Asilo v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Marciana Vda. De Coronado leased a lot and store from the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna, for 20 years starting March 15, 1978. Visitacion Bombasi took over the lease in 1984. In 1993, Mayor Demetrio T. Comendador, citing Sangguniang Bayan Resolutions No. 156 and 183, ordered Visitacion to demolish her store within five days to make way for a new municipal market building. Visitacion offered to vacate if given a comparable space in the new market, otherwise suggesting an unlawful detainer case. Despite her reply and a letter from Asst. Provincial Prosecutor ordering her to vacate, Mayor Comendador, with Municipal Administrator Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. and Alberto S. Angeles supervising, proceeded with the demolition on October 15, 1993. Engineer Winston Cabrega estimated the cost of the demolished property at ₱437,900.00. Procedural History: Spouses Visitacion and Cesar Bombasi filed a civil case for damages with preliminary injunction against the Municipality, Mayor Comendador, Asilo, and Angeles. They later amended the complaint to include other occupants. Separately, Spouses Bombasi filed a criminal complaint for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 against Mayor Comendador, Asilo, and Angeles. An Information was filed, and the cases were consolidated before the Sandiganbayan. During the proceedings, Alberto S. Angeles died, and subsequently, Mayor Demetrio T. Comendador also died. The Sandiganbayan found Mayor Comendador and Asilo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 and ordered them, along with the Municipality, to pay damages. The cases against Angeles were dismissed due to his death. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion for reconsideration regarding Mayor Comendador's civil liability, holding it survived his death. Asilo's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners Asilo and Victoria Bueta Vda. De Comendador (in representation of the deceased Mayor Comendador) appealed the Sandiganbayan decision. Asilo argued he acted in good faith and committed only an error of judgment. Victoria Bueta argued that Mayor Comendador's death extinguished both his criminal and civil liability, and also asserted good faith and questioned the damages awarded.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. and the late Mayor Demetrio T. Comendador are guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. Whether the civil liability of Mayor Demetrio T. Comendador survived his death. Whether the damages awarded to the Spouses Bombasi are proper and substantiated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petitions for review on certiorari, affirming the Sandiganbayan's decision with modification. It found Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. and the late Mayor Demetrio T. Comendador guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The dismissal of cases against Alberto S. Angeles was deemed final. While Mayor Comendador's criminal liability was extinguished by his death, his civil liability survived. The Municipality of Nagcarlan, Paulino Asilo, and Demetrio T. Comendador (substituted by Victoria Bueta Vda. De Comendador) were declared solidarily liable to the Spouses Bombasi for temperate damages in the amount of ₱200,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of ₱100,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. and Mayor Demetrio T. Comendador for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's finding that the elements of the offense were present. The accused were public officers performing their duties. They caused undue injury to the Spouses Bombasi by demolishing their store without a court order, despite the existence of a valid lease contract and the municipality having issued yearly Mayor's permits. The demolition was not justified by the Sangguniang Bayan resolutions, which only authorized the filing of an unlawful detainer case or demolition using legal means, not summary demolition. The municipality was also estopped from claiming illegality due to its prior issuance of business permits. The Court found that the public officials acted with evident bad faith, characterized by a fraudulent and dishonest purpose, conscious wrongdoing, and ulterior motives, as evidenced by the demolition without legal basis and despite the tenant's willingness to vacate under certain conditions. The stall could not be considered a nuisance per se as it was not affected by a fire and had been issued permits. On the survival of Mayor Demetrio T. Comendador's civil liability: The Court held that while Mayor Comendador's criminal liability was extinguished by his death, his civil liability survived. This survival is based on the principle that civil liability can arise from sources other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, as enumerated in Article 1157 of the Civil Code. In this case, the civil liability was also predicated on violations of human relations and the right against deprivation of property without due process of law, as provided in Articles 31 and 32 of the Civil Code. The civil action for damages was filed ahead of the criminal case and invoked the violation of due process, making it an independent civil action that does not necessarily abate upon the death of the accused. The Court distinguished this from civil liability ex delicto which is extinguished upon the death of the accused pending appeal. On the damages awarded to the Spouses Bombasi: The Court modified the damages awarded. It found that the Spouses Bombasi failed to sufficiently prove actual damages amounting to ₱437,900.00, as the only evidence presented was an estimate by an engineer who was not presented as a witness, rendering it hearsay. However, recognizing that pecuniary loss was suffered but could not be proven with certainty, the Court awarded temperate damages of ₱200,000.00, which is more than nominal but less than compensatory. The Court also affirmed the award of moral damages in the amount of ₱100,000.00, which is granted when physical suffering, mental anguish, or serious anxiety are proven, and the demolition of a business establishment certainly causes such distress. The prayer for exemplary damages was denied as no aggravating circumstances were found.
Main Doctrine
The demolition of a market stall without a court order, even if authorized by Sangguniang Bayan resolutions, constitutes a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 if done with evident bad faith, causing undue injury. The civil liability arising from such an act, particularly when based on violations of human relations and due process, survives the death of the public officer, even if the criminal liability is extinguished.