Civil Code Reviewer - Articles 19-36

CHAPTER 2

HUMAN RELATIONS

Article 19. EVERY PERSON MUST, IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS AND IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, ACT WITH JUSTICE, GIVE EVERYONE HIS DUE, AND OBSERVE HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH.

Article 20. EVERY PERSON WHO, CONTRARY TO LAW, WILLFULLY OR NEGLIGENTLY CAUSES DAMAGE TO ANOTHER, SHALL INDEMNIFY THE LATTER FOR THE SAME

Willful or Negligent Acts
The article punishes acts whether done willfully or negligently. As per Article 2176 of the Civil Code, “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.”

Torts
- a private or civil wrong or injury, other than breach of contract, for which the court will provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages.


When No Action for Damages Would Prosper
- if someone be damaged, he does not necessarily have the right to be indemnified. It is essential that some rights of his be impaired.

When Judiciary Can Interfere in Decisions of Religious Tribunals
- Civil Courts, according to the Highest Tribunal, have jurisdiction to inquire into the jurisdiction of religious tribunals and the regularity of their procedure; and may even subject their decisions to the test of fairness or to the test furnished by the Constitution and laws of the Church. However, civil courts cannot pass upon the abandonment of faith by a member of the church nor upon restatement of articles of religion since these are unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which are outside the province of the civil courts.


Article 21. 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 Distinguished from Article 20
1. In Article 21, the act is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. In Article 20, the act is contrary to law.
2. In Article 21, the act is done willfully (“Willful” means not merely voluntary but with a bad purpose). In Article 20, the act is done either willfully or negligently.

“Misconduct” - implies a wrongful intention and not mere error of of judgment. Thus, even if a judge is not correct in his legal conclusions, his judicial actuations cannot be regarded as grave misconduct, unless the contrary sufficiently appears.

A party injured by filing of a court case against him, even if he is later on absolved, may file a case for damages grounded either on the principle of abuse of rights, or on malicious prosecution. Regarding the latter, it is well-settled that one cannot be held liable for maliciously instituting a prosecution where one has acted with probable cause. (“Probable Cause” is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.)

There is nothing wrong in preventively suspending an officer prior to the hearing of formal charges against him as long as there are reasonable grounds to believe his guilt. This is to prevent his office from hampering the normal course of the investigation.

Can There Be An Action for Breach of Promise to Marry?
1. For the recovery of actual damages, YES. Thus, if a teacher resigns from her position because of a ma’s promise to marry her, she can recover indemnity for damages if later on the promise is not fulfilled.
2. Recovery of Moral Damages
- the Supreme Court held that under the Civil Code, there can be no recovery of moral damages for a breach of promise to marry. However, if there be seduction (act of man enticing woman to have unlawful intercourse with him by means of persuasion, solicitation, promises, bribes, or other means without employment of force), moral damages may be recovered under Article 2219, paragraph 3 of the Civil Code. The court, however, implied that if there be moral seduction as distinguished from criminal seduction, there MAY BE a grant of moral damages, possibly under Article 21. However, if it was the woman who virtually seduced the man, or if there was “mutual lust” then there can be no recovery of moral damages.
3. Sue for ACTUAL damages, should there be any, such as the expenses for the wedding preparations.

When there has been NO carnal knowledge, there may be an action for actual and moral damages under CERTAIN conditions, as when there has been deliberate desire to inflict loss or injury, or when there has been an evident abuse of a right. Thus, a man who deliberately fails to appear at the altar during the scheduled wedding simply because it was his intention to embarrass or humiliate the girl no doubt inflicts irreparable injury to her honor and reputation, wounds her feelings, and leads the way for her possible social ostracism. The girl ins such a case can recover not only actual but also moral and exemplary damages.

Breach of Promise of Employment
- in order that an action for breach of promise of employment may succeed, nothing short of an actual, clear, and positive promise on the part of the prospective employer must be shown by competent evidence. His unjustified hopes, perhaps inspired by courteous dealings of the other party, do not constitute a promise of employment whose breach is actionable at law.

