TORTS AND

DAMAGES
IRISH BIANCA LUNA
 Quisaba vs.
1 Sta. Ines
OPPRESSIVE DISMISSAL
 CASE
HIGHLIGHT
 CASE
HIGHLIGHT
 GREGORIO V.
2 CA
ARTICLE 26
 CASE
HIGHLIGHT

Art. 26. 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 notconstitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention andother relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly
station in life,place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
 CASE
HIGHLIGHT

Respondents filed an affidavit of complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22

against petitioner Zenaida R. Gregorio (Gregorio), a proprietor of Alvi Marketing.
Respondents claimed that Gregorio delivered insufficiently funded bank checks as
payment for appliances Alvi Marketing bought from Sansio. Gregorio was then
indicted for three counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The MTC issued a warrant of
arrest and she was subsequently arrested by armed operatives while visiting her
family house in Quezon City.

Gregorio filed before the MTC a Motion for Deferment of Arraignment and
Reinvestigation. She alleged that she could not have issued the bounced checks as
she did not have a checking account with the bank on which the checks were
drawn. This was certified by the manager of the said bank. Gregorio also alleged
that the signature on the bounced checks were radically and patently different from
her own signature. The MTC granted the motion, and a reinvestigation was
conducted.
 CASE
HIGHLIGHT

Subsequently, the MTC ordered the B.P. Blg. 22 cases dismissed. Gregorio
filed a complaint for damages against Respondents before the Regional Trial Court
of Albay. Part of her complaint was that as a result of her wrongful arrest and
arraignment, she suffered helplessness, hunger and humiliation and being
distraught. Respondents meanwhile filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds that
Gregorio’s complaint arose from grounds of compensation arising from
malicious prosecution. RTC denied this Motion to Dismiss. Respondents then filed
a Motion for Reconsideration but was again denied. They went to the Court of
Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the presiding judge of the
RTC in denying their motions to dismiss and for reconsideration. CA rendered a
Decision granting the petition and ordering Gregorio’s damage suit to be
dismissed
 CASE
HIGHLIGHT

ISSUE: Are respondents liable for damages to Gregorio?

HELD: Yes. Among other reasons, the Supreme Court decided that:
Gregorio’s rights “to personal dignity, personal security, privacy,
and peace of mind were infringed by respondents when they failed to
exercise the requisite diligence in determining the identity of the person
they should rightfully accuse of tendering insufficiently funded checks. . ..
Because she was not able to refute the charges against her, petitioner was
falsely indicted for three (3) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Gregorio
was conveniently at her city residence while visiting her family. She
suffered embarrassment and humiliation over her sudden arrest and
detention and she had to spend time, effort, and money to clear her
tarnished name and reputation, considering that she had held several
honorable positions in different organizations and offices in the public
service, particularly herbeing a Kagawad in Oas, Albay at the time of her
arrest. ”
 COJUANGCO JR.
3 V. CA
ARTICLE 32
 CASE
HIGHLIGHTS

Eduardo Cojuangco, a businessman and a sportsman, was the owner of

several racehorces, which he entered in the sweepstakes races from March 6, 1986
to September 18, 1989. The said racehorses won first, second and third places
which granted Cojuangco with prizes from PCSO. Cojuangco sent PCSO demand
letters claiming the prizes but Carracoso replied stating that he was advised by the
PCGG to withhold the prizes in the mean time. The RTC held that PCSO and
Carrascoso had no authority to withhold the winnings since no writ of
sequestration was issued by the PCGG. The trial court also said that Carrascoso’s
initiative of not issuing the prizes were manifestations of Bad Faith. The Court of
Appeals, however, held that Carrascoso was merely carrying out the instructions of
PCGG backed by the intention to protect public interest. The appellate court said
that Carrascoso was in good faith since he replied to demand letters, he released
the winnings upon PCGG’s advice nad he had no objection to the partial execution.
 CASE
HIGHLIGHTS

ISSUE: Whether the award for damages against Carrascoso is warranted by

evidence and the law.

RULING:
The Court ruled that Carrascoso acted in good faith. Bad faith, to be
recognized by court, should be constituted by dishonest purpose, moral
obliquity, and conscious doing of a wrong. The Court further stated that a
public official shall not be liable by way of moral and exemplary damages
for acts done in the performance of their official duties unless there is no
clear showing of bad faith, malice and gross negligence. But Carrascoso
should still be liable under Article 32(6) which states “rights against
deprivation of property without due process of law”. There was a violation
of Cojuangco’s constitutional right even if done in good faith since no writ
for the sequestration of his racehorse winnings. Therefore, Cojuangco’s
petition was granted and Carrasco is obliged to pay nominal damages
worth P/ 50,000.00.
THANK YOU