Aberca v. Ver PDF

10/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 160
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aberca vs. Ver
*
No. L-69866. April 15, 1988.
ROGELIO ABERCA, RODOLFO BENOSA, NESTOR BODINO,

NOEL ETABAG, DANILO DE LA FUENTE, BELEN DIAZ-
FLORES, MANUEL MARIO GUZMAN, ALAN JAZMINEZ,
EDWIN LOPEZ, ALFREDO MANSOS, ALEX MARCELINO,
ELIZABETH PROTACIO-MARCELINO, JOSEPH OLAYER,
CARLOS PALMA, MARCO PALO, ROLANDO SALUTIN,
BENJAMIN SESGUNDO, ARTURO TABARA, EDWIN
TULALIAN and REBECCA TULALIAN, petitioners, vs. MAJ.
GEN. FABIAN VER, COL. FIDEL SINGSON, COL. ROLANDO
ABADILLA, COL. GERARDO B. LANTORIA, COL. GALILEO
KINTANAR, LT. COL. PANFILO M. LACSON, MAJ. RODOLFO
AGUINALDO, CAPT. DANILO PIZARRO, 1LT. PEDRO TANGO,
1LT. ROMEO RICARDO, 1LT. RAUL BACALSO, MSGT.
BIENVENIDO BALABA, and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
National Capital Judicial Region, Branch XCV (95), Quezon City,
respondents.
Constitutional Law; Civil Law; Purpose ofArticle 32 of the Civil Code

of the Philippines.—It is obvious that the purpose of the above
________________
* EN BANC.
591
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 591
Aberca vs. Ver
codal provision is to provide a sanction to the deeply cherished rights and

freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. Its message is clear: no man may
seek to violate those sacred rights with impunity. In times of great upheaval
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756d5ee47938d99aaa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/22
or of social and political stress, when the temptation is strongest to yield—

borrowing the words of Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee—to the law of
force rather than the force of law, it is necessary to remind ourselves that
certain basic rights and liberties are immutable and cannot be sacrificed to
the transient needs or imperious demands of the ruling power. The rule of
law must prevail, or else liberty will perish. Our commitment to democratic
principles and to the rule of law compels us to reject the view which reduces
law to nothing but the expression of the will of the predominant power in
the community. “Democracy cannot be a reign of progress, of liberty, of
justice, unless the law is respected by him who makes it and by him for
whom it is made. Now this respect implies a maximum of faith, a minimum
of idealism. On going to the bottom of the matter, we discover that life
demands of us a certain residuum of sentiment which is not derived from
reason, but which reason nevertheless controls.”
Same; Public Officers; View that respondents as public officers are
covered by the mantle of state immunity from suit for acts done in the
performance of official duties or functions totally misplaced.—Seeking to
justify the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint, the respondents postulate the
view that as public officers they are covered by the mantle of state immunity
from suit for acts done in the performance of official duties or functions. We
find respondents’ invocation of the doctrine of state immunity from suit
totally misplaced. The cases invoked by respondents actually involved acts
done by officers in the performance of official duties within the ambit of
their powers.
Same; Same; Same; Fact that respondents as members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines were merely responding to their duty cannot be
construed as a blanket license or a roving commission untramelled by any
constitutional restraint.—lt may be that the respondents, as members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, were merely responding to their duty, as
they claim, “to prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion
and subversion” in accordance with Proclamation No, 2054 of President
Marcos, despite the lifting of martial law on January 27,1981, and in
pursuance of such objective, to launch pre-emptive strikes against alleged
communist terrorist underground houses. But this cannot be construed as a
blanket license or a roving commission untramelled by any constitutional
restraint, to disregard or transgress upon the rights and
592
Aberca vs. Ver
liberties of the individual citizen enshrined in and protected by the

Constitution. The ConBtitution remains the supreme law of the land to
which all officials, high or low, civilian or military, owe obedience and
allegiance at all times.
Same; Same; Damages; Respondents are not exempted from
responsibility underArticle 32 of the Civil Code.—Article 32 of the Civil
Code which renders any public officer or employee or any private individual
liable in damages for violating the Constitutional rights and liberties of
another, as enumerated therein, does not exempt the respondents from
responsibility. Only judges are excluded from liability under the said article,
provided their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation of the Penal
Code or other penal statute.
Same; Same; Same; Military authorities are not restrained from
pursuing their assigned task or carrying out their mission with vigor but are
required to observe constitutional and legal safeguards.—This is not to say
that military authorities are restrained from pursuing their assigned task or
carrying out their mission with vigor. We have no quarrel with their duty to
protect the Republic from its enemies, whether of the left or of the right, or
from within or without, seeking to destroy or subvert our democratic
institutions and imperil their very existence. What we are merely trying to
say is that in carrying out this task and mission, constitutional and legal
safeguards must be observed, otherwise, the very fabric of our faith will
start to unravel. In the battle of competing ideologies, the struggle for the
mind is just as vital as the struggle of arms. The linchpin in that
psychological struggle is faith in the rule of law. Once that faith is lost or
compromised, the struggle may well be abandoned.
Same; Same; Habeas Corpus; Plaintiffs’ cause of action not barred by
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.—We find merit
in petitioners’ contention that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus does not destroy petitioners’ right and cause of action for
damages for illegal arrest and detention and other viola-tions of their
constitutional rights. The suspension does not render valid an otherwise
illegal arrest or detention. What is suspended is merely the right of the
individual to seek release from detention through the writ of habeas corpus
as a speedy means of obtaining his liberty.
Same; Same; Respondeat Superior; Doctrine of respondent superior
rejected in the instant case.—Respondents contend that the doctrine of
respondent superior is inapplicable to the case. We agree. The
593
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 593
Aberca vs. Ver
doctrine of respondent superior has been generally limited in its application

