let us begin with article time okay Article 19 specifically states that every person must in the exercise of this right and in the performance of his duties acting Justice give everyone his due and observe honesty and you think okay so Article 19 speaks of two things the performance of Rights in the performance of communities I mean the exercise of his rights rather and the performance so rights and duties so whenever you exercise your life you must do so in a way that you act with Justice you give everyone with his two and You observe honesty and the same is true when you are performing a duty okay now Article 19 is implied in any legal system as I have said when you the exercise of a right is Tainted with malice or bad faith or there is abuse of the set right the right eventually disappears and becomes a source of Damages now what are the elements of abuse of life first you have the existence of a legal right or Duty that legal right or Duty was exercised in bad faith and with intent to Prejudice or injure another remember that in abuse of Rights the existence of malice or bad faith is an essential requirement that is what constitutes abuse okay it uh abuse is present Whenever there was malice or bad faith in exercising a right and that malice or bad faith prejudiced another person okay let us begin with the case of panariya versus okay so this is a case wherein a father uh is uh supposed to celebrate his 90th birthday so the children most of them were reciting abroad uh prepared okay for the 90th birthday celebration of their father and informed the wife the second wife of their father that they will hold a grand celebration of his 90th birthday and of course they um are expecting that their father would be there to celebrate okay however uh instead of uh bringing the 90 year old Pascal show to his 90th birthday celebration okay adelaida the second wife intentionally did not bring his birthday celebration so the children of pascaccio filed a case for damages against are they like that okay so what is was there a right that was abused the Supreme Court said yes the Supreme Court said when a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform me the dorms and Shrine in Article 19 and results in damage to another a legal wrong is committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible generally an action for damages is the proper River when a person exercises his rights but does so arbitrary or unjustly her performs his duties in a manner that is not in keeping in honesty and he opens himself to liability as I was saying a while ago when a right is abuse okay we uh with malice and bad faith then thus the right disappears and it becomes a source of damages there is no question that as The Legal Wife and guardian of Wisconsin who is physically and mentally informed Adelaide as the principle and overriding decision when it comes to the Affairs of her husband so that is the right okay adelaida has the right be in the wife to decide on whether or not should be brought to his birthday celebration why because pascaccio is already uh 90 years old and he is basically and mentally informed it must be noted that Adelaide is Right cannot be exercised without limitation so long before the scheduled date of the birthday Adelaide I was already informed about the event she was informed and reminded about the event and that she even contributed 5 000 for the cause she should have contacted the respondents immediately if not attend the celebration because the respondents have already spent a considerable amount of money she could have informed the respondents um immediately that would hinder its success and to avoid any further damage or injury to the responding when he cannot even move on his own there are certainly other means of communication aside from the cell phone if she really wanted to call the response okay let us now go to the next case Electronics okay now Philip Singapore is a foreign so however despite having complied with all the requirements needed for the renewal of the distributorship but women um Philips Singapore did not okay decided not to renew the distributorship it must be noted that Philip Singapore has all the right to determine whether or not the agreement would be ready but the question is was there abuse of rights in the decision or believe Singapore not to renew the distributorship agreement according to top homes the acts committed by belly during and after the effectivity of the agreement are tainted with bad paint and Malice because of the significant Investments made by uh talk homes during the effectivity of the distributorship arrived though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law May nevertheless become the source of illegality so the question of whether or not the principle of abusive rights has been violated depends on the circumstances of the caves so the principle of abuse of Rights may be invoke if it is proven that the right was exercised in badly remember that um in cases of abuse of Rights but Faith or malice is an essential element okay for uh the case of damages to prosper so absent malice or bad faith there was no abuse of right so in these things belly has not had the opportunity to prove that the foregoing acts mentioned pray indeed made without malice and bad things since it was not even able to file an answer as such the case must be stated so that belly may want and for all to responded in dealing with so it was reverted back to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether or not there indeed exists malice or badly in the non-renew one of the distributorship okay so we now go to the case of Chevron versus now this is the case which illustrates that if there was no malice or bad baby there is if the standard procedure was applied objectively okay that that would not be a source of uh abuse so that cannot be considered as as an abuse of Rights so in the case of Chevron okay this is a case involving a dealership of a gasoline station okay Mendoza is an applicant for caltex leadership it was applying for the franchise of caltex okay now however he was not chosen by context instead of choosing him caltex chose another now because of that Mendoza filed a complaint for damages against caltex underground that context deprived him of his cycle now that show is whether chevron's awarding dealerships to other persons and not to Mendoza constitutes an abuse of Rights however that the Supreme Court said that no Mendoza is not correct a bit why because of the absence of Mali surviving okay the Supreme Court went on to say that it sets certain standards which may be observed not only in the exercise of one Stripes but also in the performance of one's Treatise these standards are the following to act Justice to give everyone his due and to observe honesty or good thing step one so the site offered by whoa was a two-way street along the national highway making the site obviously preparable compared to Mendoza's side Chevron had been more than patient and accommodating to Mendoza who could not simply accept it so in this case that there was a standard a uniform standard which was up applied purity to all the applicants and the uh the in Chevron made his decision in accordance with the standards said then malice or bad faith is and therefore Chevron did not abuse the exercise of science okay we now proceed to the things of Nala versus so this case involves a uh property okay which is claimed by two persons Now respond then what this property from The spouse's open and believing that he is the owner of the property and someone is occupying the property so he sent a demand he asked his Council to send a demand letter and to ask for the payment back rentals for the same property now the person who is occupying the said property on the other hand believe that it is his property so he filed a case for damages invoking Article 19 of the city oh hey again the Supreme Court said or reiterated that arrived though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law may be the source of illegality a person should be protected only when ah when he acts in the legitimate exercise so in this case pick the respondent act in the legitimate exercise purpose right the Supreme Court said yes hey there is nothing on the record which will prove that tala and her Council active in bad fit or malice in sending the demand letters to the respondent there was a round for analysis action since she believed that the property was owned by her husband the bear factored respondent claims ownership over the property does not give rise to the conclusion that the sending of the demand Letters by Nala was done okay so remember this class one who makes use of his own legal right the snow injury whatever damages are suffered by the response that should be born solely by him okay as I've said enough and I reiterate that the core of abuse of Rights is the word there must be malice or badly if you are merely asserting your right in good faith then that would not be considered as an abuse of life because you are only exercising you're right okay we move now to the case of cespreneur versus okay so in this case is one of the uh subscribers is a uh an electric Distribution Company now the uh uh visayan electric company send people to the house or to the residents of success brand new to check this electric motor so they conducted search in his premises a word that their entry to his house and the surrounding purposes was affected without