CCI v.

Quinones
Facts:
The respondent Shirley G. Quinones, an agent of Cebu Pacific Air, went inside the
Guess USA Botique at the second floor of Robinsons Department Store. She fitted four
items but only purchased the black jeans worth P2, 098.00. While she was heading to
the Mercury Drug Store, respondent was approached and told by a Guess employee
that she failed to pay the item. However, she insisted that she paid and showed the
official receipt issued in her favor. They decided to talk about it at the Cebu Pacific
Office. The respondent claimed that she was subjected to humiliation in front of their
clients by the Guess employees while being demanded repeatedly to pay the black
jeans. They even checked her wallet to see how much she had. On the same day, the
Guess employees allegedly addressed a letter to the Direcctor of Cebu Pacific Air and
the Cebu Pacific Office in Robinsons but they refused to accept it considering that the
incident did not concern their office.
With the above experience, the respondent thus filed the Complaint for Damages before
the RTC against petitioners as she claimed to have suffered physical anxiety, sleepless
nights, mental anguish, fright, serious apprehension, besmirched reputation, moral
shock and social humiliation. She demanded the payment of moral, nominal, and
exemplary damages, plus attorneys fees and litigation expenses. The RTC, however,
found no evidence to prove bad faith on the part of the Guess employees to warrant the
award of damages. The trial court dissmissed the complaint and the counterclaim but
the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the lower court.
Issue:
Whether the respondent is entitled to an award of moral damages and attorneys fees.
Ruling:
Yes, respondent is entitled for the payment of moral damages and attorneys fees by the
petitioners. Under the abuse of rights principle found in Article 19 of the Civil Code, a
person must, in the exercise of legal right or duty, act in good faith. A person would be
liable if he instead acted in bad faith, with intent to prejudice another. In the case at bar,
the petitioners, although possess rights to inquire whether the respondent was able to
pay the said item, went overboard and acted in bad faith when they subjected the
respondent in public humiliation. to tarnish respondents reputation in the eyes of her
employer. The court ruled that the negative effects suffered by the respondent as a
result of the petitioners actions, entitles her the right to receive a payment for moral
damages and attorneys fees. The SC upheld the decision of the CA to award moral
damages amounting to P50, 000.00 and attorneys fee of P20, 000.00 considering that
the respondent was compelled to litigate to protect her interest in this case.
Wassmer v. Velez
Facts:
Francisco X. Velez and Beatriz P. Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love,
[[[[[[[[[ decided to get n married and set September 4, 1954 as the big day. On
September 2, 1954 Velez left a note for his bride-to-be, informing her about the
postponement of their wedding because his mother opposes it. He even told Beatriz not
to ask people about the reason as the same would just create scandal. On the next day,
he sent a telegram and said that he will come back soon but Velez did not appear nor
was he heard from again. The plaintiff sued Velez for damages but the latter filed no
answer and was declared in default.
The plaintiff adduced evidence and the record revealed that the plaintiff and defendant
already applied for a marriage license, there was a specific date for their wedding,
invitations were printed and distributed, and other apparel were purchased in
preparation for the big event . Judgment was rendered ordering defendant to pay
plaintiff P2,000.00 as actual damages; P25,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages;
P2,500.00 as attorney's fees. The defendant filed a "petition for relief from orders,
judgment and proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration as he argued
that there is no provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of promise to
marry.

Issue:
Whether the defendant committed a mere breach of promise to marry and cannot be
held liable considering that the same is not an actionable wrong insofar as our laws are
concerned

Ruling:
No, the defendants argument that what he committed was a just a breach of promise to
marry, is not tenable in this case. It is true that the there is no provision in the Civil Code
authorizing an action for beach of promise to marry. However, it is provided under Art.
21 of the Civil Code that 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. In the instant case, the parties have made almost all the
necessary preparations for their wedding, hence, the court does not accept the defense
of Velez that the case was a mere breach of promise to marry. The court ruled that the
defendant must be held answerable in damages because his act of leaving his soon-to-
be-bride in humiliation is contrary to good customs. Therefore, the SC affirmed the lower
courts judgment but modified the amount of moral and exemplary damages to
P15,000.00 which is deemed to be a reasonable award.
Spouses Hing v. Choachuy
Facts:
Aldo Development & Resources, Inc., owners of Lots 1901 and 1900-C, adjacent to the
property of petitioners, claimed that the latter were constructing a fence without a valid
permit and that the construction of such would destroy the wall of its building.
Consequently, in April 2005, Aldo filed a case against petitioners for Injunction and
Damages with Writ of Preliminary Injunction/TRO but the court denied the same for
failure to substantiate allegations. In order to get evidence to support the said case,
respondents on June 13, 2005 illegally installed on the building of Aldo Goodyear
Servitec two video surveillance cameras facing petitioners property and that
respondents, through their employees and without the consent of petitioners, also took
pictures of petitioners on-going construction. The petitioners posited that the acts of
respondents violate their right to privacy, thus, prayed that respondents be ordered to
remove the video surveillance cameras and enjoined from conducting illegal
surveillance.