to principal and agent or to master and servant (i.e. employer and employee)
relationship. No such relationship exists between superior officers of the

military and their subordinates.
Same; Same; Same; The person indirectly responsible has also to
answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party.—Be that as
it may, however, the decisive factor in this case, in our view, is the language
of Article 32. The law speaks of an officer or employee or person “directly”
or “indirectly” responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and
liberties of another. Thus, it is not the actor alone (i.e. the one directly
responsible) 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the
persons who are directly as well as indirectly responsible for the
transgressions joint tort-feasors.—By this provision, the principle of
accountability of public officials under the Constitution acquires added
meaning and assumes a larger dimension. No longer may a superior official
relax his vigilance or abdicate his duty to supervise his subordinates, secure
in the thought that he does not have to answer for the transgressions
committed by the latter against the constitutionally protected rights and
liberties of the citizen. Part of the factors that propelled people power in
February 1986 was the widely held perception that the government was
callous or indifferent to, if not actually responsible for, the rampant
violations of human rights. While it would certainly be too naive to expect
that violators of human rights would easily be deterred by the prospect of
facing damage suits, it should nonetheless be made clear in no uncertain
terms that Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the persons who are directly,
as well as indirectly, responsible for the transgression joint tortfeasors.
Civil Procedure; Evidence; Dropping defendants General Fabian Ver
etc. not supported by the record nor is it in accord with law and
jurisprudence.—In the case at bar, the trial court.dropped defendants
General Fabian Ver, Col. Fidel Singson, Col. Rolando Abadilla, Col.
Gerardo Lantoria, Jr., Col. Galileo Kintanar, Col. Panfilo Lacson, Capt.
Danilo Pizarro, 1st Lt. Pedro Tango, Lt. Romeo Ricardo and Lt. Ricardo
Bacalso from the complaint on the assumption that under the law, they
cannot be held responsible for the wrongful acts of their subordinates. Only
Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Master Sgt. Bienvenido Balaba were kept as
defendants on the ground that they alone “have been specifically mentioned
and identified to have allegedly
594
Aberca vs. Ver
caused injuries on the persons of some of the plaintiffs, which acts of

alleged physical violence constitute a delict or wrong that gave rise to a
cause of action.” But such finding is not supported by the record, nor is it in
accord with law and jurisprudence.
Same; Same; Court cannot limit plaintiffs’ action for damages to acts
of alleged physical violence which constituted delict or wrong.— Firstly, it
is wrong to limit the plaintiffs’ action for damages to “acts of alleged
physical violence” which constituted delict or wrong. Article 32 clearly
specifies as actionable the act of violating or in any manner impeding or
impairing any of the constitutional rights and liberties enumerated therein.
Same; Same; Complaint; The instant complaint alleges facts showing
with abundant clarity and details how plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and
liberties were violated and impaired by defendants.—The complaint in this
litigation alleges facts showing with abundant clarity and details, how
plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and liberties mentioned in Article 32 of the
Civil Code were violated and impaired by defendants. The complaint speaks
of, among others, searches made without search warrants or based on
irregularly issued or substantially defective warrants; seizures and
confiscation, without proper receipts, of cash and personal effects belonging
to plaintiffs and other items of property which were not subversive and
illegal nor covered by the search warrants; arrest and detention of plaintiffs
without warrant or under irregular, improper and illegal circumstances;
detention of plaintiffs at several undisclosed places of “safehouses” where
they were kept incommunicado and subjected to physical and psychological
torture and other inhuman, degrading and brutal treatment for the purpose of
extracting incriminatory statements. The complaint contains a detailed
recital of abuses perpetrated upon the plaintiffs violative of their
constitutional rights.
Same; Same; Same; Only the facts alleged in the complaint and no
other should be considered in determining the suffering of the cause of
aciion.—The responsibility of the defendants, whether direct or indirect, is
amply set forth in the complaint. It is well established in our law and
jurisprudence that a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint
states no cause of action must be based on what appears on the face of the
complaint. To determine the sufficiency of the cause of action, only the facts
alleged in the complaint, and no others, should be considered. For this
purpose, the motion to dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of the
facts alleged in the complaint.
595
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 595
Aberca vs. Ver
Same; Same; Same; Same; Authority of an attorney to appear for and

in behalf of a party can be assumed unless questioned or challenged by the
adverse party or the party concemed.—In filing the motion to set aside the
resolution of November 8, 1983, the signing attorneys did so on behalf of all
the plaintifFB. They needed no specific authority to do that. The authority of
an attorney to appear for and in behalf of a party can be assumed, unless
questioned or challenged by the adverse party or the party concerned, which
was never done in this case. Thus, it was grave abuse on the part of
respondent judge to take it upon himself to rule that the motion to set aside
the order of November 8,1953 dismissing the complaint was filed only by
some of the plaintiffs, when by its very language it was clearly intended to
be filed by and for the benefit of all of them. It is obvious that the
respondent judge took umbrage under a contrived technicality to declare
that the dismissal of the complaint had already become final with respect to
some of the plaintiffs whose lawyers did not sign the motion for
reconsideration. Such action tainted with legal infirmity cannot be
sanctioned.
PETITION for certiorari to review the resolution and order of the

Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. XCV (95).
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
YAP. J.:
This petition for certiorari presents vital issues not heretofore passed
upon by this Court. It poses the question whether the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus bars a civil action for
damages for illegal searches conducted by military personnel and
other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed under the
Constitution. If such action for damages may be maintained, who
can be held liable for such violations: only the military personnel
directly involved and/or their superiors as wel!7
This case stems from alleged illegal searches and seizures and
other violations of the rights and liberties of plaintiffs by various
intelligence units of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, known as
Task Force Makabansa (TFM), ordered by General Fabian Ver “to
conduct pre-emptive strikes against known communist-terrorist (CT)
underground houses in view of increasing reports about CT plans to
sow disturbances in Metro Manila.” Plaintiffs allege, among others,
that complying
596

Aberca vs. Ver
with said order, elements of the TFM raided several places,

employing in most cases defectively issued judicial search warrants;
that during these raids, certain members of the raiding party
confiscated a number of purely personal items belonging to
plaintiffs; that plaintiffs were arrested without proper warrants

issued by the courts; that for some period after their arrest, they were
denied visits of relatives and lawyers; that plaintiffs were
interrogated in violation of their rights to silence and counsel; that
military men who interrogated them employed threats, tortures and
other forms of violence on them in order to obtain incriminatory
information or confessions and in order to punish them; that all
violations of plaintiffs constitutional rights were part of a concerted
and deliberate plan to forcibly extract information and incriminatory
statements from plaintiffs and to terrorize, harass and punish them,
said plans being previously known to and sanctioned by defendants.
Plaintiffs sought actual/compensatory damages amounting to
P39,030.00; moral damages in the amount of at least P150,000.00
each or a total of P3,000,000.00; exemplary damages in the amount
of at least P150,000.00 each or a total of P3,000,000.00; and
attorney’s fees amounting to not less than P200,000.00.
A motion to dismiss was filed by defendants, through their
counsel, then Solicitor-General Estelito Mendoza, alleging that (1)
plaintiffs may not cause a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of
their detention in the guise of a damage suit because, as to them, the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended; (2) assuming
that the courts can entertain the present action, defendants are
immune from liability for acts done in the performance of their
official duties; and (3) the complaint states no cause of action
against the defendants. Opposition to said motion to dismiss was
filed by plaintiffs Marco Palo, Danilo de la Puente, Benjamin
Sesgundo, Nel Etabag, Alfredo Mansos and Rolando Salutin on July
8,1983, and by plaintiffs Edwin Lopez, Manuel Mario Guzman,
Alan Jasminez, Nestor Bodino, Carlos Palma, Arturo Tabara, Joseph
Olayer, Rodolfo Benosa, Belen Diaz Plores, Rogelio Aberca, Alex
Marcelino and Elizabeth Marcelino on July 21,1983. On November
7,1983, a Consolidated Reply was filed by defendants’ counsel.
597
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 597

Aberca vs. Ver
Then, on November 8, 1983, the Regional Trial Court, National1

Capital Region, Branch 95, Judge Willelmo C. Fortun, Presiding,
issued a resolution granting the motion to dismiss. H. sustained,
lock, stock and barrel, the defendants’ contention (1) the plaintiffs
may not cause a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of their
detention in the guise of a damage suit because, as to them, the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended; (2) that
assuming that the court can entertain the present action, defendants
are immune from liability for acts done in the performance of their
official duties; and (3) that the complaint states no cause of action
against defendants, since there is no allegation that the defendants

named in the complaint confiscated plaintiffs’ purely personal
properties in violation of their constitutional rights, and with the
possible exception of Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Sergeant
Bienvenido Balabo, committed acts of torture and maltreatment, or
that the defendants had the duty to exercise direct supervision and
control of their subordinates or that they had vicarious liability as
employers under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The lower court
stated? “After a careful study of defendants’ arguments, the court
finds the same to be meritorious and must, therefore, be granted. On
the other hand, plaintiffs’ arguments in their opposition are lacking
in merit.”
A motion to set aside the order dismissing the complaint and a
supplemental motion for reconsideration was filed by the plaintiffs
on November 18, 1983, and November 24, 1983, respectively. On
December 9, 1983, the defendants filed a comment on the aforesaid
motion of plaintiffs, furnishing a copy thereof to the attorneys of all
the plaintiffs, namely, Attys. Jose W. Diokno, Procopio Beltran,
Rene Sarmiento, Efren Mercado, Augusto Sanchez, Antonio L.
Rosales, Pedro B. Ella, Jr., Arno V. Sanidad, Alexander Padilla,
Joker Arroyo, Rene Saguisag. Ramon Esguerra and Felicitas
Aquino.
On December 15,1983, Judge Fortun issued an order volun-
________________
1 The Presiding Judge of Branch 95, Judge Esteban M. Lising, was allowed to go
on leave, per resolution of the Supreme Court on October 18,1983, and Judge
Willelmo C. Fortun was authorized to take cognizance of all kinds of cases of Branch
95 during the former’s absence.
598

