Article 20 Case Digest: Banal V. Tadeo, Jr.

CHARMINA B. BANAL, PETITIONER VS. THE HON. THOMAS V. TADEO, JR, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC-QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 105 AND ROSARIO CLAUDIA, RESPONDENT

G.R. NO. 78911-25, DECEMBER 11, 1987

FACTS:

    Private respondent was accused for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. It appears that fifteen separate information for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law, were filed against respondent Cloudia before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. 

    On January 8, 1987, the respondent court issued an order rejecting the appearance of Atty. Nicolito L. Bustos as private prosecutor on the grounds that the charge is for the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 which does not provide for any civil liability or indemnity and hence, "it is not a crime against property but public order".

    The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Respondent filed her opposition to the motion for reconsideration. In an order dated 31 March 1987, the respondent court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. 

ISSUE:

    Whether or not Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 provides civil indemnification.

RULING:

    Yes. Indemnification of the offended party may be had on account of the damage, loss or injury directly suffered as a consequence of the wrongful act of another. Article 20 of the Civil Code Provides that, every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. 

    Every crime gives rise to civil liability for restitution, repair of damage, and indemnification for the loses.






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