Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari, from the order of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Branch V, in Civil Case No. B-134
granting the motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause. 1
The record shows that on September 24, 1975 one 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
Victoria Ochoa; that Borilla is the employer of Ochoa; that for the death of Arsenio Virata, a action for homicide
through reckless imprudence was instituted on September 25, 1975 against Maximo Borilla in the Court of First
Instance of Rizal at Pasay City, docketed as C Case No. 3162-P of said court; that at the hearing of the said criminal
case on December 12, 1975, Atty. Julio Francisco, the private prosecutor, made a reservation to file a separate civil
action for damages against the driver on his criminal liability; that on February 19, 1976 Atty. Julio Francisco filed a
motion in said c case to withdraw the reservation to file a separate civil action; that thereafter, the private prosecutor
actively participated in the trial and presented evidence on the damages; that on June 29, 1976 the heirs of Arsenio
Virata again reserved their right to institute a separate civil action; that on July 19, 1977 the heirs of Arsenio Virata,
petitioners herein, commenced Civil No. B-134 in the Court of First Instance of Cavite at Bacoor, Branch V, for
damages based on quasi-delict against the driver Maximo Borilla and the registered owner of the jeepney, Victorio
Ochoa; that on August 13, 1976 the defendants, 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; that on September
8, 1976 the Court of First Instance of Rizal at Pasay City a decision in Criminal Case No. 3612-P acquitting the accused
Maximo Borilla on the ground that he caused an injury by name accident; and that on January 31, 1977, the Court of
First Instance of Cavite at Bacoor granted the motion to Civil Case No. B-134 for damages. 2
The principal issue is weather or not the of the Arsenio Virata, can prosecute an action for the damages based on
quasi-delict against Maximo Borilla and Victoria Ochoa, driver and owner, respectively on the passenger jeepney that
bumped Arsenio Virata.
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.
The Supreme Court has held that:
According to the Code Commission: 'The foregoing provision (Article 2177) though at first sight
startling, is not so novel or extraordinary when we consider the exact nature of criminal and civil
negligence. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a 'culpa aquiliana' or quasi-
delict, of ancient origin, having always had its own foundation and individuality, separate from criminal
negligence. Such distinction between criminal negligence and 'culpa extra-contractual' or quasi-delito
has been sustained by decision of the Supreme Court of Spain and maintained as clear, sound and
perfectly tenable by Maura, an outstanding Spanish jurist. Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177,
acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a
bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages
due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a double recovery. (Report of the
Code Commission, p. 162.)
Although, again, this Article 2177 does seem to literally refer to only acts of negligence, the same
argument of Justice Bocobo about construction that upholds 'the spirit that given life' rather than that
which is literal that killeth the intent of the lawmaker should be observed in applying the same. And
considering that the preliminary chapter on human relations of the new Civil Code definitely
establishes the separability and independence of liability in a civil action for acts criminal in character
(under Articles 29 to 32) from the civil responsibility arising from crime fixed by Article 100 of the
Penal Code, and, in a sense, the Rules of Court, under Sections 2 and 3(c), Rule 111, contemplate also
the same separability, it is 'more congruent' with the spirit of law, equity and justice, and more in
harmony with modern progress', to borrow the felicitous language in Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific
Co., 7 Phil. to 359, to hod as We do hold, that Article 2176, where it refers to 'fault covers not only acts
'not punishable by law' but also criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or
consequently, a separate civil action lies against the in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally
prosecuted and found guilty and acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is
actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such
eventuality only to the bigger award of the, two assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In
other words the extinction of civil liability refereed to in Par. (c) of Section 13, Rule 111, refers
exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability
for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a
declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been
committed by the accused. Brief stated, We hold, in reitration of Garcia, that culpa aquilina includes
voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.3
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. B-134 for damages based
on quasi-delict The source of the obligation sought to be enforced in Civil Case No. B-134 is quasi-delict, not an act or
omission punishable by law. Under Article 1157 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, quasi-delict and an act or omission
punishable by law are two different sources of obligation.
Moreover, for the petitioners to prevail in the action for damages, Civil Case No. B-134, they have only to establish
their cause of action by preponderance of the evidence.
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby set aside and Civil Case No. B-134 is reinstated and
remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, with costs against the private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE G.R. No. 140847
Petitioner, Present:
PUNO, J.,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR.,
TINGA, and
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM,
Respondent.Promulgated:
x-------------------------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
At the core of this case is an obscure old special law. The issue is whether a provision in the law prohibiting the sale of
the properties donated to the charitable organization that was incorporated by the same law bars the implementation
of agrarian reform laws as regards said properties.
Petitioner Hospicio de San Jose de Barili (Hospicio') is a charitable organization created as a body corporate in 1925 by
Act No. 3239. The law was enacted in order to formally accept the offer made by Pedro Cui and Benigna Cui to
establish a home for the care and support, free of charge, of indigent invalids and incapacitated and helpless persons.
[1] The Hospicio was to be maintained with the revenues of the personal and real properties to be endowed by the
Cuis and other donors.[2]
Section 4 of Act No. 3239 provides that '[t]he personal and real property donated to the [Hospicio] by its founders or
by other persons shall not be sold under any consideration.[3]
On 10 October 1987, the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office (DARRO) Region VII issued an order ordaining
that two parcels of land owned by the Hospicio be placed under Operation Land Transfer in favor of twenty-two (22)
tillers thereof as beneficiaries. Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27, a land reform law, was cited as legal basis for the
order. The Hospicio filed a motion for the reconsideration of the order with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
Secretary, citing the aforementioned Section 4 of Act No. 3239. It argued that Act No. 3239 is a special law, which
could not have been repealed by P.D. No. 27, a general law, or by the latter's general repealing clause.
The DAR Secretary rejected the motion for reconsideration in an Order dated 30 March 1997. Therein, the DAR
Secretary held that P.D. No. 27 was a special law, as it applied only to particular individuals in the State, specifically
the tenants of rice and corn lands. Moreover, P.D. No. 27, which covered all rice and corn lands, provides no
exemptions based on the manner of acquisition of the land by the landowner.[4]
The Order of the DAR Secretary was assailed in a Petition for Certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals. In a Decision[5]
dated 9 July 1999, the Court of Appeals Special Eleventh Division affirmed the DAR Secretary's issuance. It sustained
the position of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) position that Section 4 of Act No. 3239 was expressly repealed
not only by P.D. No. 27, but also by Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1988, both laws being explicit in mandating the distribution of agricultural lands to qualified beneficiaries. The
Court of Appeals further noted that the subject lands did not fall among the exemptions provided under Section 10 of
Rep. Act No. 6657. Finally, the appellate court brought into play the aims of land reform, affirming as it did 'the need
to distribute and create an economic equilibrium among the inhabitants of this land, most especially those with less
privilege in life, our peasant farmer.[6]
Unsatisfied with the Court of Appeals' Decision, the Hospicio lodged the present Petition for Review. The Hospicio
alleges' that P.D. No. 27, the CARL, and Executive Order No. 407[7] all violate Section 10, Article III of the Constitution,
which provides that no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. More sedately, the Hospicio also
argues that Act No. 3239 was not repealed either by P.D. No. 27 or Rep. Act No. 6657 and that the forced disposition of
the Hospicio's landholdings would incapacitate the discharge of its charitable functions, which equally promote social
justice and the upliftment of the lives of the less fortunate.
On the other hand, the OSG, representing respondent DAR, bluntly replies that Act No. 3239 was repealed by P.D. No.
27 and Rep. Act No. 6657, which do not exempt lands owned by eleemosynary or charitable institutions from the
coverage of those agrarian reform laws.
P.D. No. 27, "Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil, Transferring to Them Ownership of
the Land they Till, and Providing the Instrument and Mechanism Therefor, has once been touted as perhaps 'a radical
solution in its pristine sense, one that goes at the root [of the problem of land tenancy].[8] Its constitutionality was
upheld in De Chavez v. Zobel.[9] The law generally 'ordains the emancipation of tenants and confers on them
ownership of the lands they till.[10] The following provisions of P.D. No. 27 have concretized this policy:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081,
dated September 21, 1972, and General Order No. 1 dated September 22, 1972, as amended do hereby decree and
order the emancipation of all tenant farmers as of this day, October 21, 1972;
This shall apply to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands[[11]] primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system
of sharecrop or lease-tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not;
The tenant farmer, whether in land classified as landed estate or not, shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting
a family-size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated and three (3) hectares if irrigated;
In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares if such landowner is cultivating
such area or will now cultivate it;
The CARL was not yet in effect when the DARRO and the DAR issued their respective orders. Said law vests P.D. No. 27
with suppletory effect insofar as the earlier law does not run inconsistent with the later law.[12] Under Section 4 of the
CARL, placed under coverage are all public and private agricultural lands regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, subject to the exempted lands listed in Section 10 thereof.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that neither P.D. No. 27 nor the CARL exempts the lands of the Hospicio or other
charitable institutions from the coverage of agrarian reform. Ultimately, the result arrived at in the assailed issuances
should be affirmed. Nonetheless, both the DAR Secretary and the appellate court failed to appreciate what to this
Court is indeed the decisive legal dimension of the case.
Section 4 of Act No. 3239 prohibits the sale 'under any consideration of the lands donated to the Hospicio. But the land
transfers mandated under P.D. No. 27 cannot be considered a conventional sale under our civil laws.
Generally, sale arises out of a contractual obligation. Thus, it must meet the first essential requisite of every contract
that is the presence of consent.[13] Consent implies an act of volition in entering into the agreement.[14] The absence
or vitiation of consent renders the sale either void or voidable.
In this case, the deprivation of the Hospicio's property did not arise as a consequence of the Hospicio's consent to the
transfer. There was no meeting of minds between the Hospicio, on one hand, and the DAR or the tenants, on the other,
on the properties and the cause which are to constitute the contract[15] that is to serve ultimately as the basis for the
transfer of ownership of the subject lands.[16] Instead, the obligation to transfer arises by compulsion of law,
particularly P.D. No. 27.[17]
Agrarian reform is justified under the State's inherent power of eminent domain that enables it to forcibly acquire
private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner.[18] It has even been
characterized as beyond the traditional exercise of eminent domain, but a revolutionary kind of expropriation. As
expounded in the landmark case of Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, thus:
. . . . However, we do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. This is not an
ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from
its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose. What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation.
The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they
are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners. This kind of expropriation is intended for the
benefit not only of a particular community or of a small segment of the population but of the entire Filipino nation,
from all levels of our society, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner. Its purpose does not cover only
the whole territory of this country but goes beyond in time to the foreseeable future, which it hopes to secure and
edify with the vision and the sacrifice of the present generation of Filipinos. Generations yet to come are as involved in
this program as we are today, although hopefully only as beneficiaries of a richer and more fulfilling life we will
guarantee to them tomorrow through our thoughtfulness today. And, finally, let it not be forgotten that it is no less
than the Constitution itself that has ordained this revolution in the farms, calling for "a just distribution" among the
farmers of lands that have heretofore been the prison of their dreams but can now become the key at least to their
deliverance.[19]
This characterization is warranted whether the expropriation is operative under the CARL or P.D. No. 27, as both laws
are keyed into the same governmental objective. Moreover, under both laws, the landowner is entitled to just
compensation for the properties taken.
The twin process of expropriation of lands under agrarian reform and the payment of just compensation is akin to a
forced sale, which has been aptly described in common law jurisdictions as 'sale made under the process of the court,
and in the mode prescribed by law, and 'which is not the voluntary act of the owner, such as to satisfy a debt, whether
of a mortgage, judgment, tax lien, etc.[20] The term has not been precisely defined in this jurisdiction, but reference
to the phrase itself is made in Articles 223, 232, 237 and 243 of the Civil Code, which uniformly exempt the family
home 'from execution, forced sale, or attachment.[21] Yet a forced sale is clearly different from the sales described
under Book V of the Civil Code which are conventional sales, as it does not arise from the consensual agreement of the
vendor and vendee, but by compulsion of law. Still, since law is recognized as one of the sources of obligation, there
can be no dispute on the efficacy of a forced sale, so long as' it is authorized by law.
The crucial question now arises, whether the sale prohibited under Section 4 of Act No. 3239 includes even a forced
sale. Of course an overly literal reading of the provision would justify such inclusion, but appropriately a more
sophisticated approach to statutory construction is warranted.
No sance is required to discern the intent of Section 4. It ensures that the properties received by the Hospicio are not
alienated for profit by the officers or administrators, in contravention of the charitable purpose for which the Hospicio
was created. To an extent, it makes possible the perpetual operation of the Hospicio, which was empowered by law to
operate for an indefinite period, by assuring the existence of the property on which the Hospicio could operate. We
also do not doubt that whatever fruits of the forcibly retained property would also serve a source of funding for the
operations of the Hospicio.
The salutariness of these objectives is beyond doubt. The interests they seek to protect are present whether the
prohibition encompasses only conventional sales, or even forced sales. Yet to insist that Section 4 likewise prohibits
sales or dispositions by operation of law would necessarily imply that the Hospicio is also beyond the reach of any form
of judicial execution. The charitable nature of the Hospicio does not shield it from susceptibility to civil liability, and an
absolute prohibition on sales, whether forced or conventional, deprives whatever judgment creditors of the Hospicio
from any effective means of enforcing relief.
Was it the intent of the framers of Act No. 3239 to exempt the Hospicio from all judicial processes, even those arising
from civil transactions? We do not think so. The contemporaneous construction of Section 4 indicates that the
prohibition intended by the crafters of the law pertained only to conventional sales, and not forced sales. The law was
promulgated in 1925, or when the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 was in effect. The provisions in the Civil Code referring to
'forced sales' were not derived from the Spanish Civil Code. On the other hand, the consensual nature of the contract
of sale, and of
contracts in general, is recognized under the Spanish Civil Code. Under Article 1261 of the Spanish Civil Code, there is
no contract unless the consent of the contracting parties exists.[22]
Evidently, the word 'sale, as contemplated by the framers of the law in 1925, pertains to its concept in civil law, with
the requisite of consent being present. It cannot refer to sales or dispositions that arise by operation of law, such as
through judicial execution, or, as in this case, expropriation.
Thus, we can hardly characterize the acquisition of the subject properties from the Hospicio for the benefit of the
tenants as a sale, within the contemplation of Section 4 of Act No. 3239. The transfer arises from compulsion of law,
and not the desire of any parties. Even if the Hospicio had voluntarily offered to surrender its properties to agrarian
reform, the resulting transaction would not be considered as a conventional sale, since the obligation is created not
out of the mandate of the parties, but the will of the law.
The DARRO Order did note that Section 4 of Act No. 3239 is not applicable in this case, since the transfer is
compulsory on the part of the landowner, unlike in
ordinary sale.[23] Regrettably, the DAR Secretary and the Court of Appeals failed to apply that sound principle,
preferring to rely instead on the conclusion that Section 4 was repealed by P.D. No. 27 and the CARL.
Nonetheless, even assuming for the nonce that Section 4 contemplates even forced sales such as those through
expropriation, we would agree with the DAR Secretary and the Court of Appeals that Section 4 is deemed repealed by
P.D. No. 27 and the CARL.
The scope of lands subjected to agrarian reform under these two laws is overwhelming. P.D. No. 27 applies to all
private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn with tenant farmers under a system of sharecrop or lease-
tenancy,[24] while the CARL is even broader in scope, generally covering all public and private agricultural lands
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced. Under Section 10 of the CARL, the only exempted lands
are:
Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves,
reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds, and mangroves, national defense, school sites and
campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds
and seedlings research and pilot production centers, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and
Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms
actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers and all lands with eighteen
percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed . . . .
Arguing against 'too literal an interpretation of Section 10, the Hospicio claims that a serious reading of the provision is
revelatory of the spirit and intent of the exemptions. It argues that there are three categories of exemption as: '(1)
those needed by the nation, such as parks, wildlife and forest reserves, fishponds and for national defense, etc.; (2)
those for educational purposes such as school sites; and (3) for religious and charitable purposes like church sites, etc.
[25] The Hospicio then claims it falls under the third category of 'religious and charitable purposes.[26]
To begin with, the terms 'charitable purposes' and 'charitable organizations' do not appear in Section 10 of the CARL.
For its part, Hospicio unduly assumes that charity is integrally wedded to religiosity, despite the fact that there are
charitable institutions that are avowedly secular in orientation. We disagree that there is a clear intent or spirit to
include properties held by charitable institutions, even those directly utilized for charitable purposes, in the list of
exempted properties under the CARL. Section 10 does not include properties which are generally used for charitable
purposes, such as orphanages, from the exemption. Not even all properties owned by religious institutions are
exempt, save for those places of worship and the convents/Islamic centers appurtenant thereto. Even assuming that
the Hospicio were actually owned and operated by the Catholic Church, it still would not be exempted from the CARL.
It is axiomatic that where a general rule is established by a statute with exceptions, the Court will not curtail nor add
to the latter by implication, and it is a rule that an express exception excludes all others.[27] We cannot simply impute
into a statute an exception which the Congress did not incorporate. Moreover, general welfare legislation such as land
reform laws is to be construed in favor of the promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and economic
security of the people.[28] Since a broad construction of the provision listing the properties exempted under the CARL
would tend to denigrate the aims of agrarian reform, a strict application of these exceptions is in order.
The crafters of P.D. No. 27 and the CARL were presumably aware of the radical scale of the intended legislation, and
the massive effects on property relations nationwide. Considering the magnitude of the changes ordained in these
laws, it would be foolhardy to require or expect the legislature to denominate each and every law that would be
consequently or logically amended or repealed by the new laws. Hence, the viability of general repealing clauses,
which are existent in both P.D. No. 27[29] and the CARL,[30] as a means of repealing all previous enactments
inconsistent with revolutionary new laws. The presence of such general repealing clause in a later statute clearly
indicates the legislative intent to repeal all prior inconsistent laws on the subject matter, whether the prior law is a
general law or a special law, or as in this case, a special private law. Without such clause, a later general law will
ordinarily not repeal a prior special law on the same subject. But with such clause contained in the subsequent general
law, the prior special law will be deemed repealed, as the clause is a clear legislative intent to bring about that result.
[31]
Should we construe Section 4 of Act No. 3239 as barring forced sales through expropriation of the properties of the
Hospicio, such prohibition would irreconcilably countermand both P.D. No. 27 and the CARL and their mandate to
subject the properties to agrarian reform. The general repealing clauses of the two later laws would then sufficiently
repeal Section 4 of Act No. 3239, to the extent that it may prohibit expropriation of agricultural lands for agrarian
reform.
Still, in light of our earlier determinative pronouncement that Section 4 of Act No. 3239 does not contemplate forced
sales as part of the prohibition therein, there ultimately is no need to make an abject declaration that Section 4 has
indeed been repealed. Indeed, the Court considers the prohibition on Section 4 as still effectual, but only insofar as it
relates to conventional sales under the Civil Code.