his explanation so he filed a case for damages against vehicle so the inspection of his residence by the vehicle team was an unreasonable search because it was carried out without a warrant and it was done with values or bad pain he is uh commit an abuse of Rights the Supreme Court said no uh it uh um in the decision the Supreme Court stated that paragraph 9 clothed the entire recording with a question authority to enter the garage to inspect the computer so the Supreme Court referred to the contract between vehicle and cespreno regarding the provision of electricity and also the Supreme Court said that the Constitutional guarantee against unlawful searches and teachers is a restraint against the government okay now if the search is made at the behest of our initiative of the proprietor for private establishment for its own and private purposes such as in this case the right against unreasonable search and feature cannot be involved for only the act of a private individual not the law enforcers is involved remember that in the contract between vehicle and cespreño there was consent even by success brand new forbeco representatives to inspect uh his residence for the purpose of checking whether there are installed jumpers or any other device that would tamper with a measurement of the electricity for this option so very cool according to the Supreme Court did not abuse his right it's right and that they merely acted in accordance with the terms of the contract that they have entered into with the spread thing our holding could be different it's just branial persuasively demonstrated intervention of malice or bad faith what's the strenuo did not the rational for the one step is to present some basic principles to be followed by the rightful relationship between human beings and the stability of social order so the exercise of right ends when the right disappears this is what I am always saying and it disappears when it is abuse especially to the Prejudice of others it cannot be said that a person exercises a right when he unnecessary okay we now move to the case of Mata versus agrabante so in this case uh this case involves security guards okay um they filed a complaint with the PNP requesting an investigation of their Security Agency now because of this case um the security agency or petitioner headed by the petitioner filed an action for damages against the security guard because uh in according to them it is a baseless campaign okay what did the Supreme Court say was it true that it was a baseless complaint the Supreme Court said no Article 19 is not a Panacea for all human hurts and social Concepts the object of this article is to set certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one student now the common element is it must be attended with malice for bad faith so in the action of the respondents there was no malicious intent to endure the petitioner's name the respondents merely wanted to call the attention to responsible government agencies to secure appropriate action upon an airing Private Security Agency and obtain redress for their purpose remember that when you're only exercising your right in good faith and Malice or bad faith is not present then abuse of Rights will not be considered to have been committed okay let us go to article 20. article 20 of the civil code states that every person who contrary to law willfully or negligently causes damage towards should indemnify the latter or anything okay remember what we are talking here uh the subject of article 20 are acts which are contrary to look foreign any person who will pull it causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to corals good Customs or public policy shall compensate the latter further damage in article 20 we spoke of acts so there must be a law which is contrary to law okay example would be under the revised Penal Code there are several uh offenses which are enumerated in the revised Penal Code example would be uh penalized under article 315 of the revised penal code that is an arc which is contrary to law which is willfully made okay so if that is committed okay an action for damages may be maintain okay article 21 on the other hand speaks of apps okay which although not contrary to law they are nevertheless contrary to morals good Customs or public policy and the violation of this uh negligent okay so it must be intentional contrary to foreign okay the first case is lomarda versus we will uh the cases that I will uh give you okay are the cases which although not contrary to law they are nevertheless sponges so in this case it is again another case involving an electric distribution Mobility okay so the respondent is an applicant okay for electrical service so she was applying for uh the provision of electrical service to this house okay so it was required by secure a certification from the barangay Power Association chairperson however despite her his efforts to reach Russo to secure the certification was unable to do so so however thus responded consented to the topping of this electrical line to that of Papa so in the meantime in order to provide for uh this house with electricity he consented uh the electrical line of Papa meaning the barangay Power Association Assurance by Alberta that he would not be charged with Phil Perez of electricity however uh the respondent refused to pay the amount of 1750. Power Association required him to pay that amount but no matter refused to comply because according to her there was no order from him to make a payment of 1750 to the barangay Power Association as a result um in the presence of policemen the barangay treasurer and other people uh the the linemen okay were ordered to cut off the respondents electricity Now respond then file the complaint for damages on the ground of article 21. now did to cut the electricity of the respondent remember the respondent is merely an applicant for electricity and considering that the requirements for the installation of electric service meaning the certification from the barangay has not yet been secured it acted within its rights when he ordered the coping of the electricity they however the Supreme Court said that the provisions on human relations were intended to expand the concept of Thoughts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral laws violations of Articles 19 and 21 are actionable prejudicially in perishable remedies in the pool so in this case the respondent had consistently pursued all the reasonable efforts to comply with the requirements for the installation of electricity to his Farmhouse petitioners even tried to extort uh an amount in exchange for the issuance of the certification the Marda even caused a scene in The public's View thus the Supreme Court concluded that the petitioner should be held liable for doctors while it appears that petitioners were engaged in a legal act exacting compliance with the requirements for the installation of electricity the circumstances show that the same was conducted contrary to morals and good questions and were in fact done with intent to cause injury to the respondent remember the respondent was humiliated when in front of a lot of people his electricity was stopped despite the fact that he exerted every effort to secure the required certification but instead of giving him the certification uh they try to extort money from him okay and refuse to give the said certificate when he refused then they have uh they they cut their electricity okay another case box versus squirt the puppies okay remember class that a breach of promise to marry is not an actionable law however okay when uh it is committed in such a way that it is so contrary to morals and good Customs then even if there are no damages that were actual damages that were already inferred it can um result in liability or damages so in this case petitioner reported the respondent and proposed to America and they agreed to get married however before the marriage petitioner forced her to live with him okay she was a virgin before she began living with him subsequently petitioner repudiated their marriage agreement and asked her not to live with him anymore as he was already in it he although the existing rule is that a breach of promise to Mary is not an actionable wrong because Congress eliminated it from the draft of the receiving home and the said code however contains article 21 which is designed to expand the concept of thoughts or classified baby when a man promised met promised to marry is in fact the proximate boss and his representation to fulfill that promise becomes the proximate cause of the giving herself unto him proved that he had in reality no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only if sato's theme or deceptive device to entice her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act that would justify an award so although a breach of promise to Mary is not in itself an actionable wrong meaning there was no um law value limited especially considering that both parties are of age and provided that there is no legal impediment to maybe okay it is not an actionable wrong however it could give rise to an action for damages if the Act was done painted with malice or bad feet and we deliver it in them to entice or lure okay the victim to the uh to consent to the sexual act then that could give rise to an action for damages if the cross made a promise to Mary and the effect with the Cardinal knowledge there is a chance that there