INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS

absolute separate and independent

Are actions which may proceed separately and independently from the criminal
action and regardless of the result of latter.
SOURCES are not exclusive on 32 political and civil rights violation 33 defamation
fraud and physical injuries 34 neglect of duty by public officers and 2176 quasi
delict, but includes those which special law assigns as actions that can be instituted
independently from the criminal action such as 5) discrimination under labor code
6) sexual harassment under anti sexual harassment act of 1995
ART 32 any public officer/employee or private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs impairs or restricts the exercise of the following rights and liberties of
another shall be liable for damages= moral or in discretion of court exemplary:
( but judge in performance of his duty shall not be liable unless act amounts to those under
rpc )

RSPI. . . SP/ JAHE CHAI = BAWE

Freedom
Freedom
Freedom
Freedom

of Religion
of Speech
of Pres or periodic publication
from Illegal or arbitrary detention

Freedom of Suffrage
Right to protection of property under due process
Right to Just compensation when public property taken for public use
Liberty of abode and of changing of the same
Right to be secured in ones House, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures
Right to equal protection of laws
Privacy of Communication and correspondence
Right to be Heard by himself and his counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of accusation against him, to speedy and impartial hearing, meet the
witnesses face to face, method of securing evidences
Right Associate for purposes not contrary to law
Right to peaceably assemble to redress grievances against government
Right to be free from Involuntary servitude in any form
Right of accused against excessive bail
Freedom of Access to courts
Freedom from being compelled to be witness against oneself, or to confess guilt
Or from being induced to confess guilt by promise of immunity except state witness
Freedom from excessive fine and cruel and unusual punishment
. . .separate and independent

RATIONALE
1) Afford adequate protection of civil and political liberties when public
prosecutor does not prosecute specially in case violator is high ranking public
official either because of burden required in a criminal case or the hesitation
because of influence of superior officer =
= = the private citizen can now institute independent civil action that is
absolutely independent and can be instituted solely by him
2) A lesser quantum of evidence required
3) Strict elements of crime not required
4) Puts an end to the abuse of presumption of good faith and defense of good
faith by public officers
Lim vs Ponce de Leon : it matters not that the violation of article 32
is done in good faith because it is the ultimate objective of creation of
the independent civil action to put and end to the excuse of good faith
in trampling the civil and political liberties by public individuals,
moreover the violation can be done intentionally or in negligence.
Persons who may be liable directly or indirectly violating
**The person who directly violates article 32 will be liable; unless he merely
responded to the order
(1) with reluctance (2) lead to believe that the act
ordered was lawful and (2) with fear of sanction by superior officer lim vs ponce
de leon
**Persons indirectly liable =Persons not immediate to the act or omission
causing violation of article 32 may also be liable by reason of their 1) instigation
or 2)order of superior officer
Instigation MPH GARMENTS VS CA
The petitioner entered contract of right to exclusive franchise to sell
boy scouting uniform supplies badges and insignias with agreement of right
of MPH to prosecute persons who will illegally manufacture or sell it in the
Philippines.
It reported and caused the raid of the alleged illegal garments. The raid
was conducted as planned in the presence of the MPH employee larry de
Guzman and subsequently filed a case of unjust competition against them.
but was later dismissed
The MPH was ordered to return the confiscated items. But defaulted in
returning it and even returned another of inferior quality
So a case of damages was filed against MPH
HELD The seizure of the police constabulary is illegal and did not comply with
the requisites for its confiscation under LOI of president that there should be
prper application of boy scouts and accompanied by search warrant of
judge. HENCE the seizure was illegal for want of search warrant
Concomitantly, the violation under article 32 of right of persons against
unreasonable searches and seizure shall be prosecuted not only against the
one directly liable bit also against the person who is indirectly responsible for

the act which in this case is the MPH. the MPH instigating the raid cannot
escape liability by pointing the act of constabularies because evidence clearly
show that they were the one who instigated it even the confiscated items was
surrendered to them in reliance by police in the contract shown by MPH
Superior Officers Order ABERCA VS VER
The transgression of right to be secure in ones house papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures and right against cruel or
uncommon punishment and right of accused to reasonable bail and freedom
from self incrimination, will not only hold the officer directly violating it but
also to the superior officer who orders or condones it by virtue of respondeat
superior
BUT in LIM VS PONCE DE LEON the subordinate officer is not liable if he
acted with 1) reluctance and 2) was lead to believe that the order was legal
3) fear of sanction
PROSECUTION UNDER ART 32 NOT PREVENTED BY
1) Good faith
-because 32 can be violated by malice or negligence
2) State immunity
- Because state immunity covers only those which public officer or
employees official duties and functions which in no occasion would
include acts in violation of private civil and political liberties
3) Suspension of writ of habeas corpus
- Because the suspension is only as to the resort to remedy of a writ of
habeas corpus as a speedy means of obtaining liberty of a person against
an illegal arrest
; hence its suspension in no wise alters the substantive rights of persons,
besides constitution provides that the suspension of privilege will not
affect civil liberties of people and courts shall remain open

