art20

SECTION 20

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 basic rule that every person  who is criminally liable (Art 100,RPC)

It was true whether the act is intentional or unintentional as when a person kills another or when a person hit by a vehicle  hitting the driven by another without the intention of hitting the victim.

CASE 1. OCCENA V. ICAMINA

G.R. No. 82146, January, 1990

FACTS: Respondents was found guilty of slight oral defamation and sentenced to a fine of P50 in case of insolvency, but no civil liability arising from the felonious act of the accused was adjudged.

Held: This is erroneous, As a general rule, a person who is found to be criminally liable offends two (2) entities the state or society in which he lives and the individual.

Case 2:   banal v. tadeo jr.
156 scra235

Facts:Fifteen separate information for violation B.P.Blg. 22 against respondent Rosario Claudio, to which she pleaded not guilty upon the arraignment.

  The respondent Court issued an order rejecting the appearance of Atty.Bustos as private prosecutor  on the ground  that the charge is for violation of B.P. 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 respondents argued that the state and the public that are the principal complaints and therefore, no civil indemnity is provided for by B.P. Blg22 for which a private party or prosecutor may intervene.

On the otherhand, the petitioner relying on the legal axiom that “Everyman criminimally liable is also civilly liable,”contended that indemnity maybe recovered from the offenderregardless of whether or not B.P. Blg 22so provides recovered from the offender regardless of whether or not B. P. BLG. 22 so provides.

HELD: Every Person contrary to the law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnity the latter for the same.Acts executed again the provisions of mandatory prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes the validity.

Underlying the legal principle is the traditional theory that when a person commits a he offends two entities namely: .

 1.The society in which he lives in or the political entity called the State whose law he had violated

2.The individual member of the society whose person, right, honor, chastity or property was actually  directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act or omission .

  The private party who suffered the offenses committed cannot be disregarded. This is so because of the private interest of the offended party.

The Supreme Court explained:

  Indeed, one cannot disregard the private party in the case at bar who suffered the offenses committed against her. Not only the State but the petitioner too is entitled to relief as a member of the public which the law seeks to protect. She was assured that the check were good when she parted with money,property or services.

She suffered with the State when the checks bounced.In Lozano v.Hon Martinez ( G.R No. L63419, December 18,1986 and cases consolidated therewith, we held that:”The effects of a worthless check transcend the private interests of the community at large.”

Yet, we too recognized  the wrong done to  the payee or the holder, but also an injury to the public”

Civil liability to the offended private party.Cannot thus be denied.The entitled to received the payment of money for which the  worthless check was.Having been caused the damage, she is entitled to recompense.

UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST V. JADER

G.R.No.132344, February 17,2000

FACTS:A suit for damages was filled against ue UE when  respondent  was not able to take 1988 bar  examinations arising from the school’s negligence. He was included in the list Of candidates for graduation even before verifying the result of his removal examination.

HELD: The appeal is without merit.

Considering further, that the institution of learning involved herein is a university which is engaged in  legal education, it should have practiced what it inculcates in its student, more specifically the principle of good dealings enshrined in in Article 19- 20 of the Civil Code

Exceptions:

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

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

ROLE OF THE STUDENT

As senior law student, respondent should have been responsible enough to ensure that all his affairs, specifically those pertaining to his achievement, are in order. Given this considerations, repondents could not be suffered untold embarassment in attending the graduation rites, enrolling in the bar review classes and not being able to take the bar exam, he brought this upon himself by not veryfying if he has satisfied all the requirements including his school records, before preparing himself I for the bar examination does  not only entail a mental preparation on the subject thereof; there are also pre requisites or documentation and submission of requirements which the prospective examinee must meet