The other arguments raised by the Hospicio are similarly bereft of merit. It wants us to hold that P.D. No. 27 and the
CARL, both enacted to implement the urgently needed policy of agrarian reform, violate the non-impairment of
contracts clause under the Bill of Rights. Yet the broad sweep of this argument ignores the nuances adopted by this
Court in interpreting Section 10 of Article III. We have held that the State's exercise of police powers may prevail over
obligations imposed by private contracts.[32] Especially in point is Kabiling v. NHA,[33] wherein a law authorizing the
expropriation of properties in favor of qualified squatter families was challenged on the basis of the non-impairment
clause. The Court held:
The stated objective of the decree, namely, to resolve the land tenure problem in the Agno-Leveriza area to allow the
implementation of the comprehensive development plans for this depressed community, provides the justification for
the exercise of the police power of the State. The police power of the State has been described as "the most essential,
insistent and illimitable of powers." It is a power inherent in the State, plenary, "suitably vague and far from precisely
defined, rooted in the conception that man in organizing the state and imposing upon the government limitations to
safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable individual citizens or group of citizens to obstruct
unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measure to ensure communal peace, safety, good order and welfare.
The objection raised by petitioners that P.D. No. 1808 impairs the obligations of contract is without merit. The
constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by and subject to the exercise of the
police power of the State in the interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare.[34]
More pertinently, what the Hospicio alleges would be impaired is not actually a contract, but a legislative act, Act No.
3239. The Hospicio admits just as much in its petition, '[Act No. 3239] is not merely an ordinary contract but a contract
enacted into law . . . Act No. 3239 is thus a contract within the purview of the impairment clause of the Constitution.
[35]
The inanity of this argument is palpable. The non-impairment clause reads: 'No law impairing the obligation of
contracts shall be passed. If, as the Hospicio argues, the constitutional provision applies as well to the impairment of
obligations created by law, then Section 10, Article III operates to bar the legislature from amending or repealing its
own enactments. This is of course not the case, as the provision was intended to shield the impairment of obligations
created by private agreements, and not by legislative fiat. Certainly, Congress can at any time expressly amend or
repeal any and all sections of Act No. 3239 without fear of violating the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. In
fine, Section 10[36] of Act 3239 provides that the privileges granted by the Act to the Hospicio are subject to the
conditions on the grant of franchises as provided in the Jones Law. Section 28 of the Jones Law in turn provides in part,
thus:
No franchise or right shall be granted to any individual, firm, or corporation except under the conditions that it shall be
subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress of the United States, and that lands or right of use and
occupation of lands thus granted shall revert to the government by which they were respectively granted upon the
termination of the franchises and rights under which they were granted or upon their revocation or repeal. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Finally, the Hospicio alludes to its functions as a charitable institution, which equally promote social justice and the
upliftment of lives of the less fortunate. It notes that these purposes are no less noble than giving land to the landless,
whom they, with perhaps a touch of contempt, suggest are 'perfectly healthy to care for themselves.[37]
The rationale for holding that the properties of the Hospicio are covered by P.D. No. 27 and Rep. Act No. 6657 is so
well-grounded in law that it obviates any resort to the sordid game of choosing which of the two competing aspirations
is nobler. The body which would have unquestionable discretion in assigning hierarchical values on the modalities by
which social justice may be implemented is the legislature. Land reform affords the opportunity for the landless to
break away from the vicious cycle of having to perpetually rely on the kindness of others. By refusing to exempt
properties owned by charitable institutions or maintained for charitable purposes from agrarian reform, the legislature
has indicated a policy choice which the Court is bound to implement.
ARTICLE 1158
Ayala Land
On weekdays, P25.00 for the first four hours andP10.00
for every succeeding hour; on weekends, flat rate
of P25.00 per day
Robinsons
P20.00 for the first three hours and P10.00 for every
succeeding hour
Shangri-la
Flat rate of P30.00 per day
SM Prime
P10.00 to P20.00 (depending on whether the parking
space is outdoors or indoors) for the first three hours
and 59 minutes, and P10.00 for every succeeding hour
or fraction thereof
The parking tickets or cards issued by respondents to vehicle owners contain the stipulation that respondents shall not
be responsible for any loss or damage to the vehicles parked in respondents’ parking facilities.
In 1999, the Senate Committees on Trade and Commerce and on Justice and Human Rights conducted a joint
investigation for the following purposes: (1) to inquire into the legality of the prevalent practice of shopping malls of
charging parking fees; (2) assuming arguendo that the collection of parking fees was legally authorized, to find out the
basis and reasonableness of the parking rates charged by shopping malls; and (3) to determine the legality of the
policy of shopping malls of denying liability in cases of theft, robbery, or carnapping, by invoking the waiver clause at
the back of the parking tickets. Said Senate Committees invited the top executives of respondents, who operate the
major malls in the country; the officials from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Department of Public Works
and Highways (DPWH), Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), and other local government officials; and the
Philippine Motorists Association (PMA) as representative of the consumers’ group.
After three public hearings held on 30 September, 3 November, and 1 December 1999, the afore-mentioned Senate
Committees jointly issued Senate Committee Report No. 2255 on 2 May 2000, in which they concluded:
In view of the foregoing, the Committees find that the collection of parking fees by shopping malls is contrary to the
National Building Code and is therefor [sic] illegal. While it is true that the Code merely requires malls to provide
parking spaces, without specifying whether it is free or not, both Committees believe that the reasonable and logical
interpretation of the Code is that the parking spaces are for free. This interpretation is not only reasonable and logical
but finds support in the actual practice in other countries like the United States of America where parking spaces
owned and operated by mall owners are free of charge.
Figuratively speaking, the Code has "expropriated" the land for parking – something similar to the subdivision law
which require developers to devote so much of the land area for parks.
Moreover, Article II of R.A. No. 9734 (Consumer Act of the Philippines) provides that "it is the policy of the State to
protect the interest of the consumers, promote the general welfare and establish standards of conduct for business
and industry." Obviously, a contrary interpretation (i.e., justifying the collection of parking fees) would be going
against the declared policy of R.A. 7394.
Section 201 of the National Building Code gives the responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the
provisions of the Code, including the imposition of penalties for administrative violations thereof to the Secretary of
Public Works. This set up, however, is not being carried out in reality.
In the position paper submitted by the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), its chairman, Jejomar C.
Binay, accurately pointed out that the Secretary of the DPWH is responsible for the implementation/enforcement of the
National Building Code. After the enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991, the local government units
(LGU’s) were tasked to discharge the regulatory powers of the DPWH. Hence, in the local level, the Building Officials
enforce all rules/ regulations formulated by the DPWH relative to all building plans, specifications and designs
including parking space requirements. There is, however, no single national department or agency directly tasked to
supervise the enforcement of the provisions of the Code on parking, notwithstanding the national character of the
law.6
Senate Committee Report No. 225, thus, contained the following recommendations:
In light of the foregoing, the Committees on Trade and Commerce and Justice and Human Rights hereby recommend
the following:
1. The Office of the Solicitor General should institute the necessary action to enjoin the collection of parking
fees as well as to enforce the penal sanction provisions of the National Building Code. The Office of the
Solicitor General should likewise study how refund can be exacted from mall owners who continue to collect
parking fees.
2. The Department of Trade and Industry pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 7394, otherwise known as the
Consumer Act of the Philippines should enforce the provisions of the Code relative to parking. Towards this
end, the DTI should formulate the necessary implementing rules and regulations on parking in shopping malls,
with prior consultations with the local government units where these are located. Furthermore, the DTI, in
coordination with the DPWH, should be empowered to regulate and supervise the construction and
maintenance of parking establishments.
3. Finally, Congress should amend and update the National Building Code to expressly prohibit shopping malls
from collecting parking fees by at the same time, prohibit them from invoking the waiver of liability.7
Respondent SM Prime thereafter received information that, pursuant to Senate Committee Report No. 225, the DPWH
Secretary and the local building officials of Manila, Quezon City, and Las Piñas intended to institute, through the OSG,
an action to enjoin respondent SM Prime and similar establishments from collecting parking fees, and to impose upon
said establishments penal sanctions under Presidential Decree No. 1096, otherwise known as the National Building
Code of the Philippines (National Building Code), and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). With the
threatened action against it, respondent SM Prime filed, on 3 October 2000, a Petition for Declaratory Relief8 under
Rule 63 of the Revised Rules of Court, against the DPWH Secretary and local building officials of Manila, Quezon City,
and Las Piñas. Said Petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 00-1208 and assigned to the RTC of Makati City, Branch
138, presided over by Judge Sixto Marella, Jr. (Judge Marella). In its Petition, respondent SM Prime prayed for judgment:
a) Declaring Rule XIX of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Building Code as ultra vires,
hence, unconstitutional and void;
b) Declaring [herein respondent SM Prime]’s clear legal right to lease parking spaces appurtenant to its
department stores, malls, shopping centers and other commercial establishments; and
c) Declaring the National Building Code of the Philippines Implementing Rules and Regulations as ineffective,
not having been published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation,
as prescribed by Section 211 of Presidential Decree No. 1096.
[Respondent SM Prime] further prays for such other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises.9
The very next day, 4 October 2000, the OSG filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and Injunction (with Prayer for
Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction)10 against respondents. This Petition was docketed as
Civil Case No. 00-1210 and raffled to the RTC of Makati, Branch 135, presided over by Judge Francisco B. Ibay (Judge
Ibay). Petitioner prayed that the RTC:
1. After summary hearing, a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction be issued
restraining respondents from collecting parking fees from their customers; and
2. After hearing, judgment be rendered declaring that the practice of respondents in charging parking fees is
violative of the National Building Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations and is therefore invalid,
and making permanent any injunctive writ issued in this case.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.11
On 23 October 2000, Judge Ibay of the RTC of Makati City, Branch 135, issued an Order consolidating Civil Case No. 00-
1210 with Civil Case No. 00-1208 pending before Judge Marella of RTC of Makati, Branch 138.
As a result of the pre-trial conference held on the morning of 8 August 2001, the RTC issued a Pre-Trial Order 12of even
date which limited the issues to be resolved in Civil Cases No. 00-1208 and No. 00-1210 to the following:
1. Capacity of the plaintiff [OSG] in Civil Case No. 00-1210 to institute the present proceedings and relative
thereto whether the controversy in the collection of parking fees by mall owners is a matter of public welfare.
2. Whether declaratory relief is proper.
3. Whether respondent Ayala Land, Robinsons, Shangri-La and SM Prime are obligated to provide parking
spaces in their malls for the use of their patrons or the public in general, free of charge.
4. Entitlement of the parties of [sic] award of damages.13
On 29 May 2002, the RTC rendered its Joint Decision in Civil Cases No. 00-1208 and No. 00-1210.
The RTC resolved the first two issues affirmatively. It ruled that the OSG can initiate Civil Case No. 00-1210 under
Presidential Decree No. 478 and the Administrative Code of 1987. 14 It also found that all the requisites for an action for
declaratory relief were present, to wit:
The requisites for an action for declaratory relief are: (a) there is a justiciable controversy; (b) the controversy is
between persons whose interests are adverse; (c) the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy;
and (d) the issue involved is ripe for judicial determination.
SM, the petitioner in Civil Case No. 001-1208 [sic] is a mall operator who stands to be affected directly by the position
taken by the government officials sued namely the Secretary of Public Highways and the Building Officials of the local
government units where it operates shopping malls. The OSG on the other hand acts on a matter of public interest and
has taken a position adverse to that of the mall owners whom it sued. The construction of new and bigger malls has
been announced, a matter which the Court can take judicial notice and the unsettled issue of whether mall operators
should provide parking facilities, free of charge needs to be resolved.15
As to the third and most contentious issue, the RTC pronounced that:
The Building Code, which is the enabling law and the Implementing Rules and Regulations do not impose that parking
spaces shall be provided by the mall owners free of charge. Absent such directive[,] Ayala Land, Robinsons, Shangri-la
and SM [Prime] are under no obligation to provide them for free. Article 1158 of the Civil Code is clear:
"Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly determined in this Code or in special laws are
demandable and shall be regulated by the precepts of the law which establishes them; and as to what has not been
foreseen, by the provisions of this Book (1090).["]
xxxx
The provision on ratios of parking slots to several variables, like shopping floor area or customer area found in Rule XIX
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations cannot be construed as a directive to provide free parking spaces, because
the enabling law, the Building Code does not so provide. x x x.
To compel Ayala Land, Robinsons, Shangri-La and SM [Prime] to provide parking spaces for free can be considered as
an unlawful taking of property right without just compensation.
Parking spaces in shopping malls are privately owned and for their use, the mall operators collect fees. The legal
relationship could be either lease or deposit. In either case[,] the mall owners have the right to collect money which
translates into income. Should parking spaces be made free, this right of mall owners shall be gone. This, without just
compensation. Further, loss of effective control over their property will ensue which is frowned upon by law.
The presence of parking spaces can be viewed in another light. They can be looked at as necessary facilities to entice
the public to increase patronage of their malls because without parking spaces, going to their malls will be
inconvenient. These are[,] however[,] business considerations which mall operators will have to decide for themselves.
They are not sufficient to justify a legal conclusion, as the OSG would like the Court to adopt that it is the obligation of
the mall owners to provide parking spaces for free.16
The RTC then held that there was no sufficient evidence to justify any award for damages.
The RTC finally decreed in its 29 May 2002 Joint Decision in Civil Cases No. 00-1208 and No. 00-1210 that:
FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, the Court declares that Ayala Land[,] Inc., Robinsons Land Corporation, Shangri-la Plaza
Corporation and SM Prime Holdings[,] Inc. are not obligated to provide parking spaces in their malls for the use of their
patrons or public in general, free of charge.
All counterclaims in Civil Case No. 00-1210 are dismissed.
No pronouncement as to costs.17
CA-G.R. CV No. 76298 involved the separate appeals of the OSG18 and respondent SM Prime19 filed with the Court of
Appeals. The sole assignment of error of the OSG in its Appellant’s Brief was:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE DID NOT INTEND MALL PARKING SPACES
TO BE FREE OF CHARGE[;]20
while the four errors assigned by respondent SM Prime in its Appellant’s Brief were:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE RULE XIX OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AS HAVING BEEN ENACTED
ULTRA VIRES, HENCE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE THE IMPLEMENTING RULES INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT HAVING BEEN
PUBLISHED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DISMISS THE OSG’S PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND INJUNCTION
FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE THAT THE OSG HAS NO LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE AND/OR THAT IT IS
NOT A REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST IN THE INSTANT CASE.21
Respondent Robinsons filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal of the OSG on the ground that the lone issue raised therein
involved a pure question of law, not reviewable by the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 76298 on 25 January 2007. The appellate court
agreed with respondent Robinsons that the appeal of the OSG should suffer the fate of dismissal, since "the issue on
whether or not the National Building Code and its implementing rules require shopping mall operators to provide
parking facilities to the public for free" was evidently a question of law. Even so, since CA-G.R. CV No. 76298 also
included the appeal of respondent SM Prime, which raised issues worthy of consideration, and in order to satisfy the
demands of substantial justice, the Court of Appeals proceeded to rule on the merits of the case.
In its Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the capacity of the OSG to initiate Civil Case No. 00-1210 before the RTC
as the legal representative of the government,22 and as the one deputized by the Senate of the Republic of the
Philippines through Senate Committee Report No. 225.
The Court of Appeals rejected the contention of respondent SM Prime that the OSG failed to exhaust administrative
remedies. The appellate court explained that an administrative review is not a condition precedent to judicial relief
where the question in dispute is purely a legal one, and nothing of an administrative nature is to be or can be done.
The Court of Appeals likewise refused to rule on the validity of the IRR of the National Building Code, as such issue was
not among those the parties had agreed to be resolved by the RTC during the pre-trial conference for Civil Cases No.
00-1208 and No. 00-1210. Issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the appellate court found
that the controversy could be settled on other grounds, without touching on the issue of the validity of the IRR. It
referred to the settled rule that courts should refrain from passing upon the constitutionality of a law or implementing
rules, because of the principle that bars judicial inquiry into a constitutional question, unless the resolution thereof is
indispensable to the determination of the case.
Lastly, the Court of Appeals declared that Section 803 of the National Building Code and Rule XIX of the IRR were clear
and needed no further construction. Said provisions were only intended to control the occupancy or congestion of
areas and structures. In the absence of any express and clear provision of law, respondents could not be obliged and
expected to provide parking slots free of charge.
The fallo of the 25 January 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeals are DENIED. Accordingly, appealed Decision is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto.23
In its Resolution issued on 14 March 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the OSG,
finding that the grounds relied upon by the latter had already been carefully considered, evaluated, and passed upon
by the appellate court, and there was no strong and cogent reason to modify much less reverse the assailed judgment.
The OSG now comes before this Court, via the instant Petition for Review, with a single assignment of error:
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RULING OF THE LOWER COURT THAT RESPONDENTS
ARE NOT OBLIGED TO PROVIDE FREE PARKING SPACES TO THEIR CUSTOMERS OR THE PUBLIC.24
The OSG argues that respondents are mandated to provide free parking by Section 803 of the National Building Code
and Rule XIX of the IRR.
According to Section 803 of the National Building Code:
SECTION 803. Percentage of Site Occupancy
(a) Maximum site occupancy shall be governed by the use, type of construction, and height of the building and
the use, area, nature, and location of the site; and subject to the provisions of the local zoning requirements
and in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary.
In connection therewith, Rule XIX of the old IRR,25 provides:
RULE XIX – PARKING AND LOADING SPACE REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to Section 803 of the National Building Code (PD 1096) providing for maximum site occupancy, the following
provisions on parking and loading space requirements shall be observed:
1. The parking space ratings listed below are minimum off-street requirements for specific uses/occupancies for
buildings/structures:
1.1 The size of an average automobile parking slot shall be computed as 2.4 meters by 5.00 meters for perpendicular
or diagonal parking, 2.00 meters by 6.00 meters for parallel parking. A truck or bus parking/loading slot shall be
computed at a minimum of 3.60 meters by 12.00 meters. The parking slot shall be drawn to scale and the total
number of which shall be indicated on the plans and specified whether or not parking accommodations, are attendant-
managed. (See Section 2 for computation of parking requirements).
xxxx
1.7 Neighborhood shopping center – 1 slot/100 sq. m. of shopping floor area
The OSG avers that the aforequoted provisions should be read together with Section 102 of the National Building
Code, which declares:
SECTION 102. Declaration of Policy
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to safeguard life, health, property, and public welfare, consistent with
the principles of sound environmental management and control; and to this end, make it the purpose of this Code to
provide for all buildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards and requirements to regulate and control
their location, site, design, quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance.
The requirement of free-of-charge parking, the OSG argues, greatly contributes to the aim of safeguarding "life, health,
property, and public welfare, consistent with the principles of sound environmental management and control."
Adequate parking spaces would contribute greatly to alleviating traffic congestion when complemented by quick and
easy access thereto because of free-charge parking. Moreover, the power to regulate and control the use, occupancy,
and maintenance of buildings and structures carries with it the power to impose fees and, conversely, to control --
partially or, as in this case, absolutely -- the imposition of such fees.
The Court finds no merit in the present Petition.
The explicit directive of the afore-quoted statutory and regulatory provisions, garnered from a plain reading thereof, is
that respondents, as operators/lessors of neighborhood shopping centers, should provide parking and loading spaces,
in accordance with the minimum ratio of one slot per 100 square meters of shopping floor area. There is nothing
therein pertaining to the collection (or non-collection) of parking fees by respondents. In fact, the term "parking fees"
cannot even be found at all in the entire National Building Code and its IRR.
Statutory construction has it that if a statute is clear and unequivocal, it must be given its literal meaning and applied
without any attempt at interpretation.26 Since Section 803 of the National Building Code and Rule XIX of its IRR do not
mention parking fees, then simply, said provisions do not regulate the collection of the same. The RTC and the Court of
Appeals correctly applied Article 1158 of the New Civil Code, which states:
Art. 1158. Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly determined in this Code or in special
laws are demandable, and shall be regulated by the precepts of the law which establishes them; and as to what has
not been foreseen, by the provisions of this Book. (Emphasis ours.)