No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law

Eg. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS CHUA there was disconnection of right to
electricity that is considered property of the resident in violation of due process
Eg. NBN vs DY: when the latter illegally caused the closure of the broadcasting
company he was in violation of freedom of press
There are also cases where award of damages granted by reason of
deprivation of right to be employed was deprived without due process of law BUT
IN AGABON VS NLRC it is said that proper relief is under article 282 of labor code for
nominal damages of 30 000
Right to be secured in houses person paper and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures
ABERCA VS FABIAN VER the privilege of writ of habeas corpus was suspended

Pursuant to a proclamation by president marcos to launch pre-emptive strikes

against the underground houses of communists-terrorists CT Task Force
Makabansa was formed to carry out the mission
It is now alleged by petitioners that they are victims of the abuses to personal
civil and political rights and liberties by said TFM. Some of this are warrantless
arrest and seizures, seizures of purely personal belongings, right to self
incrimination,
ESTELITO MENDOZA as solgen raised the defense that there was suspension of
privilege of writ of habeas corpus hence the validity of detention cannot be inquired
by bringing action for damages, and that action barred by state immunity, = failure
to state cause of action the motion to dimiss was sustained by the trial court and
hence this certiorari
HELD the suspension of privilege only suspend the remedy of speedy release of a
person illegally arrested the suspension does not render valid an arrest illegally
made.
The state immunity cannot be invoked by the respondents. For it to be
invoked the public officers must be in the discharge of their functions and must not
exceed their authority
The respondeat superior is applicable because the article32 provides liability
against those directly and indirectly liable for the violation. = = =
= = = there is now a larger dimension of accountability of public officialsand
command responsibility can be enforced under article 32 as long as such
subordinate is in his supervision and control
DEFAMATION AS INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
RATIO: it affects relational interest of a person

Definition of defamation ; libel and slander

Defamation which includes libel and slander, is an offense of injuring a persons character,
reputation, or fame through false or malicious statements.
Libel is written defamation that can be made by means of writing printing lithograph radio
cinematographic/theatrical exhibition, painting and other similar means.
DEFINED UNDER ART 353 as ***public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect it
be real or imaginary ; or any act or omission which tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead
(it is the opinion of Aquino that the threat to commit defamation for money or consideration also constitute an independent civil
action)

Slander
Is an oral defamation or may by deed

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS does not protect libelous acts of press people. In case of public
figure they shall be liable for libelous remarks only after the public figure has shown clear and

convincing proof that there was actual malice (it being one where the press people knew that
the statement is false or where there is reckless disregard of the statements falsity lopez vs ca)

REQUISITES FOR LIABLITY OF DEFAMATORY IMPUTATIONS

I-PIE
1) Imputation of discreditable act or condition to another
2) Publication of the imputation
3) Identity of the person defamed
4) Existence of malice

1) Imputation of discreditable act or condition to another

public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect it be real or imaginary ; or any
act or omission which tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead
FORMS OF LANGUAGE(DIRECT/INDIRECT)- question, opinion (generally not
actionable unless purpose is to discredit another ) , irony, using name of person in bad
literature
*irony and metaphor favored modes of committing libel/slander
BINAY VS EXEC SECRETARY: newspaper pinoy times published an
articlealyas erap jr featuring the luxurious life of binays. Contained in the
article is alleged extravagant purchases of adopted daughter of then
mayoralty candidate binay including one panty worth 1,000 php
HELD: the statement is defamatory as it causes discredit malign or contempt
to the person of the adopted daughter maliciously focusing on her being
adopted and extravagant spending
also clear case of invasion of right to privacy.
The article erap jr alone is sufficient proof to recover because it already
satisfies the 4 elements of defamation that is publication of the defamatory
statement
TEST; WHETHER THE WORDS ARE CALCULATED IN THE LIGHT OF ENTIRE
STATEMRNT IN SUCH A WAY AT LEAST TO INDUCE SUSPICION BY AN
ORDINARY PERSON/READER THAT AN IDENTIFIABLE PERSON OR PERSONS
WERE GUILTY OF AN OFFENSE OR IS OTHERWISE SUFFICIENT TO IMPACH
THEIR REPUTATION OR CHARACTER
Community standard- the statement or act tends to dishonor, discredit or
contempt upon person according to standard of community not of family or
person. Personal hurt is not sufficient there must be effect on relational status
of person

