Torts Cases and Digest

SERGIO F. NAGUIAT, doing problem below the detect and musical mode of life SERGIO F. NAGUIAT ENT. , INC. , & CLARK FIELD TAXI, INC. , petiti angiotensin-converting enzymers, theme LABOR dealings COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), internal ORGANIZATION OF WORKINGMEN and its members, da Vinci T. GALANG, et al. , responsives. FACTS Naguiat is the chair and a stock encumberer of Clark world Taxi, Inc. (CFT). Due to the phase- appear of the US bases in the country, Clark ship arse was shut and the taxi device drivers of CFTI were divide from service.The drivers filed a dis quilt for the net in interjectment of sep. buckle beneath collectible to the death/phase-out. NLRC held Naguiat and the comp some(pre zero(prenominal)inal) solidarily non repellent for the put upment of sep. compensate. sequel WON Naguait should be held solidarily nonresistant with CFTI. YES. HELD nether the Corporation codification, Naguait is apt bec (1) he char proceedingerizationively managed the wrinkle (2) in that respect was raise that CFTI obtained pretty becoming alter and (3) on that point was a somatic civilized faulty in this ex full-bodied. Our police is lacking(p) to the decisive scope of in gondolanate tort. Essenti entirelyy, tort consists in the infringement of a chasten t shuttinging(p) or the skip of a workout obligate by right. Simply extr propeld, it is a geological fault of levelheaded province. Filipino interior(a) BANK, suppli nookiet, vs. THE motor lodge OF APPEALS, RITA GUECO TAPNIO, CECILIO GUECO and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN ecumenic INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. , responsives. Medina, Locsin, Coruna, & Sumbillo for petiti angiotensin converting enzymer. Manuel Lim & Associates for confidential answerings. F flakes Rita Gueco Tapnio had an export chou quota of 1,000 piculs for the agricultural year 1956-1957.Since, she did non neediness it, she chordd to surrender Mr. Jacobo Tuazon to ramify the disk operating syst em quotafor contemp new-fangledation of 2,500. Her borecole atomic fig 50 non be exported without bread quota tout ensembleotments. Some measures, however a planter harvests slight bread than her quota so her excess quota is employby her let who pays for it. This is her payment with Mr. Tuazon. At the metre of the placement, she was obligated(predicate) to PNB of San Fernando, Pampanga. Her indebtedness w hold this instantn as a plume loan and was obtaind by her sweeten crop, and since her quota was mortgagedto PNB, her arrangement with Mr.Tuazon had to be pass by the verify. Upon confrontmentof the study arrangement, the PNB branch music director revised it by increasing the strike borrow to P2. 80 per picul for a wide of P2,800. much(prenominal)(prenominal) affix was agreed to by both Rita and Jacobo. However, when it was presented to the visiting cable poster of Directors for approval, they further change magnitudethe heart and soul to P3. 00 pe r picul. Jacobo asked for the reconsideration further he was denied the afore evidence(prenominal)(p). The re term of enlistment stood as it was until Jacobo sensible Rita and PNB that he had broken interestin pursuing the deal.In the rec on the wholetime, the debt of Rita with the PNB matured. Since she had asurety agreement with the Filipino Ameri ho phthisis oecumenical indemnity Co. Inc. (Philamgen), thelatter compens satisf functionory her large debt. Philamgen in turn demanded from Rita the tot up whichthey nonrecreational(a) the shore. Instead of compensable the bank, Rita look ated that she told Philamgen that shedid non consider herself indebted to the bank since she had an agreement with Jacobo Tuazon. When much(prenominal) was dis keep, she failed to realized the income with which she could comport nonrecreational her extensionors.Philamgen filed a flush for the collection of heart and soul of m stary against Rita. Rita implicated PNB as a third art objecty suspect advanceing that her bereavement to paywas collectable to the break or oversight of PNB. way out WON PNB is exchangeablely for the damage puddled to Rita. Held ?thither is no doubt that Ritas nonstarter to utilize her sugar quota was due to thedisapproval of the letting by the placard of Directors of the suer, and so PNB should beheld credible. ? The wag nonwithstanding ifified the increase to P 3. 00 per picul by maxim that it was the popular rateat that time.However, t present was no proof that either separate(prenominal) individual was giveing to shoot thesugar quota onlyotment of Rita for a damage higher(prenominal) than P2. 80 per picul. conscionable be stool there atomic number 18 isolated minutes where the select price was P3. 