Case Digest (G.R. No. 69866)
Facts:
In Aberca et al. v. Ver et al. (243 Phil. 735, April 15, 1988), petitioners, a group of civilians, allege that between 1981 and 1983 elements of Task Force Makabansa (TFM)—an intelligence unit of the Armed Forces of the Philippines commanded by General Fabian Ver—executed “pre-emptive strikes” against suspected communist-terrorist hideouts in Metro Manila. Without valid search warrants or under defective ones, TFM operatives searched private residences, seized personal belongings without receipts, arrested petitioners without judicial authority, denied them access to counsel and relatives, subjected them to interrogation under threats and torture, and detained them incommunicado in undisclosed locations. Relying on Article 32 of the Civil Code (as amended by P.D. No. 1755), petitioners sought compensatory, moral and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 95, Quezon City) granted respondents’ motion to dismiss on three grounds: (1) suspension ofCase Digest (G.R. No. 69866)
Facts:
- Parties and Nature of Action
- Petitioners: Rogelio Aberca, Rodolfo Benosa, Nestor Bodino, Noel Etabag, Danilo de la Fuente, et al.
- Respondents: 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 RTC, NCR, Branch 95.
- Allegations of Rights Violations
- Task Force Makabansa, under Gen. Ver’s order, conducted “pre-emptive strikes” on alleged CT hideouts: illegal searches (defective warrants), seizures of personal property, warrantless arrests.
- Detained plaintiffs were held incommunicado, denied counsel and visits, interrogated under duress, tortured to extract confessions; all part of a concerted plan sanctioned by respondents.
- Procedural History
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages under Civil Code Art. 32: actual damages (₱39,030), moral and exemplary damages (₱150,000 each), attorney’s fees (₱200,000).
- Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing: (a) suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus bars relief; (b) official-duty immunity; and (c) failure to state a cause of action.
- RTC Branch 95 (Judge Fortun) granted the motion to dismiss on November 8, 1983.
- Plaintiffs filed motions to set aside and for reconsideration; Judge Fortun inhibited himself; Judge Lising took over.
- On May 11, 1984, Judge Lising declared the dismissal final as to certain plaintiffs for lack of timely motion to reconsider.
- On September 21, 1984, the court denied motions to set aside the dismissal for most respondents, granted relief only as to Maj. Aguinaldo and MSGT. Balaba.
- Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court on March 15, 1985.
Issues:
- Does the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus bar a civil action for damages under Civil Code Art. 32 for illegal searches, seizures, arrests, detention, and other constitutional violations?
- Are military and civilian public officers immune from civil liability for acts performed in the exercise of official duties?
- Can superior officers in the Armed Forces be held liable under Art. 32 for constitutional violations committed by their subordinates (respondeat superior or command responsibility)?
- Did the trial court correctly dismiss the complaint as to certain plaintiffs for failure to file a motion for reconsideration?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)