Aberca vs. Ver
tarily inhibiting himself from further proceeding in the case and

leaving the resolution of the motion to set aside the order of
dismissal to Judge Lising, “to preclude any suspicion that he (Judge
Fortun) cannot resolve [the] aforesaid pending motion with the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge and to put an end to plaintiffs
assertion that the undersigned has no authority or jurisdiction to
resolve said pending motion.” This order prompted plaintiffs to file
an amplificatory motion for reconsideration signed in the name of
the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) of Mabini Legal Aid
Committee, by Attys. Joker P. Arroyo, Felicitas Aquino and Arno
Sanidad on April 12, 1984. On May 2,1984, the defendants filed a
comment on said amplificatory motion for reconsideration.
In an order dated May 11,1984, the trial court, Judge Esteban

Lising, Presiding, without acting on the motion to set aside order of
November 8,1983, issued an order, as follows:
“It appearing from the records that, indeed, the following plaintiffs, Rogelio
Aberca, Danilo de la Fuente and Marco Palo, represented by counsel, Atty.
Jose W. Diokno, Alan Jasminez, represented by counsel, Atty. Augusto
Sanchez, Spouses Alex Marcelino and Elizabeth Protatio-Marcelino,
represented by counsel, Atty. Procopio Beltran, Alfredo Mansos,
represented by counsel, Atty. Rene Sarmiento, and Rolando Salutin,
represented by counsel, Atty. Efren Mercado, failed to file a motion to
reconsider the Order of November 8, 1983, dismissing the complaint, nor
interposed an appeal therefrom within the reglementary period, as prayed
for by the defendants, said Order is now final against said plaintiffs.”
Assailing the said order of May 11,1984, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration on May 28,1984, alleging that it was not true that
plaintiffs Rogelio Aberca, Danilo de la Fuente, Marco Palo, Alan
Jasminez, Alex Marcelino, Elizabeth Protado-Marcelino, Alfredo
Mansos and Rolando Salutin failed to file a motion to reconsider the
order of November 8, 1983 dismissing the complaint, within the
reglementary periocL Plaintiffs claimed that the motion to set aside
the order of November 8,1983 and the amplificatory motion for
reconsideration was filed for all the plaintiffs, although signed by
only some of the lawyers,
In its resolution of September 21,1984, the respondent court
599
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 599

Aberca vs. Ver
dealt with both motions (1) to reconsider its order of May 11, 1984
declaring that with respect to certain plaintiffs, the resolution of
November 8,1983 had already become final, and (2) to set aside its
resolution of November 8,1988 granting the defendants’ motion to
dismiss. In the dispositive portion of the order of September
21,1984, the respondent court resolved:
(1) That the motion to set aside the order of finality, dated May 11, 1984, of
the Resolutiori of dismissal of the complaint of plaintiffs Rogelio Aberca,
Danilo de la Fuente, Marco Palo, Alan Jasminez, Alex Marcelino, Elizabeth
ProtacioMarcelino, Alfredo Mansos and Rolando Salutin is denied for lack
of merit;
(2) For lack of cause of action as against the following defendants, to
wit:
1. Gen Fabian Ver

2. Col. Fidel Singson
3. Col. Rolando Abadilla

4. Lt. Col. Conrado Lantoria, Jr.
5. Col. Galileo Kintanar
6. Col. Panfilo Lacson
7. Capt. Danilo Pizaro
8. 1 Lt. PedroTango
9. Lt. Romeo Ricardo
10. Lt. Raul Bacalso
the motion to set aside and reconsider the Resolution of dismissal of the
present action or complaint, dated November 8, 1983, is also denied; but in
so far as it affects and refers to defendants, to wit:
1. Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo, and

2. Master Sgt. Bienvenido Balaba,
the motion to reconsider and set aside the Resolution of dismissal dated
November 3,1983 is granted and the Resolution of dismissal is, in this
respect, reconsidered and modified.”
Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari on March

15,1985 seeking to annul and set aside the respondent court’s
resolution of November 8, 1983-, its order of May 11, 1984, and its
resolution dated September 21, 1984. Respondents were required to
comment on the petition, which it did on November 9,1985. A reply
was filed by petitioners on August 26,1986.
We find the petition meritorious and decide to give it due course.
600

Aberca vs. Ver
At the heart of petitioners’ complaint is Article 32 of the Civil Code

which 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:
(1) Freedom of religion;

(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical
publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of

law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for
public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for
purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the
Government for redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to
have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face,
and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness
in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one’s self,
or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a
promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except
when the person confessing becomes a State witness:
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment,
unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute
which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the

defendant’s act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the ag
601
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 601

Aberca vs. Ver
grieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil
action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and
may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may
also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless
his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal
statute.
It is obvious that the purpose of the above codal provision is to

provide a sanction to the deeply cherished rights and freedoms
enshrined in the Constitution. Its message is clear; no man may seek
to violate those sacred rights with impunity. In times of great
upheaval or of social and political stress, when the temptation is
strongest to yield—borrowing the words of Chief Justice Claudio
Teehankee—to the law of force rather than the force of law, it is
necessary to remind ourselves that certain basic rights and liberties
are immutable and cannot be sacrificed to the transient needs or
imperious demands of the ruling power. The rule of law must
prevail, or else liberty will perish. Our commitment to democratic
principles and to the rule of law compels us to reject the view which
reduces law to nothing but the expression of the will of the
predominant power in the community. “Democracy cannot be a
reign of progress, of liberty, of justice, unless the law is respected by
him who makes it and by him for whom it is made. Now this respect
implies a maximum of faith, a minimum of idealism. On going to
the bottom of the matter, we discover that life demands of us a
certain residuum of sentiment which is not derived from reason, but
2
which reason nevertheless controls."
Seeking to justify the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint, the
respondents postulate the view that as public officers they are
covered by the mantle of state immunity from suit for acts done in
the performance of official duties or functions. In support of said
contention, respondents maintain that—
________________
2 Joseph Charmont, French Legal Philosophy, Mcmillan Co., New York, 1921, pp.
72–73.
602