Hence, in order to bring the matter of parking fees within the ambit of the National Building Code and its IRR, the OSG
had to resort to specious and feeble argumentation, in which the Court cannot concur.
The OSG cannot rely on Section 102 of the National Building Code to expand the coverage of Section 803 of the same
Code and Rule XIX of the IRR, so as to include the regulation of parking fees. The OSG limits its citation to the first part
of Section 102 of the National Building Code declaring the policy of the State "to safeguard life, health, property, and
public welfare, consistent with the principles of sound environmental management and control"; but totally ignores the
second part of said provision, which reads, "and to this end, make it the purpose of this Code to provide for all
buildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards and requirements to regulate and control their location,
site, design, quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance." While the first part of Section 102
of the National Building Code lays down the State policy, it is the second part thereof that explains how said policy
shall be carried out in the Code. Section 102 of the National Building Code is not an all-encompassing grant of
regulatory power to the DPWH Secretary and local building officials in the name of life, health, property, and public
welfare. On the contrary, it limits the regulatory power of said officials to ensuring that the minimum standards and
requirements for all buildings and structures, as set forth in the National Building Code, are complied with.
Consequently, the OSG cannot claim that in addition to fixing the minimum requirements for parking spaces for
buildings, Rule XIX of the IRR also mandates that such parking spaces be provided by building owners free of charge. If
Rule XIX is not covered by the enabling law, then it cannot be added to or included in the implementing rules. The
rule-making power of administrative agencies must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceedings to
carry into effect the law as it has been enacted, and it cannot be extended to amend or expand the statutory
requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. Administrative regulations must always be in
harmony with the provisions of the law because any resulting discrepancy between the two will always be resolved in
favor of the basic law.27
From the RTC all the way to this Court, the OSG repeatedly referred to Republic v. Gonzales28 and City of Ozamis v.
Lumapas29 to support its position that the State has the power to regulate parking spaces to promote the health,
safety, and welfare of the public; and it is by virtue of said power that respondents may be required to provide free
parking facilities. The OSG, though, failed to consider the substantial differences in the factual and legal backgrounds
of these two cases from those of the Petition at bar.
In Republic, the Municipality of Malabon sought to eject the occupants of two parcels of land of the public domain to
give way to a road-widening project. It was in this context that the Court pronounced:
Indiscriminate parking along F. Sevilla Boulevard and other main thoroughfares was prevalent; this, of course, caused
the build up of traffic in the surrounding area to the great discomfort and inconvenience of the public who use the
streets. Traffic congestion constitutes a threat to the health, welfare, safety and convenience of the people and it can
only be substantially relieved by widening streets and providing adequate parking areas.
The Court, in City of Ozamis, declared that the City had been clothed with full power to control and regulate its streets
for the purpose of promoting public health, safety and welfare. The City can regulate the time, place, and manner of
parking in the streets and public places; and charge minimal fees for the street parking to cover the expenses for
supervision, inspection and control, to ensure the smooth flow of traffic in the environs of the public market, and for
the safety and convenience of the public.
Republic and City of Ozamis involved parking in the local streets; in contrast, the present case deals with privately
owned parking facilities available for use by the general public. In Republic and City of Ozamis, the concerned local
governments regulated parking pursuant to their power to control and regulate their streets; in the instant case, the
DPWH Secretary and local building officials regulate parking pursuant to their authority to ensure compliance with the
minimum standards and requirements under the National Building Code and its IRR. With the difference in subject
matters and the bases for the regulatory powers being invoked, Republic and City of Ozamis do not constitute
precedents for this case.
Indeed, Republic and City of Ozamis both contain pronouncements that weaken the position of the OSG in the case at
bar. In Republic, the Court, instead of placing the burden on private persons to provide parking facilities to the general
public, mentioned the trend in other jurisdictions wherein the municipal governments themselves took the initiative to
make more parking spaces available so as to alleviate the traffic problems, thus:
Under the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, parking in designated areas along public streets or highways is
allowed which clearly indicates that provision for parking spaces serves a useful purpose. In other jurisdictions where
traffic is at least as voluminous as here, the provision by municipal governments of parking space is not limited to
parking along public streets or highways. There has been a marked trend to build off-street parking facilities with the
view to removing parked cars from the streets. While the provision of off-street parking facilities or carparks has been
commonly undertaken by private enterprise, municipal governments have been constrained to put up carparks in
response to public necessity where private enterprise had failed to keep up with the growing public demand. American
courts have upheld the right of municipal governments to construct off-street parking facilities as clearly redounding
to the public benefit.30
In City of Ozamis, the Court authorized the collection by the City of minimal fees for the parking of vehicles along the
streets: so why then should the Court now preclude respondents from collecting from the public a fee for the use of
the mall parking facilities? Undoubtedly, respondents also incur expenses in the maintenance and operation of the
mall parking facilities, such as electric consumption, compensation for parking attendants and security, and upkeep of
the physical structures.
It is not sufficient for the OSG to claim that "the power to regulate and control the use, occupancy, and maintenance of
buildings and structures carries with it the power to impose fees and, conversely, to control, partially or, as in this
case, absolutely, the imposition of such fees." Firstly, the fees within the power of regulatory agencies to impose are
regulatory fees. It has been settled law in this jurisdiction that this broad and all-compassing governmental
competence to restrict rights of liberty and property carries with it the undeniable power to collect a regulatory fee. It
looks to the enactment of specific measures that govern the relations not only as between individuals but also as
between private parties and the political society.31 True, if the regulatory agencies have the power to impose
regulatory fees, then conversely, they also have the power to remove the same. Even so, it is worthy to note that the
present case does not involve the imposition by the DPWH Secretary and local building officials of regulatory fees upon
respondents; but the collection by respondents of parking fees from persons who use the mall parking facilities.
Secondly, assuming arguendo that the DPWH Secretary and local building officials do have regulatory powers over the
collection of parking fees for the use of privately owned parking facilities, they cannot allow or prohibit such collection
arbitrarily or whimsically. Whether allowing or prohibiting the collection of such parking fees, the action of the DPWH
Secretary and local building officials must pass the test of classic reasonableness and propriety of the measures or
means in the promotion of the ends sought to be accomplished.32
Keeping in mind the aforementioned test of reasonableness and propriety of measures or means, the Court notes that
Section 803 of the National Building Code falls under Chapter 8 on Light and Ventilation. Evidently, the Code deems it
necessary to regulate site occupancy to ensure that there is proper lighting and ventilation in every building. Pursuant
thereto, Rule XIX of the IRR requires that a building, depending on its specific use and/or floor area, should provide a
minimum number of parking spaces. The Court, however, fails to see the connection between regulating site
occupancy to ensure proper light and ventilation in every building vis-à-vis regulating the collection by building owners
of fees for the use of their parking spaces. Contrary to the averment of the OSG, the former does not necessarily
include or imply the latter. It totally escapes this Court how lighting and ventilation conditions at the malls could be
affected by the fact that parking facilities thereat are free or paid for.
The OSG attempts to provide the missing link by arguing that:
Under Section 803 of the National Building Code, complimentary parking spaces are required to enhance light and
ventilation, that is, to avoid traffic congestion in areas surrounding the building, which certainly affects the ventilation
within the building itself, which otherwise, the annexed parking spaces would have served. Free-of-charge parking
avoids traffic congestion by ensuring quick and easy access of legitimate shoppers to off-street parking spaces
annexed to the malls, and thereby removing the vehicles of these legitimate shoppers off the busy streets near the
commercial establishments.33
The Court is unconvinced. The National Building Code regulates buildings, by setting the minimum specifications and
requirements for the same. It does not concern itself with traffic congestion in areas surrounding the building. It is
already a stretch to say that the National Building Code and its IRR also intend to solve the problem of traffic
congestion around the buildings so as to ensure that the said buildings shall have adequate lighting and ventilation.
Moreover, the Court cannot simply assume, as the OSG has apparently done, that the traffic congestion in areas
around the malls is due to the fact that respondents charge for their parking facilities, thus, forcing vehicle owners to
just park in the streets. The Court notes that despite the fees charged by respondents, vehicle owners still use the mall
parking facilities, which are even fully occupied on some days. Vehicle owners may be parking in the streets only
because there are not enough parking spaces in the malls, and not because they are deterred by the parking fees
charged by respondents. Free parking spaces at the malls may even have the opposite effect from what the OSG
envisioned: more people may be encouraged by the free parking to bring their own vehicles, instead of taking public
transport, to the malls; as a result, the parking facilities would become full sooner, leaving more vehicles without
parking spaces in the malls and parked in the streets instead, causing even more traffic congestion.
Without using the term outright, the OSG is actually invoking police power to justify the regulation by the State,
through the DPWH Secretary and local building officials, of privately owned parking facilities, including the collection
by the owners/operators of such facilities of parking fees from the public for the use thereof. The Court finds, however,
that in totally prohibiting respondents from collecting parking fees from the public for the use of the mall parking
facilities, the State would be acting beyond the bounds of police power.
Police power is the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.
It is usually exerted in order to merely regulate the use and enjoyment of the property of the owner. The power to
regulate, however, does not include the power to prohibit. A fortiori, the power to regulate does not include the power
to confiscate. Police power does not involve the taking or confiscation of property, with the exception of a few cases
where there is a necessity to confiscate private property in order to destroy it for the purpose of protecting peace and
order and of promoting the general welfare; for instance, the confiscation of an illegally possessed article, such as
opium and firearms. 34
When there is a taking or confiscation of private property for public use, the State is no longer exercising police power,
but another of its inherent powers, namely, eminent domain. Eminent domain enables the State to forcibly acquire
private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner.35
Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of,
the expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why the said power may not be availed of only to impose a
burden upon the owner of condemned property, without loss of title and possession.36 It is a settled rule that neither
acquisition of title nor total destruction of value is essential to taking. It is usually in cases where title remains with the
private owner that inquiry should be made to determine whether the impairment of a property is merely regulated or
amounts to a compensable taking. A regulation that deprives any person of the profitable use of his property
constitutes a taking and entitles him to compensation, unless the invasion of rights is so slight as to permit the
regulation to be justified under the police power. Similarly, a police regulation that unreasonably restricts the right to
use business property for business purposes amounts to a taking of private property, and the owner may recover
therefor.371avvphi1
Although in the present case, title to and/or possession of the parking facilities remain/s with respondents, the
prohibition against their collection of parking fees from the public, for the use of said facilities, is already tantamount
to a taking or confiscation of their properties. The State is not only requiring that respondents devote a portion of the
latter’s properties for use as parking spaces, but is also mandating that they give the public access to said parking
spaces for free. Such is already an excessive intrusion into the property rights of respondents. Not only are they being
deprived of the right to use a portion of their properties as they wish, they are further prohibited from profiting from its
use or even just recovering therefrom the expenses for the maintenance and operation of the required parking
facilities.
The ruling of this Court in City Government of Quezon City v. Judge Ericta38 is edifying. Therein, the City Government
of Quezon City passed an ordinance obliging private cemeteries within its jurisdiction to set aside at least six percent
of their total area for charity, that is, for burial grounds of deceased paupers. According to the Court, the ordinance in
question was null and void, for it authorized the taking of private property without just compensation:
There is no reasonable relation between the setting aside of at least six (6) percent of the total area of all private
cemeteries for charity burial grounds of deceased paupers and the promotion of' health, morals, good order, safety, or
the general welfare of the people. The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a certain area from a
private cemetery to benefit paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of' building or maintaining
a public cemetery for this purpose, the city passes the burden to private cemeteries.
'The expropriation without compensation of a portion of private cemeteries is not covered by Section 12(t) of Republic
Act 537, the Revised Charter of Quezon City which empowers the city council to prohibit the burial of the dead within
the center of population of the city and to provide for their burial in a proper place subject to the provisions of general
law regulating burial grounds and cemeteries. When the Local Government Code, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 provides in
Section 177(q) that a sangguniang panlungsod may "provide for the burial of the dead in such place and in such
manner as prescribed by law or ordinance" it simply authorizes the city to provide its own city owned land or to buy or
expropriate private properties to construct public cemeteries. This has been the law, and practise in the past. It
continues to the present. Expropriation, however, requires payment of just compensation. The questioned ordinance is
different from laws and regulations requiring owners of subdivisions to set aside certain areas for streets, parks,
playgrounds, and other public facilities from the land they sell to buyers of subdivision lots. The necessities of public
safety, health, and convenience are very clear from said requirements which are intended to insure the development
of communities with salubrious and wholesome environments. The beneficiaries of the regulation, in turn, are made to
pay by the subdivision developer when individual lots are sold to homeowners.
In conclusion, the total prohibition against the collection by respondents of parking fees from persons who use the mall
parking facilities has no basis in the National Building Code or its IRR. The State also cannot impose the same
prohibition by generally invoking police power, since said prohibition amounts to a taking of respondents’ property
without payment of just compensation.
Given the foregoing, the Court finds no more need to address the issue persistently raised by respondent SM Prime
concerning the unconstitutionality of Rule XIX of the IRR. In addition, the said issue was not among those that the
parties, during the pre-trial conference for Civil Cases No. 12-08 and No. 00-1210, agreed to submit for resolution of
the RTC. It is likewise axiomatic that the constitutionality of a law, a regulation, an ordinance or an act will not be
resolved by courts if the controversy can be, as in this case it has been, settled on other grounds.39
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 25 January 2007 and
Resolution dated 14 March 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 76298, affirming in toto the Joint Decision
dated 29 May 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 138, in Civil Cases No. 00-1208 and No. 00-1210
are hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ARTICLE 1159
DECISION
CORONA, J.:
1993. WGCC made minor repairs after PCIB requested it to rectify the construction defects. In 1994, PCIB entered into another contract with Brains and
Brawn Construction and Development Corporation to re-do the entire granitite wash-out finish after WGCC manifested that it was "not in a position to do
the new finishing work," though it was willing to share part of the cost. PCIB incurred expenses amounting to P11,665,000 for the repair work.
PCIB filed a request for arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) for the reimbursement of its expenses for the repairs
made by another contractor. It complained of WGCC’s alleged non-compliance with their contractual terms on materials and workmanship. WGCC
The CIAC declared WGCC liable for the construction defects in the project.5 WGCC filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) which
dismissed it for lack of merit.6Its motion for reconsideration was similarly denied.7
In this petition for review on certiorari, WGCC raises this main question of law: whether or not petitioner WGCC is liable for defects in the granitite wash-
out finish that occurred after the lapse of the one-year defects liability period provided in Art. XI of the construction contract.8
The controversy pivots on a provision in the construction contract referred to as the defects liability period:
ARTICLE XI – GUARANTEE
Unless otherwise specified for specific works, and without prejudice to the rights and causes of action of the OWNER under Article 1723 of the Civil
Code, the CONTRACTOR hereby guarantees the work stipulated in this Contract, and shall make good any defect in materials and
workmanship which [becomes] evident within one (1) year after the final acceptance of the work. The CONTRACTOR shall leave the work in
perfect order upon completion and present the final certificate to the ENGINEER promptly.
If in the opinion of the OWNER and ENGINEER, the CONTRACTOR has failed to act promptly in rectifying any defect in the work which appears within the
period mentioned above, the OWNER and the ENGINEER may, at their own discretion, using the Guarantee Bond amount for corrections, have the work
However, nothing in this section shall in any way affect or relieve the CONTRACTOR’S responsibility to the OWNER. On the completion of
the [w]orks, the CONTRACTOR shall clear away and remove from the site all constructional plant, surplus materials, rubbish and temporary works of every
kind, and leave the whole of the [s]ite and [w]orks clean and in a workmanlike condition to the satisfaction of the ENGINEER and OWNER.9 (emphasis
ours)
Although both parties based their arguments on the same stipulations, they reached conflicting conclusions. A careful reading of the stipulations,
however, leads us to the conclusion that WGCC’s arguments are more tenable.
Autonomy of contracts
The autonomous nature of contracts is enunciated in Article 1306 of the Civil Code.
Article 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the parties and should be complied with in good faith.10 In characterizing the contract
as having the force of law between the parties, the law stresses the obligatory nature of a binding and valid agreement.
The provision in the construction contract providing for a defects liability period was not shown as contrary to law, morals, good customs, pubic order or
public policy. By the nature of the obligation in such contract, the provision limiting liability for defects and fixing specific guaranty periods was not only
fair and equitable; it was also necessary. Without such limitation, the contractor would be expected to make a perpetual guarantee on all materials and
workmanship.
The adoption of a one-year guarantee, as done by WGCC and PCIB, is established usage in the Philippines for private and government construction
contracts.11 The contract did not specify a different period for defects in the granitite wash-out finish; hence, any defect therein should have been
brought to WGCC’s attention within the one-year defects liability period in the contract.
We cannot countenance an interpretation that undermines a contractual stipulation freely and validly agreed upon. The courts will not relieve a party
[T]he inclusion in a written contract for a piece of work [,] such as the one in question, of a provision defining a warranty period against defects, is not
uncommon. This kind of a stipulation is of particular importance to the contractor, for as a general rule, after the lapse of the period agreed upon therein,
he may no longer be held accountable for whatever defects, deficiencies or imperfections that may be discovered in the work executed by him.13
Interpretation of contracts
To challenge the guarantee period provided in Article XI of the contract, PCIB calls our attention to Article 62.2 which provides:
Notwithstanding the issue of the Defects Liability Certificate[,] the Contractor and the Owner shall remain liable for the fulfillment of any
obligation[,] incurred under the provisions of the Contract prior to the issue of the Defects Liability Certificate[,] which remains
unperformed at the time such Defects Liability Certificate is issued[. And] for the purpose of determining the nature and extent of any such
obligation, the Contract shall be deemed to remain in force between the parties of the Contract. (emphasis ours)
The defects in the granitite wash-out finish were not the "obligation" contemplated in Article 62.2. It was not an obligation that remained unperformed or
unfulfilled at the time the defects liability certificate was issued. The alleged defects occurred more than a year from the final acceptance by PCIB.
Art. 1719. Acceptance of the work by the employer relieves the contractor of liability for any defect in the work, unless:
(1) The defect is hidden and the employer is not, by his special knowledge, expected to recognize the same; or
(2) The employer expressly reserves his rights against the contractor by reason of the defect.
The lower courts conjectured that the peeling off of the granitite wash-out finish was probably due to "defective materials and workmanship." This they
characterized as hidden or latent defects. We, however, do not agree with the conclusion that the alleged defects were hidden.
First, PCIB’s team of experts14 (who were specifically employed to detect such defects early on) supervised WGCC’s workmanship. Second, WGCC
regularly submitted progress reports and photographs. Third, WGCC worked under fair and transparent circumstances. PCIB had access to the site and it
exercised reasonable supervision over WGCC’s work. Fourth, PCIB issued several "punch lists" for WGCC’s compliance before the issuance of PCIB’s final
certificate of acceptance. Fifth, PCIB supplied the materials for the granitite wash-out finish. And finally, PCIB’s team of experts gave their concurrence to
The purpose of the defects liability period was precisely to give PCIB additional, albeit limited, opportunity to oblige WGCC to make good any defect,
Contrary to the CA’s conclusion, the first sentence of the third paragraph of Article XI on guarantee previously quoted did not operate as a blanket
exception to the one-year guarantee period under the first paragraph. Neither did it modify, extend, nullify or supersede the categorical terms of the
Under the circumstances, there were no hidden defects for which WGCC could be held liable. Neither was there any other defect for which PCIB made any
express reservation of its rights against WGCC. Indeed, the contract should not be interpreted to favor the one who caused the confusion, if any. The
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41152 is ANNULED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
Both surety bonds also contain the following conditions: (1) the liability of PCIC under the bonds expires on March 16,
1998; and (2) a written extrajudicial demand must first be tendered to the surety, PCIC, within 15 days
from the expiration date; otherwise PCIC shall not be liable thereunder and the obligee waives the right
to claim or file any court action to collect on the bond. The following stipulation appears in the last paragraph of
these bonds:
The liability of PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION under this bond will expire on March 16, 1998.
