or management of the business or property of another, without any power from the lat

Any person who willfully 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. (Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines) What is the difference between Article 20 and Article 21 of the Civil Code? Article 20 talks about willful and negligent violation of the law, causing injury to another and thereby justifying a claim for damages. On the other hand, Article 21 talks about willful acts causing loss or injury. There is a clear difference between Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code because, while the recovery under the first is based on law, the second is not based on law. In any case, if there is loss or injury as a result of an intentional act or omission and the same goes against morals, public order or good habits, a claim for damages would still prosper against the offender. It cannot be denied that the laws derive from good morals and customs. G

Court officials who wish to remain anonymous have spoken to the Manila Times to complain about Justice Leonen who, they say, is sleeping on the job. Criticisms of Justice Leonen started when the Supreme Court decided the case of Justice Marilyn Lagura Yap who was found guilty of gross inefficiency and fined an amount equivalent to one year of her salary for failure to resolve 160 cases when she was a Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge. Justice Leonen participated in the voting of Yap's case. Manila Times reports that Justice Leonen leads the list of pending cases with 82 awaiting decision. "It was so unfair to penalize Justice Yap with a one year fine while pampering Justice Leonen who was also sleeping on his job. Iba talaga yung tinitingnan sa tinititigan." This was said by a complaining justice, according to the Manila Times. Until today, the news company has not yet revealed the identity of these "court officials." MANILA TIMES:  &

Below is the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen in Castillo v. Republic (G.R. No. 214064, February 6, 2017). The Regional Trial Court declared void the marriage of Mirasol Castillo (Mirasol) and Felipe Impas (Felipe) due to Felipe's psychological incapacity. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed and set aside the Regional Trial Court Decision and held that Mirasol failed to sufficiently prove that Felipe is psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations. I cannot join the majority's reading of the law as it condemns loveless married couples to a life of pain and suffering. The law should not be read as too callous or cruel that it forever condemns those who may have made very human errors in choosing those with whom they should be intimate. For the State to enforce this cruelty is the very antithesis of the freedoms embodied in many provisions of our Constitution. Marriage is a struggle. In some cases, fortunate couple

Reading decisions of the Supreme Court (pieces of jurisprudence) is one of the main themes in the life of normal law students. The others are recitations, examinations, textbooks, codals and bad grades. The suggestion below is only one of the many techniques in reading jurisprudence. It may not work for everyone but it has been used and has shown positive results among members of Project Jurisprudence - Philippines. This suggestion is called "reverse reading" because it starts from the bottom, proceeds to the middle of the case and ends at the first parts thereof. The suggestion is as follows: Know the main parts of a decision. Read the fallo first. Identify the laws involved. Read the decision or ruling of the Court. Read the factual antecedents, if still needed. KNOWING THE MAIN PARTS OF A DECISION. The reason why a law student needs to know the usual or main parts of a decision is to, at least, have

Try to answer the following questions to practice for your Political Law quizzes or exams. 1. XXX went to the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional the Family Code provision requiring marriage between opposite sexes only. Being homosexual, XXX believes that same-sex marriage should be allowed, considering his pending application for marriage license with his boyfriend YYY. The petition is grounded on the sole ground that, under the Preamble of the 1987 Constitution, "love" and "equality" are mandated. Therefore, equal rights for non-straight people to marry should be allowed. Decide. 2. Under the Philippine baselines law (RA 9522), the outermost points of the outermost islands shall be connected with imaginary straight lines in order to create the baselines of the country. Does this baseline method coincide with the doctrine of internal waters under the 1987 Constitution? Explain why. 3. AAA won the election in the City of BBB as

"Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. (See Section 3 of Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 or Republic Act No. [RA] 9262) "Dating relationship" refers to a situation wherein the parties live as  husband and wife without the benefit of marriage  or are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary

The case of Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997) has set out the guidelines that has been the core of discussion of practically all declaration of nullity of marriage on the basis of psychological incapacity cases: (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. The default position is that marriage is valid. The 1987 Constitution requires this. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. (Section 2, Article XV) (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. "Medically or clinically identified" refers to the findings

YouTube user Pemar Taguinod asked: "How could you possibly conclude that indeed he is incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations in a marriage bond?PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY NEEDED A EXPERT WITNESS TO TESTIFY THAT INDEED THEY WERE INCAPACITATED?PLEASE EXPLAIN." Project Jurisprudence answers: "If we are correct in understanding the question, you are asking about the probative weight of the testimony of an expert witness. "There are two ends of the spectrum here. One end says we should disregard expert witness testimonies; we don't want that. The other end says the court's hands should be tied by such testimonies; we also do not want that." For more details, please read on. The best rule is what is called "totality of evidence," according to Marcos v. Marcos. Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage, may be established by the totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement, however, that