Sexual Harassment
- RA 7877 is an act declaring sexual harassment unlawful in the employment, education or training environment.

-Sexual harassment is committed in two kinds of environments, namely:
1. Work Related (e.g., hiring, reemployment, promotion of employees); and
2. Education or training (e.g., in case of a student - giving of a passing grade by the offender-teacher or the granting of honors/scholarships.

Article 22. 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.


Duty to Return What Was Acquired Unjustly or Illegally
- no person should unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. (Nemo cum alterius detrimento protest). It ought to be noted that when the property is obtained by virtue of a final judgment of a court, Article 22 cannot apply.
- In the same breadth, this Article embodies the maxim Nemo ex alteriusi incommode debet lecupletari (“No man ought to be made rich out of another’s injury”).

Essential Requisites of an “Accion in Rem Verso”
1. One party must be enriched and the other made poorer.
2. There must be a casual relation between the two.
3. The enrichment must not be justifiable (so if the law itself allows the enrichment, of if the enrichment results from a contract or from the impoverished person’s own negligence, there can be no recovery).
4. There must be no other way to recover (so if, for example, a tort action or a quasi-contract is proper, it is not necessary to file a claim in rem verso.
5. The indemnity cannot exceed the loss or enrichment, whichever is less.

Article 23. 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.

Duty to Indemnify Because of Benefit Received
- unless there is a duty to indemnify, unjust enrichment will occur.
Ex. Without A’s knowledge, a flood drives his cattle to the cultivated highland of B. A’s cattle are saved, but B’s crops are destroyed. True, A was not at fault, but he was benefited. It is but right and equitable that he should indemnify B.

Article 24. IN ALL CONTRACTUAL, PROPERTY OR OTHER RELATIONS, WHEN ONE OF THE PARTIES IS AT DISADVANTAGE ON ACCOUNT OF HIS MORAL DEPENDENCE, IGNORANCE, INDIGENCE, MENTAL WEAKNESS, TENDER AGE OR OTHER HANDICAP, THE COURTS MUST BE VIGILANT FOR HIS PROTECTION.

Reason for the Courts’ Protection of the Underdog
- “Parens Patria” - the phrase refers to the sovereign power of the state in safeguarding the rights of person under disability, such as the insane and tine incompetent.

Meaning of “Vigilant for His Protection”
- the phrase in general means that in case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the underdog.
Ex. If undue influence intervenes in a will, the will is void; if in a contract, the contract is voidable.

Inadmissibility of Confessions Obtained through Coercion
- a confession obtained through coercion, whether physical, mental, or emotional is inadmissible.

Article 25. THOUGHTLESS EXTRAVAGANCE IN EXPENSES FOR PLEASURE OR DISPLAY DURING A PERIOD OF ACUTE PUBLIC WANT OR EMERGENCY MAY BE STOPPED BY ORDER OF THE COURTS AT THE INSTANCE OF ANY GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE CHARITABLE INSTITUTION.

Reason for Curtailing Thoughtless Extravagance
- thoughtless extravagance during emergencies may incite the passions of those who cannot afford to spend.

Who Can Bring The Action
- Only a charitable institution (whether government or private) may bring the action.

Article 26. EVERY PERSON SHALL RESPECT THE DIGNITY, PERSONALITY, PRIVACY AND PEACE OF MIND OF HIS NEIGHBORS AND OTHER PERSONS. THE FOLLONG AND SIMILAR ACTS, THOUGH THEY MY NOT CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL FFENCE, SHALL PRODUCE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES, PREVENTION AND OTHER RELIEF:

1. PRYING INTO THE PRIVACY OF ANOTHER’S RESIDENCE;
2. MEDDLING WITH OR DISTURBING THE PRIVATE LIFE O FAMILY RELATIONS OF ANOTHER;
3. INTRIGUING TO CAUSE ANOTHER TO BE ALIENATED FROM HIS FRIENDS;
4. VEXING OR HUMILIATING ANOTHER ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, LOWLY STATION IN LIFE, PLACE OF BIRTH, PHYSICAL DEFECT, OR OTHER PERSONAL CONDITION.