Aberca vs. Ver
“Respondents are members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Their

primary duty is to safeguard public safety and order. The Constitution no
less provides that the President may call them “to prevent or supress lawless
violence, invasion, insurrection or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof.”
(Constitution, Article VII, Section 9).
On January 17,1981, the President issued Proclamation No. 2045 lifting
martial law but providing for the continued suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus in view of the remaining dangers to the security of
the nation. The proclamation also provided “that the call to the Armed
Forces of the Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
insurrection, rebellion and subversion shall continue to be in force and
effect.”
Petitioners allege in their complaint that their causes of action proceed

from respondent General Ver’s order to Task Force Makabansa to launch
preemptive strikes against communist terrorist underground houses in Metro
Manila. Petitioners claim that this order and its subsequent implementation
by elements of the task force resulted in the violation of their constitutional
rights against unlawful searches, seizures and arrest, rights to counsel and to
silence, and the right to property and that, therefore, respondents Ver and the
named members of the task force should be held liable for damages.
But, by launching a preemptive strike against communist terrorists,
respondent members of the armed forces merely performed their official and
constitutional duties. To allow petitioners to recover from respondents by
way of damages for acts performed in the exercise of such duties run
contrary to the policy considerations to shield respondents as public officers
from undue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling
threats of liability (Aarlon v. Fitzgerald, 102 S. Ct. 2731; Forbes v. Chuoco
Tiaco, 16 Phil. 534), and upon the necessity of protecting the performance
of governmental and public functions from being harassed unduly or
constantly interrupted by private suits (McCallan v. State, 35 Cal. App. 605;
Metran v. Paredes, 79 Phil. 819).
x x x x x x x x x
The immunity of public officers from liability arising from the
performance of their duties is now a settled jurisprudence (Alzua v. Johnson,
21 Phii. 308; Zulueta v. Nicolas, 102 Phil. 944; Spalding v. Vilas, 161 US
483; 40 L. Ed. 780,16 S. Ct. 631; Barr v. Mateo, 360; Butz v. Economon,
438 US 478; 57 L. Ed. 2d 895, 98 S. Ct. 2894; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 US
232; Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco, supra; Miller v. de Leune, 602 P. 2d 198; Sami
v. US, 617 F. 2d 755).
Respondents-defendants who merely obeyed the lawful orders of the
President and his call for the suppression of the rebellion involv
603
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 603

Aberca vs. Ver
3
ing petitioners enjoy such immunity from suit."
We find respondents’ invocation of the doctrine of state immunity

from suit totally misplaced. The cases invoked by respondents
actually involved acts done by officers in the performance of official
duties within the ambit of their powers. As held in Forbes, etc. vs.
4
Chuoco Tiaco and Crossfield:
“No one can be held legally responsible in damages or otherwise for doing
in a legal manner what he had authority, under the law, to do. Therefore, if
the Governor-General had authority, under the law to deport or expel the
defendants, and circumstances justifying the deportation and the method of
carrying it out are left to him, then he cannot be held liable in damages for
the exercise of this power. Moreover, if the courts are without authority to
interfere in any manner, for the purpose of controlling or interferring with
the exercise of the political powers vested in the chief executive authority of
the Government, then it must follow that the courts cannot intervene for the
purpose of declaring that he is liable in damages for the exercise of this
authority.”
It may be that the respondents, as members of the Armed Forces of

the Philippines, were merely responding to their duty, as they claim,
“to prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion and
subversion” in accordance with Proclamation No. 2054 of President
Marcos, despite the lifting of martial law on January 27, 1981, and
in pursuance of such objective, to launch pre-emptive strikes against
alleged com-munist terrorist underground houses. But this cannot be
construed as a blanket license or a roving commission untramelled
by any constitutional restraint, to disregard or transgress upon the
rights and liberties of the individual citizen enshrined in and
protected by the Constitution. The Constitution remains the supreme
law of the land to which all officials, high or low, civilian or
military, owe obedience and allegiance at all times.
Article 32 of the Civil Code which renders any public officer or
employee or any private individual liable in damages for violating
the Constitutional rights and liberties of another, as enu-
________________
3 Rollo,pp. 240–241; 244.

4 16 Phil. 534, 578.
604

Aberca vs. Ver
merated therein, does not exempt the respondents from

responsibility. Only judges are excluded from liability under the said
article, provided their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation
of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
This is not to say that military authorities are restrained from
pursuing their assigned task or carrying out their mission with vigor.
We have no quarrel with their duty to protect the Republic from its
enemies, whether of the left or of the right, or from within or
without, seeking to destroy or subvert our democratic institutions
and imperil their very existence. What we are merely trying to say is
that in carrying out this task and mission, constitutional and legal
safeguards must be observed, otherwise, the very fabric of our faith
will start to unravel. In the battle of competing ideologies, the
struggle for the mind is just as vital as the struggle of arms. The
linchpin in that psychological struggle is faith in the rule of law.