Furthermore, it is hereby agreed and understood that PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION will not
be liable for any claim not presented to it in writing within FIFTEEN (15) DAYS from the expiration of this
bond, and that the Obligee hereby waives its right to claim or file any court action against the Surety
after the termination of FIFTEEN (15) DAYS from the time its cause of action accrues.8 (Emphasis supplied.)
PNCC released two checks to Kalingo representing the down payment of 50% of the total project cost, which were
properly receipted by Kalingo.9 Kalingo in turn submitted the two PCIC surety bonds securing the down payments,
which bonds were accepted by PNCC.
On March 3, 4, and 5, 1998, Kalingo made partial/initial delivery of four units of tollbooths under P.O. No. 71024L.
However, the tollbooths delivered were incomplete or were not fabricated according to PNCC specifications. Kalingo
failed to deliver the other 23 tollbooths up to the time of filing of the complaint; despite demands, he failed and
refused to comply with his obligation under the POs.
On March 9, 1998, six days before the expiration of the surety bonds and after the expiration of the delivery period
provided for under the award, PNCC filed a written extrajudicial claim against PCIC notifying it of Kalingo’s default and
demanding the repayment of the down payment on P.O. No. 71024L as secured by PCIC Bond No. 27547, in the
amount of P1,050,000.00. The claim went unheeded despite repeated demands. For this reason, on April 24, 2001,
PNCC filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Mandaluyong City a complaint for collection of a sum of money against
Kalingo and PCIC.10 PNCC's complaint against PCIC called solely on PCIC Bond No. 27547; it did not raise or plead
collection under PCIC Bond No. 27546 which secured the down payment of P84,000.00 on P.O. No. 71025L.
PCIC, in its answer, argued that the partial delivery of four out of the 25 units of tollbooth by Kalingo under P.O. No.
71024L should reduce Kalingo's obligation.
The RTC, by Decision of October 31, 2005, ruled in favor of PNCC and ordered PCIC and Kalingo to jointly and severally
pay the latter P1,050,000.00, representing the value of PCIC Bond No. 27547, plus legal interest from last demand,
and P50,000.00 as attorney's fees. Reconsideration of the trial court's decision was denied. The trial court made no
ruling on PCIC’s liability under PCIC Bond No. 27546, a claim that was not pleaded in the complaint.
On appeal, the CA, by Decision 11 of January 7, 2008, held that the RTC erred in ruling that PCIC's liability is limited only
to the payment of P1,050,000.00 under PCIC Bond No. 27547 which secured the down payment on P.O. No.
71024L. The appellate court held that PCIC, as surety, is liable jointly and severally with Kalingo for the amount of
the two bonds securing the two POs to Kalingo; thus, the CA also held PCIC liable under PCIC Bond No. 27546 which
secured the P84,000.00 down payment on P.O. No. 71025L.
Reconsideration having been denied by the appellate court in its Resolution 12 of October 29, 2008, the PCIC lodged a
petition for review on certiorari13 before this Court.
The Court, by Resolution of December 17, 2008, denied due course to the petition. 14 Hence, the PCIC filed the present
motion for reconsideration submitting the following issues for our resolution:
I. WHETHER THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PCIC SHOULD ALSO BE HELD LIABLE UNDER BOND
NO. 27546, COLLECTION UNDER WHICH WAS NOT SUBJECT OF RESPONDENT PNCC's COMPLAINT FOR
COLLECTION OF SUM OF MONEY;
II. WHETHER THE CHECKS ISSUED IN "1997" BY RESPONDENT PNCC TO KALINGO WERE GIVEN 10 MONTHS
PRIOR TO THE AWARD OF THE PROJECT AND AMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACT VITIATING THE
SURETY BONDS ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER; and
III. WHETHER THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING PETITIONER PCIC LIABLE FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES.
The second issue is a factual matter not proper in proceedings before this Court. The PCIC’s position that the checks
were issued 10 months prior to the award had already been rejected by both the RTC and the CA; both found that the
year "1997" appearing on the checks was a mere typographical error which should have been written as
"1998."15 Consequently, we shall no longer discuss the PCIC's allegation of material concealment; the factual findings
of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on us.
Our consideration shall focus on the remaining two issues.
The PCIC presents, as its first issue, the argument that "[w]hen the Court of Appeals rendered judgment on Bond No.
27546, which was not subject of respondent's complaint, on the ground that respondent was incorrect in not filing suit
for Bond No. 27546, the Court of Appeals virtually acted as lawyer for respondent."16
We find the PCIC’s position meritorious.
The issue before us calls for a discussion of a court’s basic appreciation of allegations in a complaint. The fundamental
rule is that reliefs granted a litigant are limited to those specifically prayed for in the complaint; other reliefs prayed for
may be granted only when related to the specific prayer(s) in the pleadings and supported by the evidence on record.
Necessarily, any such relief may be granted only where a cause of action therefor exists, based on the complaint, the
pleadings, and the evidence on record.
Section 2, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines a cause of action as the act or omission by which a party
violates the right of another. It is the delict or the wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of
the primary right of the plaintiff.17 Its essential elements are as follows:
1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
2. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
3. Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the
obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or
other appropriate relief.18
Only upon the occurrence of the last element does a cause of action arise, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an
action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.19
Each of the surety bonds issued by PCIC created a right in favor of PNCC to collect the repayment of the bonded down
payments made on the two POs if contractor Kalingo defaults on his obligation under the award to fabricate and
deliver to PNCC the tollbooths contracted for. Concomitantly, PCIC, as surety, had the obligation to comply with its
undertaking under the bonds to repay PNCC the down payments the latter made on the POs if Kalingo defaults.
It must be borne in mind that each of the two bonds is a distinct contract by itself, subject to its own terms and
conditions. They each contain a provision that the surety, PCIC, will not be liable for any claim not presented to it in
writing within 15 days from the expiration of the bond, and that the obligee (PNCC) thereby waives its right to claim or
file any court action against the surety (PCIC) after the termination of 15 days from the time its cause of action
accrues. This written claim provision creates a condition precedent for the accrual of: (1) PCIC’s obligation
to comply with its promise under the particular bond, and of (2) PNCC's right to collect or sue on these
bonds. PCIC’s liability to repay the bonded down payments arises only upon PNCC's filing of a written
claim – notifying PCIC of principal Kalingo’s default and demanding collection under the bond – within 15
days from the bond’s expiry date. PNCC’s failure to comply with the written claim provision has the
effect of extinguishing PCIC’s liability and constitutes a waiver by PNCC of the right to claim or sue under
the bond.
Liability on a bond is contractual in nature and is ordinarily restricted to the obligation expressly assumed therein. We
have repeatedly held that the extent of a surety's liability is determined only by the clause of the contract of
suretyship and by the conditions stated in the bond. It cannot be extended by implication beyond the terms of the
contract.20 Equally basic is the principle that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the
parties and should be complied with in good faith.21 Nothing can stop the parties from establishing stipulations,
clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order, or public policy. 22 Here, nothing in the records shows the invalidity of the written claim
provision; therefore, the parties must strictly and in good faith comply with this requirement.
The records reveal that PNCC complied with the written claim provision, but only with respect to PCIC Bond No. 27547.
PNCC filed an extrajudicial demand with PCIC informing it of Kalingo’s default under the award and demanding the
repayment of the bonded down payment on P.O. No. 71024L. Conversely, nothing in the records shows that PNCC ever
complied with the provision with respect to PCIC Bond No. 27546. Why PNCC complied with the written claim provision
with respect to PCIC Bond No. 27547, but not with respect to PCIC Bond No. 27546, has not been explained by
PNCC. Under the circumstances, PNCC’s cause of action with respect to PCIC Bond No. 27546 did not and
cannot exist, such that no relief for collection thereunder may be validly awarded.
Hence, the trial court’s decision finding PCIC liable solely under PCIC Bond No. 27547 is correct – not only
because collection under the other bond, PCIC Bond No. 27546, was not raised or pleaded in the
complaint, but for the more important reason that no cause of action arose in PNCC’s favor with respect
to this bond. Consequently, the appellate court was in error for including liability under PCIC Bond No.
27546.
PNCC insists that conformably with the ruling of the CA, it should be entitled to collection under PCIC Bond No. 27546,
although collection thereunder was not specifically raised or pleaded in its complaint, because the bond was attached
to the complaint and formed part of the records. Also, considering that PCIC’s liability as surety has been duly proven
before the trial and appellate courts, PNCC posits that it is entitled to repayment under PCIC Bond No. 27546.
PNCC might be alluding to Section 2(c), Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, which provides that a pleading shall specify the
relief sought, but may add a general prayer for such further or other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable.
Under this rule, a court can grant the relief warranted by the allegation and the proof even if it is not specifically
sought by the injured party;23 the inclusion of a general prayer may justify the grant of a remedy different from or
together with the specific remedy sought, 24 if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so
warrant.25
We find PNCC’s argument to be misplaced. A general prayer for "other reliefs just and equitable" appearing on a
complaint or pleading normally enables the court to award reliefs supported by the complaint or other pleadings, by
the facts admitted at the trial, and by the evidence adduced by the parties, even if these reliefs are not specifically
prayed for in the complaint. We cannot, however, grant PNCC the "other relief" of recovering under PCIC Bond No.
27546 because of the respect due the contractual stipulations of the parties. While it is true that PCIC’s liability under
PCIC Bond No. 27546 would have been clear under ordinary circumstances (considering that Kalingo's default under
his contract with PNCC is now beyond dispute), it cannot be denied that the bond contains a written claim provision,
and compliance with it is essential for the accrual of PCIC’s liability and PNCC’s right to collect under the bond.
As already discussed, this provision is the law between the parties on the matter of liability and collection under the
bond. Knowing fully well that PCIC Bond No. 27546 is a matter of record, duly proven and susceptible of the court’s
scrutiny, the trial and appellate courts must respect the terms of the bond and cannot just disregard its terms and
conditions in the absence of any showing that they are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public
policy. For its failure to file a written claim with PCIC within 15 days from the bond’s expiry date, PNCC clearly waived
its right to collect under PCIC Bond No. 27546. That, wittingly or unwittingly, PNCC did not collect under one bond in
favor of calling on the other creates no other conclusion than that the right to collect under the former had been lost.
Consequently, PNCC’s cause of action with respect to PCIC Bond No. 27546 cannot juridically exist and no relief
therefore may be validly given. Hence, the CA invalidly rendered judgment with respect to PCIC Bond No. 27546, and
its award based on this bond must be deleted.
On the third issue, we hold that PCIC should be held liable for the attorney's fees PNCC incurred in bringing suit. PCIC’s
unjust refusal to pay despite PNCC’s written claim compelled the latter to hire the services of an attorney to collect on
PCIC Bond No. 27547.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we SET ASIDE our Resolution of December 17, 2008 and GRANT the present
motion for reconsideration. The petition for review on certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Court of Appeals
Decision of January 7, 2008 and Resolution of October 29, 2008 are hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION, deleting petitioner PCIC's liability under PCIC Bond No. 27546. All other matters in the assailed Court
of Appeals decision and resolution are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ARTICLE 1161
RUBEN MANIAGO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (First Division), HON. RUBEN C. AYSON, in his capacity as
Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Baguio City, and ALFREDO BOADO, respondents.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses which were used in transporting employees of the Texas
Instruments, (Phils.), Inc. from Baguio City proper to its plant site at the Export Processing Authority in Loakan,
Baguio City.
On January 7, 1990, one of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger jeepney owned by private
respondent Alfredo Boado along Loakan Road, Baguio City. As a result of the accident, a criminal case for reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries was filed on March 2, 1990 against
petitioner’s driver, Herminio Andaya, with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch III, where it was docketed
as Criminal Case No. 7514-R. A month later, on April 19, 1990, a civil case for damages was filed by private
respondent Boado against petitioner himself The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 2050-R, was assigned to
Petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the civil case against him, citing the pendency of the
criminal case against his driver. But the trial court, in its order dated August 30, 1991, denied petitioner’s motion on
the ground that pursuant to the Civil Code, the action could proceed independently of the criminal action, in addition
to the fact that the petitioner was not the accused in the criminal case.
Petitioner took the matter on certiorari and prohibition to the Court of Appeals, maintaining that the civil action
could not proceed independently of the criminal case because no reservation of the right to bring it separately had
On January 31, 1992, the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition on the authority of Garcia v. Florido ,1 and Abellana
v. Marave,2 which it held allowed a civil action for damages to be filed independently of the criminal action even
though no reservation to file the same has been made. Therefore, it was held, the trial court correctly denied
Hence this petition for review on certiorari. There is no dispute that private respondent, as offended party in the
criminal case, did not reserve the right to bring a separate civil action, based on the same accident, either against
the driver, Herminio Andaya, or against the latter’s employer, herein petitioner Ruben Maniago. The question is
whether despite the absence of such reservation, private respondent may nonetheless bring an action for damages
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope
of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
Art. 2177 states that responsibility for fault or negligence under the above-quoted provisions is entirely separate
and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Revised Penal Code.
However, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, while reiterating that a civil action under these
provisions of the Civil Code may be brought separately from the criminal action, provides that the right to bring it
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. - When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33,
34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused.
The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shall be made before the prosecution starts to
present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such
reservation.
Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. - In the cases provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action which has been reserved may be brought by the
offended party, shall proceed independently of the criminal action, and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence.
Based on these provisions, petitioner argues that the civil action against him was impliedly instituted in the criminal
action previously filed against his employee because private respondent did not reserve his right to bring this action
separately. (The records show that while this case was pending in the Court of Appeals, the criminal action was
dismissed on July 10, 1992 for failure of the prosecution to file a formal offer of its evidence, with the consequence
that the prosecution failed to prosecute its case. Accordingly, it seems to be petitioner’s argument that since the
civil action to recover damages was impliedly instituted with the criminal action, the dismissal of the criminal case
Private respondent admits that he did not reserve the right to institute the present civil action against Andaya’s
employer. He contends, however, that the rights provided in Arts. 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code are substantive
rights and, as such, their enforcement cannot be conditioned on a reservation to bring the action to enforce them
separately. Private respondent cites in support of his position statements made in Abellana v. Marave,4 Tayag v.
Alcantara,5 Madeja v. Caro,6 and Jarantilla v. Court of Appeals,7 to the effect that the requirement to reserve the
civil action is substantive in character and, therefore, is beyond the rulemaking power of this Court under the
Constitution.8
After considering the arguments of the parties, we have reached the conclusion that the right to bring an action for
damages under the Civil Code must be reserved as required by Rule 111, § 1, otherwise it should be dismissed.
I.
A. To begin with, §1 quite clearly requires that a reservation must be made to institute separately all civil actions for
the recovery of civil liability, otherwise they will be deemed to have been instituted with the criminal case. Such civil
actions are not limited to those which arise “from the offense charged,” as originally provided in Rule 111 before the
amendment of the Rules of Court in 1988. In other words the right of the injured party to sue separately for the
recovery of the civil liability whether arising from crimes (ex delicto) or from quasi delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil
Code must be reserved otherwise they will be deemed instituted with the criminal action.9
Thus Rule 111, §1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly provides:
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.- When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33,
34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused.
B. There are statements in some cases implying that Rule 111, §§1 and 3 are beyond the rulemaking power of the
Supreme Court under the Constitution. A careful examination of the cases, however, will show that approval of the
filing of separate civil action for damages even though no reservation of the right to institute such civil action had
In Garcia v. Florido10 the right of an injured person to bring an action for damages even if he did not make a
reservation of his action in the criminal prosecution for physical injuries through reckless imprudence was upheld on
the ground that by bringing the civil action the injured parties had “in effect abandoned their right to press for
recovery of damages in the criminal case. . .. Undoubtedly an offended party loses his right to intervene in the
prosecution of a criminal case, not only when he has waived the civil action or expressly reserved his right to
institute, but also when he has actually instituted the civil action. For by either of such actions his interest in the
criminal case has disappeared.”11 The statement that Rule 111, § 1 of the 1964 Rules is “an unauthorized
amendment of substantive law, Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code, which do not provide for the reservation” is
not the ruling of the Court but only an aside, quoted from an observation made in the footnote of a decision in
another case.12
Another case cited by private respondent in support of his contention that the civil case need not be reserved in the
criminal case is Abellana v. Marave13 in which the right of persons injured in a vehicular accident to bring a separate
action for damages was sustained despite the fact that the right to bring it separately was not reserved. But the
basis of the decision in that case was the fact that the filing of the civil case was equivalent to a reservation because
it was made after the decision of the City Court convicting the accused had been appealed. Pursuant to Rule 123, §7
of the 1964 Rules, this had the effect of vacating the decision in the criminal case so that technically, the injured
parties could still reserve their right to institute a civil action while the criminal case was pending in the Court of
First Instance. The statement “the right of a party to sue for damages independently of the criminal action is a
substantive right which cannot be frittered away by a construction that could render it nugatory” without raising a
“serious constitutional question”14 was thrown in only as additional support for the ruling of the Court.
On the other hand, in Madeja v. Caro15 the Court held that a civil action for damages could proceed even while the
criminal case for homicide through reckless imprudence was pending and did not have to await the termination of
the criminal case precisely because the widow of the deceased had reserved her right to file a separate civil action
for damages. We do not see how this case can lend support to the view of private respondent.
In Jarantilla v. Court of Appeals16 the ruling is that the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case for physical
injuries through reckless imprudence on the ground of reasonable doubt is not a bar to the filing of an action for
damages even though the filing of the latter action was not reserved. This is because of Art. 29 of the Civil Code
which provides that “when an accused 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.” This ruling obviously
cannot apply to this case because the basis of the dismissal of the criminal case against the driver is the fact that
the prosecution failed to prove its case as a result of its failure to make a formal offer of its evidence. Rule 132, §34
of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that “The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.”
To the same effect are the holdings in Tayag, Sr. v. Alcantara,17 Bonite v. Zosa18 and Diong Bi Chu v. Court of
Appeals.19 Since Art. 29 of the Civil Code authorizes the bringing of a separate civil action in case of acquittal on
reasonable doubt and under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure such action is not required to be reserved, it is
plain that the statement in these cases that to require a reservation to be made would be to sanction an
unauthorized amendment of the Civil Code provisions is a mere dictum. As already noted in connection with the case
of Garcia v. Florido, that statement was not the ruling of the Court but only an observation borrowed from another
case.20
The short of it is that the rulings in these cases are consistent with the proposition herein made that, on the basis of
Rule 111, §§1-3, a civil action for the recovery of civil liability is, as a general rule, impliedly instituted with the
criminal action, except only (1) when such action arising from the same act or omission, which is the subject of the
criminal action, is waived; (2) the right to bring it separately is reserved or (3) such action has been instituted prior
to the criminal action. Even if an action has not been reserved or it was brought before the institution of the criminal
case, the acquittal of the accused will not bar recovery of civil liability unless the acquittal is based on a finding that
the act from which the civil liability might arise did not exist because of Art. 29 of the Civil Code.