Remedies
1. An action for damages;
2. An action for prevention;
3. Any other relief.

Scope
1. Prying into the privacy of another’s residence - includes by implication respect for another’s name, picture, or personality except insofar as is needed for publication of information and pictures of legitimate news value.
2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another - includes alienation of the affections of the husband or the wife. (Thus, a girl who makes love to a married man, even if there be no carnal relations, disturbs his family life, and damages may therefore be asked of her.) Intriguing against another’s honor (gossiping) is also included.
3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends - includes gossiping, and reliance on hearsay.
4. Vexing or Humiliating - includes criticism of one’s health or features without justifiable legal cause. Religious freedom does not authorize anyone to heap obloquy and disrepute upon another by reason of the latter’s religion.

Article 27. ANY PERSON SUFFERING MATERIAL OR MORAL LOSS BECAUSE A PUBLIC SERVANT OR EMPLOYEE REFUSES OR NEGLECTS, WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, TO PERFORM HIS OFFICIAL DUTY MAY FILE AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF AGAINST THE LATTER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION THAT MAY BE TAKEN.

Refusal or Neglect in the Performance of Official Duty
- The article refers to a public servant or employee. The purpose of Article 27 is to end the pabagsak or bribery system, where the public official for some flimsy excuse, delays or refuses the performance of his duty until he gets some ind of “pabagsak”.

Three kinds of bribes:
1. The pabagsak - the gift given so that an illegal thing may be done.
2. The pampadulas - the gift given to facilitate or expedite the doing of a legal thing.
3. The pampasalamat - the gift given in appreciation of a thing already done.

Article 28. UNFAIR COMPETITION IN AGRICULTURAL, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES OR IN LABOR THROUGH THE USE OF FORCE, INTIMIDATION, DECEIT, MACHINATION OR ANY OTHER UNJUST, OPPRESSIVE OR HIGH-HANDED METHOD SHALL GIVE RISE TO A RIGHT OF ACTION BY THE PERSON WHO THEREBY SUFFERS DAMAGES.

Reason for Preventing Unfair Competition
- the above provision is necessary in a system of free enterprise.

Scope
The Article speaks of unfair competition in:
1. Agricultural enterprises
2. Commercial enterprises
3. Industrial enterprises
4. Labor

Thus, the following acts, among others, are not allowed:
1. A strike prematurely declared
2. A strike for trivial, unjust, or unreasonable cause.
3. A strike carried out through force, intimidation or other unlawful means.
4. A strike in order to circumvent valid obligations entered into a collective bargaining contract.
5. Cutthroat competition (where one is ready to lose if only to drive somebody else out of business).
6. The making of any false statement in the course of trad to discredit the goods, business, or service of another.
7. The making of goods so as to deceive purchasers (and by “purchasers,” the law means “ordinary of average purchasers” and not necessarily “intelligent buyers”).
8. Selling goods above the maximum prices set by the State.

Test of Unfair Competition
- the test of unfair competition is whether a certain goods have been intentionally clothed with an appearance which is likely to deceive the ordinary purchasers exercising ordinary care.

Article 29. WHEN THE ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS ACQUITTED ON THE GROUND THAT HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR THE SAME ACT OR OMISSION MAY BE INSTITUTED. SUCH ACTION REQUIRES ONLY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. UPON MOTION OF THE DEFENDANT, THE COURT MAY REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF TO FILE A BOND TO ANSWER FOR DAMAGES IN CASE THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE FOUND TO BE MALICIOUS.

IF IN A CRIMINAL CASE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IS BASED UPON REASONABLE DOUBT, THE COURT SHALL SO DECLARE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DECLARATION TO THAT EFFECT, IT MAY BE INFERRED FROM THE TEXT OF THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT THE ACQUITTAL IS DUE TO THAT GROUND.

