VIRATA V OCHOA B-134 for damages based on quasi-delict.

The
source of the obligation sought to be enforced
PETITIONERS: Candida Virata in Civil Case No. B-134 is quasi-delict, not an
Tomas Virata act or omission punishable by law. Under
Manolito Virata Article 1157 of the Civil Code of the
Ederlinda Virata Philippines, quasi-delict and an act or
Napoleon Virata omission punishable by law are two
Aracely Virata different sources of obligation.
Zenaida Virata o Moreover, for the petitioners to prevail in the
Luzminda Virata action for damages, Civil Case No. B-134, they
Pacita Virata have only to establish their cause of action by
Evangelina Virata preponderance of the evidence.
RESPONDENTS: Victorio Ochoa o WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal
Maximo Borilla appealed from is hereby set aside and Civil
The Court of First Instance of Cavite, Case No. B-134 is reinstated and remanded
7th Judicial District, Branch V to the lower court for further proceedings,
stationed @ Bacoor, Cavite with costs against the private respondents.
DOCKET NO.: G.R. No. L46179
PROMUL. DATE: January 31, 1978
PONENTE: Fernandez, J.

FACTS:
September 24, 1975 ARSENIO VIRATA died as a
result of having been bumped while walking along Taft
Avenue, Pasay City by a passenger jeepney driven by
MAXIMO BORILLA and registered in the name of
VICTORIO OCHOA.
o Borilla is the employer of Ochoa.
o For the death of Arsenio, an action for Homicide
through Reckless Imprudence was instituted on
September 25, 1975 against Borillo in CFI of
Rizal, at Pasay City (Crim. Case No. 3162-P).

At the hearing of the said criminal case on December

12, 1975, Atty. Julio Francisco (priv. prosec.), made a
made a reservation to file a separate civil action for
damages against the driver on his criminal liability.
o On February 19, 1976, Atty. Julio Francisco
filed a motion in said criminal case to withdraw
the reservation to file a separate civil action.
o On June 29, 1976, the heirs of Arsenio again
reserved their right to institute a separate civil
action. On July 19, 1977, they commenced Civil
No. B-134 in the CFI of Bacoor, Cavite, Branch
V, for damages based on quasi-delict against
the driver Maximo and the registered owner of
the jeepney, Victorio.
o On August 13, 1976, private respondents filed
a motion to dismiss on the ground that there is
another action, Criminal Case No. 3162-P,
pending between the same parties for the same
cause.
o On September 8, 1976, CFI of Rizal, Pasay
City, in their decision on Crim. Case No. 3162-
P, acquitted accused Maximo on the ground
that he caused an injury by name accident.
o On January 31, 1977, CFI Bacoor, Cavite,
granted the motion to Civil Case No. B-134 for
damages.