Indeed the question on whether the criminal action and the action for recovery of the civil liability must be tried in a
single proceeding has always been regarded a matter of procedure and, since the rulemaking power has been
conferred by the Constitution on this Court, it is in the keeping of this Court. Thus the subject was provided for by
G.O. No. 58, the first Rules of Criminal Procedure under the American rule. Sec. 107 of these Orders provided:
The privileges now secured by law to the person claiming to be injured by the commission of an offense to take part
in the prosecution of the offense and to recover damages for the injury sustained by reason of the same shall not be
held to be abridged by the provisions of this order; but such person may appear and shall be heard either
individually or by attorney at all stages of the case, and the court upon conviction of the accused may enter
judgment against him for the damages occasioned by his wrongful act. It shall, however, be the duty of the promotor
fiscal to direct the prosecution, subject to the right of the person injured to appeal from any decision of the court
This was superseded by the 1940 Rules of Court, Rule 106 of which provided:
SEC. 15. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. - Unless the offended party has waived the civil action
or expressly reserved the right to institute it after the termination of the criminal case, and subject to the provisions
of Section 4 hereof, he may intervene, personally or by attorney, in the prosecution of the offense.
This Rule was amended thrice, in 1964, in 1985 and lastly in 1988. Through all the shifts or changes in policy as to
the civil action arising from the same act or omission for which a criminal action is brought, one thing is clear: The
change has been effected by this Court. Whatever contrary impression may have been created by Garcia v. Florid21
and its progeny22 must therefore be deemed to have been clarified and settled by the new rules which require
reservation of the right to recover the civil liability, otherwise the action will be deemed to have been instituted with
Contrary to private respondent’s contention, the requirement that before a separate civil action may be brought it
must be reserved does not impair, diminish or defeat substantive rights, but only regulates their exercise in the
general interest of orderly procedure. The requirement is merely procedural in nature. For that matter the Revised
Penal Code, by providing in Art. 100 that any person criminally liable is also civilly liable, gives the offended party
the right to bring a separate civil action, yet no one has ever questioned the rule that such action must be reserved
Indeed, the requirement that the right to institute actions under the Civil Code separately must be reserved is not
incompatible with the independent character of such actions. There is a difference between allowing the trial of civil
actions to proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and requiring that, before they may be instituted at all,
a reservation to bring them separately must be made. Put in another way, it is the conduct of the trial of the civil
action - not its institution through the filing of a complaint - which is allowed to proceed independently of the
C. There is a practical reason for requiring that the right to bring an independent civil action under the Civil Code
separately must be reserved. It is to avoid the filing of more than one action for the same act or omission against the
same party. Any award made against the employer, whether based on his subsidiary civil liability under Art. 103 of
the Revised Penal Code or his primary liability under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, is ultimately recoverable from the
accused.23
In the present case, the criminal action was filed against the employee, bus driver. Had the driver been convicted
and found insolvent, his employer would have been held subsidiarily liable for damages. But if the right to bring a
separate civil action (whether arising from the crime or from quasi-delict) is reserved, there would be no possibility
that the employer would be held liable because in such a case there would be no pronouncement as to the civil
liability of the accused. In such a case the institution of a separate and independent civil action under the Civil Code
would not result in the employee being held liable for the same act or omission. The rule requiring reservation in the
end serves to implement the prohibition against double recovery for the same act or omission.24 As held in Barredo
v. Garcia,25 the injured party must choose which of the available causes of action for damages he will bring. If he
fails to reserve the filing of a separate civil action he will be deemed to have elected to recover damages from the
bus driver on the basis of the crime. In such a case his cause of action against the employer will be limited to the
recovery of the latter’s subsidiary liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
II.
Nor does it matter that the action is against the employer to enforce his vicarious liability under Art. 2180 of the
Civil Code. Though not an accused in the criminal case, the employer is very much a party, as long as the right to
bring or institute a separate action (whether arising from crime or from quasi delict) is not reserved.26 The ruling
that a decision convicting the employee is binding and conclusive upon the employer “not only with regard to its civil
liability but also with regard to its amount because the liability of an employer cannot be separated but follows that
of his employee”27 is true not only with respect to the civil liability arising from crime but also with respect to the
civil liability under the Civil Code. Since whatever is recoverable against the employer is ultimately recoverable by
him from the employee, the policy against double recovery requires that only one action be maintained for the same
act or omission whether the action is brought against the employee or against his employer. Thus in Dulay v. Court
of Appeals28 this Court held that an employer may be sued under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code and that the right to
bring the action did not have to be reserved because, having instituted before the criminal case against the
employee, the filing of the civil action against the employer constituted an express reservation of the right to
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is RESERVED and the complaint against petitioner is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
MARTINEZ, J.:
At around 3:30 in the afternoon of June 24, 1991, a Toyota Lite Ace Van being driven by its owner Annie U. Jao and a
passenger bus of herein petitioner San Ildefonso Lines, Inc. (hereafter, SILI) figured in a vehicular mishap at the
intersection of Julia Vargas Avenue and Rodriguez Lanuza Avenue in Pasig, Metro Manila, totally wrecking the Toyota
van and injuring Ms. Jao and her two (2) passengers in the process.
A criminal case was thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig on September 18, 1991 charging the driver
of the bus, herein petitioner Eduardo Javier, with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple
physical injuries.
About four (4) months later, or on January 13, 1992, herein private respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety
Corporation (PISC), as insurer of the van and subrogee, filed a case for damages against petitioner SILI with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking to recover the sums it paid the assured under a motor vehicle insurance policy
as well as other damages, totaling P564,500.00 (P454,000.00 as actual/compensatory damages; P50,000.00 as
exemplary damages; P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; P10,000.00 as litigation expenses; and P500.00 as appearance
fees.) 1
With the issues having been joined upon the filing of the petitioners' answer to the complaint for damages and after
submission by the parties of their respective pre-trial briefs, petitioners filed on September 18, 1992 a Manifestation
and Motion to Suspend Civil Proceedings grounded on the pendency of the criminal case against petitioner Javier in the
Pasig RTC and the failure of respondent PISC to make a reservation to file a separate damage suit in said criminal
action. This was denied by the Manila Regional Trial Court in its Order dated July 21, 1993, 2 ruling thus:
Answering the first question thus posed, the court holds that plaintiff may legally institute the present
civil action even in the absence of a reservation in the criminal action. This is so because it falls among
the very exceptions to the rule cited by the movant.
It is true that the general rule is that once a criminal action has been instituted, then civil action based
thereon is deemed instituted together with the criminal action, such that if the offended party did not
reserve the filing of the civil action when the criminal action was filed, then such filing of the civil
action is therefore barred; on the other hand, if there was such reservation, still the civil action cannot
be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action;
But, this rule (Section 2, Rule 111, Revised Rules of Court) is subject to exemptions, the same being
those provided for in Section 3 of the same rule which states:
Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. — In the cases provided for in
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil
action which was been reserved may be brought by the offended party, shall proceed
independently of the criminal action, and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence.
Besides, the requirement in Section 2 of Rule 111 of the former Rules on Criminal Procedure that there
be a reservation in the criminal case of the right to institute an independent civil action has been
declared as not in accordance with law. It is regarded as an unauthorized amendment to our
substantive law, i.e., the Civil Code which does not require such reservation. In fact, the reservation of
the right to file an independent civil action has been deleted from Section 2, Rule 111 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure, in consonance with the decisions of this Court declaring such
requirement of a reservation as ineffective. (Bonite vs. Zosa, 162 SCRA 180).
Further, the Court rules that a subrogee-plaintiff may institute and prosecute the civil action, it being
allowed by Article 2207 of the Civil Code.
After their motion for reconsideration of said July 21, 1993 Order was denied, petitioners elevated the matter to this
Court via petition for certiorari which was, however, referred to public respondent Court of Appeals for disposition. On
February 24, 1995, a decision adverse to petitioners once again was rendered by respondent court, upholding the
assailed Manila Regional Trial Court Order in this wise:
A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally
prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed (if the
tortfeasor is actually charged also criminally), to recover damages on both scores, and would be
entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two
cases vary.
To subordinate the civil action contemplated in the said articles to the result of the criminal
prosecution — whether it be conviction or acquittal — would render meaningless the independent
character of the civil action and the clear injunction in Art. 31, that this action may proceed
independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
In Yakult Phil. vs. CA, the Supreme Court said:
Even if there was no reservation in the criminal case and that the civil action was not
filed before the filing of the criminal action but before the prosecution presented
evidence in the criminal action, and the judge handling the criminal case was informed
thereof, then the actual filing of the civil action is even far better than a compliance
with the requirement of an express reservation that should be made by the offended
party before the prosecution presented its evidence.
The purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the offended party from recovering
damages twice for the same act or omission.
Substantial compliance with the reservation requirement may, therefore, be made by making a
manifestation in the criminal case that the private respondent has instituted a separate and
independent civil action for damages.
Oft-repeated is the dictum that courts should not place undue importance on technicalities when by so
doing substantial justice is sacrificed. While the rules of procedure require adherence, it must be
remembered that said rules of procedure are intended to promote, not defeat, substantial justice, and
therefore, they should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense.
Hence, this petition for review after a motion for reconsideration of said respondent court judgment was
denied.
The two (2) crucial issues to be resolved, as posited by petitioners, are:
1) If a criminal case was filed, can an independent civil action based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code be filed if no reservation was made in the said criminal case?
2) Can a subrogee of an offended party maintain an independent civil action during the pendency of a criminal action
when no reservation of the right to file an independent civil action was made in the criminal action and despite the fact
that the private complainant is actively participating through a private prosecutor in the aforementioned criminal
case?
We rule for petitioners.
On the chief issue of "reservation", at the fore is Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which reads:
Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. — In the cases provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34
and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action which has been reserved
may be brought by the offended party, shall proceed independently of the criminal action, and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence.
There is no dispute that these so-called "independent civil actions" based on the aforementioned Civil Code
articles are the exceptions to the primacy of the criminal action over the civil action as set forth in Section 2 of
Rule 111. 3However, it is easily deducible from the present wording of Section 3 as brought about by the 1988
amendments to the Rules on Criminal Procedure — particularly the phrase ". . . which has been reserved" —
that the "independent" character of these civil actions does not do away with the reservation requirement. In
other words, prior reservation is a condition sine qua non before any of these independent civil actions can be
instituted and thereafter have a continuous determination apart from or simultaneous with the criminal action.
That this should now be the controlling procedural rule is confirmed by no less than retired Justice Jose Y. Feria,
remedial law expert and a member of the committee which drafted the 1988 amendments, whose learned
explanation on the matter was aptly pointed out by petitioners, to wit:
The 1988 amendment expands the scope of the civil action which his deemed impliedly instituted with
the criminal action unless waived, reserved or previously instituted. . . .
Under the present Rule as amended, such a civil action includes not only recovery of indemnity under
the Revised Penal Code and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, but
also damages under Article 2176 of the said code. . . .
Objections were raised to the inclusion in this Rule of quasi-delicts under Article 2176 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines. However, in view of Article 2177 of the said code which provides that the offended
party may not recover twice for the same act or omission of the accused, and in line with the policy of
avoiding multiplicity of suits, these objections were overruled. In any event, the offended party is not
precluded from filing a civil action to recover damages arising from quasi-delict before the institution
of the criminal action, or from reserving his right to file such a separate civil action, just as he is not
precluded from filing a civil action for damages under Articles 32, 33 and 34 before the institution of
the criminal action, or from reserving his right to file such a separate civil action. It is only in those
cases where the offended party has not previously filed a civil action or has not reserved his right to
file a separate civil action that his civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action.
It should be noted that while it was ruled in Abella vs. Marave (57 SCRA 106) that a reservation of the
right to file an independent civil action is not necessary, such a reservation is necessary under the
amended rule. Without such reservation, the civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the
criminal action, unless previously waived or instituted. (Emphasis ours, Justice Jose Y. Feria [Ret.], 1988
Amendments to the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a pamphlet, published by Central Lawbook
Publishing Co., Inc., Philippine Legal Studies, Series No. 3, 5-6). 4
Sharing the same view on the indispensability of a prior reservation is Mr. Justice Florenz D. Regalado, whose analysis
of the historical changes in Rule 111 since the 1964 Rules of Court is equally illuminating. Thus,
1. Under Rule 111 of the 1964 Rules of Court, the civil liability arising from the offense charged was
impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless such civil action was expressly waived or reserved.
The offended party was authorized to bring an independent civil action in the cases provided for in
Articles 31, 32, 33, 34 and 2177 of the Civil Code provided such right was reserved.
In the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the same Rule 111 thereof reiterated said provision on the
civil liability arising from the offense charged. The independent civil actions, however, were limited to
the cases provided for in Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code, obviously because the actions
contemplated in Articles 31 and 2177 of said Code are not liabilities ex-delicto. Furthermore, no
reservation was required in order the civil actions in said Articles 32, 33 and 34 may be pursued
separately.
2. The present amendments introduced by the Supreme Court have the following notable features on
this particular procedural aspect, viz:
a. The civil action which is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, barring a waiver, reservation or
prior institution thereof, need not arise from the offense charged, as the phrase "arising from the
offense charged" which creates that nexus has been specifically eliminated.
b. The independent civil actions contemplated in the present Rule 111 include the quasi-
delicts provided for in Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, in addition to the cases provided in Arts. 32, 33 and
34 thereof. It is necessary, however, that the civil liability under all the said articles arise "from the
same act or omission of the accused." Furthermore, a reservation of the right to institute these
separate civil actions is again required otherwise, said civil actions are impliedly instituted with the
criminal action, unless the former are waived or filed ahead of the criminal action. (Emphasis
supplied.) 5
In fact, a deeper reading of the "Yakult Phils. vs. CA" case 6 relied upon by respondent court reveals an
acknowledgment of the reservation requirement. After recognizing that the civil case instituted by private respondent
therein Roy Camaso (represented by his father David Camaso) against petitioner Yakult Phils. (the owner of the
motorcycle that sideswiped Roy Camaso, only five years old at the time of the accident) and Larry Salvado (the driver
of the motorcycle) during the pendency of the criminal case against Salvado for reckless imprudence resulting to slight
physical injuries, as one based on tort, this Court said:
The civil liability sought arising from the act or omission of the accused in this case is a quasi-delict as
defined under Article 2176 of the Civil Code as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
The aforecited rule [referring to the amended Section l, Rule 111] requiring, such previous reservation
also covers quasi-delict as defined under Article 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or
omission of the accused (emphasis supplied).
But what prompted the Court to validate the institution and non-suspension of the civil case involved in
"Yakult" was the peculiar facts attendant therein. Thus,
Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in the criminal
case, nevertheless since it was instituted before the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal
action, and the judge handling the criminal case was informed thereof, then the actual filing of the civil
action is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express reservation that should
be made by the offended party before the prosecution presents its evidence.
The distinct factual scenario in "Yakult" simply does not obtain in this case. No satisfactory proof exists to show that
private respondent PISC's damage suit was instituted before the prosecution presented its evidence in the criminal
case pending in the Pasig Regional Trial Court. Neither is there any indication that the judge presiding over the
criminal action has been made aware of the civil case. It is in this light that reliance on the "Yakult" case is indeed
misplaced.
Now that the necessity of a prior reservation is the standing rule that shall govern the institution of the independent
civil actions referred to in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, past pronouncements that view the reservation requirement
as an "unauthorized amendment" to substantive law — i.e., the Civil Code, should no longer be controlling. There must
be a renewed adherence to the time-honored dictum that procedural rules are designed, not to defeat, but to
safeguard the ends of substantial justice. And for this noble reason, no less than the Constitution itself has mandated
this Court to promulgate rules concerning the enforcement of rights with the end in view of providing a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases which should not diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights. 7 Far from altering substantive rights, the primary purpose of the reservation is, to borrow the words of the
Court in "Caños v. Peralta": 8
. . . to avoid multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression and abuse, to prevent delays, to clear
congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court; in short, the attainment of justice with the
least expense and vexation to the parties-litigants.
Clearly then, private respondent PISC, as subrogee under Article 2207 of the Civil Code, 9 is not exempt from the
reservation requirement with respect to its damages suit based on quasi-delict arising from the same act or ommission
of petitioner Javier complained of in the criminal case. As private respondent PISC merely stepped into the shoes of Ms.
Jao (as owner of the insured Toyota van), then it is bound to observe the procedural requirements which Ms. Jao ought
to follow had she herself instituted the civil case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 24, 1995 and the
Resolution dated April 3, 1995 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The "MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO SUSPEND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS" filed by petitioners is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
MORELAND, J.:
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, awarding to the
plaintiff the sum of P6,641, with interest at the legal rate from the beginning of the action.
It is established in this case that the plaintiff is the trustee of a charitable bequest made for the construction of a
leper hospital and that father Agustin de la Peña was the duly authorized representative of the plaintiff to receive the
legacy. The defendant is the administrator of the estate of Father De la Peña.
In the year 1898 the books Father De la Peña, as trustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee the sum
of P6,641, collected by him for the charitable purposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposited in his personal
account P19,000 in the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank at Iloilo. Shortly thereafter and during the war of the revolution,
Father De la Peña was arrested by the military authorities as a political prisoner, and while thus detained made an
order on said bank in favor of the United States Army officer under whose charge he then was for the sum thus
deposited in said bank. The arrest of Father De la Peña and the confiscation of the funds in the bank were the result of
the claim of the military authorities that he was an insurgent and that the funds thus deposited had been collected by
him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken from the bank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,
was confiscated and turned over to the Government.
While there is considerable dispute in the case over the question whether the P6,641 of trust funds was included
in the P19,000 deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, a careful examination of the case leads us to the conclusion that
said trust funds were a part of the funds deposited and which were removed and confiscated by the military
authorities of the United States.
That branch of the law known in England and America as the law of trusts had no exact counterpart in the
Roman law and has none under the Spanish law. In this jurisdiction, therefore, Father De la Peña's liability is
determined by those portions of the Civil Code which relate to obligations. (Book 4, Title 1.)
Although the Civil Code states that "a person obliged to give something is also bound to preserve it with the
diligence pertaining to a good father of a family" (art. 1094), it also provides, following the principle of the Roman
law, major casus est, cui humana infirmitas resistere non potest, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not
be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in
the law or those in which the obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)
By placing the money in the bank and mixing it with his personal funds De la Peña did not thereby assume an
obligation different from that under which he would have lain if such deposit had not been made, nor did he thereby
make himself liable to repay the money at all hazards. If the had been forcibly taken from his pocket or from his house
by the military forces of one of the combatants during a state of war, it is clear that under the provisions of the Civil
Code he would have been exempt from responsibility. The fact that he placed the trust fund in the bank in his personal
account does not add to his responsibility. Such deposit did not make him a debtor who must respond at all hazards.