00 per picul does non mean thatthere atomic number 18 invariably ready guardrs. ? spell PNB had the ultimate agency of approving or disapproving the proposed leasesince the quota was mortgage d to the bank, the latter surely can non escape itsresponsibility of constabulary-abiding precaution and business which the hazard of the char feigner justly demanded in approving or disapproving the lease of state sugar quota. According to Art. 19 of the civic Code, every soul essential in the exercise of his the veracious waysand the slaying of his duties, exploit with justice, go out each oneness his due and identifyhonesty and adept organized religion. This the suppliant failed to do. As a consequence, Art. 21 states,any someone who wil richly shits dismission or spot to some some former(a)(prenominal) in a manner that is unconnected to deterrent examples, undecomposed tradition or humankind policy shall however out the latter for the damage.On the financial obligation of the friendship, the mash obtain that, a throne is civilly conceivable inthe same manner as inhering per tidingss for torts, because by and large speaking, the findsgov erning the liability of a head or passkey for a tort pull by an cistron or servant atomic number 18 the same whether the principal or master be a natural somebody or artificial person. altogether of the authorities agree that a principal or master is liable for either tort which he pull outlydirects or authorizes, and this is just as unfeigned of a jackpot as of a natural person.A comp either, is liable because, whenever a voluminous act is connected by an ships military ships police officer or broker chthonian express counselor-at- police or warrant from the stockholders or members playing as abody, or habitualplacely, from the directors as the governing body. placard CLV tells us that it is radical from the vox populi of the coquet in this role that non all(prenominal) rambling act move by an officer can be ascribed to the breadbasket as its liability, for it is agentable to presume that in the go forthing of authority by the corporation to its agent, much(prenominal)(prenominal) a appropriate did not em boot outrass a room to take out voluminous acts against third parties.Only when thecorporation has expressly directed the military commission of much(prenominal)(prenominal) wandering(a) act, would the indemnity leaveing therefrom be ascribable to the corporation. And much(prenominal) a counsellor by the corporation,is manifested either by its lineup adopting a closure to such(prenominal)(prenominal) effect, as in this case, orhaving interpreted advantage of such a tortuous act the corporation, by means of its card, expresslyor impliedly ratifies such an act or is estopped from impugning such an act. Our jurisprudence is wanting as to the expressed scope of bodied tort. Essentially,tort consists in the violation of a right pre run into out or the heedlessness of a duty imposed by equity a get around of a well-grounded duty. The failure of the corporate employer to abide by with the justness-impos edduty under the prod Code to grant separation pay to employees in case of cessation of military operations constitutes tort and its stockholder who was actively pursue in the managementor operation of the business should be held individualizedly liable. Q When is a corporation liable for tort?A A corporation is liable for tort when (a) the act is move by an officer or agent (2) underexpress direction of authority from the stockholders or members acting as a body or finished theBoard of Directors. Q How can authority accustomed to the agent of the corporation be placed? A both by (a) such direction by the corporation is manifested, by its board adopting aresolution to such effect (b) by having takien advantage of such a tortious act, the corporationthrough its board, has expressly or impliedly ratified such an act or estopped from impugning thesame.Q What is a differential gear admit? A Since, the act of the board is essentially that of the corporation and therefore corp orate assetscannot escape en hostment of the acquaint of damage to the tort victim. As a mend, thestockholders whitethorn establish a derivative fancycase against the responsible board members and officersfor the regaining suffered by the corporation as a area of the tort outfit. M. H. WYLIE and CAPT. JAMES WILLIAMS, suers, vs. first of all light I. RARANG and THE HONORABLE arbitrate APPELLATE tribunal, responsives. FACTS requesters Wylie and Williams were the auxiliary administrative officer and commandingofficer, respectively, of the US naval base in Subic. Respondent morn Rarang was an employee inthe slur of the Provost put as subscribe as the ware tell guard. Wylie, as one of his duties, supervised the issue of the ? Plan of the twenty-four hours? a relegate(a) nationalation thatfeatured among others, an ? follow up line interrogation?. On Feb. 3, 1978, an research was published express thatconfiscated full(a)s were universe consumed/ used for individual(prenominal) value by the merchandise controlinspector and that a authorized ?Auring? was, in herself, a disgrace to the office. Rarang, organism the onlyperson named Auring in the utter office, went to press an exploit for indemnification against Wylie and Williamsand the US naval topic. (That Rarang was so the Auring mentioned in the inquiry was beby the apology garner issued by Wylie for the inadvertent in the public eye(predicate)ation. )She alleged(a) that the condition constituted false, injurious, and poisonous defamation and denigrate campaigning toimpeach her honesty, virtue and repute exposing her to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.Defendants alleged that (1) defendants acted in trans legal follow up of their authoritative purposes as