Example of Civil Action After Acquittal In a Criminal Case
- Mr. A was accused of theft, but he was acquitted because his guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mr.B, the offended party, can institute the civil action for damages for the same act and this time, mere preponderance of evidence is sufficient.

Note: An acquittal on the ground that the guilt of the defendant “has not been satisfactorily established” is equivalent to one on reasonable doubt, and does not preclude or prevent a civil suit under Article 29.

Note: Article 29 does not speak of an independent civil action.

Criminal and Civil Liabilities
- under the Revised Penal Code (Article 100) a person criminally liable is also civilly liable. The two liabilities are separate and distinct from each other; the criminal aspect affects the social order; the civil, private rights. Once is for the punishment or correction of the offender, while the other is for reparation of damages suffered by the aggrieved part. Thus, even if the accused be acquitted because of prescription of the crime, he is released only from the criminal responsibility, not the civil liability; otherwise, the victim would be prejudiced.

Note: Extinction of the penal action does not carry with t the extinction of civil liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil case might arise did not exist.

Note: The Supreme Court has ruled that when the decision of the lower court provides “that the evidence throws no light on the cause of fire, and that was an unfortunate accident for which the accused cannot be held responsible,” this declaration practically means that the accused cannot be liable, even civilly.

Note: Civil liability in a criminal case may exist only if there is a criminal liability. It was therefore improper to enforce the civil liability in a criminal case. However, should one desire, the offended party may institute the corresponding civil suit for the recovery of the amount involved in the contractual loan or agreement.

Note: If in a criminal case, the accused is acquitted because the fact from which any civil liability could arise di not exist, a civil case subsequently brought must be dismissed. This is not a mere case of acquittal because of reasonable doubt.

Rule in Tax Cases
- in the Internal Revenue Code, civil liability arises first, i.e., civil liability to pay taxes arises from the fact that one has earned income or has engaged in business and not because of any criminal act committed by him. In other words, criminal liability comes only after failure of the debtor to satisfy his civil obligation.

Article 30. WHEN A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION IS BROUGHT TO DEMAND CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, AND NO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE INSTITUTED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CIVIL CASE, A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE SHALL LIKEWISE BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE ACT COMPLAINED OF.

Article 31. WHEN THE CIVIL ACTION IS BASED ON AN OBLIGATION NOT ARISING FROM THE ACT OR OMISSION COMPLAINED OF AS A FELONY, SUCH CIVIL ACTION MAY PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND REGARDLESS OF THE RESULT OF THE LATTER.

Meaning of “Independent Civil Action”
- An independent civil action is one that is brought distinctly and separately from a criminal case allowed for considerations of public policy, because the proof needed for civil cases is less than that required for criminal cases; but with the injunction in general that success in financially recovering in one case should prevent a recovery of damages in the other. It should be noted that the bringing of the independent civil action is permissive, not compulsory.

Instances When the Law Grants an Independent Civil Action
1. Article 32 - (breach of constitutional and other rights)
2. Article 33 - (defamation, fraud, physical injuries)
3. Article 34 - (refusal or failure of city or municipal police to give protection)
4. Article 2177 - (quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana)

Scope of Article 31 (Obligation Not Arising From a Crime)
- Article 31 contemplates a case where the obligation does not arise from a crime, but from some other act - like a contract or a legal duty.

Examples:
1. A civil complaint for separation of property can continue even if a criminal action for concubinage is subsequently filed.
2. A civil action for recovery of government funds in the hands of a postmaster can prosper independently of a charge of malversation, since the first, the obligation arises from law (ex lege), while in the second the obligation to return the money arises ex delicto.

