Silahis International Hotel v. Soluta, G.R. No. 163087, 482 SCRA 660, February 20, 2006 [FULL CASE DIGEST]

Silahis International Hotel v. Soluta, G.R. No. 163087, 482 SCRA 660, February 20, 2006

"Marijuana in union office"

Under Article 32 of the Civil Code, private individuals can be held civilly liable for violation of constitutional rights and it is not even necessary that the defendant under this Article should have acted with malice or bad faith.

A violation of one's constitutional right can be the basis for the recovery of damages under Article 32.

• In response to reports that sale and/or use of marijuana were going on in the union office at the hotel, Coronel Maniego, General Manager of the security agency which the Silahis Hotel contracted, conducted a surveillance of suspected members and officers of the union with the approval of Silahis mgt.
• They entered the union office with the permission of union officer Babay, and searched the premises to which they marijuana. Maniego was then ordered to investigate and report the matter to the authorities.
• Loida, a laundrywoman of the hotel, heard pounding sounds and saw five men she didn’t recognize in barong tagalog forcibly opening the door of the union office. Later on, as union officer Soluta was trying in vain to open the door of the union office, Loida narrated to him what she had witnessed.
• Soluta thus immediately lodged a complaint before the Security Officer and thereafter the opened the door.  At that instant, the men in barong tagalog armed arrived and started hitting Soluta and his companions. Soluta and his companions ran and called for police assistance.
• The Mgt searched the union office over the objection of Babay who asked them if they had a search warrant. After the search, a plastic bag was found containing marijuana.
• As a result of the discovery of marijuana in the union office and after the police conducted an investigation of the incident, a complaint was filed against the 13 union officers in violation of Dangerous Drugs Act.
• Soluta and other union officers filed a case alleging malicious prosecution and violation of their constitutional right against illegal search, under Article 32 of Civil Code.

Whether petitioners are liable for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code? YES.

• Petitioners argue that being private persons, they are not covered by the standards set forth in People v. Aruta as the constitutional protection against illegal searches and seizures is not meant to be invoked against private individuals. Aruta cannot be applied because it does not involve Article 32 as nowhere in the decision of trial court is there any reference to Article 32.
• The Court ruled that under the Civil Code, private individuals can be held civilly liable for violation of constitutional rights. It is not even necessary that the defendant under this Article should have acted with malice or bad faith; otherwise, it would defeat the main purpose of protecting individual rights.
• A violation of one’s constitutional right against illegal search and seizure can be the basis for the recovery of damages under Article 32. Under the New Civil Code, the injured citizen will always have adequate civil remedies because of the independent civil action, even in instances where the act or omission complained of does not constitute a criminal offense.
• Article 32 speaks of an officer or employee or person “directly or indirectly” responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another.  Hence, it is not the actor alone 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.
• In this case, petitioners, together with Maniego and Villanueva, the ones who orchestrated the illegal search, are jointly and severally liable for actual, moral and exemplary damages.
• The Court pointed out that in People v. Marti, the issue was whether or the evidence obtained was admissible, but in this case, the issue is whether or not damages can be recovered for violation of constitutional rights.