was criminal or moral seduction hence recovery of Damages will prosper again it is a reiteration of box okay we adhere to the time-honored principle that of which a promise to Mary has no standing in civil law apart from recovering money or property Advanced by the plaintiff upon the fate of such problems a richer promise to marry is not actionable except when the plaintiff was actually incurred expenses for the wedding and the necessary incidents therefore the acts of the petitioner impulsively abducted the respondent and having Cardinal knowledge with her against her will and thereafter promising to marry her in order to escape criminal liability only to thereafter an edge on such promise after prohibiting with her mirrors irremissively constitute apps contrary to morals and workforcements justifying the award of Damages person want to article 21 of receiving food albinson Enterprise versus a okay um in this case uh this is the case for a violation of BP 22. okay so uh Albertson filed a complaint against people now for violation of BP 22 because uh Balto is not the person the appropriate person to be charged he filed a complaint for damages against Alabama the underground of malicious prosecution he basis complaint on articles 19 20 and 21 of the city Okay so what prompted the petitioners to file the case for vp22 was their failure to collect a certain amount who or the Box check so petitioners said conducted inquiries regarding the origin of the check it was normal for petitioners to find means to make the issuware of the check pay the amount their own so in the absence of a wrongful act or fraud or bad paid moral damages cannot be awarded and that the result of an action does not make the action wrongful and subject after the payment of Damages again remember that in all the provisions they will hold provisions on abused of Rights the common threat to transfer all these Provisions is abuse meaning the presence of malice or bad things if it is not if the ah or if the exercise of the right is not attended by malice or bad faith then damages will not fun or the uh he cannot be held liable for damages so damir of submitting a case for the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable formal issues prosecution it is evident that petitioners were not motivated by malicious intent or by a Sinister design Don Julie harass responded but only by a well-founded anxiety to protect their rights when they file the complaint against them versus so in this case uh the respondents entered into a package service contract okay for the post-production of information however when the movie was finally shown in the cinemas it was a disaster the mixing was terrible hence the uh they filed a complaint for some of money and damages against the uh fields okay the Supreme Court held that the defendants are liable for damages for violating the principle of abusive rights under Article 19 the uh the Supreme Court held that it was incumbent upon the dependence to release a good quality film after post-production it is very legal Duty it is what they were paid to do however the outcome was a disaster so there was an implied admission on the part of the defendants that the disasters movie was due to their fault such admission is more than enough to conclude that defendant said illegal duty to release a good quality film but failed to meet the state they should have corrected what was needed to be corrected to come out with a good quality here so the defendants in capacity to produce a good quality movie proved to be injurious and prejudicial to the response okay we now go to article 20 22 the legal principle of solution in Delhi article 22 States as follows every person who to an act or performance by another or any other means acquires or comes into possession something at the expense of the latter without just a legal ground shall return the same okay so if you receive anything okay which you know in your own skins that you are not you do not have any right to receive then you become a trustee of that thing with the obligation to return that thing to its right so that is the principle of solution in them if something is to received when there is no right to demand it and it was unjuly delivered to State the obligation to return it arises article 23 even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or in negligence of the defendant the latter shall be liable for Indemnity if through the actor even he was benefited okay what are the requirements of an action action in remembrance a solution inevity is to prevent unjust image one party was enriched the other made poorer there must be a relationship between the two the enrichment must not be justifiable there is no other way to recover and the indemnity cannot exceed the loss or enrichment whichever students okay you know we will now discuss the cases of solution which are mostly um disallowed uh benefits of benefits that were disallowed by the permission Madera versus Cola so in this case uh the respondents were recipients of benefits that were properly disallowed however at that time when Paul was disallowed this benefit s Ponders were already retired so how can you deduct so this allowed benefits from their salaries when they were already retired from service so the Supreme Court said that with the liability for unlawful expenditures properly understood the pay is who receive a new payment regardless of Faith reliable for Return of the amount so citing the principle of solution in them okay if property is acquired to mistake or thought the person obtaining It Is by force of law considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes so article 22 requires two conditions a person is benefited without valid faces or justification and that benefit is derived at another's expense or knowledge so the case of Madera was reiterated in the case of tips okay in the case of the Guzman under the principle of solution in the ability if something is received when there is no right to demand it and it was anjuly delivered no mistake the obligation to return it arises so this disallowed benefits maybe in the nature of performance in sentence productivity pay or Merit increases that were not authorized by the DVM so the Centennial bonus cannot be considered to have been given in consideration of services rendered for performance incentives productivity pay or Merit in business okay so there is a corresponding obligation to return the disallowed benefits we now proceed to the case of pnb versus a which is also a solution so in this case responded Mata it is a mining agency okay now uh in the performance of uh this business Mata makes advances for the cruise medical expenses Mata sends monthly Billings with principals parties which in turn reimburses Mata by sending a telegraphic transfer so on the basis of the cable message there was a cashier's check in the amount of 1400 representing reimbursement from Star gifts which was issued by star keys for the account however 14 days after pnb affected another payment to another cashier's check in the amount of 14 000 US dollars purporting to be another transmittal of reimbursement from start case so pnb after six years requested Mata for a refund of the Fourteen thousand US Dollars after they discovered the error pnb filed a case for collection and refund of the state amount against Mata okay absent a pre-existing contract one relationship they're being neither cry nor was a contractual relation may be forced upon the parties to avoid a case of unjust energy remember solution inevity is it one side but which can be which is actually one of the sources of obligations remember there is no contract between p and B and Mata the contract exists between p and B and Stark is however which has no right to demand okay so the instant case fulfills the requisites of solution in depth okay we now go to article 24 which is one of the social justice provisions of the Civil War protection for the disadvantage in all contractual property or other relations when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of this moral dependence ignorance indigence mental weakness gender age or other handicap backwards must be vigilance protection okay if one of the parties is a disadvantage as compared to the other Contracting parties the court will always resolve the dispute uh all things be in keep one in favor of the disadvantage okay we will see this uh Doctrine applied or probation applied always in labor contracts and other contracts such as insurance where contracts where they are usually contracts or addiction Regala versus Manila Hotel so this case involves a waiter okay uh uh working at Manila Hotel under a fixed term service contract okay uh the Supreme Court lasting pie the service agreement as a contract propagation whose terms must be strictly construed against its Factor Manila Hotel a contract of addition is one where are parties such as Manila Hotel prepares the stipulations and the other party like Regala really affects these signature so parties bargaining are not on equal footing the weaker part is participation being reduced to the alternative of taking it or leading can hardly stand on equal terms with Manila Hotel thus the service agreement was interpreted in this table and was struck down for okay thoughtness and extravagance under Articles you must remember that okay uh when you are a billionaire like for example uh you are in the light so many times yeah wdrs if you have such