Article 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:

1. FREEDOM OF RELIGION;

2. FREEDOM OF SPEECH;

1. FREEDOM O WRITE FOR THE PRESS OF TO MAINTAIN A PERIODICAL PUBLICATION;

3. FREEDOM FROM ARBITRARY OR ILLEGAL DETENTION;

4. FREEDOM FROM SUFFRAGE;

5. THE RIGHT AGAINST DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW;

6. THE RIGHT TO A JUST COMPENSATION WHEN PRIVATE PROPERTY IS TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE;

7. THE RIGHT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS;

8. THE RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN ONE’S PERSON, HOUSE, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES;

9. THE LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF CHANGING OF THE SAME;

10. THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE;

11. THE RIGHT TO BECOME A MEMBER OF ASSOCIATIONS OR SOCIETIES FOR PURPOSES NOT CONTRARY TO LAW;

12. THE RIGHT TO TAKE PART IN A PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OR GRIEVANCES;

13. THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IN ANY FORM;

14. THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED AGAINST EXCESSIVE BAIL;

15. THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO BE HEART BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL, TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM, TO HAVE A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL, TO MEET THE WITNESSES FACE TO FACE, AND TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS TO SECURE THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS IN HIS BEHALF;

16. FREEDOM FROM BEING COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST ONE’S SELF, OR FROM BEING FORCES TO CONFESS GUILT, OR FROM BEING INDUCED BY A PROMISE OF IMMUNITY OR REWARD TO MAKE SUCH CONFESSION EXCEPT WHEN THE PERSON CONFESSING BECOMES A STATE WITNESS;

17. FREEDOM FROM EXCESSIVE FINES, OR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, UNLESS THE SAME IS IMPOSE OR INFLICTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STATUTE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN JUDICIALLY DECLARED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; AND

18. FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO TH COURTS.

IN ANY OF THE CASES REFERRED TO IN THIS ARTICLE, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT’S ACT OR OMISSION CONSTITUTES A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, THE AGGRIEVED PARTY HAS A RIGHT TO COMMENCE AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES, AND FOR OTHER RELIEF. SUCH CIVIL ACTION SHALL PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY CRIMINAL PROSECTION (IF THE LATTER BE INSTITUTED), AND MAY BE PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE..

THE INDEMNITY SHALL INCLUDE MORAL DAMAGES. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES MAY ALSO BE ADJUDICATED.

THE RESPONSIBILITY HEREIN SET FORTH IS NOT DEMANDABLE FROM A JUDGE UNLESS HIS ACT OR OMISSION CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE PENAL CODE OR OTHER PENAL STATUTE.

The “cardinal primary” requirements of due process in administrative proceedings are:
1. The right to a hearing which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence to support thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The decision must have something to support itself;
4. The evidence must be substantial, which means such evidence as a reasonable mind must accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; and
7. The board or body should in all controversial questions, render its decisions in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.

Note: Article 32, which renders any public officer or employee or any public individual liable in damages for violation the constitutional rights and liberties of another, as enumerated therein, does not exempt military officials and offices from responsibility.

Note: In a custodial investigation, if an accused makes an extrajudicial confession the same must be in the presence of and assistance of counsel. The waiver of this right, if the waiver is to be valid, should be in writing and must be made in the presence of his counsel.

Scope
It should be noted that the following can be made liable:
1. Any public officer or employee
2. Any private individual even if he be in good faith; the precise purpose of the Article is to eliminate the defense of good faith, otherwise the main reason for the Article would be lost.

Note: A civil action against a public official would mean that the defendant is not the state, but the public officer involved. Hence, the consent of the state is not required.

Reason for the Creation of an Independent Civil Action under Article 32
1. Sometimes the fiscal (prosecutor) is afraid to prosecute fellow public officials, and the citizen may be left without redress.
2. Even when the fiscal (prosecutor) files a criminal case, still said case requires proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, a requirement much harder to comply with than mere preponderance of evidence.
3. There are many unconstitutional acts which are not yet made crimes. The remedy for this is clearly a civil action.

Article 33. IN CASE OF DEFAMATION, FRAUD, AND PHYSICAL INJURIES, A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES, ENTIRELY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE CRIMINAL ACTION, MAY BE BROUGHT BY THE INJURED PARTY. SUCH CIVIL ACTION SHALL PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, AND SHALL REQUIRE ONLY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

Article 33 speaks of:
1. Defamation (or libel or slander or intrigue against honor)
2. Fraud (or estafa or swindling)
3. Physical injuries including consummated, frustrated and attempted homicide, murder, parricide, infanticide - so long as there was physical injury.