We do not enter into a discussion for the purpose of determining whether he acted more or less negligently by
depositing the money in the bank than he would if he had left it in his home; or whether he was more or less negligent
by depositing the money in his personal account than he would have been if he had deposited it in a separate account
as trustee. We regard such discussion as substantially fruitless, inasmuch as the precise question is not one of
negligence. There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did and there was no law which changed his
responsibility be reason of the deposit. While it may be true that one who is under obligation to do or give a thing is in
duty bound, when he sees events approaching the results of which will be dangerous to his trust, to take all
reasonable means and measures to escape or, if unavoidable, to temper the effects of those events, we do not feel
constrained to hold that, in choosing between two means equally legal, he is culpably negligent in selecting one
whereas he would not have been if he had selected the other.
The court, therefore, finds and declares that the money which is the subject matter of this action was deposited
by Father De la Peña in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said money was forcibly taken
from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of the insurrection; and that said Father De la
Peña was not responsible for its loss.
The judgment is therefore reversed, and it is decreed that the plaintiff shall take nothing by his complaint.
Arellano, C.J., Torres and Carson, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
TRENT, J., dissenting:
I dissent. Technically speaking, whether Father De la Peña was a trustee or an agent of the plaintiff his books
showed that in 1898 he had in his possession as trustee or agent the sum of P6,641 belonging to the plaintiff as the
head of the church. This money was then clothed with all the immunities and protection with which the law seeks to
invest trust funds. But when De la Peña mixed this trust fund with his own and deposited the whole in the bank to
his personal account or credit, he by this act stamped on the said fund his own private marks and unclothed it of all
the protection it had. If this money had been deposited in the name of De la Peña as trustee or agent of the plaintiff, I
think that it may be presumed that the military authorities would not have confiscated it for the reason that they were
looking for insurgent funds only. Again, the plaintiff had no reason to suppose that De la Peña would attempt to strip
the fund of its identity, nor had he said or done anything which tended to relieve De la Peña from the legal
reponsibility which pertains to the care and custody of trust funds.
The Supreme Court of the United States in the United State vs. Thomas (82 U. S., 337), at page 343, said:
"Trustees are only bound to exercise the same care and solicitude with regard to the trust property which they would
exercise with regard to their own. Equity will not exact more of them. They are not liable for a loss by theft without
their fault. But this exemption ceases when they mix the trust-money with their own, whereby it loses its identity, and
they become mere debtors."
If this proposition is sound and is applicable to cases arising in this jurisdiction, and I entertain no doubt on this
point, the liability of the estate of De la Peña cannot be doubted. But this court in the majority opinion says: "The fact
that he (Agustin de la Peña) placed the trust fund in the bank in his personal account does not add to his
responsibility. Such deposit did not make him a debtor who must respond at all hazards. . . . There was no law
prohibiting him from depositing it as he did, and there was no law which changed his responsibility, by reason of the
deposit."
I assume that the court in using the language which appears in the latter part of the above quotation meant to
say that there was no statutory law regulating the question. Questions of this character are not usually governed by
statutory law. The law is to be found in the very nature of the trust itself, and, as a general rule, the courts say what
facts are necessary to hold the trustee as a debtor.
If De la Peña, after depositing the trust fund in his personal account, had used this money for speculative
purposes, such as the buying and selling of sugar or other products of the country, thereby becoming a debtor, there
would have been no doubt as to the liability of his estate. Whether he used this money for that purpose the record is
silent, but it will be noted that a considerable length of time intervened from the time of the deposit until the funds
were confiscated by the military authorities. In fact the record shows that De la Peña deposited on June 27, 1898,
P5,259, on June 28 of that year P3,280, and on August 5 of the same year P6,000. The record also shows that these
funds were withdrawn and again deposited all together on the 29th of May, 1900, this last deposit amounting to
P18,970. These facts strongly indicate that De la Peña had as a matter of fact been using the money in violation of the
trust imposed in him. lawph!1.net
If the doctrine announced in the majority opinion be followed in cases hereafter arising in this jurisdiction trust
funds will be placed in precarious condition. The position of the trustee will cease to be one of trust.
ARTICLE 1164
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:p
Subject of this petition for review is the decision of the Court of Appeals (Seventeenth Division) in CA-G.R. No. 09149,
affirming with modification the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Sixth (6th) Judicial Region, Branch LVI.
Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, in Civil Case No. 1272, which was private respondent Alberto Nepales' action for
specific performance of a contract of sale with damages against petitioner Norkis Distributors, Inc.
The facts borne out by the record are as follows:
Petitioner Norkis Distributors, Inc. (Norkis for brevity), is the distributor of Yamaha motorcycles in Negros Occidental
with office in Bacolod City with Avelino Labajo as its Branch Manager. On September 20, 1979, private respondent
Alberto Nepales bought from the Norkis-Bacolod branch a brand new Yamaha Wonderbike motorcycle Model YL2DX
with Engine No.
L2-329401K Frame No. NL2-0329401, Color Maroon, then displayed in the Norkis showroom. The price of P7,500.00
was payable by means of a Letter of Guaranty from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), Kabankalan
Branch, which Norkis' Branch Manager Labajo agreed to accept. Hence, credit was extended to Nepales for the price of
the motorcycle payable by DBP upon release of his motorcycle loan. As security for the loan, Nepales would execute a
chattel mortgage on the motorcycle in favor of DBP. Branch Manager Labajo issued Norkis Sales Invoice No. 0120
(Exh.1) showing that the contract of sale of the motorcycle had been perfected. Nepales signed the sales invoice to
signify his conformity with the terms of the sale. In the meantime, however, the motorcycle remained in Norkis'
possession.
On November 6, 1979, the motorcycle was registered in the Land Transportation Commission in the name of Alberto
Nepales. A registration certificate (Exh. 2) in his name was issued by the Land Transportation Commission on
November 6, 1979 (Exh. 2-b). The registration fees were paid by him, evidenced by an official receipt, Exhibit 3.
On January 22, 1980, the motorcycle was delivered to a certain Julian Nepales who was allegedly the agent of Alberto
Nepales but the latter denies it (p. 15, t.s.n., August 2, 1984). The record shows that Alberto and Julian Nepales
presented the unit to DBP's Appraiser-Investigator Ernesto Arriesta at the DBP offices in Kabankalan, Negros
Occidental Branch (p. 12, Rollo). The motorcycle met an accident on February 3, 1980 at Binalbagan, Negros
Occidental. An investigation conducted by the DBP revealed that the unit was being driven by a certain Zacarias Payba
at the time of the accident (p. 33, Rollo). The unit was a total wreck (p. 36, t.s.n., August 2,1984; p. 13, Rollo), was
returned, and stored inside Norkis' warehouse.
On March 20, 1980, DBP released the proceeds of private respondent's motorcycle loan to Norkis in the total sum of
P7,500. As the price of the motorcycle later increased to P7,828 in March, 1980, Nepales paid the difference of P328
(p. 13, Rollo) and demanded the delivery of the motorcycle. When Norkis could not deliver, he filed an action for
specific performance with damages against Norkis in the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, Sixth
(6th) Judicial Region, Branch LVI, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 1272. He alleged that Norkis failed to deliver
the motorcycle which he purchased, thereby causing him damages.
Norkis answered that the motorcycle had already been delivered to private respondent before the accident, hence, the
risk of loss or damage had to be borne by him as owner of the unit.
After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered a decision dated August 27, 1985 ruling in favor of private
respondent (p. 28, Rollo.) thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants
are ordered to pay solidarity to the plaintiff the present value of the motorcycle which was totally
destroyed, plus interest equivalent to what the Kabankalan Sub-Branch of the Development Bank of
the Philippines will have to charge the plaintiff on fits account, plus P50.00 per day from February 3,
1980 until full payment of the said present value of the motorcycle, plus P1,000.00 as exemplary
damages, and costs of the litigation. In lieu of paying the present value of the motorcycle, the
defendants can deliver to the plaintiff a brand-new motorcycle of the same brand, kind, and quality as
the one which was totally destroyed in their possession last February 3, 1980. (pp. 28-29,Rollo.)
On appeal, the Court of appeals affirmed the appealed judgment on August 21, 1989, but deleted the award of
damages "in the amount of Fifty (P50.00) Pesos a day from February 3, 1980 until payment of the present value of the
damaged vehicle" (p35, Rollo). The Court of Appeals denied Norkis' motion for reconsideration. Hence, this Petition for
Review.
The principal issue in this case is who should bear the loss of the motorcycle. The answer to this question would
depend on whether there had already been a transfer of ownership of the motorcycle to private respondent at the time
it was destroyed.
Norkis' theory is that:
. . . After the contract of sale has been perfected (Art. 1475) and even before delivery, that is, even
before the ownership is transferred to the vendee, the risk of loss is shifted from the vendor to the
vendee. Under Art. 1262, the obligation of the vendor to deliver a determinate thing becomes
extinguished if the thing is lost by fortuitous event (Art. 1174), that is, without the fault or fraud of the
vendor and before he has incurred in delay (Art. 11 65, par. 3). If the thing sold is generic, the loss or
destruction does not extinguish the obligation (Art. 1263). A thing is determinate when it is particularly
designated or physically segregated from all others of the same class (Art. 1460). Thus, the vendor
becomes released from his obligation to deliver the determinate thing sold while the vendee's
obligation to pay the price subsists. If the vendee had paid the price in advance the vendor may retain
the same. The legal effect, therefore, is that the vendee assumes the risk of loss by fortuitous event
(Art. 1262) after the perfection of the contract to the time of delivery. (Civil Code of the Philippines,
Ambrosio Padilla, Vol. 5,1987 Ed., p. 87.)
Norkis concedes that there was no "actual" delivery of the vehicle. However, it insists that there was constructive
delivery of the unit upon: (1) the issuance of the Sales Invoice No. 0120 (Exh. 1) in the name of the private respondent
and the affixing of his signature thereon; (2) the registration of the vehicle on November 6, 1979 with the Land
Transportation Commission in private respondent's name (Exh. 2); and (3) the issuance of official receipt (Exh. 3) for
payment of registration fees (p. 33, Rollo).
That argument is not well taken. As pointed out by the private respondent, the issuance of a sales invoice does not
prove transfer of ownership of the thing sold to the buyer. An invoice is nothing more than a detailed statement of the
nature, quantity and cost of the thing sold and has been considered not a bill of sale (Am. Jur. 2nd Ed., Vol. 67, p. 378).
In all forms of delivery, it is necessary that the act of delivery whether constructive or actual, be coupled with the
intention of delivering the thing. The act, without the intention, is insufficient (De Leon, Comments and Cases on Sales,
1978 Ed., citing Manresa, p. 94).
When the motorcycle was registered by Norkis in the name of private respondent, Norkis did not intend yet to transfer
the title or ownership to Nepales, but only to facilitate the execution of a chattel mortgage in favor of the DBP for the
release of the buyer's motorcycle loan. The Letter of Guarantee (Exh. 5) issued by the DBP, reveals that the execution
in its favor of a chattel mortgage over the purchased vehicle is a pre-requisite for the approval of the buyer's loan. If
Norkis would not accede to that arrangement, DBP would not approve private respondent's loan application and,
consequently, there would be no sale.
In other words, the critical factor in the different modes of effecting delivery, which gives legal effect to the act, is the
actual intention of the vendor to deliver, and its acceptance by the vendee. Without that intention, there is no tradition
(Abuan vs. Garcia, 14 SCRA 759).
In the case of Addison vs. Felix and Tioco (38 Phil. 404, 408), this Court held:
The Code imposes upon the vendor the obligation to deliver the thing sold. The thing is considered to
be delivered when it is "placed in the hands and possession of the vendee." (Civil Code, Art. 1462). It is
true that the same article declares that the execution of a public instrument is equivalent to the
delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, but, in order that this symbolic delivery may
produce the effect of tradition, it is necessary that the vendor shall have had such control over the
thing sold that, at the moment of the sale, its material delivery could have been made. It is not enough
to confer upon the purchaser the ownership and the right of possession. The thing sold must be placed
in his control. When there is no impediment whatever to prevent the thing sold passing into the
tenancy of the purchaser by the sole will of the vendor, symbolic delivery through the execution of a
public instrument is sufficient. But if notwithstanding the execution of the instrument, the purchaser
cannot have the enjoyment and material tenancy of the thing and make use of it himself or through
another in his name, because such tenancy and enjoyment are opposed by the interposition of another
will, then fiction yields to reality-the delivery has riot been effects .(Emphasis supplied.)
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the purpose of the execution of the sales invoice dated September 20, 1979
(Exh. B) and the registration of the vehicle in the name of plaintiff-appellee (private respondent) with the Land
Registration Commission (Exhibit C) was not to transfer to Nepales the ownership and dominion over the motorcycle,
but only to comply with the requirements of the Development Bank of the Philippines for processing private
respondent's motorcycle loan. On March 20, 1980, before private respondent's loan was released and before he even
paid Norkis, the motorcycle had already figured in an accident while driven by one Zacarias Payba. Payba was not
shown by Norkis to be a representative or relative of private respondent. The latter's supposed relative, who allegedly
took possession of the vehicle from Norkis did not explain how Payba got hold of the vehicle on February 3, 1980.
Norkis' claim that Julian Nepales was acting as Alberto's agent when he allegedly took delivery of the motorcycle (p.
20, Appellants' Brief), is controverted by the latter. Alberto denied having authorized Julian Nepales to get the
motorcycle from Norkis Distributors or to enter into any transaction with Norkis relative to said motorcycle. (p. 5, t.s.n.,
February 6, 1985). This circumstances more than amply rebut the disputable presumption of delivery upon which
Norkis anchors its defense to Nepales' action (pp. 33-34, Rollo).
Article 1496 of the Civil Code which provides that "in the absence of an express assumption of risk by the buyer, the
things sold remain at seller's risk until the ownership thereof is transferred to the buyer," is applicable to this case, for
there was neither an actual nor constructive delivery of the thing sold, hence, the risk of loss should be borne by the
seller, Norkis, which was still the owner and possessor of the motorcycle when it was wrecked. This is in accordance
with the well-known doctrine of res perit domino.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 09149, we deny the
petition for review and hereby affirm the appealed decision, with costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
TOTAL P14,000,000.00
According to the terms of the management contract as modified, appellant is entitled to 10% of the P14,000,000.00
cash dividends that had been distributed, as stated in the above-mentioned report, or the sum of P1,400,000.00.
With regard to the second category, the stock dividends declared by Lepanto during the period of extension of the
contract are: On November 28, 1949, the stock dividend declared was 50% of the outstanding authorized capital of
P2,000,000.00 of the company, or stock dividends worth P1,000,000.00; and on August 22, 1950, the stock dividends
declared was 66-2/3% of the standing authorized capital of P3,000,000.00 of the company, or stock dividends worth
P2,000,000.00. 40
Appellant's claim that it should be given 10% of the cash value of said stock dividends with interest thereon at 6%
from February 6, 1958 cannot be granted for that would not be in accordance with the management contract which
entitles Nielson to 10% of any dividends declared paid, when and as paid. Nielson, therefore, is entitled to 10% of the
stock dividends and to the fruits that may have accrued to said stock dividends pursuant to Article 1164 of the Civil
Code. Hence to Nielson is due shares of stock worth P100,000.00, as per stock dividends declared on November 28,
1949 and all the fruits accruing to said shares after said date; and also shares of stock worth P200,000.00 as per stock
dividends declared on August 20, 1950 and all fruits accruing thereto after said date.
Anent the third category, the depletion reserve appearing in the statement of income and surplus submitted by
Lepanto corresponding to the years covered by the period of extension of the contract, may be itemized as follows:
In 1948, as per Exh. F, p. 36 and Exh. Q, p. 5, the depletion reserve set up was P11,602.80.
In 1949, as per Exh. G, p. 49 and Exh. Q, p. 5, the depletion reserve set up was P33,556.07.
In 1950, as per Exh. H, p. 37, Exh. Q, p. 6 and Exh. I, p. 37, the depletion reserve set up was P84,963.30.
In 1951, as per Exh. I, p. 45, Exh. Q, p. 6, and Exh. J, p. 45, the depletion reserve set up was P129,089.88.
In 1952, as per Exh. J, p. 45, Exh. Q, p. 6 and Exh. K p. 41, the depletion reserve was P147,141.54.
In 1953, as per Exh. K, p. 41, and Exh. Q, p. 6, the depletion reserve set up as P277,493.25.
Regarding the depletion reserve set up in 1948 it should be noted that the amount given was for the whole year.
Inasmuch as the contract was extended only for the last half of the year 1948, said amount of P11,602.80 should be
divided by two, and so Nielson is only entitled to 10% of the half amounting to P5,801.40.
Likewise, the amount of depletion reserve for the year 1953 was for the whole year and since the contract was
extended only until the first half of the year, said amount of P277,493.25 should be divided by two, and so Nielson is
only entitled to 10% of the half amounting to P138,746.62. Summing up the entire depletion reserves, from the middle
of 1948 to the middle of 1953, we would have a total of P539,298.81, of which Nielson is entitled to 10%, or to the sum
of P53,928.88.
Finally, with regard to the fourth category, there is no figure in the record representing the value of the fixed assets as
of the beginning of the period of extension on June 27, 1948. It is possible, however, to arrive at the amount needed
by adding to the value of the fixed assets as of December 31, 1947 one-half of the amount spent for capital account in
the year 1948. As of December 31, 1947, the value of the fixed assets was P1,061,878.88 41and as of December 31,
1948, the value of the fixed assets was P3,270,408.07. 42 Hence, the increase in the value of the fixed assets for the
year 1948 was P2,208,529.19, one-half of which is P1,104,264.59, which amount represents the expenses for capital
account for the first half of the year 1948. If to this amount we add the fixed assets as of December 31, 1947
amounting to P1,061,878.88, we would have a total of P2,166,143.47 which represents the fixed assets at the
beginning of the second half of the year 1948.
There is also no figure representing the value of the fixed assets when the contract, as extended, ended on June 26,
1953; but this may be computed by getting one-half of the expenses for capital account made in 1953 and adding the
same to the value of the fixed assets as of December 31, 1953 is P9,755,840.41 43 which the value of the fixed assets
as of December 31, 1952 is P8,463,741.82, the difference being P1,292,098.69. One-half of this amount is
P646,049.34 which would represent the expenses for capital account up to June, 1953. This amount added to the value
of the fixed assets as of December 31, 1952 would give a total of P9,109,791.16 which would be the value of fixed
assets at the end of June, 1953.
The increase, therefore, of the value of the fixed assets of Lepanto from June, 1948 to June, 1953 is P6,943,647.69,
which amount represents the difference between the value of the fixed assets of Lepanto in the year 1948 and in the
year 1953, as stated above. On this amount Nielson is entitled to a share of 10% or to the amount of P694,364.76.
Considering that most of the claims of appellant have been entertained, as pointed out in this decision, We believe
that appellant is entitled to be awarded attorney's fees, especially when, according to the undisputed testimony of Mr.
Mark Nestle, Nielson obliged himself to pay attorney's fees in connection with the institution of the present case. In
this respect, We believe, considering the intricate nature of the case, an award of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos for
attorney's fees would be reasonable.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, We hereby reverse the decision of the court a quo and enter in lieu
thereof another, ordering the appellee Lepanto to pay appellant Nielson the different amounts as specified
hereinbelow:
(1) 10% share of cash dividends of December, 1941 in the amount of P17,500.00, with legal interest thereon from the
date of the filing of the complaint;
(2) management fee for January, 1942 in the amount of P2,500.00, with legal interest thereon from the date of the
filing of the complaint;
(3) management fees for the sixty-month period of extension of the management contract, amounting to P150,000.00,
with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint;
(4) 10% share in the cash dividends during the period of extension of the management contract, amounting to
P1,400,000.00, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint;
(5) 10% of the depletion reserve set up during the period of extension, amounting to P53,928.88, with legal interest
thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint;
(6) 10% of the expenses for capital account during the period of extension, amounting to P694,364.76, with legal
interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint;
(7) to issue and deliver to Nielson and Co., Inc. shares of stock of Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. at par value
equivalent to the total of Nielson's l0% share in the stock dividends declared on November 28, 1949 and August 22,
1950, together with all cash and stock dividends, if any, as may have been declared and issued subsequent to
November 28, 1949 and August 22, 1950, as fruits that accrued to said shares;
If sufficient shares of stock of Lepanto's are not available to satisfy this judgment, defendant-appellee shall pay
plaintiff-appellant an amount in cash equivalent to the market value of said shares at the time of default (12 C.J.S., p.