amount of money okay but um you have all the right to spend your hard-earned money okay because it is shorts okay and part of ownership is enjoyment and disposing of uh the things that you have in accordance with your wants even your rims and purposes however there are certain limitations that even though you have that right article 25 tells us that thoughtless extravagance in experiences for pleasure or display during a period of acute problem you want or emergence may be stopped by order of the Courts at the instance of any government or private charitable the key word here is insensitive if you have to be sensitive to the needs of the people or to the uh uh uh you you have to be sensitive to the uh feelings thoughts of the people around if the people around you is in such a situation okay that they that there exists an acute public want or emergence the only thing that I could think of is those that situation when in in in uh when the 1990 earthquake happened Yolanda even people uh do not have roofs over their heads because it was destroyed by the time that could be considered as an acute topic one or emergency so if in that scenario it so happened that for example you want to celebrate your birthday in a compost and for Lavish Way okay that would be considered as thoughtless where you would spend Millions okay in uh celebrating something an event for example when at the time that it is being celebrated there was an acute public want or emergence okay why do we have this probation it is uh for the purpose of preventing uh the passions of those who cannot afford to spread from being excited it it might create unrest or civil unrest okay okay we now do we now go to the provisions of the civil code on marites okay every person shall respect the dignity personality privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons the following and similar acts though they may not constitute a criminal offense shall produce a cause of action for damages prevention and other relief number one crying into the privacy of another's residence number two meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another number three intriguing to post another to be alienated from his friends number four texting or humiliating another an account of his religious beliefs slowly stationed in life place of birth physical defect or any other personal condition so remember article 26 is designed okay to ensure that um people respect the dignity and privacy of their neighbors now in order to determine whether a varies of ionization of article 26 we have the reasonable expectation of rainbow synthetics okay um whether by the individual has exhibited and expectation of privacy this expectation is one that Society recognizes as reasonable and it is determined on a case-to-pace basis depending on the factual circumstances surround So when you say dignity and privacy does it only or exclusively refer to the residents the answer is no a business office is entitled also to the same price okay when the public is excluded and only certain individuals are allowed to enter we have the illustrative case of King versus so in this case Bill and Victoria file the complaint for uh actually injunction and damages against showa tune okay the parties are owners of Egyptian lots and there is a CCTV which is installed okay which pays petitioners property which violated his right to rise so the right to privacy is defined as the right to be free from an warranted exploitation of one's person or from intuition into one's private opinions in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person's ordinary sensibilities it is the right to be left alone so article 26 um states that any Act of intrusion or beeping inquisitively to the residence of the another without the consent of the order however this does not mean that only the residence is entitled to privacy because it also covers similar Acts a business office is entitled to the same price okay so it also discussed the reasonable expectation of privacy tests so the Supreme Court said in this case that the installation of cameras should not cover places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy unless the consent of the individual whose right to privacy would be affected was obtained cameras cannot be made to extend the view to the lot of the petition so the installation of video surveillance cameras directly facing petitioner's property or covering a significant portion they're all without their consent severe violation of their right to private manaloto versus peloso for this also this also concerns article twins so in this case there was a case for unlawful detainer which was filed by manaloto against peloso now there was a decision uh in favor of manaloto and that is for a local detainer uh that decision was on a Beat however during dependency of the appeal manaloto was the winning case uh who was the the one who won in the locality inner case distributed the piece of the decision to the residents of the village thus will also filed a case for damages against manaloto under article with sticks okay uh did um veloso I did manaloto commit a violation of article 26 the rights of persons are Amplified protected and damages are provided for violations of a person's dignity personality privacy and peace of mind damages are allowable for actions against a person's dignity such as propane insulting Humanity language the distribution by petitioners to the homeowners of copies of the decision in the unknown quality in the case which is still on appeared yeah uh is expected to humiliate respondent or assault this Factor the controversy is suited in the dissemination by the petitioners of the trial court judge so we're not involved in the unlawful detainment it's thus affecting negatively respondents good name and reputation among the whole world okay whether they did so with the intent of humiliating respondent and destroying the name and reputation so that was uh also considered as a violation of the right to privacy distribute a decision which is still on okay to persons who are not even part of students in the case of Gregorio versus okay this case involves a complaint reviolation for the insufficiently funded chips use as payment for the numerous appliances because the address stated in the complaint was not correct Gregorio was unable to control the charges against her okay she was indicted for violation for three times okay however subsequently emotion to dismiss the complaint was drafted thus Gregorio filed a complaint for damages against Sancho and the wind so the respondent did not exercise diligent efforts to ascertain the true identity of the person who delivered to them the insufficient funded chairs as payment for the appliances respondents maybe never gave her the opportunity to controvert the charges because they stated an incorrect address so in an action to recover damages per malicious prosecution it was the alleged that Sancho and the twin were imbailed by legal malice or bad faith in initiating an action against report knowing that they were false and groundness intending to Vex a human nature however this was not alleged as I was always saying bad faith or malice is the common thread that runs through all the civil code provisions on Abu surprise considering that there was no malice or bad faith in the filing of the state complaint and it was merely exercising right then he cannot be held liable for damages a conception versus foreign Nicolas resided in an apartment which was owned by Florence conception okay at the time when Nicolas was renting the apartment he was engaged in the business of supplying government agencies with office equipment decided to join this business by contributing topical okay however an amarites Rodrigo Concepcion which is the brother-in-law of Lawrence okay um approach Nicolas and accused him of conducting an adulterous relationship with no names so as a result of this of this incident because Rodrigo accused him that uh he was having an extramarital affair with Florence it he felt extremely embarrassed now Florence also cease to do business with um uh with Nicolas as a result of which the business collapsed now whether the issue is whether there is basis in law for the award of damages to private respondents the Nicola spouses okay it does not need further elucidation that the incident was no less than an invasion of the right of respondent Nestor or Nicolas as a person so the philosophy behind article 26. um underscores the Necessities inclusion in our city people the Touchstone of every system of law of the culture and civilization of every country is how far it signifies that the statutes insufficiently protect a person from being unjustly unique then in short if human personality is not important then the laws are in effective so the violations mentioned are not exclusive in article 26 but are merely examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts damages therefore are allowable for actions against a person's dignity such as propane insulting standards or abusive language the act that was considered as abusive uh in this case is the uh allegation the margin into uh Nicolas residence by Rodrigo construction the brother-in-law of Florence and abusing him or having uh an extramarital affair with no friends okay that was the ACT which gave rise to an action for damages for being violative okay because it actually constitutes expecting uh the uh another person okay and that was uh held