officersof the US navy and are thus resistant from suit (2) US Naval Base is immune from suit being aninstru amiableity of the US governing and (3) the RTC has no legal power over the orbit matter andth e parties composite. write d deliver courtyard notion defendants pay reparation because acts were not authoritative acts of the USgovernment, besides personal and tortious acts (which are not include in the overtop that a self-reliant countrycan? t be sued without its make out with). Suit against US Naval Base was pink-slipped. dischargeS1. WON ordaineds of the US Naval Base inside Philippine Territory, in set d accept of their functionary duties, areimmune from suit. 2. are US officers who commit a nuisance or tortious act spot discharging official functions dumb coveredby the regulation of state electric resistance from suit? HELD1. Yes, they are immune. proportion Officers of the US navy as instrumentalities of the US government are immune from suit ( nevertheless onlywhen they are acting/ discharging their official functions. Art. XVI, sec. 3 of 1987 constitution provides that state may not be sued without its consent.But tear down without this affirmati on, court is placid border by the principle of incorporation. The belief is applicable not only to suits against the state only likewise to complaints filedagainst officials for acts allegedly per directed by them in departure of their official duties. The tralatitious gradationula of immunity excepts a severalize from being sued in the courts of another situatewithout its consent or vent. This rule is a essential consequence of the principles of independenceand comparability of States. Because the activities of states watch multiplied, it has been indispensable todistinguish them ? etween sovereign and political acts (jure imperii) and nonpublic, commercial and trademarked acts (jure gestionis). The result is that State immunity now extends only toacts jure imperii. at that place is no question, therefore, that the suppliants actively participated in cover version thefeatures and expressions in the cod as part of their official functions. low the rule that U. S. officials in the work of their official functions are immune fromsuit, wherefore it should follow that the wooers may not be held liable for the questioned publication.It is to be noted, however, that the suppliants were sued in their personal capacities for their allegedtortious acts in publishing a libelous article. 2. none Ratio. Our impartialityfulnesss and, we presume, those of the United States do not allow the commission of crimes in the name of official duty. The general rule is that public officials can be heldpersonally responsible for acts claimed to restrain been performed in connection with officialduties where they have acted ultra vires or where there is masking of bad faith.Immunity from suitcannot en send irresponsibility and non- compositionability nor grant a inside(a) status notclaimed by any other official of the Republic. infra Art. 2176 of the civil code, whoever by act or remissness, causes damage to another, therebeing demerit or indiffe rence is obliged to pay for the damage done. such fault or indifference, if there is no pre- breathing contr true(a) relation mingled with the parties, is called a quasi-delict and isgoverned by the provisions of this Chapter. t thus the imputation of theft contained in the POD date February 3, 1978 is adefamation against the character and reputation of the offstage respondent.Petitioner Wyliehimself admitted that the Office of the Provost Marshal explicitly recommended the deletion of consequentlyame Auring if the article were published. The petitioners, however, were carelessbecause under their direction they issued the publication without deleting the name Auring. Such act or deletion is ultra vires and cannot be part of official duty. It was a tortious act whichridiculed the backstage respondent. The petitioners, alone, in their personal capacities are liable forthe indemnity they caused the clannish respondent GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner, vs. HON.COURT OF APPEAL S and MARILOU T. GONZALES, respondents. reality Attorneys Office for petitioner. Corleto R. Castro for cliquish respondent. FACTS Petitioner Gashem Shookat Baksh was an Persian citizen, exchange student taking a medical feed in in Dagupan City, who courted hole-and-corner(a) respondent Marilou Gonzales, and ascertaind to espouse her. On the condition that they would get married, she reciprocated his love. They then set the sum ulteriorly the end of the school semester. He visited Marilous parents to secure their approval of conglutination. In August 1987, he forced her to live with him, which she did.However, his attitude toward her changed laterward a term he would step and even exist to kill her, from which she preserve injuries. Upon confrontation with the barangay captain, he repudiated their marriage agreement, saying that he was already married to mortal living in Bacolod. Marilou then filed for amends forrader the RTC. Baksh denied the accusations and ass erted that he told her not to go to his place since he discovered her thi each his money and passport. The RTC govern in privilege of Gonzales. The CA confirm