GARCIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS GR No. 96126 August 20, 1992

Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

Can damages be awarded on self-inflicted injuries?

GARCIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS  GR No. 96126 August 20, 1992 

PETITIONER: ESTERIA F. GARCIANO

RESPONDENTS: THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EMERITO LABAJO, LUNISITA MARODA, LALIANA DIONES, CANONISA PANINSORO, DIONISIO ROSAL, REMEDIOS GALUSO, FLORDELUNA PETALCORIN, MELCHIZEDECH LOON, NORBERTA MARODA and JOSEPH WIERTZ

SUMMARY: Esteria Garciano is a teacher at the Immaculate Concepcion Institute. She was hired to teach during 1981-82. Before the school year ended, she applied for an indefinite leave of absence because her daughter will take her to Austria. Her application, on the recommendation of the school principal, was approved by the President of the school’s Board of Directors. While she was still abroad, the school principal addressed a letter to her through her husband that she had been terminated. Upon her arrival, she received the letter and she then inquired about her termination. The Board of Directors reinstated her and ordered her to report back for work. It also said that the letter of termination sent before had no authority by the BoD and thus null and void. Some members of the Board of Directors resigned because the faculty reacted acidly to Garciano’s reinstatement. Garciano also did not report for work despite the reinstatement and order of the BoD. Instaed, she filed a complaint for damages against the school principal, the President, and some faculty members. The trial court ruled in her favor, but the CA reversed this and absolved the defendants from liability.

The ISSUE is whether or not Garciano is entitled to damages — NO.

The acts of the respondents were not contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy. The BoD did not dismiss her. It even reinstated her and directed her to report for work. While the respondents disagreed with the Board’s decision to retain her, and some teachers allegedly threatened to resign en masse, even if true, did not make them liable to her for damages, as they did not actually and physically prevent her from reporting for work. Their acts were not contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy. They did not "illegally dismiss" her for the Board's decision to retain her prevailed. She was ordered to report for work, but she did not comply with that order. Consequently, whatever loss she may have incurred in the form of lost earnings was self-inflicted. The SC dismissed the petition and affirmed the CA’s ruling.

DOCTRINE: Liability for damages under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code arises only from unlawful, willful or negligent acts that are contrary to law, or morals, good customs or public policy.

As for the moral damages, the right to recover them under Article 21 is based on equity, and he who comes to court to demand equity, must come with clean hands. Article 21 should be construed as granting the right to recover damages to injured persons who are not themselves at fault. Moral damages are recoverable only if the case falls under Article 2219 in relation to Article 21. In the case at bar, petitioner is not without fault. As for the exemplary damages, it was not justified for she is not entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages.

a. Firstly, she went on an indefinite leave of absence and failed to report back in time for the regular opening of classes.

b. Secondly, for reasons known to herself alone, she refused to sign a written contract of employment.

Lastly, she ignored the Board of Directors' order for her to report for duty on July 5, 1982.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. CUSTOMS (29 SCRA 617)

Executive Construction ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. CUSTOMS (29 SCRA 617) FACTS Asturias Sugar Central, Inc., a domestic company engaged in the production and milling of centrifugal sugar for exert, was using jute bags as container for sugar. Consequently, the company made two importations of jute bags, both of which entered free of customs duties and special import tax upon the petitioner's filing of Re-exportation and Special Import Tax Bonds, under the condition that the bags shall be exported within 1 year from the date of importation. However, not all the bags were exported within the 1 year period. Petitioner asked for an extension, but it was denied. The Collector of Customs assessed customs duties and special import tax. Issues:   a.) Whether or not the Commissioner of Customs is vested with discretion to extend the period of one year provided for in section 23 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909.   b.) Whether or not interpretation or construction of...
Read more