by the Supreme Court as insufficient basis for an awardable damages okay this case of Grand Union Supermarket versus Espino was misplaced it is supposed to be under article 12 who a remember article 22 okay when a person willfully commits an act which is uh which which can give rise to an action for damages the app is contrary to morals good costumes okay so in this case Espino he is a civil engineer a doctor example so he's an executive in the state company okay he went on a grocery shopping okay with this family at South Supermarket now when he found in one of the shelves of the grocery a cylindrical he picked it up held it in his son and later on placed it in the front press pocket okay uh the front press pocket uh where in the cylindrical retail was placed half of it can be seen okay while half was inserted in the front press okay however the thing is she forgot to pay when his wife uh checked out in the counter okay now when he was about to leave okay the security guard confronted him and said that you have something in your pocket which you have not paid for so he apologized and said that he will be going to the cashier to pay for the merchandise however instead of allowing him to pay the security guards um the security guards held him in custody okay uh the boss accusation charge against the private respondent after detaining and interrogating him by the guards and the mood and the manner in which he was subjected shouting at him imposing him a fine threatening to call the police in the presence of many people brought and caused him humiliation and embarrassed under the facts of the case petitioners will fully cause loss or injury in a manner that was pondering tomorrow's good Customs or public funds it is against morals and good Customs to humiliate embarrass and degrade the Dignity of a person and uh so in this case the man although it is the right of the supermarket ERS okay they must do so in a manner that is in accordance with uh justice and observing honesty so in this case okay there was an abuse because of the manner by which the state right was okay because of the manner by which the security guards treated him despite his good intention to pay the the merchandise okay the supermarket was held liable for damages we now go to article 27. which is refusal or neglect to perform and official to any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects without just force to perform his official Duty May file an action for damages and other reliefs against the latter without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken remember that in this case um article 27 speaks of official Duty performance of official to buy a public server so the uh offender here is a public servant or employee or the person that may be helped lie about for advantages the purpose of this provision is to end the private system so there is a duty on the part of any public servant or employee to perform this official if there is refusal or neglect without Just Sports so there he may become liable for them but if there is Aegis force in refusing to perform the same then he cannot be held liable for damages okay we now begin with the case of Tucson for article 27. in this case the issue is whether or not the petitioners are liable for damages for having withheld uh the issuance of the mayor's permit and license because of his refusal to comply with resolution number nine remember here that the reason for the non-issuance of the mayor's permit is because of the non-compliance with a resolution the Supreme Court said that the um article 20 set reciprocess the refusal of the public official to perform his duty is attributable to malice or inexcusable medical petitioners are dead within the scope of their Authority and in consonant with their honest interpretation of the resolution it has been held at an erroneous interpretation of an ordinance does not constitute nor does it amount to bad faith that would entitle an agree party to an award for damages petitioners have been acted in good faith I mean the discharge of their functions they should be absolved from liability so it is similar to the previous case so in this case the claims of nature could not be approved because they exceeded the budgetary Sean so there was a ground okay for the uh non-action only application so the reason is they exceeded the budgetary Appropriations now the question is whether permeal maliciously refuse to act on the vouchers hence can he be held liable under article 27. Supreme Court said we do not agree that the allegations in the complaint um okay um refusal to pay is not inferred solely from the disapproval of things but from inaction thereon as well accordingly the allegations cannot be considered as contradictory to Nations unjust in action Freeman may not be compelled by mandamus to approve the vouchers because they exceeded the budgetary Appropriations under article 27 for malicious in action because he did not act on the voucher so he did not approve it nor did he Grant it he just seated sat on it Saturn official inaction brings to its stand still in the administrative process and the plaintiff is left in the darkness of Uncertain in this regard official inaction cannot be upgraded with this company we now go to Article 28 unfair competition unfair competition in agricultural commercial or Industrial Enterprises or in labor to the use of force intimidation the seed machination or any other unjust oppressive or high-handed method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who suffers damage Article 28 is intended to lay down a general principle outlawing unfair competition unfair competition must be denounced because it undermines free enterprise okay we now go to the cases illustrating a pair competition Coca-Cola Butler versus Bernard so in this case petitioner designated the respondent as distributor there is an exclusive leadership contract between Coca-Cola now the petitioner required Coca-Cola required the Bernardo to submit a list of his customers there was an assurance from Coca-Cola that the contract of Bernardo would be renewed for a longer however upon getting the list of bernardo's customers Coca-Cola started to reach out to these customers the respondents found out that Coca-Cola had employed a different price since team authoring them a lower price be offering a lower price to be customers of Bernardo so petitioners agents solicited the list of clients to penetrate the market and directly Supply customers with its products so the merchant was also the producer with the use of the list provided by its distributor not on the doors of the latter's costume customers and offers the products of being substantially lower price when a person starts an opposing place for business not for the sake of profit but regardless of loss and for the sole purpose of driving a competitor out of business in order to take advantage of the effects of a malleable and purpose that person is guilty be another case of unfair competition new versus sport of puppies okay you was an exclusive distributor of the House of Mayfair products okay um this former dealer purchased the merchandise from the house of Mayfair in England and sold the merchandise now because of this you filed an action for injunction and damages the right to perform an exclusive distributorship agreement and to reap the profits resulting from such performance are proprietary rights which must be protected so in this case what happened is that the house and me of Mayfair in England was took into believing that the goods ordered through the fnf trading were to be shipped to Nigeria but in actuality the goods were actually sent and sold to the building so there was an unfair competition because of he brought that was employed by fnf3 we now go to article 29 civil action actor article 29 tells us that when the accused in a criminal prosecution is submitted on the ground that he still does not improve beyond the Reasonable Doubt a civil action for damages for the same upper Omission may be file such action requires only preponderance of evidence if in a criminal case the Judgment of a metal is based on Reasonable Doubt the portions of declare in the absence of any declaration it may be inspired from the text of the decision whether or not acquittal is due for that problem remember that when you find a criminal action okay it is always there is always a dual aspect okay why because any person under article 100 any person who is criminally liable is also civilizable when a crime is committed there are two offended parties the first offended party is the state that is the reason why before you file a criminal case report you first go through the Piston it is the fiscal who will determine whether or not a criminal team should file okay the second offended party is the private complainer okay the private complainant okay is the person who will initiate the complaint before the physical or before the prosecutors now if for example in a criminal case the abuse is acquitted on the ground that uh uh on the ground of Reasonable Doubt okay can you find an action for damages article 29 gives the private complaint on the right to five okay in civil action for damages if the acquittal is based on reasonable now okay however there are certain instances when you can no longer file a civil action if for example there is a statement in the decision that the abuse is acquitted because he did not commit the act or Omission okay or if there is