ISSUE: WON the heirs of Arsenio Virata can prosecute

an action for the damages based on quasi-delict against
Borillo and Ochoa

HELD: Yes. It is settled that in negligence cases the

aggrieved parties may choose between an action
under the Revised Penal Code or of quasi-delict
under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines. What is prohibited by Article 2177 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines is to recover twice
for the same negligent act.
o The petitioners are not seeking to recover twice
for the same negligent act. Before Criminal
Case No. 3162-P was decided, they
manifested in said criminal case that they
were filing a separate civil action for
damages against the owner and driver of the
passenger jeepney based on quasi-delict.
The acquittal of the driver, Maximo Borilla, of
the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 3162-P
is not a bar to the prosecution of Civil Case No.
ANDAMO V CA
PETITIONERS: Natividad V. Andamo
Emmanuel R. Andamo
RESPONDENTS: Intermediate Appellate Court
Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette
DOCKET NO.: G.R. No. 74761
PROMUL. DATE: November 6, 1990
PONENTE: Fernan, C.J.
FACTS:
Petitioner spouses Emmanuel and Natividad
Andamo
o Owners of a parcel of land situated in Biga
(Biluso) Silang, Cavite which is adjacent to that
of private respondent, Missionaries of Our
Lady of La Salette, Inc., a religious
corporation.
o WITHIN THE LAND of the religious corporation
were waterpaths and contrivances, which
ALLEGEDLY:
inundated and eroded petitioners land,
caused a young man to drown,
damaged petitioners crops and plants,
washed away costly fences,
endangered the lives of petitioners and
their laborers during rainy and stormy
seasons, and
exposed plants and other improvements
to destruction.
July 1982 petitioners instituted a criminal action before
RTC Cavite, Branch 4 (Tagaytay City), against EFREN
MUSNGI, ORLANDO SAPUAY and RUTILLO
MALLILLIN, officers and directors of herein respondent
corporation, for destruction by means of inundation
under Article 324 of the Revised Penal Code.
February 22, 1983 petitioners filed another action
action against respondent corporation, this time a civil
case, docketed as Civil Case No. TG-748, for damages
with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction before the same court.
March 11, 1983 - respondent corporation filed its
answer to the complaint and opposition to the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction.
o April 26, 1984 - the trial court, acting on
respondent corporation's motion to dismiss or
suspend the civil action, issued an order
suspending further hearings in Civil Case No,
TG-748 until after judgment in the related
Criminal Case No. TG-907-82.
August 27, 1984 the trial court DISMISSED the civil
case for lack of jurisdiction, as the criminal case which
was instituted ahead of the civil case was still
unresolved. Said order was anchored on the provision
of Section 3 (a), Rule III of the Rules of Court which
provides that criminal and civil actions arising
from the same offense may be instituted separately,
but after the criminal action has been commenced
the civil action cannot be instituted until final
judgment has been rendered in the criminal action.
APPELLATE COURT (February 17, 1986)
o AFFIRMED the decision of the trial court.
o A motion for recon filed the petitioners was
DENIED by the Appellate Court in its reso on
May 19, 1986.
ISSUE: WON the petitioners can claim damages for the
destruction caused by the respondents waterpaths and
contrivances based on Arts. 2176 and 2177 of the CC
on quasi-delicts
HELD:
o A carful examination of the complaint shows hat
the civil action is one under Articles 2176 and
2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. All the
elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit:
(a) damages suffered by the plaintiff,
(b) fault or negligence of the defendant,
or some other person for whose acts he
must respond; and
(c) the connection of cause and effect
between the fault or negligence of the
defendant and the damages incurred
by the plaintiff.
o Clearly, from petitioner's complaint, the
waterpaths and contrivances built by
respondent corporation are alleged to have
inundated the land of petitioners. There is
therefore, an assertion of a causal
connection between the act of building
these waterpaths and the damage sustained
by petitioners. Such action if proven
constitutes fault or negligence which may be
the basis for the recovery of damages.
o Indeed, the recitals of the complaint, the alleged
presence of damage to the petitioners, the act
or omission of respondent corporation
supposedly constituting fault or negligence, and
the causal connection between the act and the
damage, with no pre-existing contractual
obligation between the parties make a clear
case of a quasi delict or culpa aquiliana.
o It must be stressed that the use of ones
property is not without limitations. Article 431 of
the Civil Code provides that the owner of a
thing cannot make use thereof in such a
manner as to injure the rights of a third person.
SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS.
xxxx Although we recognize the right of an
owner to build structures on his land, such
structures must be so constructed and
maintained using all reasonable care so that
they cannot be dangerous to adjoining
landowners and can withstand the usual and
expected forces of nature. If the structures
cause injury or damage to an adjoining
landowner or a third person, the latter can claim
indemnification for the injury or damage
suffered.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated February
17, 1986 of the then Intermediate Appellate Court
affirming the order of dismissal of the Regional Trial
Court of Cavite, Branch 18 (Tagaytay City) dated
August 17, 1984 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The trial court is ordered to reinstate Civil
Case No. TG-748 entitled "Natividad V. Andamo and
Emmanuel R. Andamo vs. Missionaries of Our Lady
of La Salette Inc." and to proceed with the hearing
of the case with dispatch.
WYLIE V RARANG
PETITIONERS: M.H. Wylie
Capt. James Williams
RESPONDENTS: Aurora I. Rarang
The Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court
DOCKET NO.: G.R. No. 74135
PROMUL. DATE: May 28, 1992
PONENTE: Gutierrez, Jr., J.
FACTS:
AT THE NAVAL BASE.
o February 1978, petnr M.H. Wylie was the
assistant administrative officer and Capt.
James Williams was the commanding officer of
the US Naval Base in Subic Bay, Olongapo
City.
o Aurora I. Rarang was employed as a
merchandise control guard in the Office of the
Provost Marshal.
Wylie, in his capacity as the asst. admin. officer,
supervised the publication of the Naval Base stations
Plan of the Day (POD), which featured important
announcements, necessary precautions, and
general matters of interest to military personnel.
One of its regular features was the action line inquiry.
February 3, 1978 the POD published, under the
NAVSTA Action Line Inquiry, the ff:
Question: I have observed that Merchandise
Control inspector/inspectress are (sic)
consuming for their own benefit things they
have confiscated from Base Personnel. The
observation is even more aggravated by
consuming such confiscated items as
cigarettes and food stuffs PUBLICLY. This is
not to mention Auring who is in herself, a
disgrace to her division and to the Office of the
Provost Marshal. In lieu of this observation,
may I therefore, ask if the head of the
Merchandise Control Division is aware of this
malpractice?
Answer: Merchandise Control Guards and all
other personnel are prohibited from
appropriating confiscated items for their own
consumption or use. Two locked containers are
installed at the Main Gate area for deposit of
confiscated items and the OPM evidence
custodian controls access to these containers.
Merchandise Control Guards are permitted to
eat their meals at their worksite due to heavy
workload. Complaints regarding merchandise
control guards procedure or actions may be
made directly at the Office of the Provost
Marshal for immediate and necessary action.
Specific dates and time along with details of
suspected violations would be most
appreciated. Telephone 4-3430/4-3234 for
further information or to report noted or
suspected irregularities. Exhibits E & E-1.
o Aurora Rarang was the Auring being referred
to here, as she was the only one with that name
in the Office of the Provost Marshall, which was
conclusively proven when on February 7, 1978,
petitioner M. H. Wylie wrote her a letter of
apology for the inadvertent publication.
Rarang instituted an action for damages in the CFI of
Zambales against Wylie, Capt. James Williams, and the
US Naval Base. She prayed for P300K moral damages,
exemplary damages, and P50K attorneys fees.
o RARANGS ALLEGATIONS: the article
constituted false, injurious, and malicious
defamation and libel tending to impeach her
honesty, virtue and reputation exposing her to
public hatred, contempt and ridicule.
o the libel was published and circulated in the
English language and read by almost all the
U.S. Naval Base personnel.
Wylie, Williams, and the Naval Base filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ff grounds:
o 1. Wylie and Williams acted in the performance
of their official functions as officers of the US
Navy and are immune from suit
o 2. The US Naval Base is an instrumentality of
the US government which cannot be sued
without its consent
o 3. lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties.
o MOTION DENIED.
TRIAL COURT
o the acts of Wylie and Williams werent official
acts of the US government in the operation and
control of the Base but personal and tortious
acts which are exceptions to the general rule
that a sovereign country cant be sued in the
court of another country without its consent.
Thus their acts werent imputable against the
US government but were done in their
individual and personal capacities
o They were ordered to pay Rarang P100K moral
and exemplary damages, and P30K attorneys
fees.
o However, the suit against the US Naval Base
was dismissed.
APPEAL
o Wylie and Williams asserted that they are
immune from suit since the publication was
made in their official capacities as officers of the
U. S. Navy, and that they did not intentionally
and maliciously cause the publication.
o Rarang also appealed as she wasnt satisfied
with the award.
THE IAC MODIFIED THE TCS DECISION - Rarang
was awarded P175K moral damages and P60K
exemplary damages.
PETITION FOR REVIEW
o they made the publication in the performance of
their official functions as administrative
assistant (Wylie) and commanding officer
(Williams) of the US Navy and were, therefore,
immune from suit for their official actions.
ISSUE:
o WON Wylie and Williams are liable for the
published article in the POD
o WON the grant of rights, power, and authority
to the US under the RP-US Bases Treaty cover
immunity of its officers from crimes and torts
HELD:
o YES, and NO, respectively.
o The general rule is that public officials can be
held personally accountable for acts claimed to
have been performed in connection with official
duties where they have acted ultra vires or
where there is showing of bad faith (Chavez v.
Sandiganbayan).
o It may be argued, as a general rule, that Capt.
Williams as commanding officer of the naval
base was far removed in the chain of command
from the offensive publication and it would be
asking too much to hold him responsible for
everything which goes wrong on the base.
However, in this particular case, the records
show that the offensive publication was sent to
the commanding officer for approval and that he
approved it.
o Petitioner Wylie himself admitted that the Office
of the Provost Marshal explicitly recommended
the deletion of the name Auring if the article
will be published. The petitioners, however,
were NEGLIGENT because under their
direction, they issued the publication without
deleting the said name. Such act or omission
was ULTRA VIRES and CANNOT be deemed
part of official duty. It was a TORTIOUS ACT
which ridiculed the private respondent. As a
result of petitioners act, PR suffered
besmirched reputation, serious anxiety,
wounded feelings and social humiliation,
especially so, since the article was baseless
and false. The petitioners, alone, in their
personal capacities, are liable for the damages
they caused the Private Respondent.