GMA VS BUSTOS the unsuccessful examinees of medical board exam

protested while the said story was narrated a video with caption file video
was superimposed upon footage showing doctors with black armband in pgh .
HELD the appeal of gma sustained. The footage was not malicious as there
was an indication of file video to prevent viewers being disguised. The
personal injury suffered is not the standard but the standard of community
whether the statement is libelous
The title of the article is not sufficient to constitute libel
Statement should be taken in its entirety the headline may contain
exaggerations but the article may well prove that the matter is not libelous as
when it represents fair index of the story
VILLANUEVA VS PDI Villanueva was a candidate for mayor his opponent
Nolan filed a petition to disqualify him but was dismissed
there appear in the newspaper that he was already disqualified and
then he lost
HELD Error or mistatement does not necessarily constitute offense of libel in
the absence of proof of malice. Press people are given room for misstatement
or error provided made in good faith. Mere failure to present the informant in
trial does not automatically constitute malice
Insular life vs Serrano Statement in public of non performance of another
company of their contractual duty does not in itself injure anothers
reputation. Specially to redress violation of his rights and those of others
made in good faith ??? so pag publication na sa newspaper by bank ng non
paying loaners ?
IMPUTATION OF A CRIME VICE OR DEFECT The imputation is defamatory
as a matter of law when there is imputation of a crime, otherwise the court
must determine in the light of the circumstances whether the statement is
defamatory.
eg. Usurpation of official functions estafa, he is a habitual gambler drunkard
etc
2) Publication of the imputation
In the form of writing printing lithograph radio phonograph,
cinematic/theatrical presentation printing or painting and other similar
means
--- made to at least one third person who have seen or heard.
(exception)But a letter sent unsealed if containing defamatory statement
will entitle the subject damages Magno vs people
3) Identity of the person defamed
Both natural and artificial person as long as they are identifiable by an
ordinary person from the statement.
Corporation who is proper party to recover damages from defamatory
imputations under article 353 can recover moral damages by specific
provisions that moral damages shall also be awarded to those aggrieved

Deceased is still subject of libel as in article 353 that which tends to blacken
his memory
Group libel (class suit)
Defamation over large group does not give rise to cause of action by an
individual
unless it can be shown that he is specifically targeted (the collective nature
has gone beyond and reached the individual )
newsweek inc vs ca - an article in newsweek was published entitled island
of fear and it contained statements that the island is dominated by big land
owners that the sugar workers are brutalized oppressed and killed with
impunity
HELD the statement is must be so sweeping as to include all members of
same class to constitute class suit. And in case of individual there must be
specific focus on him that readers would know he is topic
4) Existence of malice
When person acts with knowledge that his statement to be made are false or made in
reckless disregard of the truth
(latter is where he has serious doubt as to its veracity of truth or high degree of awareness
So that the news reporter interviewing person from one side without high degree of
awareness of falsity is not liable for libel)
What if he later knew that they are wrong and apologized or not apologized =
false light ?
WHAT MUST BE PROVED vis a vis THE BURDEN
1)private communication, 2)fair and true report 3)commentaries on public concern or matter
there is no presumption that the defamatory statement is made with malice. If made the
complainant must prove - - -

MALICE IN FACT By existence of rivalry or grudge showing he is moved by spite and ill
will

Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious even if it be true if no good

intention and justifiable motive is shown by maker
There is presumption of ill will, if made he has the burden to prove in the action that he
made it with justifiable motive and good intention
MALICE IN LAW the words and acts itself taking into account its surrounding
circumstances are defamatory in nature according to standard of community and
ordinary reader. = = the law presumes malice even it be true
But the defendant may present proof of truth in cases of imputation of a crime or if
not crime those made against a government employee with respect to his duty. And
if court satisfied as to its veracity of truth he shall be acquitted

