|
SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. and
JOSE MARCEL PANLILIO, Petitioners, -versus- ROGELIO S.
SOLUTA, JOSELITO SANTOS, EDNA BERNATE, VICENTA DELOLA, FLORENTINO MATILLA,
and GLOWHRAIN-SILAHIS UNION CHAPTER, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 163087 Present: QUISUMBING, Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, and TINGA, JJ. . Promulgated: February
20, 2006 |
|
|
|
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
The present Petition for Review on
Certiorari partially assails the Court of Appeals Decision[1]
of
Petitioner Jose Marcel Panlilio (Panlilio) was the Vice
President for Finance of his co-petitioner Silahis
International Hotel, Inc. (hotel), while respondents Rogelio Soluta (Soluta), Joselito Santos, Edna Bernate
(Edna), Vicenta Delola (Vicenta), and Florentino Matilla (Matilla) were employees
of the hotel and officers of the Glowhrain-Silahis
Union Chapter, the hotel employees union (the union).
Petitioners’
version of the antecedents of the case are as follows:
In late 1987,
as Coronel Floro Maniego (Maniego), General
Manager of the Rapier Enforcement Professional Investigation and Security
Agency, Inc. (REPISA) which the hotel contracted to provide its security force,
had been receiving reports that sale and/or use of marijuana, dollar smuggling,
and prostitution were going on in the union office at the hotel and that there
existed a theft syndicate, he conducted a surveillance, with the approval of Panlilio, of suspected members and officers of the union.[2]
In the
morning of January 11, 1988, Panlilio, his personal
secretary Andy Dizon, Maniego,
Bulletin reporter Nonoy Rosales, and REPISA security
guard Steve Villanueva (Villanueva) entered the union office located at the
hotel basement, with the permission of union officer Henry Babay
(Babay) who was apprised about the suspected illegal
activities, and searched the premises in the course of which Villanueva found a
plastic bag under a table. When opened,
the plastic bag yielded dry leaves of marijuana.[3]
Panlilio
thereupon ordered Maniego to investigate and report
the matter to the authorities.
On the
other hand, respondents’ version follows:
On
In the
morning of
Soluta thus immediately lodged a complaint before the
Security Officer. And he fetched a
locksmith, Efren Guevarra, who
tried to assist him, Edna, Arnold Ilustrisimo and Ed
Bautista open the door. At that instant,
men in barong tagalog armed with clubs arrived and started
hitting Soluta and his companions, drawing them to run
to the female locker room, and to thereafter proceed to the Engineering Office where
they called for police assistance.[6]
While awaiting
the arrival of the police, Babay and Panlilio, on the latter’s request, met. At the meeting, Panlilio
told Babay that they proceed to the union office
where they would settle the mauling incident, to which Babay
replied that the door of the office could not be opened. Panlilio thereupon instructed
Villanueva to force open the door, and the latter did. Once inside, Panlilio
and his companions began searching the office, over the objection of Babay who even asked them if they had a search warrant.[7]
A plastic bag was found containing
marijuana flowering tops.
As a result
of the discovery of the presence of marijuana in the union office and after the
police conducted an investigation of the incident, a complaint against the 13
union officers,[8]
namely: Babay, Isaac Asuncion, Jr., Soluta, Teodoro Gimpayan, Vicenta, Edna, Arnulfo Ilustrisimo, Irene Velarde, Joselito Santos, Renato Lina, Avelino
Meneses, Matilla, and
Norman Agtani[9] was
filed before the Fiscal’s
Office of Manila, for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, as amended by Batas
Pambansa Bilang 179 (The
Dangerous Drugs Act).
An Information[10]
indicting the union officers was subsequently filed by the Fiscal’s
Office before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
After trial,
Branch 5 of the RTC acquitted the accused.
The trial court disposed:
WHEREFORE, with the
specimen and/or the marijuana flowering tops allegedly found inside the Union
Office occupied by the accused not admissible in evidence, coupled by the
suspicious circumstance of confiscation, for lack of sufficient evidence, accused Henry Babay, Isaac Asuncion, Jr., Rogelio Soluta,
Teodoro F. Gimpayan,
Vicente Delola, Edna Bernate,
Arnulfo Ilustrisimo, Irene Velarde, Joselito Santos, Avelino Meneses, Florentino Matilla and Norman Agtani, are ACQUITTED of the charge. The bonds they put up
for their provisional liberty are cancelled.
The Branch Clerk is directed
to turn over the custody of the seized plastic bag containing flowering tops of
marijuana to the NBI Director as Permanent Custodian of the seized Dangerous
Drugs.
SO ORDERED.[11]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Soluta and his fellow union officers, together with the union,
thereafter filed before the Manila RTC a Complaint[12]
against petitioners et al. including prosecuting Fiscal Jose Bautista and Atty.