Once that faith is lost or compromised, the struggle may well be
abandoned.
We do not find merit in respondents’ suggestion that plaintiffs’
cause of action is barred by the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus. Respondents contend that “Petitioners cannot
circumvent the suspension of the privilege of the writ by resorting to
a damage suit aimed at the same purpose—a judicial inquiry into the
alleged illegality of their detention. While the main relief they ask
by the present action is indemnification for alleged damages they
suffered, their causes of action are inextricably based on the same
claim of violations of their constitutional rights that they invoked in
the habeas corpus case as grounds for release from detention. Were
the petitioners allowed the present suit, the judicial inquiry barred by
the suspension of the privilege of the writ will take place. The net
result is that what the courts cannot do, i.e. override the suspension
ordered by the President, petitioners will be able to do by the mere
expedient of altering the title of their action.”
We do not agree. We find merit in petitioners’ contention that the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not
destroy petitioners’ right and cause of action for damages for illegal
arrest and detention and other violations of their constitutional
rights. The suspension does not render valid an otherwise illegal
arrest or detention. What is suspended is
605
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 605

Aberca vs. Ver
merely the right of the individual to seek release from detention

through the writ of habeas corpus as a speedy means of obtaining his
liberty.
Moreover, as pointed out by petitioners, their right and cause of
action for damages are explicitly recognized in P.D. No. 1755 which
amended Article 1146 of the Civil Code by adding the following to
its text:
“However, when the action (for injury to the rights of the plaintiff or for a
quasi-delict) arises from or out of any act, activity or conduct of any public
officer involving the exercise of powers or authority arising from Martial
Law including the arrest, detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same
must be brought within one (1) year.”
Petitioners have a point in contending that even assuming that the

suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus suspends
petitioners’ right of action for damages for illegal arrest and
detention, it does not and cannot suspend their rights and causes of
action for injuries suffered because of respondents’ confiscation of

their private belongings, the violation of their right to remain silent
and to counsel and their right to protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures and against torture and other cruel and
inhuman treatment.
However, we find it unnecessary to address the constitu-tional
issue pressed upon us. On March 25, 1986, President Corazon C.
Aquino issued Proclamation No. 2, revoking Proclamation Nos.
2045 and 2045-A and lifting the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus. The question therefore has become moot and
academic.
This brings us to the crucial issue raised in this petition. May a
superior officer under the notion of respondent superior be
answerable for damages, jointly and severally with his subordinates,
to the person whose constitutional rights and liberties have been
violated?
Respondents contend that the doctrine of respondent superior is
inapplicable to the case. We agree. The doctrine of respondeat
superior has been generally limited in its application to principal and
agent or to master and servant (i.e. employer and employee)
relationship. No such relationship exists between superior officers of
the military and their subordinates.
Be that as it may, however, the decisive factor in this case, in
606

Aberca vs. Ver
our view. is the language of Article 32, The law speaks of an officer
or employee or person “directly” or “indirectly” responsible for the
violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. Thus, it
is not the actor alone (i.e. the one directly responsible) 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.
By this provision, the principle 5
of accountability of public
officials under the Constitution acquires added meaning and
assumes a larger dimension. No longer may a superior official relax
his vigilance or abdicate his duty to supervise his subordinates,
secure in the thought that he does not have to answer for the
transgressions committed by the latter against the constitutionally
protected rights and liberties of the citizen. Part of the factors that
propelled people power in February 1986 was the widely held
perception that the government was callous or indifferent to, if not
actually responsible for, the rampant violations of human rights.
While it would certainly be too naive to expect that violators of
human rights would easily be deterred by the prospect of facing
damage suits, it should nonetheless be made clear in no uncertain

terms that Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the persons who are
directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for the transgression joint
tortfeasors.
In the case at bar, the trial court dropped defendants General
Fabian Ver, Col. Fidel Singson, Col. Rolando Abadilla, Col. Gerardo
Lantoria, Jr., CoL Galileo Kintanar, Col. Panfilo Lacson, Capt.
Danilo Pizarro, 1st Lt. Pedro Tango, Lt. Romeo Ricardo and Lt.
Ricardo Bacalso from the complaint on the assumption that under
the law, they cannot be held responsible for the wrongful acts of
their subordinates. Only Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Master Sgt.
Bienvenido Balaba were kept as defendants on the ground that they
alone “have been specifically mentioned and identified to have
allegedly caused injuries on the persons of some of the plaintiffs,
which acts of alleged phy sical violence constitute a delict or wrong
that gave rise to a cause of action.” But such finding is not supported
by the record, nor is it in accord with law and jurisprudence. Firstly,
it is wrong to limit the plaintiffs’ action for damages
________________
5 Section l, Artide XI.
607
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 607

Aberca vs. Ver
to “acts of alleged physical violence” which constituted delict or

wrong. Article 32 clearly specifies as actionable the act of violating
or in any manner impeding or impairing any of the constitutional
rights and liberties enumerated therein, among others—
1. Preedom from arbitrary arrest or illegal detention;