On August 23, 2005, petitioner-spouses Bill and Victoria Hing filed with the RTC of
Mandaue City a Complaint for Injunction and Damages with prayer for issuance of a
Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order against
respondents Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy. The RTC granted the
application and issued a TRO in favor of the petitioner. The respondents moved for
reconsideration but the same was denied. A Petition for Certiorari was filed with the CA
by the respondents and the appellate court granted the petition on the grounds that
there was no violation of the right to privacy since the lot in the case is not being used
as a residence.

Issue:
Whether the respondents violated the petitioners right to privacy as provided by the law

Ruling:
Yes, the petitioners right to privacy was violated by the respondents when they illegally
installed two surveillance cameras. It is provided under Article 26 of the Civil Code that
every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors such as prying into the privacy of anothers residence. In the case at bar, the
respondents argued that the provision was not violated considering that the subject lot
is not the residence of the petitioners. However, according to Arturo M. Tolentino, a Civil
Law expert, a business office is entitled to the same privacy when the public is excluded
therefrom and only such individuals as are allowed to enter may come in. To further
ascertain whether there is a violation of right to privacy, the reasonable expectation of
privacy test is used and such reasonableness depends whether the individual has
exhibited an expectation of privacy and this expectation is one that society recognizes
as reasonable. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the CA and
upheld the ruling of the RTC.
Dreamwork Construction Inc. v. Janiola

F acts:

On February 2, 2005, petitioner filed a a criminal information for violation of Batas

Pambansa Bilang 22 against private respondent Cleofe S. Janiola with the MTC. On
September 20, 2006, private respondent instituted a civil complaint against petitioner for
the rescission of an alleged construction agreement between the parties, as well as for
damages. The case was filed with the RTC, Branch 197 in Las Pinas City. Thereafter,
on July 25, 2007, private respondent filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings in Criminal
Case Nos. 55554-61, alleging that the civil and criminal cases involved facts and issues
similar or intimately related such that in the resolution of the issues in the civil case, the
guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. In other words,
private respondent claimed that the civil case posed a prejudicial question against the
criminal cases.

The MTC granted the Motion to Suspend Proceedings and reasoned that if the
rescission and nullification of the checks issued as the same are without consideration,
then the instant cases for alleged violation of BP 22 must be dismissed. The petitioner
appealed the decision with the RTC but the same was denied since according to the
court the fact that the civil action was filed after the criminal action was instituted does
not render the issues in the civil action any less prejudicial in character. The petitioner
then filed a Petition under Rule 45 with the SC.

Issue:
Whether the subsequent civil action filed by the respondent raised a prejudicial question
which would warrant the suspension of the criminal proceeding in violation of BP 22

Ruling:
No, there is no pre-judicial questions in this case. The provisions in Article 36 of the
Civil Code provides that pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any
criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed. In the instant case, respondents
filed a civil action and claimed that the criminal proceeding filed against them shall be
suspendeed because of a pre-judicial question. The petitioner, on the other hand,
opposed the said motion citing sec. 7, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court which
states that, for a pre-judicial question to arise the elements of a (1) previously instituted
civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, and (2) the resolution of such issue determines whether or
not the criminal action may proceed. The respondents said that the provisions in the
Civil Code and Rules of Court are in contrast but the Supreme Court believed
otherwise. According to the Court, the additional requirement that a civil action must be
previously instituted before a criminal proceeding does not contradict Article 36 and the
rationale behind such ammended rule is to prevent a delaying scheme which would
affect the criminal proceeding. The Supreme Court nevertheless, reversed the decision
of the lower Court and ruled that there was no prejudicial question since the elements of
such are not present002E
Capili v. People
On June 28, 2004, petitioner was charged with the crime of bigamy for willfully and
feloniously contracting a subsequent marriage with Shirley G. Tismo while a previous
marriage has not been legally disloved or annulled. Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion to
Suspend Proceedings alleging that there is a pending civil case for the declaration of
nullity of the second marriage filed by Karla Y. Medina-Capili which serves as a
prejudicial question in the instant criminal case. Consequently, the arraignment and pre-
trial were reset. Further, the RTC of Antipolo City rendered a decision declaring the
voidness or incipient invalidity of the second marriage between petitioner and private
respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his Manifestation and Motion (to Dismiss)
praying for the dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy filed against him on the ground
that the second marriage between him and private respondent had already been
declared void by the RTC.