a finding in the final judgment that the act or Omission from which the Civil liability might arise if not exist okay so remember that the reason for article 29 is Criminal liability requires therefore it is very hard to prove however a civil case for damages requires only preponderance okay so even though the accused may be acquitted on the criminals he can be held liable on the Civil aspect again remember when you file a criminal case there is always a do one liability first to the state because you have committed an object second to the private complainer okay where you can be helped civilizer okay when the accused is acquitted on the ground he that refers to the criminal aspect article 29 gives the private complain and the option to file a case for damages based on the crime base xdelito based on the crime if the reason is reasonable okay you can find a an action for damages okay people versus during the pendency of the API now the effect of the death of the accused while the appeal whether on trial or on a field is the extinction or criminal liability so does that mean that the Civil liability was also extinguished okay so in this case uh we proceeded to distinguish the dependence if the aqua Mission complaint arises from aquaside or by provision of law results in an injury to person or real property the separate civil action must be filed against the executor of this extinguishes his criminal as well as civil liability based on the crime um foreign the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused and the same may also be predicated on a source of oblivation other than the daily what are the other sources of occupation okay this step or where the Civil liability survives as explained in number two above an action for Recovery may be pursued but but only by way of filing a separate civil action these separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor or administrator of the St depending on the source of we will discuss later the independent civil action you have the case of Chain versus so this petition pertains and is limited solely to the Civil aspect of the case involving the vital for 11 pounds for BP 22. um according to knit down the ca decision has already made a finding to the effect that the part upon which her civil liability might arise did not exist she refers the ruling of the ca that the check was told that hence petitioner did not acquire any right or interest over the check and could not assert any cause of action founded on the chair so these pronouncements are equivalent to a finding that the facts upon which the Civil liability might arise do not exist so if that is the case if there is a statement in the decision that you did not permit the acts complaint or or that the tax upon which the Civil liability might arise did not exist then you cannot hold him liable for a perceivable liability based on the criminal you can hold him liable for other uh sources of obligations such as for example uh in the case of physical injuries performation or fraud under article 33 but not expelled or from the crime itself okay the series rather it is based on the finding that she did not commit the ACT finalized under deeply dwell civil action only when a separate civil action under article 30 is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case a preponderance of evidence shall likewise its profession to prove the ACT properly of Etc there are when when you when you file a criminal case there are two one liabilities first to the state which is the criminal aspect Revolution second to the private complaint and for the Civil asset okay for violation of the rights okay now when you file a criminal case when you file the criminal case the Civil liability that is from the crime is always being implied me instituted with the dreaming of things okay now article 36 of a situation where again okay a separate civil action is fine to demand civil liability and there are no criminal Prosthetics instituted okay so the private offended party decided not to file a criminal case with the physical not to file a criminal complaint before the physical and to just file a civil case for damages okay uh and there was no criminal case fine so in that case preponderance of evidence will be used liable you remember that article 30 does not speak of independent civil actions they speak of any case a involving a criminal offense but they decided to forego with the criminal and just go with an action for damages to the man see being liability okay we now go to Independent civil action article 31 tells us when the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the ACT complained of a surveillance such civil action May proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of conductor what is an independent civil action it is one that is brought distinctly and separately from a criminal case allowed for considerations of public policy because the proof needed for civil cases is less than that required for criminal cases provided that success in financially recovering in one case should prevent a recovery of Damages in another so The Binding of an independent stable action is permissive not of course remember that uh okay uh there are different sources of options in certain cases okay the uh uh law gives us the right to find an independent civil action from the word independent it means stand alone okay regardless of the result of the Criminal action remember that when you file a criminal complaint the civil action that is deemed instituted with the criminal public is always dependent on the results of the criminal case okay an independent civil action okay on the other hand okay can proceed independently of the criminal case you are not required to uh file it ahead or make arrests that are being shown or even if the accused dies during dependency of the criminal because it would not affect the independent civil action that was instituted why because if the independent civil action is based on another source of obligation then what are those sources of obligation articles or breach of constitution right article 33 defamation prod physical deliveries article 34 refusal or failure to give protection and article 20 2177 remember class that there are only very few cases when the law allows independent civil action and these are those cases articles 32 breach of constitutional rights article 33 defamation broad physical injuries article 34 refusal or failure of police to live protection in article 2177 for assignment so only in these cases can you find an independent civil action in all other cases you're not allowed to file an independent civil action okay we now begin with the case of Kane versus Rajan so in this case the petitioner Kane and the respondent project are hormonal spouses so they are live in Partners now respondent brought a criminal action for violation of Republica 9262 against the petitioner for inflicting physical injuries upon so the petitioner however was acquitted on the ground now Patricia filed the campaign for damages based on article 33 because it was physical injuries right praying for damages now in this case since civil liability is not extinguished in criminal cases if the acquittal is based on Reasonable Doubt then the instant civil complaint must proceed even if the guilt of the accused has not been established is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence an app or Omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate liables civil liability from the crime X deleted an independent civil liabilities such as those not arising from an act or ocean complained of us so either of these possible liabilities may be enforced against the offender so although he is acquitted okay he can still be held liable under article territory because what he committed is physically and that independent civil action okay is independent of the criminal article 33 is explicit that in cases of defamation brought in physically increase the civil action is entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action and shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution preservation of the right to separately find a civil action for damages need not even be made the civil action under article 33 may be pursued before the filing of the Criminal Case during dependency of the criminal case for even after the criminal cases sort of Soul the only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or pollution okay evangelists versus green eggs again this is a bp22 case Evangelista obtained alone uh for which he issued to open dated checks now screen next to the event having stopper violation of 1822 the trial court admitted Evangelista um procedure to prove that he had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in his account however Evangelista was declared liable for the corresponding civilian okay uh where the issue is whether the court of appears committed error in holding that petitioner is still liable for the amount stated in the checks the criminal action for violation of 5022 necessarily includes the corresponding civil action and no reservation to fight such civil actions shall be allowed or recognized you must remember that in VP 22 cases you cannot even find a separate civil action it is always uh deemed included in the criminal action in bp22 cases the inclusion of the civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower the number of cases filed before the course it is also expected to