Banal Vs Tadeo

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Banal v Tadeo (11 December 1987)Gutierrez, J.

FACTS: Fifteen informations for violation of BP 22 were filed against Rosario Claudio before the RTC of
Quezon City assigned to Branch 84. The judge of said branch inhibited himself, and was re-raffled to
Branch 105 presided by Judge Serquina. Judge Tadeo then replaced Judge Serquina. On 08 January 1987,
the RTC issued an order rejecting the appearance of Atty. Nicolito Bustos as private prosecutor on the
ground that the charge does not provide for any civil liability or indemnity. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order. Respondent Claudio filed her opposition to the motion. The court denied
petitioners motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUES + RULING:
WoN the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the appearance of a private
prosecutor. YES. Petitioner contends that every man criminally liable is also civilly liable, and hence
indemnity may be recovered from the offender regardless of whether or not BP 22 so provides. On the
other hand, respondents argue that BP 22 is an offense against public order and hence, it is the State and
the public that are the principal complainants; hence, there is no civil liability. Civil liability arises not so
much because the act or omission is a crime, but because it caused damage to another. What gives rise to
the civil liability is really the obligation and the moral duty of everyone to repair or make whole the
damage caused to another by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently,
whether or not the same be punishable by law. Damage or injury to another is evidently the foundation
of the civil action. Such is not the case in criminal actions for, to be criminally liable, it is enough that the
act or omission complained of is punishable, regardless of whether or not it also causes material damage
to another. Regardless, therefore, of whether or not a special law so provides, 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. The payee of the check is entitled to receive the payment of money for
which the worthless check was issued. Having been caused the damage, she is entitled to recompense.
The framers of the law could not have intended to leave the offended private party defrauded and
empty-handed by excluding the civil liability of the offender.
DISPOSITION: Granted.

You might also like