130), that is, all shares of the stock that should have been delivered to Nielson before the filing of the complaint must
be paid at their market value as of the date of the filing of the complaint; and all shares, if any, that should have been
delivered after the filing of the complaint at the market value of the shares at the time Lepanto disposed of all its
available shares, for it is only then that Lepanto placed itself in condition of not being able to perform its obligation
(Article 1160, Civil Code);
(8) the sum of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
(9) the costs. It is so ordered.
ARTICLE 1165
MALCOLM, J.:
The subject of Specific Performance, with reference to its common law and civil law status, it to be considered
on this appeal. The particular action is for the specific performance of a contract for the sale and purchase of real
estate.
The plaintiff is the owner of a certain parcel of realty consisting of 2,695.24 square meters, situated in the city of
Manila, and fully described in the complaint. About the month of December, 1916, the defendants made a proposition
to the plaintiff for the purchase of this property. After negotiating for some time, it was agreed that the defendants
would pay plaintiff the sum of P10,000 for the land, P2,000 of which was to be handed over upon the signing of the
deed, and the balance of P8,000, paid in monthly installments of P150. The property was to be mortgaged to the
plaintiff to secure the payment of this balance of P8,000. The plaintiff proceeded to have survey made of the land and
to prepare the deed and mortgage. Expenses to the amount of P83.93 were incurred for these purposes. The deed was
ready about December 28, 1916, when the defendants were notified to appear and sign the same. They failed to do
this, and instead, the defendant, Patrocinio R. Afzelius, wrote a letter to plaintiff, as follows:
MARTINEZ, J.:
On July 18, 1990, petitioner entrusted his Nissan pick-up car 1988 model 1 to private respondent — which is engaged
in the sale, distribution and repair of motor vehicles — for the following job repair services and supply of parts:
— Bleed injection pump and all nozzles;
— Adjust valve tappet;
— Change oil and filter;
— Open up and service four wheel brakes, clean and adjust;
— Lubricate accelerator linkages;
— Replace aircon belt; and
2
— Replace battery
Private respondent undertook to return the vehicle on July 21, 1990 fully serviced and supplied in accordance with the
job contract. After petitioner paid in full the repair bill in the amount of P1,397.00 3 private respondent issued to him a
gate pass for the release of the vehicle on said date. But came July 21, 1990, the latter could not release the vehicle as
its battery was weak and was not yet replaced. Left with no option, petitioner himself bought a new battery nearby
and delivered it to private respondent for installation on the same day. However, the battery was not installed and the
delivery of the car was rescheduled to July 24, 1990 or three (3) days later. When petitioner sought to reclaim his car
in the afternoon of July 24, 1990, he was told that it was carnapped earlier that morning while being road-tested by
private respondent's employee along Pedro Gil and Perez Streets in Paco, Manila. Private respondent said that the
incident was reported to the police.
Having failed to recover his car and its accessories or the value thereof, petitioner filed a suit for damages against
private respondent anchoring his claim on the latter's alleged negligence. For its part, private respondent contended
that it has no liability because the car was lost as result of a fortuitous event — the carnapping. During pre-trial, the
parties agreed that:
(T)he cost of the Nissan Pick-up four (4) door when the plaintiff purchased it from the defendent is
P332,500.00 excluding accessories which were installed in the vehicle by the plaintiff consisting of four
(4) brand new tires, magwheels, stereo speaker, amplifier which amount all to P20,000.00. It is agreed
that the vehicle was lost on July 24, 1990 "approximately two (2) years and five (5) months from the
date of the purchase." It was agreed that the plaintiff paid the defendant the cost of service and
repairs as early as July 21, 1990 in the amount of P1,397.00 which amount was received and duly
receipted by the defendant company. It was also agreed that the present value of a brand new vehicle
of the same type at this time is P425,000.00 without accessories. 4
They likewise agreed that the sole issue for trial was who between the parties shall bear the loss of the vehicle which
necessitates the resolution of whether private respondent was indeed negligent. 5 After trial, the court a quofound
private respondent guilty of delay in the performance of its obligation and held it liable to petitioner for the value of
the lost vehicle and its accessories plus interest and attorney's fees. 6 On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed
the ruling of the lower court and ordered the dismissal of petitioner's damage suit. 7 The CA ruled that: (1) the trial
court was limited to resolving the issue of negligence as agreed during pre-trial; hence it cannot pass on the issue of
delay; and (2) the vehicle was lost due to a fortuitous event.
In a petition for review to this Court, the principal query raised is whether a repair shop can be held liable for the loss
of a customer's vehicle while the same is in its custody for repair or other job services?
The Court resolves the query in favor of the customer. First, on the technical aspect involved. Contrary to the CA' s
pronouncement, the rule that the determination of issues at a pre-trial conference bars the consideration of other
issues on appeal, except those that may involve privilege or impeaching matter, 8 is inapplicable to this case. The
question of delay, though not specifically mentioned as an issue at the pre-trial may be tackled by the court
considering that it is necessarily intertwined and intimately connected with the principal issue agreed upon by the
parties, i.e., who will bear the loss and whether there was negligence. Petitioner's imputation of negligence to private
respondent is premised on delay which is the very basis of the former's complaint. Thus, it was unavoidable for the
court to resolve the case, particularly the question of negligence without considering whether private respondent was
guilty of delay in the performance of its obligation.
On the merits. It is a not defense for a repair shop of motor vehicles to escape liability simply because the damage or
loss of a thing lawfully placed in its possession was due to carnapping. Carnapping per se cannot be considered as a
fortuitous event. The fact that a thing was unlawfully and forcefully taken from another's rightful possession, as in
cases of carnapping, does not automatically give rise to a fortuitous event. To be considered as such, carnapping
entails more than the mere forceful taking of another's property. It must be proved and established that the event was
an act of God or was done solely by third parties and that neither the claimant nor the person alleged to be negligent
has any participation. 9 In accordance with the Rules of evidence, the burden of proving that the loss was due to a
fortuitous event rests on him who invokes it 10 — which in this case is the private respondent. However, other than the
police report of the alleged carnapping incident, no other evidence was presented by private respondent to the effect
that the incident was not due to its fault. A police report of an alleged crime, to which only private respondent is privy,
does not suffice to establish the carnapping. Neither does it prove that there was no fault on the part of private
respondent notwithstanding the parties' agreement at the pre-trial that the car was carnapped. Carnapping does not
foreclose the pissibility of fault or negligence on the part of private respondent.
Even assuming arguendo that carnapping was duly established as a fortuitous event, still private respondent cannot
escape liability. Article 1165 11 of the New Civil Code makes an obligor who is guilty of delay responsible even for a
fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery. In this case, private respondent was already in delay as it was
supposed to deliver petitioner's car three (3) days before it was lost. Petitioner's agreement to the rescheduled
delivery does not defeat his claim as private respondent had already breached its obligation. Moreover, such accession
cannot be construed as waiver of petitioner's right to hold private respondent liable because the car was unusable and
thus, petitioner had no option but to leave it.
Assuming further that there was no delay, still working against private respondent is the legal presumption under
Article 1265 that its possession of the thing at the time it was lost was due to its fault. 12 This presumption is
reasonable since he who has the custody and care of the thing can easily explain the circumstances of the loss. The
vehicle owner has no duty to show that the repair shop was at fault. All that petitioner needs to prove, as claimant, is
the simple fact that private respondent was in possession of the vehicle at the time it was lost. In this case, private
respondent's possession at the time of the loss is undisputed. Consequently, the burden shifts to the possessor who
needs to present controverting evidence sufficient enough to overcome that presumption. Moreover, the exempting
circumstances — earthquake, flood, storm or other natural calamity — when the presumption of fault is not
applicable 13 do not concur in this case. Accordingly, having failed to rebut the presumption and since the case does
not fall under the exceptions, private respondent is answerable for the loss.
It must likewise be emphasized that pursuant to Articles 1174 and 1262 of the New Civil Code, liability attaches even if
the loss was due to a fortuitous event if "the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk". 14Carnapping is
a normal business risk for those engaged in the repair of motor vehicles. For just as the owner is exposed to that risk
so is the repair shop since the car was entrusted to it. That is why, repair shops are required to first register with the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) 15 and to secure an insurance policy for the "shop covering the property
entrusted by its customer for repair, service or maintenance" as a pre-requisite for such
registration/accreditation. 16 Violation of this statutory duty constitutes negligence per se. 17 Having taken custody of
the vehicle private respondent is obliged not only to repair the vehicle but must also provide the customer with some
form of security for his property over which he loses immediate control. An owner who cannot exercise the seven
(7) juses or attributes of ownership — the right to possess, to use and enjoy, to abuse or consume, to accessories, to
dispose or alienate, to recover or vindicate and to the fruits — 18 is a crippled owner. Failure of the repair shop to
provide security to a motor vehicle owner would leave the latter at the mercy of the former. Moreover, on the
assumption that private respondent's repair business is duly registered, it presupposes that its shop is covered by
insurance from which it may recover the loss. If private respondent can recover from its insurer, then it would be
unjustly enriched if it will not compensate petitioner to whom no fault can be attributed. Otherwise, if the shop is not
registered, then the presumption of negligence applies.
One last thing. With respect to the value of the lost vehicle and its accessories for which the repair shop is liable, it
should be based on the fair market value that the property would command at the time it was entrusted to it or such
other value as agreed upon by the parties subsequent to the loss. Such recoverable value is fair and reasonable
considering that the value of the vehicle depreciates. This value may be recovered without prejudice to such other
damages that a claimant is entitled under applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the decision of
the court a quo is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Melo, J., is on leave.
Footnotes
1 Registered in the name of petitioner with Plate No. PJK-666.
2 Rollo, p. 81.
3 Covered by CBC Receipt No. 691148; Rollo, p. 10.
4 Rollo, pp. 28-29.
5 Rollo, p. 29.
6 The dispositive portion of the trial court's decision reads:
"Accordingly, this Court finds the defendant liable to the plaintiff for the value of the vehicle in
question. Defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff the value of the vehicle in the amount of Three Hundred
Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred Pesos representing the acquisition cost of the vehicle plus the
amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos representing the cost of the four brand new tires, magwheels,
pioneer stereo speakers, air-conditioner, which were installed by the plaintiff in his vehicle after the
plaintiff bought the vehicle from the defendant. While it is true that plaintiff purchased from the
defendant the vehicle about two years and five months before the same was lost, and therefore the
vehicle had already depreciated from its original value at the time it was lost, it is also true as agreed
upon by the parties in the pre-trial, that the present value of brand new vehicle of the same type has
at this time increased to Four Hundred Thousand Pesos without accessories, so whatever is awarded
by this Court to the plaintiff in this decision would not even be sufficient to purcahse a brand new
vehicle at the present prices. This Court believes that the amount awarded to the plaintiff above-stated
represents a fair compromise, considering the depreciation of the vehicle from the time it was
purchased and to the time it was lost and which is off-seted by the increase cost of a brand new
vehicle at the present time. Defendant is likewise ordered to pay plaintiff legal interest in the amount
above-stated from the date of the finality of this decision until full payment of the obligation. Further,
defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff Ten Thousand Pesos by attorney's fees." (sicwas not included so
as no to clutter the narration); Rollo, pp. 78, 94.
7 CA Decision promulgated August 31, 1995 penned by Justice Austria-Martinez with Justices Lantin
and Salas, concurring; Rollo, pp. 26-32.
8 Caltex v. CA, 212 SCRA 448; Bergado v. CA, 173 SCRA 497 citing Permanent Concrete Products, Inc.
v. Teodoro, 26 SCRA 332. In the Bergado case (p. 501), the court reiterated the rule that the specific
exceptions to the general rule to be observed in pre-trials emphasized in Gicano v. Gegato, 157 SCRA
140 is "that trial court have authority and discretion to dismiss an action on the ground of prescription
when the parties' pleadings or other facts on record show it to be indeed time-barred; and it may do so
on the basis of a motion to dismiss, or an answer which sets up such ground as an affirmative defense;
or even if the ground is alleged after judgment on the merits, as in a motion for reconsideration; or
even if the defense has not been asserted at all, as where no statement thereof is found in the
pleadings, or where a defendant had been declared in default. What is essential only, to repeat, is that
the facts demonstrating the lapse of the prescriptive period, be otherwise sufficiently and satisfactorily
apparent on the record; either in the averments of the plaintiff's, or otherwise established by the
evidence."
9 Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657; General Enterprises, Inc., v. Llianga Bay Logging Co., Inc., 120 Phil.
702; Tugade v. CA, 85 SCRA 226.
10 Sec. 1, Rule 131, 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence provides: "Burden of proof. — Burden of proof
is the duty of a party to present evidence on he facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law." (Emphasis supplied).
11 Art. 1165. xxx xxx xxx
If the obligor delays, or has promised to deliver the same thing to two or more persons who do not
have the same interest, he shall be responsible for fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery.
(Emphasis supplied).
12 Art. 1265. Whenever the thing is lost in the possession of the debtor, it shall be presumed that the
loss was due to his fault, unless there is proof to the contrary, and without prejudice to the provisions
of Article 1165. This presumption does not apply in case of earthquake, flood, storm, or other natural
calamity. (Emphasis supplie).
13 New Civil Code, Article 1265.
14 Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by
stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
Art. 1262. xxx xxx xxx
When by law or stipulation, the obligor is liable even for fortuitous event, the loss of the thing does not
extinguish the obligation, and he shall be responsible for damages. The same rule applies when the
nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk. (Emphasis supplied).
15 P.D. 1572 (EMPOWERING THE SECRETARY OF TRADE TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE OPERATION
OF SERVICE AND REPAIR ENTERPRISES FOR MOTOR VEHICLES, HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND ENGINES AND
ENGINEERING WORKS; ELECTRONICS, ELECTRICAL, AIRCONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION; OFFICE
EQUIPMENT; MEDICAL AND DENTAL EQUIPMENT; AND OTHER CONSUMER MECHANICAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT; APPLIANCES OR DEVICES, INCLUDING THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL
EMPLOYED THEREIN).
Section 1. Accreditation. All enterprises and technical personnel employed therein engaged in the
service and repair of motor vehicles, heavy equipment, engines and engineering works; electronics,
electrical, air-conditioning and refrigeration; office equipment; medical and dental equipment; and
other consumer industrial electro-mechanical, chemical and gaseous equipment, machinery,
appliances or devices should apply for accreditation with the Department of Trade within ninety (90)
days from the promulgation of this decree and should apply for renewal on or before the 31st day of
January of every year thereafter. No such service or repair enterprices and technical personnel shall be
licensed or permitted to operate in the Philippines for the first time without being accredited by the
Department of Trade.
16 DTI Ministry Order No. 32, Rule III
Sec. 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCREDITATION:
(1) Enterprise applying for original accreditation shall submit the following:
1.1 List of machineries/equipment/tools in useful condition;
1.2 List of certified engineers/accredited technicians mechanics with
their personal data;
1.3 Copy of Insurance Policy of the shop covering the property
entrusted by its customer for repair, service or maintenance together
with a copy of the official receipt covering the full payment of
premium;
1.4 Copy of Bond referred to under Section 7, Rule III of this Rules and
Regulations;
1.5 Written service warranty in the form prescribed by the Bureau;
1.6 Certification issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission
and Articles of Incorporation or Partnership in case of corporation or
partnership;
1.7 Such other additional documents which the director may require
from time to time.
Sec. 8. INSURANCE POLICY
The insurance policy for the following risks like theft, pilferage, fire, flood and loss should cover
exclusively the machines, motor vehicles, heavy equipment engines electronics, electrical,
airconditioners, refrigerators, office machines, and data processing equipment, medical and dental
equipment, other consumer mechanical and industrial equipment stored for repair and/or in the
premises of the applicant." (Emphasis supplied).
17 Cipriano v. CA, 263 SCRA 711 citing F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc. v. CA, 164 SCRA 731 and Teague v.
Fernandez, 51 SCRA 181.
18 Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, 1989 ed., vol. II, p. 70; De Leon, Comments and
Cases on Property, 1983 ed. p. 77; See also Article 428 of the New Civil Code which states that "The
owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by
law.
"The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover
it."
We shall first dispose of the fourth assigned error respecting alleged irregularities in the raffle of this case in
the Court of Appeals. Suffice it to say that in our Resolution, 12 dated December 9, 1992, we already took note
of this matter and set out the proper applicable procedure to be the following:
On September 20, 1992, counsel for petitioner Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. wrote a letter-
complaint to this Court alleging certain irregularities and infractions committed by certain lawyers, and
Justices of the Court of Appeals and of this Court in connection with case CA-G.R. CV No. 32918 (now
G.R. No. 106063). This partakes of the nature of an administrative complaint for misconduct against
members of the judiciary. While the letter-complaint arose as an incident in case CA-G.R. CV No. 32918
(now G.R. No. 106063), the disposition thereof should be separate and independent from Case G.R. No.
106063. However, for purposes of receiving the requisite pleadings necessary in disposing of the
administrative complaint, this Division shall continue to have control of the case. Upon completion
thereof, the same shall be referred to the Court En Bancfor proper disposition. 13
This court having ruled the procedural irregularities raised in the fourth assigned error of Carmelo and
Equatorial, to be an independent and separate subject for an administrative complaint based on misconduct
by the lawyers and justices implicated therein, it is the correct, prudent and consistent course of action not to
pre-empt the administrative proceedings to be undertaken respecting the said irregularities. Certainly, a
discussion thereupon by us in this case would entail a finding on the merits as to the real nature of the
questioned procedures and the true intentions and motives of the players therein.
In essence, our task is two-fold: (1) to define the true nature, scope and efficacy of paragraph 8 stipulated in
the two contracts of lease between Carmelo and Mayfair in the face of conflicting findings by the trial court
and the Court of Appeals; and (2) to determine the rights and obligations of Carmelo and Mayfair, as well as
Equatorial, in the aftermath of the sale by Carmelo of the entire Claro M. Recto property to Equatorial.
Both contracts of lease in question provide the identically worded paragraph 8, which reads:
That if the LESSOR should desire to sell the leased premises, the LESSEE shall be given 30-days
exclusive option to purchase the same.
In the event, however, that the leased premises is sold to someone other than the LESSEE, the LESSOR
is bound and obligated, as it hereby binds and obligates itself, to stipulate in the Deed of Sale thereof
that the purchaser shall recognize this lease and be bound by all the terms and conditions thereof. 14
We agree with the respondent Court of Appeals that the aforecited contractual stipulation provides for a right
of first refusal in favor of Mayfair. It is not an option clause or an option contract. It is a contract of a right of
first refusal.