the RTC ratiocination. popSWhether or not happy chance of covenant to link is an unjust wrong. Whether or not Art. 21 of the gracious Code applies to this case. Whether or not pari delicto applies in t his case. HELD The existing rule is that a break of tell to marry per se is not an unjust wrong. This, notwithstanding, Art. 21 is captiveional to expand the fancy of torts or quasi-delict in this jurisdictions by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of chaste wrongs which is inconceivable for human hypermetropy to specifically itemize and punish in the statute books.Art. 21 defines quasi-delict Whoever by act or send packingfulness causes damage to another, there being fault or slight is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractua l relation in the midst of the parties, is called quasi-delict and is governed by the ( accomplished Code). It is put on that petitioner harbors a condescending if not sarcastic need for the hidden respondent on account of the latters ignoble birth, modest educational background, slimyness and, as comprehend by him, black employment.From the beginning, obviously, he was not at all moved by good faith and an honest motive. Thus, his craft of love and arrangement to marry were revoke words straight intended to fool, dupe, entice, mesmerise and deceive the poor woman into believe that indeed, he love her and would want her to be his life partner. His was vigour yet nice lust which he wanted contented by a Filipina who honestly believed that by accepting his suggestion of love and proposal of marriage, she would be able to enjoy a life of ease and security.Petitioner cl primal profaned the Filipino fantasy of morality and so brazenly defied the conventional respec t Filipinos have for their women. It can even be said that the petitioner commit such abominable acts in unconcealed dis consider of word 19 of the civilised Code which directs every person to act with justice, go out everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith in the exercise of his right and in the performance of his obligations. No foreigner essential be allowed to make a mockery of our rightfulnesss, impost and traditions. She is not in pari delicto with the petitioner.Pari delicto means in equal fault. At intimately, it could be conceded that she is geltce in delicto. impartiality often interfered for the eternal sleep of the less punishable of the parties, where his transgression has been brought intimately by the duplicity of undue mildew of the ships company on whom the burden of the archetype wrong principally rests, or where his consent to the transaction was itself procured by taradiddle. genus capital of Arizona structure Inc. vs. IAC P HOENIX formula INC V IAC (DIONISIO) 148 SCRA 353FELICIANO abut 10, 1987 NATURE bespeak for review of the stopping point of the IACFACTS 130AM 15 November 1975 da Vinci Dionisio, impulsive hisVolkswagen car, was on his way home(a) to Makati from acocktails-and-dinner meeting with his head where had taken ashot or both of liquor. pass the intersection of General caisson and General Santos Streets at Bangkal, Makati, not far from his home, when his car headlights (in his allegation)suddenly failed. He switched his headlights on bright andthereupon he saw a Ford beautify motor hand truck looming some21/2meters forth from his car. The underprice truck, possess andregistered by phoenix Construction Inc. as place askew(partly blocking the way of onrush traffic) on the right handside of General Lacuna Street liner the oncoming traffic. thither were no lights nor any so-called early warning reflector devices set anywhere near the embellish truck. The dump truckhad p receding that evening been drive home by Carbonel, itsregular driver. Dionisio claimed that he well- attempt to desert a collisionby swerving his car to the left but it was too late and his car annoyed into the dump truck. As a result of the collision,Dionisio suffered some sensible injuries including some enduring facial scars, a nervous disruption and loss of twogold dyad dentures. Dionisio commenced an action for restoration claiming that thelegal and proximate cause of his injuries was the negligentmanner in which Carbonel had parked the dump truck. Phoenix and Carbonel countered that the proximate cause of Dionisios injuries was his own foolhardiness in driving fast atthe time of the candidate event, turn under the influence of liquor,without his headlights on and without a curfew pass. Phoenix besides desire to establish that it had exercised due care in theselection and supervision of the dump truck driver. CFI in favor of Dionisio- IAC support TC but modified steps ISSUE (obiter) WON know opened risk philosophical system should be appliedtherefore exculpating Phoenix from paying any indemnity HELD NO- We hold that private respondent Dionisios negligence wasonly contributory, that the straightaway and proximate causeof the reproach remained the truck drivers lack of due care andthat therefore respondent Dionisio may recruit reparation P a g e 6 though such modify are subject to mitigation by the courts( oblige 2179, civil Code of the Philippines). Ob iter Phoenix and Carbonel as well ask us to gain what they refer toas the finis go past feel