Eduardo Tutaan who assisted in the prosecution of the
case against them, for malicious prosecution and violation of their
constitutional right against illegal search.
After trial,
Branch 55 of the Manila RTC, by Decision[13]
dated
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants Silahis International Hotel, Inc., Jose Marcel Panlilio, Floro Maniego and Steve Villanueva, individually and
collectively, jointly and severally, to pay to:
1.
Plaintiffs Union, Rogelio S. Soluta, Joselito Santos, Florentino Matilla, Vicenta Delola and Edna Bernate-Dacanay,
jointly, the sum of P70,900.00 as actual damages, and the further sum of
P1,000.00 each for the same plaintiffs, except the Union, in the same
concept and nature.
2.
Plaintiffs Rogelio Soluta, Joselito
Santos, Florentino Matilla,
Vicenta Delola and Edna Bernate-Dacanay the sum of P100,000.00 each for moral
damages.
3.
Plaintiffs Joselito Santos, Florentino
Matilla, Vicenta Delola and Edna-Bernate-Dacanay
the sum of P30,000.00 each as exemplary damages.
4.
To all the plaintiffs, jointly and severally, the sum of P30,000.00 for
and as attorney’s fees.
The complaint, insofar as plaintiff Erlisa
Ilustrisimo and defendants Ramos, Bautista and Tutaan are concerned, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
All the counterclaims of the defendants are likewise
dismissed for lack of factual and legal basis.
Costs against the remaining defendants.
SO ORDERED.[14] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
On appeal,
the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial court’s decision. It found herein petitioners et al. civilly
liable for damages for violation of individual respondents’ constitutional
right against illegal search, not for malicious prosecution, set aside the
award of actual damages to respondent union, and reduced the award of actual
damages to individual respondents to P50,000. The dispositive
portion of the appellate court’s decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 55, is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that
the first paragraph of the dispositive portion should read:
“1. Plaintiffs Rogelio Soluta, Joselito Santos, Florentino Matilla, Vicenta Delola and Edna Bernate-Dacanay, jointly, the sum of P50,000.00 as actual
damages, and the further sum of P1,000.00 each for the same plaintiffs in the
same concept and nature.”
The Decision is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.[15]
Hence,
the present petition of Panlilio and the hotel, they contending
that:
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS CONCLUSION
THAT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CIVIL CODE IN
THAT:
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ APPLICATION OF PEOPLE V.
ARUTA (288 SCRA 626[1998]) AND SECTION 13, RULE 126 OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LEGALLY FLAWED.
2. PETITIONERS’ SEARCH OF THE UNION OFFICE IN THE
INSTANT CASE WAS ENTIRELY REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.[16]
While petitioners concede that the
appellate court correctly cited the principles enunciated in People v. Aruta[17]
and Section 13, Rule 126[18]
of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, it gravely erred when it applied Aruta to justify petitioners’ alleged
liability under Article 32 of the New Civil Code. They argue that Aruta does not involve Article 32 as nowhere
in the decision is there any reference to Article 32.[19]
Similarly, petitioners argue that being
private persons, they are not covered by the standards set forth in Aruta as the constitutional protection
against illegal searches and seizures is not meant to be invoked against
private individuals.[20]
Petitioners further argue that the
search of the union office was reasonable under the circumstances,[21] given
that the hotel owns the room where the union holds office; the search was not without probable cause as
it was conducted precisely due to reports received by petitioners that the
union office was being used as a venue for illegal activities, particularly the
sale and/or use of prohibited drugs;[22] and the search was conducted with the consent
and in the presence of union officer Babay.[23]
The petition fails.
Article 32 of the New Civil Code provides:
ART. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in
any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of
another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
x x x x
(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
x x x x
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
As constitutional rights, like the
right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against
unreasonable search and seizures, occupy a lofty position in every civilized and
democratic community and not infrequently susceptible to abuse, their violation,
whether constituting a penal offense or not, must be guarded against. As the
Code Commission noted,
x x x x
(3) Direct and open violations of the Penal Code
trampling upon the freedoms named are not so frequent as those subtle, clever
and indirect ways which do not come within the pale of the penal law. It is in these cunning devices of
suppressing or curtailing freedom, which are not criminally punishable, where
the greatest danger to democracy lies. The injured citizen will always have, under
the new Civil Code, adequate civil remedies before the courts because of the
independent civil action, even in those instances where the act or omission
complained of does not constitute a criminal offense.[24]
The Code Commission thus deemed it
necessary to hold not only public officers but also private individuals civilly
liable for violation of rights enumerated in Article 32 of the Civil Code. That is why it is not even necessary that the
defendant under this Article should have acted with malice or bad faith,
otherwise, it would defeat its main purpose, which is the effective protection
of individual rights.[25] It suffices that there is a violation of the
constitutional right of the plaintiff.