expedite the disposition of these cases instead of filing to separate things just one for in criminal and another perceiving only a single suit shall be fine the only instance when separate proceedings are allowed is when the civil action is filed ahead and ahead of the Criminal Case even then the rules encourage the consolidation of civil and Criminal okay the case of money click versus so in this case uh this case involves a reckless imprudence resulting to damage to problem this case was filed against manly clip while respondent filed a case for damages against manly so the criminal case was tried ahead of the Civil so there were two cases one criminal case for reckless and another case for damages okay now in the civil case the trial court rendered its decision awarding damages okay on appeal of the criminal case the ca acquitted the petitioner on the ground that he was not the author of the offense so in spite of that rule petitioner money click can still be held liable for the mission the extinction of the Civil liability referred to in paragraph is section three rule 111 the first exclusive to civil liability found dead on article 100 whereas the Civil liability for the same uh considered as a quasi Deli only and not a surprise is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charge has not happened or has not been committed by the accusation remember um we are dealing here with two separate sources of operation when for example there is a vehicular Mission okay one act okay gives rise to two sources first sources the crime okay uh Reckless importance resulting to homicide okay second is the under article 21 77. okay now aquasidelic is a separate legal institution under the civil code with individuality that is apart an independent from a daily or crime a distinction exists between the Civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for classified them it is now settled that an acryl of the accused even if based on a finding that is not guilty does not carry within the extinction of the Civil liability based on Poor Side area as regards civil liability arises the same will not be extinguished by an African whether it be unreasonable doubt or that the abuse was not the author of the crime the responsibility arising from both or negligence is entirely separate and distinct from the Civil liability arising from negligence Okay so even if the accused was acquitted on the criminal offense on the ground that he was not the author of Japan okay he can still be held liable under the independent civil action under article 2177 why because it is a different source of obligation which is not dependent on the criminal defense it is independent of the criminal of we now go to constitutional civil liberties okay article 32 states that any public officer or employee or any private individual who directly or indirectly obstructs defeats violence or in any manner increase or increase any of the following constitutional rights and Liberties of another person shall be held liable for example so uh you know the constitutionally civil liberties under the Bill of Rights so the offender here is a public officer or employee or any private individual so if you commit any obstruction valuation if you indeed or impair any of the constitutional rights and duties of a person you are exposing yourself to a liability for damages okay what are civil liberties if those are the fundamental freedoms which is associated with the Bill of Rights aimed at protecting the individual against oppression through government action the offender here as I've said is any public officer or any private individual however judges are not are not liable be the agreed party has the right to file an independent civil action for damages regardless of whether or not a crime was committed okay we have the case of Silence International versus so in this case the issue is whether the respondent individual can recover damages for violation of constitutional right okay um the code commission didn't necessary to hold not for not only public officers but also private individuals heavily liable it is not even necessary that the dependent under this article should have acted with malice or badly otherwise it would defeat its main purpose which is the effective protection of individual works it suffices that there is a violation of the constitutional rights so in this case involves a labor organization a union okay the office of the Union was searched okay now the union filed a complaint for damages for trampling upon their constitutional right to be secure in their own office uh in the present case petitioners had reports in late 1987 of illegal activities undertaken in the universe so petitioners March in and search the union office without the search one petitioners violation of individual responded constitutional right foreign strikes against communist terrorists underground houses in Metro Manila so the issue is whether or not the dependence act or Omission constitutes a criminal offense so the agreed party has the right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for them okay um so the law of course rather than the force of law it is necessary to remind ourselves that certain basic rights are immutable and cannot be sacrificed with the transient needs of your moving power the rule of law must Prevail or else Liberty with Rich we find respondents invocation of the doctrine of State immunity but this cannot be considered a supplanted license around information untraveled by any constitutional restraint to disregard or transgress upon the rights and delivered use of Individual Services only judges are excluded from liability provided their apps or omissions do not constitute a violation of the penal code or other female statute me uh me is in this case the court also resolved that um the superior officer can be held liable for their videos even if he was not the one who implemented the order thus it is not the actor alone must answer for damages the person indirectly responsible has also to answer for damages caused by the agreement party okay we now go to article 33 defamation broad physical in cases of defamation fraud and physical injuries a single action for damages separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured part such civil action shall proceed independently of criminal prosecution and still require only preponderance so this is another piece in cases of the information broad physical influence okay you can Institute a an independent civil action which is entirely distinct and separate from the criminal again we now go back to the case of Cain versus project why because King versus throgen come Define for us what is meant by defamation broad physicality groups they are to be understood in their ordinance sense specifically the physical injuries his body not the physical injuries referred to in the revised article 33 uses the words definitions defamation and fraud are used in their ordinaries third sense these two terms defamation input must have been used not to impart to them any technical meaning in the laws of the Philippines but in their generic sense physical injury should be understood to mean bodily injury not the crime of physical injuries because the terms used in the latter are general terms Bernardo versus people so this case involves uh again pp22 so Bernardo obtained a loan from bumangla it was secured by five checks deposited these checks but they were Dishonored on the ground laws filed a case for VP 22 against Bernardo criminal case he was convicted by the RTC however your independency of the appeal Bernardo died okay now the same act or Omission may give rise to Independent civil liabilities from other sources of population thus it is entirely possible for one to be free from civil liability directly arising from violation of the pinalota criminal offense and to still be civil liable or by loss other than such civil actions they proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the Criminal action subject however to the rule that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same the death of Pinocchio spending appeal extinguishes or criminal liability and the corresponding civil liability based solely on the offense or the daily text in a sense that absorbs the abuse from any early responsibility arises from the offense however on there the independent civil liability survived death in an action for Recovery therefore may be generally pursued but only by finding separate civilization the Civil liabilities arising from the issue and support reading instituted in a case for pp22 the death of Bernardo did not automatically extinguish the action the independent civil liability based on contract which was deemed instituted in the criminal action may still be enforced against her estate because pp22 is a sewage so although the the debt extinguished okay the CB liability arises you can still enforce the independent civil liability based on that okay article 34. uh refusal to render when a member of a city or Municipal Police Force reduces or fails to render protection to every person in case of danger to life or property such bits officer shall be primarily liable for damages in the city or municipalities shall be subsidiarity responsible therefore the civil action shall be independent of any criminal proceedings and preponderance of evidential supplies to support such actions what are the requisites for the application of article 34. there is danger