As early as 1916, in the case of Beaumont vs. Prieto, 15 unequivocal was our characterization of an option
contract as one necessarily involving the choice granted to another for a distinct and separate consideration
as to whether or not to purchase a determinate thing at a predetermined fixed price.
It is unquestionable that, by means of the document Exhibit E, to wit, the letter of December 4, 1911,
quoted at the beginning of this decision, the defendant Valdes granted to the plaintiff Borck the right
to purchase the Nagtajan Hacienda belonging to Benito Legarda, during the period of three months
and for its assessed valuation, a grant which necessarily implied the offer or obligation on the part of
the defendant Valdes to sell to Borck the said hacienda during the period and for the price mentioned .
. . There was, therefore, a meeting of minds on the part of the one and the other, with regard to the
stipulations made in the said document. But it is not shown that there was any cause or consideration
for that agreement, and this omission is a bar which precludes our holding that the stipulations
contained in Exhibit E is a contract of option, for, . . . there can be no contract without the requisite,
among others, of the cause for the obligation to be established.
In his Law Dictionary, edition of 1897, Bouvier defines an option as a contract, in the following
language:
A contract by virtue of which A, in consideration of the payment of a certain sum to B,
acquires the privilege of buying from, or selling to B, certain securities or properties
within a limited time at a specified price. (Story vs. Salamon, 71 N.Y., 420.)
From vol. 6, page 5001, of the work "Words and Phrases," citing the case of Ide vs. Leiser (24 Pac.,
695; 10 Mont., 5; 24 Am. St. Rep., 17) the following quotation has been taken:
An agreement in writing to give a person the option to purchase lands within a given
timeat a named price is neither a sale nor an agreement to sell. It is simply a contract
by which the owner of property agrees with another person that he shall have the right
to buy his property at a fixed price within a certain time. He does not sell his land; he
does not then agree to sell it; but he does sell something; that is, the right or privilege
to buy at the election or option of the other party. The second party gets in praesenti,
not lands, nor an agreement that he shall have lands, but he does get something of
value; that is, the right to call for and receive lands if he elects. The owner parts with
his right to sell his lands, except to the second party, for a limited period. The second
party receives this right, or, rather, from his point of view, he receives the right to elect
to buy.
But the two definitions above cited refer to the contract of option, or, what amounts to the same thing,
to the case where there was cause or consideration for the obligation, the subject of the agreement
made by the parties; while in the case at bar there was no such cause or consideration. 16 (Emphasis
ours.)
The rule so early established in this jurisdiction is that the deed of option or the option clause in a contract, in
order to be valid and enforceable, must, among other things, indicate the definite price at which the person
granting the option, is willing to sell.
Notably, in one case we held that the lessee loses his right to buy the leased property for a named price per square
meter upon failure to make the purchase within the time specified; 17 in one other case we freed the landowner from
her promise to sell her land if the prospective buyer could raise P4,500.00 in three weeks because such option was not
supported by a distinct consideration; 18 in the same vein in yet one other case, we also invalidated an instrument
entitled, "Option to Purchase" a parcel of land for the sum of P1,510.00 because of lack of consideration; 19 and as an
exception to the doctrine enumerated in the two preceding cases, in another case, we ruled that the option to buy the
leased premises for P12,000.00 as stipulated in the lease contract, is not without consideration for in reciprocal
contracts, like lease, the obligation or promise of each party is the consideration for that of the other. 20 In all these
cases, the selling price of the object thereof is always predetermined and specified in the option clause in the contract
or in the separate deed of option. We elucidated, thus, in the very recent case of Ang Yu Asuncion vs. Court of
Appeals 21 that:
. . . In sales, particularly, to which the topic for discussion about the case at bench belongs, the
contract is perfected when a person, called the seller, obligates himself, for a price certain, to deliver
and to transfer ownership of a thing or right to another, called the buyer, over which the latter agrees.
Article 1458 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to
transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay
therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.
A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.
When the sale is not absolute but conditional, such as in a "Contract to Sell" where invariably the
ownership of the thing sold in retained until the fulfillment of a positive suspensive condition (normally,
the full payment of the purchase price), the breach of the condition will prevent the obligation to
convey title from acquiring an obligatory force. . . .
An unconditional mutual promise to buy and sell, as long as the object is made determinate and the
price is fixed, can be obligatory on the parties, and compliance therewith may accordingly be exacted.
An accepted unilateral promise which specifies the thing to be sold and the price to be paid, when
coupled with a valuable consideration distinct and separate from the price, is what may properly be
termed a perfected contract of option. This contract is legally binding, and in sales, it conforms with
the second paragraph of Article 1479 of the Civil Code, viz:
Art. 1479. . . .
An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain
is binding upon the promisor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct
from the price. (1451a).
Observe, however, that the option is not the contract of sale itself. The optionee has the right, but not
the obligation, to buy. Once the option is exercised timely, i.e., the offer is accepted before a breach of
the option, a bilateral promise to sell and to buy ensues and both parties are then reciprocally bound
to comply with their respective undertakings.
Let us elucidate a little. A negotiation is formally initiated by an offer. An imperfect promise
(policitacion) is merely an offer. Public advertisements or solicitations and the like are ordinarily
construed as mere invitations to make offers or only as proposals. These relations, until a contract is
perfected, are not considered binding commitments. Thus, at any time prior to the perfection of the
contract, either negotiating party may stop the negotiation. The offer, at this stage, may be withdrawn;
the withdrawal is effective immediately after its manifestation, such as by its mailing and not
necessarily when the offeree learns of the withdrawal (Laudico vs. Arias, 43 Phil. 270). Where a period
is given to the offeree within which to accept the offer, the following rules generally govern:
(1) If the period is not itself founded upon or supported by a consideration, the offeror is still free and
has the right to withdraw the offer before its acceptance, or if an acceptance has been made, before
the offeror's coming to know of such fact, by communicating that withdrawal to the offeree (see Art.
1324, Civil Code; see also Atkins, Kroll & Co. vs. Cua, 102 Phil. 948, holding that this rule is applicable
to a unilateral promise to sell under Art. 1479, modifying the previous decision in South Western Sugar
vs. Atlantic Gulf, 97 Phil. 249; see also Art. 1319, Civil Code; Rural Bank of Parañaque, Inc. vs.
Remolado, 135 SCRA 409; Sanchez vs. Rigos, 45 SCRA 368). The right to withdraw, however, must not
be exercised whimsically or arbitrarily; otherwise, it could give rise to a damage claim under Article 19
of the Civil Code which ordains that "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."
(2) If the period has a separate consideration, a contract of "option" deemed perfected, and it would
be a breach of that contract to withdraw the offer during the agreed period. The option, however, is an
independent contract by itself; and it is to be distinguished from the projected main agreement
(subject matter of the option) which is obviously yet to be concluded. If, in fact, the optioner-offeror
withdraws the offer before its acceptance (exercise of the option) by the optionee-offeree, the latter
may not sue for specific performance on the proposed contract ("object" of the option) since it has
failed to reach its own stage of perfection. The optioner-offeror, however, renders himself liable for
damages for breach of the opinion. . .
In the light of the foregoing disquisition and in view of the wording of the questioned provision in the two lease
contracts involved in the instant case, we so hold that no option to purchase in contemplation of the second
paragraph of Article 1479 of the Civil Code, has been granted to Mayfair under the said lease contracts.
Respondent Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the said paragraph 8 grants the right of first refusal to
Mayfair and is not an option contract. It also correctly reasoned that as such, the requirement of a separate
consideration for the option, has no applicability in the instant case.
There is nothing in the identical Paragraphs "8" of the June 1, 1967 and March 31, 1969 contracts which would
bring them into the ambit of the usual offer or option requiring an independent consideration.
An option is a contract granting a privilege to buy or sell within an agreed time and at a determined price. It is
a separate and distinct contract from that which the parties may enter into upon the consummation of the
option. It must be supported by consideration. 22 In the instant case, the right of first refusal is an integral part
of the contracts of lease. The consideration is built into the reciprocal obligations of the parties.
To rule that a contractual stipulation such as that found in paragraph 8 of the contracts is governed by Article
1324 on withdrawal of the offer or Article 1479 on promise to buy and sell would render in effectual or "inutile"
the provisions on right of first refusal so commonly inserted in leases of real estate nowadays. The Court of
Appeals is correct in stating that Paragraph 8 was incorporated into the contracts of lease for the benefit of
Mayfair which wanted to be assured that it shall be given the first crack or the first option to buy the property
at the price which Carmelo is willing to accept. It is not also correct to say that there is no consideration in an
agreement of right of first refusal. The stipulation is part and parcel of the entire contract of lease. The
consideration for the lease includes the consideration for the right of first refusal. Thus, Mayfair is in effect
stating that it consents to lease the premises and to pay the price agreed upon provided the lessor also
consents that, should it sell the leased property, then, Mayfair shall be given the right to match the offered
purchase price and to buy the property at that price. As stated in Vda. De Quirino vs.Palarca, 23 in reciprocal
contract, the obligation or promise of each party is the consideration for that of the other.
The respondent Court of Appeals was correct in ascertaining the true nature of the aforecited paragraph 8 to
be that of a contractual grant of the right of first refusal to Mayfair.
We shall now determine the consequential rights, obligations and liabilities of Carmelo, Mayfair and Equatorial.
The different facts and circumstances in this case call for an amplification of the precedent in Ang Yu Asuncion
vs. Court of Appeals. 24
First and foremost is that the petitioners acted in bad faith to render Paragraph 8 "inutile".
What Carmelo and Mayfair agreed to, by executing the two lease contracts, was that Mayfair will have the
right of first refusal in the event Carmelo sells the leased premises. It is undisputed that Carmelo did recognize
this right of Mayfair, for it informed the latter of its intention to sell the said property in 1974. There was an
exchange of letters evidencing the offer and counter-offers made by both parties. Carmelo, however, did not
pursue the exercise to its logical end. While it initially recognized Mayfair's right of first refusal, Carmelo
violated such right when without affording its negotiations with Mayfair the full process to ripen to at least an
interface of a definite offer and a possible corresponding acceptance within the "30-day exclusive option" time
granted Mayfair, Carmelo abandoned negotiations, kept a low profile for some time, and then sold, without
prior notice to Mayfair, the entire Claro M Recto property to Equatorial.
Since Equatorial is a buyer in bad faith, this finding renders the sale to it of the property in question rescissible.
We agree with respondent Appellate Court that the records bear out the fact that Equatorial was aware of the
lease contracts because its lawyers had, prior to the sale, studied the said contracts. As such, Equatorial
cannot tenably claim to be a purchaser in good faith, and, therefore, rescission lies.
. . . Contract of Sale was not voidable but rescissible. Under Article 1380 to 1381(3) of the Civil Code, a
contract otherwise valid may nonetheless be subsequently rescinded by reason of injury to third
persons, like creditors. The status of creditors could be validly accorded the Bonnevies for they had
substantial interests that were prejudiced by the sale of the subject property to the petitioner without
recognizing their right of first priority under the Contract of Lease.
According to Tolentino, rescission is a remedy granted by law to the contracting parties and even to
third persons, to secure reparation for damages caused to them by a contract, even if this should be
valid, by means of the restoration of things to their condition at the moment prior to the celebration of
said contract. It is a relief allowed for the protection of one of the contracting parties and even third
persons from all injury and damage the contract may cause, or to protect some incompatible and
preferent right created by the contract. Rescission implies a contract which, even if initially valid,
produces a lesion or pecuniary damage to someone that justifies its invalidation for reasons of equity.
It is true that the acquisition by a third person of the property subject of the contract is an obstacle to
the action for its rescission where it is shown that such third person is in lawful possession of the
subject of the contract and that he did not act in bad faith. However, this rule is not applicable in the
case before us because the petitioner is not considered a third party in relation to the Contract of Sale
nor may its possession of the subject property be regarded as acquired lawfully and in good faith.
Indeed, Guzman, Bocaling and Co. was the vendee in the Contract of Sale. Moreover, the petitioner
cannot be deemed a purchaser in good faith for the record shows that it categorically admitted it was
aware of the lease in favor of the Bonnevies, who were actually occupying the subject property at the
time it was sold to it. Although the Contract of Lease was not annotated on the transfer certificate of
title in the name of the late Jose Reynoso and Africa Reynoso, the petitioner cannot deny actual
knowledge of such lease which was equivalent to and indeed more binding than presumed notice by
registration.
A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that
some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same
at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in
the property. Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking unconscientious
advantage of another. Tested by these principles, the petitioner cannot tenably claim to be a buyer in
good faith as it had notice of the lease of the property by the Bonnevies and such knowledge should
have cautioned it to look deeper into the agreement to determine if it involved stipulations that would
prejudice its own interests.
The petitioner insists that it was not aware of the right of first priority granted by the Contract of
Lease. Assuming this to be true, we nevertheless agree with the observation of the respondent court
that:
If Guzman-Bocaling failed to inquire about the terms of the Lease Contract, which
includes Par. 20 on priority right given to the Bonnevies, it had only itself to blame.
Having known that the property it was buying was under lease, it behooved it as a
prudent person to have required Reynoso or the broker to show to it the Contract of
Lease in which Par. 20 is contained. 25
Petitioners assert the alleged impossibility of performance because the entire property is indivisible property.
It was petitioner Carmelo which fixed the limits of the property it was leasing out. Common sense and fairness
dictate that instead of nullifying the agreement on that basis, the stipulation should be given effect by
including the indivisible appurtenances in the sale of the dominant portion under the right of first refusal. A
valid and legal contract where the ascendant or the more important of the two parties is the landowner should
be given effect, if possible, instead of being nullified on a selfish pretext posited by the owner. Following the
arguments of petitioners and the participation of the owner in the attempt to strip Mayfair of its rights, the
right of first refusal should include not only the property specified in the contracts of lease but also the
appurtenant portions sold to Equatorial which are claimed by petitioners to be indivisible. Carmelo acted in
bad faith when it sold the entire property to Equatorial without informing Mayfair, a clear violation of Mayfair's
rights. While there was a series of exchanges of letters evidencing the offer and counter-offers between the
parties, Carmelo abandoned the negotiations without giving Mayfair full opportunity to negotiate within the 30-
day period.
Accordingly, even as it recognizes the right of first refusal, this Court should also order that Mayfair be
authorized to exercise its right of first refusal under the contract to include the entirety of the indivisible
property. The boundaries of the property sold should be the boundaries of the offer under the right of first
refusal. As to the remedy to enforce Mayfair's right, the Court disagrees to a certain extent with the concluding
part of the dissenting opinion of Justice Vitug. The doctrine enunciated in Ang Yu Asuncion vs.Court of
Appeals should be modified, if not amplified under the peculiar facts of this case.
As also earlier emphasized, the contract of sale between Equatorial and Carmelo is characterized by bad faith,
since it was knowingly entered into in violation of the rights of and to the prejudice of Mayfair. In fact, as
correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, Equatorial admitted that its lawyers had studied the contract of
lease prior to the sale. Equatorial's knowledge of the stipulations therein should have cautioned it to look
further into the agreement to determine if it involved stipulations that would prejudice its own interests.
Since Mayfair has a right of first refusal, it can exercise the right only if the fraudulent sale is first set aside or
rescinded. All of these matters are now before us and so there should be no piecemeal determination of this
case and leave festering sores to deteriorate into endless litigation. The facts of the case and considerations of
justice and equity require that we order rescission here and now. Rescission is a relief allowed for the
protection of one of the contracting parties and even third persons from all injury and damage the contract
may cause or to protect some incompatible and preferred right by the contract. 26 The sale of the subject real
property by Carmelo to Equatorial should now be rescinded considering that Mayfair, which had substantial
interest over the subject property, was prejudiced by the sale of the subject property to Equatorial without
Carmelo conferring to Mayfair every opportunity to negotiate within the 30-day stipulated period. 27
This Court has always been against multiplicity of suits where all remedies according to the facts and the law
can be included. Since Carmelo sold the property for P11,300,000.00 to Equatorial, the price at which Mayfair
could have purchased the property is, therefore, fixed. It can neither be more nor less. There is no dispute over
it. The damages which Mayfair suffered are in terms of actual injury and lost opportunities. The fairest solution
would be to allow Mayfair to exercise its right of first refusal at the price which it was entitled to accept or
reject which is P11,300,000.00. This is clear from the records.
To follow an alternative solution that Carmelo and Mayfair may resume negotiations for the sale to the latter of
the disputed property would be unjust and unkind to Mayfair because it is once more compelled to litigate to
enforce its right. It is not proper to give it an empty or vacuous victory in this case. From the viewpoint of
Carmelo, it is like asking a fish if it would accept the choice of being thrown back into the river. Why should
Carmelo be rewarded for and allowed to profit from, its wrongdoing? Prices of real estate have skyrocketed.
After having sold the property for P11,300,000.00, why should it be given another chance to sell it at an
increased price?
Under the Ang Yu Asuncion vs. Court of Appeals decision, the Court stated that there was nothing to execute
because a contract over the right of first refusal belongs to a class of preparatory juridical relations governed
not by the law on contracts but by the codal provisions on human relations. This may apply here if the contract
is limited to the buying and selling of the real property. However, the obligation of Carmelo to first offer the
property to Mayfair is embodied in a contract. It is Paragraph 8 on the right of first refusal which created the
obligation. It should be enforced according to the law on contracts instead of the panoramic and indefinite rule
on human relations. The latter remedy encourages multiplicity of suits. There is something to execute and that
is for Carmelo to comply with its obligation to the property under the right of the first refusal according to the
terms at which they should have been offered then to Mayfair, at the price when that offer should have been
made. Also, Mayfair has to accept the offer. This juridical relation is not amorphous nor is it merely
preparatory. Paragraphs 8 of the two leases can be executed according to their terms.
On the question of interest payments on the principal amount of P11,300,000.00, it must be borne in mind that
both Carmelo and Equatorial acted in bad faith. Carmelo knowingly and deliberately broke a contract entered
into with Mayfair. It sold the property to Equatorial with purpose and intend to withhold any notice or
knowledge of the sale coming to the attention of Mayfair. All the circumstances point to a calculated and
contrived plan of non-compliance with the agreement of first refusal.
On the part of Equatorial, it cannot be a buyer in good faith because it bought the property with notice and full
knowledge that Mayfair had a right to or interest in the property superior to its own. Carmelo and Equatorial
took unconscientious advantage of Mayfair.
Neither may Carmelo and Equatorial avail of considerations based on equity which might warrant the grant of
interests. The vendor received as payment from the vendee what, at the time, was a full and fair price for the
property. It has used the P11,300,000.00 all these years earning income or interest from the amount.
Equatorial, on the other hand, has received rents and otherwise profited from the use of the property turned
over to it by Carmelo. In fact, during all the years that this controversy was being litigated, Mayfair paid rentals
regularly to the buyer who had an inferior right to purchase the property. Mayfair is under no obligation to pay
any interests arising from this judgment to either Carmelo or Equatorial.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated June 23, 1992, in CA-G.R. CV
No. 32918, is HEREBY DENIED. The Deed of Absolute Sale between petitioners Equatorial Realty Development,
Inc. and Carmelo & Bauermann, Inc. is hereby deemed rescinded; petitioner Carmelo & Bauermann is ordered
to return to petitioner Equatorial Realty Development the purchase price. The latter is directed to execute the
deeds and documents necessary to return ownership to Carmelo and Bauermann of the disputed lots. Carmelo
& Bauermann is ordered to allow Mayfair Theater, Inc. to buy the aforesaid lots for P11,300,000.00.
SO ORDERED.