In the present case, as priorly stated, petitioners had, by their own claim, already
received reports in late 1987 of illegal activities allegedly undertaken in the
union office and Maniego conducted surveillance of
the union officers. Yet, in the morning
of
The course taken by petitioners and
company stinks in illegality, it not falling under any of the exceptional
instances when a warrantless search is allowed by
law. Petitioners’ violation of individual
respondents’ constitutional right against unreasonable search thus furnishes
the basis for the award of damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code.
In MHP Garments, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals,[26] a case
for unfair competition, the progression of time between the receipt of the
information and the raid of the stores of the therein private respondents’
premises showed that there was sufficient time for the therein petitioners and
the raiding party to apply for a judicial warrant. Yet they did not apply for one. They went on with the raid and seized the goods
of the therein private respondents. Under
the circumstances, this court upheld the grant of damages by the trial court to
the therein private respondents for violation of their right against
unreasonable search and seizure.
As for petitioners’ contention that
property rights justified the search of the union office, the same does not
lie. For respondents, being the lawful
occupants of the office, had the right to raise the question of validity of the
search and seizure.[27]
Neither does petitioners’ claim that
they were allowed by union officer Babay to enter the
union office lie. Babay’s
account of why petitioners and company went to the union office – to consider Panlilio’s suggestion to settle the mauling incident is
more credible, as is his claim that he protested the search, and even asked if
they were armed with a search warrant.
While it is doctrinal that the right
against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be
waived expressly or impliedly, a waiver by implication cannot be presumed. There must be clear and convincing evidence of
an actual intention to relinquish it to constitute a waiver thereof.[28] There must be proof of the following: (a) that
the right exists; (b) that the person involved had knowledge, either actual or
constructive, of the existence of such right; and, (c) that the said person had
an actual intention to relinquish the right. In other words, the waiver must be
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made. The evidence shows otherwise, however.
That a violation of one’s
constitutional right against illegal search and seizure can be the basis for
the recovery of damages under Article 32 in relation to Article 2219(6) and
(10) of the New Civil Code, there is no doubt.
Since the complaint[29]
filed before the trial court was for damages due to malicious prosecution and
violation of constitutional right against illegal search and seizure, the award
by the trial court of actual damages to respondent union was correctly set
aside by the appellate court.
Article 32 speaks of an officer or
employee or person “directly or indirectly” responsible for the
violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. Hence, it is not the actor alone who must
answer for damages under Article 32; the
person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury
caused to the aggrieved party.[30] Such being the case, petitioners, together
with Maniego and Villanueva, the ones who orchestrated
the illegal search, are jointly and severally liable for actual, moral and
exemplary damages to herein individual respondents in accordance with the
earlier-quoted pertinent provision of Article 32, in relation to Article 2219(6)
and (10) of the Civil Code which provides:
Art. 2219. Moral
damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
x x x x
(6) Illegal
search;
x x x x
(10) Acts and
action referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35. (Emphasis
supplied)
Petitioners
magnify the citation by the appellate court of Aruta allegedly “to justify [their]
liability” under Article 32 of the Civil Code, which petitioners allege is erroneous
as said case did not involve Article 32.
Aruta was,
however, cited by the appellate court, not to justify petitioners’ liability
but to rule out the legality of the search in the union office as the search was
not done as an incident of a lawful arrest.
Petitioners
cite People v. Marti[31]
to support their thesis that the determinants in the validity of the constitutional
right against searches and seizure cannot be invoked against private
individuals.
But
the ruling of this Court in Marti, a
criminal case, bears on the issue of whether “an act of a private individual,
allegedly in violation of [one’s] constitutional rights, [may] be invoked
against the State.” In other words, the
issue in that case was whether the evidence obtained by a private person,
acting in a private capacity without the participation of the State, is
admissible.
The
issue in the present civil case, however, is whether respondent individual can
recover damages for violation of constitutional rights. As reflected above, Article 32, in relation
to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code, allows so.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing
ratiocinations, the petition is DENIED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairman
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairman
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 34, penned by Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. with Justices Romeo A. Brawner and Rebecca De Guia-Salvador concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6]
[7] Ibid.
[8]
[9] Records, p. 12.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Rollo, pp. 68-88.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] G.R. No. 120915,
[18] Rules of Court, Rule 126, Sec.13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
[19] Rollo, p. 22.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] Report,
Code Commission, 31 (
[25] I Tolentino, Civil Code of the
[26] G.R. No. 86720,
[27] 47 Am Jur. 508,
cited in Lim v. Ponce de Leon, No.
L-22554,
[28] Pasion Vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689, 695 (1938); People vs. Aruta, Supra Note 17, p. 648.
[29] Records, pp. 1-11.
[30] Aberca
v. Ver, No. L-69866,
[31] G.R. No. 81561,