Note: A separate civil action for damages based on injuries arising from reckless driving should be dismissed if the driver-accused had been acquitted in the criminal action on the ground that he was not negligent the entire mishap being a “pure accident”. Article 33 does not refer to unintentional acts or those without malice.

Article 34. WHEN A MEMBER OF A CITY OR MUNICIPAL POLICE FORCE REFUSES OR FAILS TO RENDER AID OR PROTECTION TO ANY PERSON IN CASE OF DANGER TO LIFE OR PROPERTY, SUCH PEACE OFFICER SHALL BE PRIMARILY LIABLE FOR DAMAGES, AND THE CITY OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL BE SUBSIDIARILY RESPONSIBLE THEREFOR. THE CIVIL ACTION HEREIN RECOGNIZED SHALL BE INDEPENDENT OF ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, AND A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE SHALL SUFFICE TO SUPPORT SUCH ACTION.

Note: This Article does not grant to the government the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the policemen.

Does the Article apply to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Force and to National Government? - NO.

Article 35. WHEN A PERSON, CLAIMING TO BE INJURED BY A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, CHARGES ANOTHER WITH THE SAME, FOR WHICH NO INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION IS GRANTED IN THIS CODE OR ANY SPECIAL LAW, BUT THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE FINDS NO REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED, OR THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY REFUSES OR FAILS TO INSTITUTE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE COMPLAINANT MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE ALLEGED OFFENDER. SUCH CIVIL ACTION MAY BE SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. UPON THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION, THE COURT MAY REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF TO FILE A BOND TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT IN CASE THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE FOUND TO BE MALICIOUS.

IF DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CIVIL ACTION AN INFORMATION SHOULD BE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, THE CIVIL ACTION SHALL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THE TERMINATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.

Rule if no Independent Civil Action is Granted
- this Article applies to cases when there is no independent civil action (such as when the liability sought to be recovered arises from a crime); and not to a tortuious action such as that provided for under Article 33.

Example:
A woman accused her classmate of committing against her the crime of unintentional abortion. But the fiscal refused to institute criminal proceedings. She may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender, but if in the course of the trial, an information should be presented by the fiscal, charging the classmate with the crime, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.

Case
FACTS: In a criminal case, the aggrieved party reserved the right to file a separate civil action. Despite this reservation, the court sentenced the accused to pay civil indemnity.
ISSUE: Is the judgment res judicata?
HELD: The judgment, except as to the fact of commission by the accused of the act charged therein CANNOT be res judicata, constituting a bar to the civil action to enforce the subsidiary or primary liability of the defendants who were not parties to the criminal case.

Article 36. PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS, WHICH MUST BE DECIDED BEFORE ANY CRIMINAL PROSECUTION MAY BE INSTITUTED OR MAY PROCEED, SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE RULES OF COURT WHICH THE SUPREME COURT SHALL PROMULGATE AND WHICH SHALL NOT BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE.

Definition of a “Prejudicial Question”
- a prejudicial question is one which must be decided first before a criminal action may be instituted or may proceed because a decision therein is vital to the judgment in the criminal case.
- the Supreme Court defined it as one which arises in a case, the resolution of which question is a logical antecedent of the issues involved in said case and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.

Two Elements:
1. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the Court;
2. Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal

For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action, as to cause the suspension of the latter pending the final determination of the former, it must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issues raised in said civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.

A prejudicial question is a question which is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that its resolution is determinative of the guilt of innocence of the accused.

Example
In an action for bigamy, for example, if the accused claims that the first marriage is null and void, and the right to decide such validity is vested in another tribunal, the civil action for nullity must first be decided before the action for bigamy can proceed; hence, the validity of the first marriage is a prejudicial question.

Requisites of Prejudicial Questions
1. The civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based;
2. In the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil actions, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined; and
3. Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.

Note: Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.