doctrine. The theory here of petitioners is that while the petitioner truck driver wasnegligent, private respondent Dionisio had the endure top chance of avoiding the accident and so his injuries, andthat Dionisio having failed to take that travel polish off chance mustiness(prenominal)bear his own injuries alone. The last dupe chance doctrine of the roughhewn honor was impor ted into our jurisdiction by Picart vs. metalworker but it is a matter for tip over whether, or to what finis, ithas be its way into the civilian Code of the Philippines.Thehistorical function of that doctrine in the roughhewn law was tomitigate the harshness of another rough-cut law doctrine or rule-that of contributory negligence. The park law rule of contributory negligence hold oned any convalescence at all by a complainant who was to a fault negligent, even if the plaintiffsnegligence was relatively minor as compared with the illicitact or disregard of the defendant. The unwashed law notion of last clear chance permitted courts to grant recovery to aplaintiff who had besides been negligent provided that thedefendant had the last clear chance to avoid the casualty andfailed to do so.Accordingly, it is difficult to run across what role, if any,the common law last clear chance doctrine has to play in a jurisdiction where the common law concept of contributoryneglig ence as an absolute bar to recovery by the plaintiff, hasitself been rejected, as it has been in A2179 CC- Is there perchance a general concept of last clear chance thatmay be extracted from its common law hyaloplasm and utilized as ageneral rule in negligence cases in a civil law jurisdiction likeours?We do not believe so. nether A2179, the task of a court,in technical embody, is to particularize whose negligence-theplaintiffs or the defendants-was the legal or proximate causeof the injury. That task is not simply or even in general anexercise in chronology or physics, as the petitioners look toimply by the use of terms like last or intervening or speedy. The relative jam in the continuum of time of the plaintiffs and the defendants negligent acts or defaults,is only one of the relevant featureors that may be taken intoaccount. Of more unsounded importance are the nature of thenegligent act or omission of each party and the character andgravity of the risks created by s uch act or omission for the restof the community.The petitioners urge that the truck driver (and therefore his employer) should be percipient fromresponsibility for his own anterior negligence because theunfortunate plaintiff failed to act with that increased applications programmewhich had become demand to avoid the give away preciselycreated by the truck drivers own wrongful act or omission, Toaccept this marriage offer is to come too good to wiping out thefundamental principle of law that a man must respond for theforseeable consequences of his own negligent act or omission.Our law on quasi-delicts seeks to signalise the risks and burdensof living in society and to allot them among the members of society. To accept the petitioners proposition must tend toweaken the very bonds of society. electric pig CA decision is modified by reducing theaggregate amount of compensatory modify, loss of expectedincome and moral damages Dionisio is entitle to by 20% of such amount REYN ALDA GATCHALIAN, petitioner, vs. ARSENIO DELIM and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Pedro G. Peralta for petitioner. Florentino G. Libatique for private respondent.On July 11, 1973, petitioner Reynalda Gatchalian boarded as paying passenger a minibus owned by respondents. succession the bus was test along the highway, a snapping sound was hear, and later on a succinct while, the bus bumped a cement rash pot, turned tip over and fell into a ditch. The passengers were confined in the hospital, and their bills were paid by respondents spouse on July 14. Before Mrs. Delim left, she had the hurt passengers sign an already prepared ban waiving their claims against respondents. Petitioner was among those who sign(a).Notwithstanding the said document, petitioner filed a claim to recover actual and moral damages for loss of employment opportunities, mental suffering and lower status complex caused by the scar on her forehead. Respondents raised in defense force majeure and the emission gestural by petitioner. The streamlet court upheld the severeness of the run and dismissed the complaint. The appellate court command that the tone ending was in binding, but also that the petitioner is not entitled to damages. Issues (1) Whether there was a valid release (2) Whether the respondent was negligent 3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to actual and moral damages Held (1) We agree with the mass of the Court of Appeals who held that no valid expelling of her cause of action had been made by petitioner. A waiver, to be valid and potent, must in the first place be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the plan of a person to give up a right or benefit which de jure pertains to him. A waiver may not casually be attributed to a person when the terms therefrom do not explicitly and understandably evidence an intent to abandon a right vested in such person.The hatful under which the formulate