PERSONS LIABLE
- The one who published or Exhibited - - the editor or busineness manager of nmp
- Caused it to be published or exhibited- - the author/ editor
DEFENSES
1) Absolute privilege statement- cases where despite bad faith of one who made it is not liable
for defamatory imputations made, as in the case of those (1) made by members of the congress
during official proceedings; (2) made in the course of judicial proceedings that are related to the
action
2) qualified privilege matters provided under art 354 every defamatory imputation made is
presumed to be made in bad faith even if it be true, unless the maker proves later that the
imputation is made with good intention and justifiable motive, except in ff cases
Sa mga ito kahit defamatory na hindi pa liabale until iprove ni plaintiff ang malice in fact
1)private communication
(a) made in the performance of legal, social , moral duty or at least has an interest to be protected
(b) addressed to officer, board or superior having some duty or interest (buatis vs people cc all)
(c) made in good faith

Example : complaint against public official but must satisfy 3 requirements

Report to superior officer
***statements in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged as long as they
are relevant to the action . . .gf not test
- - - being so it can also be published as under rule 135 it forms part of
public records unless the court orders otherwise for morality and decency

2)fair and true report, made in good faith without any comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not confidential in nature,
report of such and acts performed by public officers

2) doctrine of fair commentaries on public concern- the presumption of malice does not apply
when statement is made about a public person in public capacity. For it to be actionable the
statement must be false
3) privilege of neutral reportage- when the republisher makes a statement reporting defamatory
imputations of another , the reporter shall not be liable as long as it is accurate reiteration,
regardless of belief of falsity
Public figure one who by his profession, calling, mode of living and fame gives the public
legitimate interest in his interests, doings, affairs and character, has become public parsonage

- so the press also extend the coverage to matters which affect his fitness in case of
public official
- No geographical limit
May be : involuntary no purposeful act became public figure
All purpose by reason of pursuing roles of special prominent in affairs of society
Limited purpose by reaon of participation to some public matters
-

The court adopts liberal treatement in libel cases

No actual damages proof required
MITIGATION
- - - want of character or repute in cases serves to mitigate
BORJAL VS CA
Francisco wenceslao is a civil engineer, journalist and businessman who was technical
adviser of cong sison was
At the first national conference on land transpo, wenceslao is elected executive director.
And has said that the estimated expenses for the conference would be 1.8 million to be funded
from solicitations from government agency private entities etc.
In series of commentaries of borjal in his column jaywalker, he allege that organizer was
eager in solicitation and that the organizer was using in the letterhead the names of cabinet
secretaries.
Trial court resolved in favor of borjal and editor /bm of phil star max soliven . but ca
reversed reasoning that wenceslao is identifiable
HELD it is not identifiable because the commentary used the word organizer when there are
several organizers in the said case, Moreover identification grossly inadequate when the sucject
himself is unsure as to whether it is he.
But the article is under qualified privilege as the case is under doctrine of fair
commentary that is when the imputation is about a public it is not libelous if with good
intention and justifiable motive
Even wenceslao (who is involuntary pub figure) is not public official the fair
commentary as exception added in art 354 still applies. So it is presumed that the defamatory
imputation is made with good intention and justifiable motive
Even mere mistake or error absence malice not actionable

FRAUD
Elements:
1) false representation by words written or oral, conduct, or machinations (includes half-truths)
2) one of fact (except opinion from expert and relied on )
3) knowingly made or in reckless disregard of truth

4) with intention that the false representation be acted on

5) plaintiff suffered damage
Eg trsust receipts la, estafa, misrepresentations by seller
ELENITA SILVA VS ESTHER PERALTA
Saturnino silva was assigned in the Philippines as regiment commander somewhere in davao
during world war II
Esther peraltas sister was imprisoned for alleged cooperation with the enemies. After
ther sister was released they lived in doctoleros where Silva frewuented and courted Esther
Silva who was then still married to an Australian allegedly married esther. But no
certificate was issued allegedly because there was no form saturnine silve jr was born
Silva was injured during the war and was forced to go back to states for recovery. There
he divorced his marriage with the australian
He went back to Philippines and married elenita. Esther demanded support but silva
refused. So esther filed a case for damages and support
HELD there was actual fraud done by silva against esther
Ncc in case of fraud the debtor shall be liable for all loses and damage arising fron the
failure to fulfill obligation. In this case there was actual loss of income and the expenses for
support of the child
But also 2176 invoked
PHYSICAL INJURIES
Includes 1) battery and 2) assault and cases when 3) death is resulted BUT NOT WHEN IT
RESULTED THRU NEGLIGENCE as it would fall under art 2176
Battery- infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact and affects persons reasonable sense of
dignity
Assault- intentional conduct by one person directed to another causing immediate bodily harm

NEGLECT OF DUTY
When a member of municipal or local police force refuses or fails to render protection or aid to
any person whose life or property is in danger .. in such case the municipality or city shall be
liable