Case Summary (G.R. No. 217356)
Factual Background and Contentions of the Parties
The petitioners, following reports of illegal activities—including marijuana use, dollar smuggling, prostitution, and theft—in the union office at the hotel, conducted surveillance and subsequently entered and searched the union office without a search warrant on January 11, 1988. They contend that union officer Henry Babay consented to the entry and search, which led to the discovery of marijuana. The search was prompted by suspicions of illegal activities.
Conversely, the respondents, who were union officers and employees, maintained that the entry was forcible and unauthorized. A hotel employee witnessed men forcibly opening the union office door at dawn without their consent. When respondents tried to open the office to investigate, they were violently repelled by men in barong tagalog allegedly connected with the hotel security. The respondents called the police, but the petitioners nevertheless insisted on entering and searching the office without a warrant and over Babay’s objection, who had asked for a search warrant.
Criminal Case and Acquittal of Union Officers
Following the discovery of marijuana, the Fiscal’s Office filed charges against thirteen union officers, including respondents, for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. After trial, the Regional Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding the seized marijuana specimen inadmissible due to suspicious circumstances surrounding its confiscation. The court ordered the return of seized items and canceled the provisional liberty bonds.
Civil Suit for Malicious Prosecution and Illegal Search
Respondents and the union filed a civil suit against petitioners, prosecuting fiscal, and an assisting attorney for malicious prosecution and violation of their constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure. The RTC found petitioners and their security agents jointly and severally liable for damages, awarding actual, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees to the individual respondents and the union. The court dismissed claims against other defendants and counterclaims filed by petitioners.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Petitioners’ Arguments
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of liability for violation of constitutional rights against illegal search but set aside the award of actual damages to the union and reduced actual damages to the individuals. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, contending the following:
- The Court of Appeals erred in holding them liable under Article 32 of the Civil Code.
- The search was reasonable under the circumstances and justified by property rights, consent of a union officer, and reports of illegal activities.
- The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures should not apply to private individuals conducting private searches.
- The Court of Appeals’ reliance on People v. Aruta and Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure was misplaced, as Aruta does not discuss Article 32 or private individuals’ liabilities.
Legal Basis: Article 32 of the New Civil Code
Article 32 holds both public officers and private individuals liable for violations of constitutional rights, including the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The provision allows the injured party to recover damages regardless of whether the violation constitutes a criminal offense. The indemnity includes moral damages, and exemplary damages may also be awarded.
The provision aims at protecting fundamental constitutional freedoms from both blatant and subtle infringements, recognizing that violations often occur outside penal law coverage. It does not require proof of malice or bad faith by the violator to impose civil liability; actual violation suffices.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Unlawful Search and Liability
The Court found that petitioners, despite knowledge of alleged illegal activities, failed to obtain a judicial warrant before entering and searching the union office. They acted in clear violation of the constitutional protection, ignoring objections and requests for a search warrant. The entry and search were therefore deemed unreasonable and illegal.
Reports of illegal activities and property ownership do not justify warrantless searches of union premises lawfully occupied by the union officers. Petitioners’ claim of consent by union officer Babay was discredited, as evidence showed Babay protested the search and asked for a warrant. Waiver of constitutional rights against illegal search cannot be presumed and must be clear, voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, which was not the case here.
The Court underscored that violation of constitutional rights in this context is actionable under Article 32 of the Civil Code, which provides for civil liability including damages. The Court relied on precedents such as MHP Garments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals validating that
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 217356)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Jose Marcel Panlilio was Vice President for Finance of Silahis International Hotel, Inc. (the hotel), co-petitioner in the case.
- Respondents were employees of the hotel and officers of its employee union, the Glowhrain-Silahis Union Chapter (the union).
- In late 1987, reports surfaced that illegal activities including sale and use of marijuana, dollar smuggling, and prostitution were occurring within the union office located in the hotel basement.
- Coronel Floro Maniego, General Manager of the security agency contracted by the hotel, REPISA, conducted a surveillance of suspected union members, with Panlilio’s approval.
- On January 11, 1988, Panlilio, Maniego, their companions, and a reporter entered the union office with the consent of union officer Henry Babay, searching the premises where dry leaves of marijuana were discovered.
- Respondents’ version detailed a forcible entry at dawn by men not recognized as hotel employees, witnessed by a laundrywoman, and a violent altercation with union members that led to police involvement.
- Despite union objections, the search was conducted without a search warrant.
- Criminal charges for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act were filed against union officers but later acquitted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) due to inadmissibility of the seized marijuana and suspicion around confiscation.
- Union officers and the union filed a complaint for malicious prosecution and violation of constitutional rights against illegal search before the RTC, resulting in a judgment against the petitioners.
Procedural History
- The RTC found petitioners Silahis International Hotel, Panlilio, Maniego, and Villanueva jointly and severally liable for damages due to malicious prosecution and illegal search.
- The RTC awarded actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees to the individual respondents and the union.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications:
- Petitioners were held liable solely for violating respondents’ constitutional right against illegal search, not for malicious prosecution.
- The award for actual damages to the union was set aside.
- Actual damages to individual respondents were reduced from P70,900 to P50,000.
- Petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals decision on grounds that the search was reasonable and lawful under the circumstances.
Issues Presented
- Whether the warrantless search conducted by petitioners and their companions in the union office was lawful or an unreasonable search violating respondents’ constitutional right.
- Whether petitioners, as private individuals, can be held civilly liable under Article 32 of the Civil Code for violation of constitutional rights against illegal search