Article 20.

     Article 20 of the civil code states that, every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. 

    The principle in Article 20 of the New Civil Code is founded on the basic rule that every every person who is criminally liable shall also be civilly liable (Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code). This is true whether the act is intentional or unintentional. It is also implemented specifically by Article 2176 of the Civil Code which states that, whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done. 

Liability even in case of acquittal.

    A person who committed an offense may be liable criminally and civilly. This is so because of the of the twin responsibilities of an accused. However, if he is acquitted and the acquittal is beyond reasonable doubt, he can still be held civilly liable. While civil liability accompanies criminal liability, generally, by express provision of the penal law there may be civil liability incurred by the performance of the wrongful act even when the perpetrator is exempt from criminal punishment, like those governed by the by the Revised Penal Code. 

    There are also offenses, which by their very nature, civil liability does not result or attach by their commission like the mala prohibita cases, examples of which are illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives, crimes against national security like treason, violation of neutrality, rebellion; and crimes against public order like evasion of service of sentence. 

No recovery of damages in case of self-inflicted injury (damnum abs-que injuria).

    For liability to attach under the law, injury must have been inflicted by one person to another. If it was self inflicted, then, he is not entitled to damages, as it would be considered as damnum abs-que injuria. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Article 91 - Family Code and Case: Nobleza Vs. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038

Article 91           Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.           The law provides for two kinds of properties that shall form part of the absolute community of properties; namely, (1) All properties owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage;           (2) All properties acquired after the celebration of the marriage.           The law provides, however, that even if the parties are governed by the absolute community, they may agree that some properties be exempted form its coverage. If that is so, then, the ante-nuptial agreement embodied in their law further provides that there are proper...
Read more

Article 20 Case Digest: Sps. Quisumbing Vs. Meralco

SPOUSES ANTONIO AND LORNA QUISUMBING, PETITIONER VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), RESPONDENT G.R. NO. 142943, APRIL 3, 2002 FACTS:     On March 3, 1995, the respondents took a routine check of all single phased meters in Green Meadows avenue. The house owned by the petitioners was one of the houses that was inspected. The petitioners was not around at the of the inspection, the petitioners asked permission from the petitioners through their secretary. The secretary witnessed the inspection. Upon inspection, the respondents discovered that the terminal seal of the meter was missing, the meter cover seal was deformed, the meter dials of the meter was mis-aligned and there were scratches on the meter base plate. This was a clear sign that the meter has been tampered. The petitioners denied liability for the tampering. The respondent then, temporarily disconnected the electric services of the petitioners until they pay the amount of P178,875.01 representing the differential ...
Read more

Article 39, Case Digest - Family Code: Wiegel vs. Judge Sempio-Diy

  LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY (as presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City) and KARL HEINZ WIEGEL, respondents. G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986 PARAS, J.: Facts:           This a petition for certiorari for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the petitioner, Lilia Wiegel and respondent, Karl Heinz Wiegel, by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City.           Herein respondent claims that his marriage to the petitioner is void because of an existing marriage prior to their marriage. The petitioner contends that her first marriage was void because they forced to enter in the said marriage. Moreover, the petitioner assails that her first husband had a prior existing marriage, therefore, making the marriage void.           Respondent jud...
Read more