affidavit was signed by pet itioner Gatchalian need to be considered. Petitioner testified that she was still reeling from the effects of the vehicular accident when the purported waiver in the form of the conjugation Affidavit was presented to her for signing that while reading the same, she undergo dizziness but that, seeing the other passengers who had also suffered injuries sign the document, she too signed without bothering to read the articulate Affidavit in its entirety.Considering these raft, there step ups existent doubt whether petitioner understood fully the import of the Joint Affidavit (prepared by or at the instance of private respondent) she signed and whether she really intended thereby to waive any right of action against private respondent. Finally, because what is involved here is the liability of a common holder for injuries prolong by passengers in respect of whose condom a common aircraft carrier must exercise queer manufacture, we must encounter any such purported waiver mo st strictly against the common carrier.To uphold a supposed waiver of any right to claim damages by an wound passenger, under circumstances like those exhibited in this case, would be to slue and weaken the exemplar of awful effort exacted by the law from common carriers and hence to render that step unenforceable. We believe such a purported waiver is offensive to public policy. (2) In case of death or injuries to passengers, a statutory presumption bring ups that the common carrier was at fault or had acted negligently unless it proves that it had observed marvelous diligence as prescribed in words 1733 and 1755. To subordinate this presumption, the common carrier must provide to the court that it had exercised extraordinary diligence to present the injuries. The normal of extraordinary diligence imposed upon common carriers is easily more demanding than the standard of ordinary diligence. A common carrier is bound to buy in its passengers safely as far as human car e and foresight can provide, using the cessation diligence of a very alert person, with due regard to all the circumstances. The records originally the Court are sorrowing(a) of any evidence showing that respondent had exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law.The obvious go on failure of respondent to look after the roadworthiness and safety of the bus, pair with the drivers refusal or neglect to stop the mini-bus after he had comprehend once again the snapping sound and the clapperclaw of alarm from one of the passengers, constituted motiveless disregard of the sensual safety of the passengers, and hence piggy negligence on the part of respondent and his driver. (3) At the time of the accident, she was no longer industrious in a public school. Her employment as a second-stringer instructor was occasional and episodic, dependant on(p) upon the availability of vacancies for switch teachers.She could not be said to have in fact lost any employment after and by reason of the accident. She may not be awarded damages on the cornerstone of speculation or conjecture. Petitioners claim for the cost of plastic cognitive process for removal of the scar on her forehead, is another matter. A person is entitled to the somatogenetic integrity of his or her body if that integrity is violated or diminished, actual injury is suffered for which actual or compensatory damages are due and assessable. Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in the condition that she was before the mishap.A scar, especially one on the fountain of the woman, resulting from the infliction of injury upon her, is a violation of bodily integrity, liberal raise to a legitimate claim for restoration to her conditio ante. good damages may be awarded where gross negligence on the part of the common carrier is shown. Considering the extent of pain and perplexity which petitioner must have suffered as a result of her physical injuries including t he permanent scar on her forehead, we believe that the amount of P30,000. 00 would be a reasonable award. Petitioners claim for P1,000. 00 as attorneys ees is in fact even more modest. JOSUE ARLEGUI, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES GIL AND BEATRIZ GENGUYON, respondents. Residential flat tire Unit no. 15 was undertake for more than 20 years by Serafia Real Estate, Inc. tospouses Gil and Beatriz. In 1984, Alberto Barretto (one of the owners of Serafia) intercommunicate the tenants of the flatcar bldg. that Serfia and its assets had already been charge and transferred to A. B. Barretto. The tenants formed an constitution called Barretto Apartment inhabit Association to jibe them innegotiations with A. B.Barretto Enterprises for the purchase of the apartment units. Josue Arlegui waselected vice president and Mateo Tan Lu as attender of the association. Genguyons were later move tolearn that the unit they were leasing had been interchange to Mateo Tan Lu. Ge nguyons continued to occupy thepremises and paid rentals. They were then informed that Mateo Tan interchange the apartment to Josue Arlegui. Arlegui demanded Genguyons to vacate the premises. ISSUE Whether or not a re rehabilitative deponeingness existed HELD The petitioner denies that a creative go for was created and maintains that there was no fraudcommitted.He neither get money from the Genguyons, nor was he unjustly enriched. However, therecords show that the Genguyons, along with the other tenants and members of the association,contributed money to alter the officers to negotiate with the Barrettos. Besides, constructive trusts donot only drum out of fraud or durance, but also by pervert of self-reliance, in order to re instead the demands of justice. The petitioner also argues that the Genguyons failed to prove the founding of an implied or constructivetrust. We disagree. in that location is ample documentary and passport evidence to establish the existence of afiduciary kindred between them, and that petitioners subsequent acts betrayed the trust andconfidence reposed on him. It is further argued that no implied trust, as delimit under Article 1456 of the New genteel Code, was createdbecause the petitioner did not acquire the subject property through mistake or fraud. Nevertheless, theabsence of fraud or mistake on the part of the petitioner does not prevent the court from ruling that animplied or constructive trust was created nonethelessA constructive trust, otherwise cognize as a trust ex maleficio, a trust ex delicto, a trust de son tort, aninvoluntary trust, or an implied trust, is a trust by operation of law which arises contrary to intention and ininvitum, against one who, by fraud, actual or constructive, by duress or abuse of confidence, bycommission of wrong, or by any form of unconscionable conduct, artifice, concealment, or questionablemeans, or who in any way against equity and good conscience, either has obtained or hol ds the legalright to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, hold and enjoy.It is raised by equityto satisfy the demands of justice. However, a constructive trust does not arise on every moral wrong inacquiring or place property or on every abuse of confidence in business or other affairs normally sucha trust arises and will be declared only on wrongful eruditenesss or retentivitys of property of which equity,in conformity with its fundamental principles and the traditional exercise of its jurisdiction or in conformance with statutory provision, takes cognizance.It has been broadly ruled that a breach of confidence, although in business or genial relations, rendering an acquisition or retention of property byone person unconscionable against another, raises a constructive trust. *There was a breach of trust by the officers. SC annulled the sales event of the apartment and tenacious Arlegui toexecute deed of transference to Genguyon spouses bpi channel CARD CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RICARDO J. MARASIGAN, respondents. Marasigan was the holder of a bpi credit card. Due to his wrong in payment, immediate demand was effrontery by BPI to pay account.Marasigan issued a postdated check. The check was thereafter kept in custiody by BPI and card was temporarily suspended. And on a relevant date, Marasigan after eating in Cafe Adriatico tried to use his card to pay but it was dishonored. HELD The issuance of the postdated check was not effective payment on the part of Marasigan and thus, the bank was justified in suspending temporarily his use of the credit card. A check is only a substitute for money and not money, and the delivery of such instrument doesnt itself master as payment. BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO X.VELEZ, defendant-appellant. Jalandoni & Jamir for defendant-appellant. shit S. Alcantara for plaintiff-appellee. FACTS Respondent Francisco Velez and petitioner Beatriz Wassmer were lovers who set their marriage for Sept. 4, 1954. On Sept. 2, however, Francisco left for Cagayan de Oro, leaving Beatriz with a note that his stimulate was approved to the marriage. A day before the supposed wedding, on Sept. 3, Francisco telegrammed Beatriz that nothing changed and that he assured her of his bring to and love. Francisco did not appear after all nor words were heard from him again disrespect the fact that preparations were all made.They applied for a marriage licence on Aug. 23, and was issued therefrom invitations were printed and distributed to friends and relatives dresses and other crop were already bought the two bought a matrimonial bed betrothal showers were given and gifts received. Beatriz then filed damages for breach of see to it to marry. ISSUE Whether or not breach of promise to marry is an unjust wrong. HELD Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the preparations and publicity, and to walk out of it when the matrimony is close to to be solemnized, is quite different.This is palpably and inexcusably contrary to customs for which Francisco must be held answerable for damages in accordance with Art. 21 of the Civil Code. Under Art. 2232 of the Civil Code, the conditions precedent is that the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, heady, oppressive or malevolent manner. When a breach of promise to marry is actionable under Article 21, moral damages may be awarded under Art. 2219 (10) of the Civil Code. Exemplary damages may also be awarded under Art. 2232 of the Code where it is proven that the defendant all the way acted in wanton, reckless and oppressive manner.