to the life or property of any person the aid or protection was requested and the member of the police refuses pertains to render Aid or the article 35 um it refers to case tests where an independent civil action is not available upon the defendant's motion the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant if the complaint is found to be more issues if during dependency of the civil action an information should be presented by the pistol the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the process so this speaks of a case when we opened that party wants to file a criminal but the fiscal refuses because he in his opinion the elements all the elements of the crime are not present so he declined so what can be offended party do he can file a civil case for damages okay this refers to cases where there is no independent civil action available to their permission through physical injuries violation of constitutional uh rights okay this refers to cases where there is no independent civil action available now in this case as if the pistol refuses to file you can file a civil case if later on the physical changes his mind and say oh I will I will now find the information what will happen is that the civil action will be suspended okay while the criminal trial for the criminal proceedings for an example what would be an example for this case if for example uh an alleged victim of rain okay uh file the case before the pistol but the fiscal said that there is no way because there was one step so instead of filing the criminal case you can just file okay a civil case for damages for which preponderance of evidence would be the only uh thing that is required however if the the civil case would be suspected until after the termination of the criminal process okay article 36 spread judicial question prejudicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed shall be governed by the rules of Court what is a prejudicial question it is one which must be decided first before a criminal action may be instituted or may proceed because a decision is vital to the Judgment in the criminal remember a prejudicial question involves always okay steps criminal case and civilities now the question in the civil case or the issue in the civil case is so directly tied with the issue in the criminal case in such a way that okay the decision in the civil case is prejudicial to the continuation of the proceedings okay what are the requisites of Opera judicial question the civil case involves facts intimately related to the criminal prostitution the resolution of the issue raised in the civil action the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be the third and the jurisdiction provide the same question must be enlarged in another question our prejudicial questions applicable to Independent civil actions so for example there is a criminal case and then another complaint for an independent civil action for damages based on article 33 which is wrong okay is the independent civil action for damages prejudicial question to the criminal history stuff and the answer is no okay they can cross the independent civil action can proceed independently of the criminal thieves independent civil actions are not prejudicial questions to criminal instances okay so the principle of prejudicial question is applied even if there is only one word before which the civil and the criminal actions raised the issue of prejudicial question of course it is the difference why because if the prosecution indeed believes that the issue in the Civil disease is prejudicial to the criminal case then they should have suspended the filing of the criminal case and await first the resolution of the Criminal for us in this case according to her his share in the interstate test state of their parents 19 years later para sold the same property to say so this is the case of double State okay as a result okay uh and also on the same day also filed a complete for the Nullification of the second sale in the RFC so the issue is is the complaint for nullification of sale which is sustainability prejudicial a prejudicial question to the criminal complaint or establa okay we have held that for a civil case to be considered prejudicial to the criminal action as to cause the suspension of the Criminal action it must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution speaks but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would necessarily be not determinative of the guilt or innocence it is the issue in the civil action that is prejudicial to the continuation of the Criminal action not the criminal action that is prejudicial to the civil action in this case the Court held that the issue in the Nullification of State caves the civil case is indeed prejudicial to the campaign foreign offense George okay another case which explains to us what a prejudicial question is so in this case Rosemary filed a petition for issuance of letters of administration on the estate of her mother initially opposed but they arrived at a compromise now two of Rosemary siblings uh fired a petition to allow judgment approving the compromise agreement according to the siblings uh Rosemary misrepresented that the Rosemary and uh you were the only ears but there are other heirs okay uh while the action for annulment of judgment was spending funny filed a complaint for falsification and forgery against Rosemary funny alleged that petitioner and rosemary maliciously stated that they are the only heirs now in the resolution of the issue race in the civil case the guilt or innocence of Darkness would necessarily be determined why because the criminal case alleged Rosemary or falsely misrepresenting that they are the only heirs now in the petition to announce the Judgment the issue is whether or not indeed they are the only Heirs of the uh they see them so if the uh sleeping in the civil case it was decided that uh they are the only heirs that there was no Miss uh there was no falsification and perjury committed by those okay it is evident that the result of the civil case with determine the innocent or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal cases for falsification of public documents if it is finally a judge in the civil case that they are not the biological children and consequently not entitled to a share interesting there is no more basis to proceed with the criminalities be exculpated on the basis of the judicial Declaration of finality of this first or second marriage remember that in bigamy okay it is required for conviction that you have too valid and subsisting marriages okay now if for example um uh there is a pending uh judicial declaration okay is the is the civil case for judicial Declaration of knowledge be considered as a prejudicial question to the criminal case or Eagle it appears in the in the previous rulings of the Supreme Court the Supreme Court said that there is a need first for a Judicial Declaration of knowledge okay of marriage before uh you can be exculpated of any legal charge but that was already uh an old ruling because in now in the case of polido versus people it appears that uh even if the uh it appears now that uh the a uh judicial Declaration of nality teams okay as long as it is for avoid marriage it's now a prejudicial question to a criminal case for now in this case um married his married Our God on September 5 1983. now he married again baleda on July 31 1995. so our phone charged pulido and valeda with bigamy now pulido claimed that his marriage with our own is Stalin boy because there was no marriage lies that while his marriage with baleda is only also null and void for a lack of marriage ceremony now the RTC declareda's marriage now the main issue is the necessity of securing a Judicial Declaration of absolute knowledge is about it depends in the criminal prosecution for people we hold that a Judicial Declaration of absolute knowledge is not necessary to prove avoid an initial prior and subsequent marriages in a bigger case a Judicial Declaration of absolute novelty of the first and or second marriages presented by the accused in the prosecution for BW is a valid defense irrespective of the time within which they are secure when the first marriage is going up one of the Essential Elements of income is absent a prior valid marriage okay that's an accused in a big application should be allowed to raise the defense of a prior void of initial marriage to competent evidence other than judicial declaration or knowledge in the same manner when the accuse contract is set on or subsequent marriage that is voided other than it individuals he or she cannot be held liable for begum as the effect of avoid marriage signifies that docus has not entered into a second or subsequent marriage being in existence from the consequently to accuse in vigami May validly raise avoid of initial second or subsequent marriage even without a Judicial Declaration of knowledge we hold that in criminal prosecutions can barely interposed the defense of Avoid of initial marriage even without obtaining a Judicial Declaration of absolute knowledge a Judicial Declaration of absolute knowledge of the first and or subsequent marriages obtained by the whose in a separate person irrespective of the time within which they are secret is a valid depend in the criminal prosecution the same Rule now applies to all marriages celebrated under the civil code and family so that that's it for principle of the use of Rights