The RTC of Pasig City granted the motion filed by the petitioner and aggrieved by the
decision, the private respondent appealed the decision with the Court of Appeals and
the latter reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court.The petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration but the same was dismissed, hence, he filed a petition for
certiorari with the Supreme court.

Issue:
Whether the civil case for the declaration of nullity of the second marriage raised a
prejudicial question and the decision of such which favored herein petitioner shall
determine his guilt in the crime of bigamy

Ruling:
No, there is no prejudicial question and the decision of the civil action shall have no
effect in the criminal action filed against the petitioner. As a provided in Article 36 of the
Civil Code, prejudicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution
may be instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which the
Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of
this Code. The sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court provided further that for
a pre-judicial question to arise the elements of a (1) previously instituted civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
criminal action, and (2) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed. In the case at bar, the crime of bigamy was already
consummated when the petitioner said to have contracted a subsequent marriage
during the subsistence of a previous marriage. Thus, it is of no issue whether the
second marriage was previously declared anulled as such would not free him from the
crime of bigamy he has allegedly committed. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied the
petition and affirmed the CAs decision.

People v. Sandiganbayan

Facts:
Private respondents then Calamba Mayor Severino J. Lajara and his fellow local public
officials were, together with Jesus V. Garcia, President of Australian Professional Realty
(APRI), charged before the Sandiganbayan under three separate informations for
violation of Sections 3(e), (g) and (j) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act). The charges arose when private respondents entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement, pursuant to Municipal Ordinance No. 497, with the
Australian Professional Realty Inc. represented by respondent Garcia for the
Construction of the Calamba Shopping Center under the Build-Operate-Transfer. On
February 6, 1996, private respondents filed a Petition for Reinvestigation and a Motion
to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest due
to the pendency of two civil actions for the nullification of the MOA. The private
respondents posited that the said civil cases raised prejudicial questions which must
first be resolved as they are determinative of their innocence or guilt. The
Sandiganbayan granted the motion and after the reinvestigation and recommended the
dismissal of the criminal cases for violation of R.A. 3019 but the Ombudsman
disapproved.

On a Resolution dated August 25, 1998, the Sandiganbayan found no exisiting

prejudicial question surronding the case. Subsequently, the private respondents filed a
motion to quash informations but Sandiganbayan dismissed the same for lack of merit.
The trial court, on the other hand, dismissed the civil case questioning the validity of the
MOA as the same was not tainted with marks of nullity. Private respondents then filed
a Motion to Suspend Proceedings reiterating that there are prejudicial questions
involved in the case, thus the Sandiganbayan granted the motion. Private respondents
later filed another Motion to Quash alleging that the decision of the RTC to uphold the
legality of the MOA raises no doubt that they cannot be prosecuted in the existing
criminal action. Treating the second Motion to Quash as a motion to dismiss, the
Sandiganbayan granted the same and accordingly dismissed Criminal Case Nos.
23153-23155.

Issue:
Whether there is a prejudicial question arising from the civil action which assialed the
validity of the Memorandum of Agreement

Ruling:
Yes, there is a prejudicial question arising from the civil action that warrant the
suspension of the criminal case against private respondent. As a rule, for a pre-judicial
question to arise the elements of a (1) previously instituted civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (2)
the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
In the instant case, indeed, there would be no reason to proceed with the criminal cases
in light of the trial courts findings, which had become final and executory, that the MOA
was valid as APRI was qualified to enter into the same; APRI and the municipality
through private respondents complied with all the procedural requirements necessary
for entering into the MOA; and the terms and conditions of the MOA were not grossly
disadvantageous to the municipality. The Supreme Court ruled that there was a
prejudicial question and the Memorandum of Agreement was proper, legal, and valid,
hence, the criminal action for violation of R.A. 3019 against private respondents shall
not prosper. Therefore, the petition for certiorari is dismissed and the decision of the
Sandiganbayan is hereby affirmed.