d2015member

Silahis International Hotel Inc and Panlilio v. Soluta, Santos, Bernate, Delola, Matilla, and Glowhrain-Silahis Union Chapter (2006) Carpio-Morales, J. Panlilio was VP Finance of Silahis Hotel. Respondents are employees of the hotel and officers of the union. VP Finance Panlilio and Hotel version of the story: o 1987: General Manager of Hotel, Maniego, and Repisa Security Agency received reports of sale and use of marijuana, dollar smuggling, theft syndicate, and prostitution. o These were said to have been going on at the Union office. o General manager conducted surveillance of suspected Union officers and members, with the approval of VP Finance Panlilio. o 1988: One morning, VP Finance Panlilio, his secretary Dizon, General manager Maniego, a reporter named Rosales, and Repisa security agency security guard, Villanueva, entered the union office. This was done with permission of union officer Babay. o Union officer Babay was told of the suspected activities. o They searched the Union office and found a plastic bag of dry marijuana. o VP Finance Panlilio ordered General Manager Maniego to report the marijuana to the authorities. Union officers and employees version: o Loida, a laundry woman, was staying overnight ar the female locker room of the hotel. By dawn, she hreard pounding noises outside. o When she checked it out, she saw five men in barongs trying to open the union office whom she didnt know. o She saw one man hide something behind his back. o She went back to sleep, but later heard the union office being opened. o By morning, laundrywoman Loida saw union officer Soluta trying to open the door (he could not open it). Laundrywoman Loida told him what she saw. o Union officer Soluta complained to the Security officer. Security officer fetched a locksmith. o While trying to open the office, five men in barongs with clubs arrived. They started beating the Union officer and members. The union officers and members ran to the locker room, then went to the Engineering office and called the police. o While waiting for the police, Union Officer Babay and VP Finance Panlilio met. VP Finance Panlilio told Union officer Babay to discuss the beating at the Union office. Since Babay told Panlilio that the office could not be opened, Panlilio told security guard Villanueva to force open the door. o Once inside, VP Finance Panlilio and companions (case didnt state who were the companions) searched the office over the objections of Union Officer Babay. Babay even asked if they had a search warrant. o A plastic bag with marijuana was found. A complaint was filed against the union officers for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act RTC-Manila acquitted the union officers. Union officers filed a complaint against the Hotel and VP Finance Panlilio for malicious prosecution and violation of their constitutional right against illegal search. RTC-Manila held Hotel, VP Finance Panlilio, and security guard Villanueva solidarily liable. CA affirmed with modifications (Hotel et al still liable for damages but not for malicious prosecution.

Issue: Can the Union officers and employees recover damages for violation of constitutional rights? Held: Yes. Ratio:

Arguments of Hotel et al: o CA correctly cited People v. Aruta but erroneously applied it to this case. Aruta does not involve NCC 32. o They are private persons, therefore not covered by standards in Aruta. They cite People v. Marti. o Search of union office was reasonable under the circumstances: Hotel owns the room, search was with probable cause, and search was with consent and presence of Union Officer Babay.

Re: application of NCC 32 As constitutional rights occupy a lofty position in every civilized and democratic community and frequently subjected to abuse, their violation (whether penal offense or not) must be guarded against. As Code Commission said: o Violations of the penal code trampling upon freedoms are not so frequent as those subtle ways which do not come within the penal law. o It is these cunning devices of suppressing freedom, which are not criminally punishable, where the greatest danger to democracy lies. o Under the NCC, the injured citizen will always have adequate civil remedies because of the independent civil action, even in those cases where the act complained of is not a criminal offense. Therefore, the Code Commission deemed it necessary to hold not only public officers but also private individuals civilly liable for violation of rights enumerated in NCC 32. So, it is not necessary that person should have acted with malice, otherwise, it would defeat the articles main purpose: the effective protection of individual rights. It is enough that there is a violation of constitutional rights. In this case, Hotel et al barged into the office without a search warrant despite ample time to obtain one. (1987-88) Case does not fall under the exceptional circumstances when warrantless search is allowed. Violation of constitutional rights against unreasonable search furnished the basis for award of damages under NCC32.

d2015member

Re: Who is liable NCC32 speaks of an officer or employee or person directly or indirectly responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights So, it is not the actor alone who must answer for damages under NCC 32, the person indirectly responsible has to answer for the damages or injury caused Hotel, VP Finance Panlilio, Gen Manager Maniego, and security guard Villanueva are solidarily liable Re: Aruta Aruta was cited by CA not to justify Hotel et als responsibility but to rule out the legality of the search of the office (because the search was not done as an incident of a lawful arrest, CA used Aruta) Re: Private persons, so, not covered by standards set by Aruta & application of People v. Marti Issue in Marti case was whether evidenc obtained by a private person, without participation of the State is admissible. The issue in this current civil case is whether the Union officers and employees can recover damages for violation of constitutional rights. NCC 32 in relation to NCC 2219 (6) and (10) allows it. Note: Although it was not explicitly stated, it seems the SC believed Union officers and employees version of events more. Petition denied.