Quimiguing Vs Icao
Quimiguing Vs Icao
Quimiguing Vs Icao
Facts:
Carmen Quimiguing, suing through her parents, Antonio and Jacoba
Cabilin, sought an appeal from the orders of Zamboanga CFI, which
dismissed her complaint for support and damages and request for
amendment of complaint.
Quimiguing averred that the then already married Felix Icao succeeded in
having sexual relations with her through force and intimidation. As a
result, she became pregnant despite efforts and drugs supplied by Icao and
had to stop studying. She then claimed for monthly support, damages and
attorney’s fees.
Issue:
W/N the plaintiff-appellants can ask for support and damages from
defendant despite failure to allege fact of birth in complaint
Ruling:
Yes. The Court ruled that plaintiff-appellant had right to support of the
child she was carrying and an independent cause of action for damages.
This is because the Civil Code (Art. 40) recognizes the provisional
personality of the unborn child, which includes its right to support from its
progenitors, even it is only “en ventre de sa mere.” Article 742 of the same
Code holds that, just as a conceived child, it may receive donations through
persons that legally represent it. Readings of Articles 40, 854 of the Civil
Code and Article 29 of the Spanish Code also further strengthen the case for
reversal of order.
Additionally, “for a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to
his lust xxx constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that
entitles her to claim compensation for damage caused” per Article 21 of the
Civil Code, a provision supported by Article 2219, which provides moral
damages for victims of seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts.
Judgment reversed, set aside and remanded for proceedings conformable
to the decision; with costs against Icao.
ISSUE: W/N the employer is liable for the negligence of his cochero
HELD: No. Defendant not liable. Cochero was not negligent. What happened was
an accident. It has been a custom or a matter of common knowledge and
universal practice of merchants to leave horses in the manner which the cochero
left it during the accident. This is the custom in all cities. The public, finding itself
unprejudiced by such practice has acquiesced for years.
FACTS:
Invoking the right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern as well as
the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official
Gazette, petitioners filed for writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to
publish and/or cause to publish various presidential decrees, letters of instructions,
general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementations and
administrative orders.
The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, moved for the dismissal of the
case, contending that petitioners have no legal personality to bring the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or statute
becomes valid and enforceable.
HELD:
Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official
Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. The clear object of
this provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are
to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication,
there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignoratia legis nominem
excusat. It would be the height of injustive to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for
the transgression of a law which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive
one.
The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads: there shall be published in the
Official Gazette…. The word “shall” therein imposes upon respondent officials an
imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the constitutional right of the people to be
informed on matter of public concern is to be given substance and validity.