2. The right against deprivation of property without due
process of law;
3. The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
4. The privacy of communication and correspondence;
5. Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against
one’s self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from
being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make
a confession, except when the person confessing becomes a
state witness.
The complaint in this litigation alleges facts showing with abundant

clarity and details, how plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and liberties
mentioned in Article 32 of the Civil Code were violated and

impaired by defendants. The complaint speaks of, among others,
searches made without search warrants or based on irregularly
issued or substantially defective warrants; seizures and confiscation,
without proper receipts, of cash and personal effects belonging to
plaintiffs and other items of property which were not subversive and
illegal nor covered by the search warrants; arrest and detention of
plaintiffs without warrant or under irregular, improper and illegal
circumstances; detention of plaintiffs at several undisclosed places
of “safehouses” where they were kept incommunicado and subjected
to physical and psychological torture and other inhuman, degrading
and brutal treatment for the purpose of extracting incriminatory
statements. The complaint contains a detailed recital of abuses
perpetrated upon the plaintiffs violative of their constitutional rights.
Secondly, neither can it be said that only those shown to have
participated “directly” should be held liable. Article 32 of the Civil
Code encompasses within the ambit of its provisions those directly,
as well as indirectly, responsible for its violation.
The responsibility of the defendants, whether direct or indirect, is
amply set forth in the complaint. It is well established in
608

Aberca vs. Ver
our law and jurisprudence that a motion to dismiss on the ground

that the complaint states no cause of action must be based on what
6
appears on the face of the complaint. To determine the sufficiency
of the cause of action, only the facts alleged in the complaint, and no
7
others, should be considered. For this purpose, the motion to
dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in
8
the complaint.
Applying this test, it is difficult to justify the trial court's ruling,
dismissing for lack of cause of action the complaint against all
defendants, except Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Master Sgt.
Bienvenido Balaba. The complaint contained allegations against all
the defendants which, if admitted hypothetically, would be sufficient
to establish a cause or causes of action against all of them under
Article 32 of the Civil Code.
This brings us to the last issue. Was the trial court correct in
dismissing the complaint with respect to plaintiffs Rogelio Aberca,
Danilo de la Fuente, Marco Palo, Alan Jazminez, Alex Marcelino,
Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino, Alfredo Mansos and Rolando Salutin,
on the basis of the alleged failure of said piaintiffS' to file a motion
for reconsideration of the court's resolution of November 8, 1983,
granting the respondent's motion to dismiss?
It is undisputed that a timely motion to set aside said order of

November 8, 1983 was filed by "plaintiffs, through counsel." True,
the motion was signed only by Atty. Joker P. Arroyo, counsel for
Benjamin Sesgurido; Atty. Antonio Rosales, counsel for Edwin
Lopez and Manuel Martin Guzman; Atty. Pedro B. Ella, Jr., counsel
for Nestor Bodino and Carlos Palma; Atty. Arno V. Sanidad, counsel
for Arturo Tabara; Atty. Felicitas S. Aquino, counsel for Joseph
Olayer; and Atty. Alexander Padilla, counsel for Rodolfo Benosa.
But the body of the motion itself clearly indicated that the motion
was filed on behalf of all the plaintiffs. And this must
________________
6 Azur v. Provinciai Board, 27 SCRA 50, 57; Garcon v. Redemptorist Fathers, 17

SCRA 341.
7 Adamos v. J. M. Tuazon, 25 SCRA 529; Socorro v. Vargas, 25 SCRA 592, 596;
La Suerte Cigar & Cigarette Factory vs. Central Azucarera de Davao, 23 SCRA
686,690.
8 Garcon vs. Redemptorist Fathers, supra; PNB vs. Hipolito, 13 SCRA 20,
609
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 609

Aberca vs. Ver
have been also the understanding of defendants’ counsel himself for

when he filed his comment on the motion, he furnished copies
thereof, not just to the lawyers who signed the motion, but to all the
lawyers of plaintiffs, to wit: Attys. Jose W. Diokno, Procopio
Beltran, Rene Sarmiento, Efren Mercado, Augusto Sanchez,
Antonio Rosales, Pedro Ella, Jr., Arno Sanidad, Alexander Padilla,
Joker Arroyo, Rene Saguisag, Ramon Esguerra and Felicitas S.
Aquino.
In filing the motion to set aside the resolution of November 8,
1983, the signing attorneys did so on behalf of all the plaintiffs.
They needed no specific authority to do that The authority of an
attorney to appear for and in behalf of a party can be assumed,
unless questioned or challenged by the adverse party or the party
concerned, which was never done in this case. Thus, it was grave
abuse on the part of respondent judge to take it upon himself to rule
that the motion to set aside the order of November 8,1953
dismissing the complaint was filed only by some of the plaintiffs,
when by its very language it was clearly intended to be filed by and
for the benefit of all of them. It is obvious that the respondent judge
took umbrage under a contrived technicality to declare that the
dismissal of the complaint had already become final with respect to
some of the plaintiffs whose lawyers did not sign the motion for
reconsideration. Such action tainted with legal infirmity cannot be

sanctioned.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and annul and set aside the
resolution of the respondent court, dated November 8, 1983, its
order dated May 11, 1984 and its resolution dated September
21,1984. Let the case be remanded to the respondent court for
further proceedings. With costs against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras,

Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento, CorUs and Grino-Aquino,
JJ., concur.
Teehankee, C.J., concurs with a separate opinion.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., in the result.
Padilla, J., no part; related to counsel for Rodolfo Benosa.
610

Aberca vs. Ver
TEEHANKEE, C.J., concurring:
The Court’s judgment at bar makes clear that all persons, be they
public officers or employees, or members of the military or police
force or private individuals who directly or indirectly obstruct,
defeat, violate or in any manner impede or impair the constitutional
rights and civil liberties of another person, stand liable and may be
sued in court for damages as provided in Art. 32 of the Civil Code.
The case at bar specifically upholds and reinstates the civil action
for damages filed in the court below by petitionersplaintiffs for
illegal searches conducted by military personnel and other violations
of their constitutional rights and liberties. At the same time it rejects
the automatic application of the principle of respondent superior or
command responsibility that would hold a superior officer jointly
and severally accountable for damages, including moral and
exemplary, with his subordinates who committed such
transgressions. However, the judgment gives the caveat that a
superior officer must not abdicate his duty to properly supervise his
subordinates for he runs the risk of being held responsible for gross
negligence and of being held under the cited provision of the Civil
Code as indirectly and solidarily accountable with the tortfeasor.
The rationale for this rule of law was best expressed by Brandeis
in this wise: “ln a government of laws, existence of the government
will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our
government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it
teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the
government becomes the law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law,
it invites every man to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy.

To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies
1
the means x x x x would bring terrible retribution."
2
As the writer stressed in Hildawa vs. Enrile which was an
action to enjoin the operations of the dreaded secret marshals during
the past regime, “ln a democratic state, you don’t stoop to the level
of criminals. If we stoop to what they do, then we’re
________________
1 Olmstead vs. U.S. 277 U.S. 438; dissenting opinion.

2 138 SCRA 146, 161.
611
VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 611

Aberca vs. Ver
no better than they x x x x there would be no difference.” x x x The

Supreme Court stands as the guarantor of the Constitutional and
human rights of all persons within its jurisdiction and cannot
abdicate its basic role under the Constitution that these rights be
respected and enforced. The spirit and letter of the Constitution
negates as contrary to the basic precepts of human rights and
freedom that a person’s life be snuffed out without due process in a
split second even if he is caught in flagrante delicto-unless it was
called for as an act of selfdefense by the law agents using reasonable
means to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression on the part of the
deceased.”
Needless to say, the criminal acts of the “Sparrow Units” or death
squads of the NPA which have infiltrated the cities and suburbs and
performed their despicable killings of innocent civilians and military
and police officers constitute an equally perverse violation of the
sanctity of human life and must be severely condemned by all who
adhere to the Rule of Law.
It need only be pointed out that one of the first acts of the present
government under President Corazon C. Aquino after her
assumption of office in February, 1986 was to file our government’s
ratification and access to all human rights instruments adopted under
the auspices of the United Nations, declaring thereby the
government’s commitment to observe the precepts of the United
Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
More than this, pursuant to our Constitution which the people
decisively ratified on February 2, 1987, the independent office of the
Commission on Human Rights has been created and organized with
ample powers to investigate human rights violations and take
remedial measures against all such violations by the military as well
as by the civilian groups
Petition granted; resolution and order annulled and set aside.

Case remanded to lower court for further proceedings.
Note.—Public officials are not liable for damages for performing

their duties required by law and absent bad faith. (Mabutol vs.
Pascual, 124 SCRA 867.)
——o0o——
612
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Aberca v. Ver PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aberca v. Ver PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aberca v. Ver PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 160

590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ROGELIO ABERCA, RODOLFO BENOSA, NESTOR BODINO,

Constitutional Law; Civil Law; Purpose ofArticle 32 of the Civil Code

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 591

Aberca vs. Ver

codal provision is to provide a sanction to the deeply cherished rights and

or of social and political stress, when the temptation is strongest to yield—

592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aberca vs. Ver

liberties of the individual citizen enshrined in and protected by the

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 593

Aberca vs. Ver

doctrine of respondent superior has been generally limited in its application

relationship. No such relationship exists between superior ofﬁcers of the

594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aberca vs. Ver

caused injuries on the persons of some of the plaintiffs, which acts of

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 595

Aberca vs. Ver

Same; Same; Same; Same; Authority of an attorney to appear for and

PETITION for certiorari to review the resolution and order of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

with said order, elements of the TFM raided several places,

plaintiffs; that plaintiffs were arrested without proper warrants

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 597

Then, on November 8, 1983, the Regional Trial Court, National1

against defendants, since there is no allegation that the defendants

598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tarily inhibiting himself from further proceeding in the case and

In an order dated May 11,1984, the trial court, Judge Esteban

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 599

1. Gen Fabian Ver

3. Col. Rolando Abadilla

1. Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo, and

Hence, petitioners ﬁled the instant petition for certiorari on March

600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

At the heart of petitioners’ complaint is Article 32 of the Civil Code

(1) Freedom of religion;

(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 601

It is obvious that the purpose of the above codal provision is to

602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“Respondents are members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Their

Petitioners allege in their complaint that their causes of action proceed

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 603

We ﬁnd respondents’ invocation of the doctrine of state immunity

It may be that the respondents, as members of the Armed Forces of

3 Rollo,pp. 240–241; 244.

604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

merated therein, does not exempt the respondents from

linchpin in that psychological struggle is faith in the rule of law.

VOL. 160, APRIL 15, 1988 605

merely the right of the individual to seek release from detention

Petitioners have a point in contending that even assuming that the

action for injuries suffered because of respondents’ conﬁscation of

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED