G.R. No.

L-69866 April 15, 1988 This case stems from alleged illegal searches and
seizures and other violations of the rights and
ROGELIO ABERCA, RODOLFO BENOSA, liberties of plaintiffs by various intelligence units of
NESTOR BODINO NOEL ETABAG DANILO DE LA the Armed Forces of the Philippines, known as Task
FUENTE, BELEN DIAZ-FLORES, MANUEL MARIO Force Makabansa (TFM) ordered by General Fabian
GUZMAN, ALAN JAZMINEZ, EDWIN LOPEZ, Ver "to conduct pre-emptive strikes against known
ALFREDO MANSOS, ALEX MARCELINO, communist-terrorist (CT) underground houses in
ELIZABETH PROTACIO-MARCELINO, JOSEPH view of increasing reports about CT plans to sow
OLAYER, CARLOS PALMA, MARCO PALO, disturbances in Metro Manila," Plaintiffs allege,
ROLANDO SALUTIN, BENJAMIN SESGUNDO, among others, that complying with said order,
ARTURO TABARA, EDWIN TULALIAN and elements of the TFM raided several places,
REBECCA TULALIAN petitioners, employing in most cases defectively issued judicial
vs. search warrants; that during these raids, certain
MAJ. GEN. FABIAN VER, COL. FIDEL SINGSON, members of the raiding party confiscated a number
COL. ROLANDO ABADILLA, COL. GERARDO B. of purely personal items belonging to plaintiffs; that
LANTORIA, COL. GALILEO KINTANAR, 1ST LT. plaintiffs were arrested without proper warrants
COL. PANFILO M. LACSON, MAJ. RODOLFO issued by the courts; that for some period after their
AGUINALDO, CAPT. DANILO PIZARRO, 1ST LT. arrest, they were denied visits of relatives and
PEDRO TANGO, 1ST LT. ROMEO RICARDO, 1ST lawyers; that plaintiffs were interrogated in violation
LT. RAUL BACALSO, MSGT BIENVENIDO of their rights to silence and counsel; that military
BALABA and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, National men who interrogated them employed threats,
Capital Judicial Region, Branch XCV (95), tortures and other forms of violence on them in order
Quezon City, respondents. 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
YAP, J.: information and incriminatory statements from
This petition for certiorari presents vital issues not heretofore passed upon by this Court. It
plaintiffs and to terrorize, harass and punish them,
poses the question whether the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus bars said plans being previously known to and sanctioned
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 by defendants.
damages may be maintained, who can be held liable for such violations: only the military
personnel directly involved and/or their superiors as well.
Plaintiffs sought actual/compensatory damages Then, on November 8, 1983, the Regional Trial
amounting to P39,030.00; moral damages in the Court, National Capital Region, Branch 95, Judge
amount of at least P150,000.00 each or a total of Willelmo C. Fortun, Presiding,   issued a resolution
1

P3,000,000.00; exemplary damages in the amount of granting the motion to dismiss. I sustained, lock,
at least P150,000.00 each or a total of stock and barrel, the defendants' contention (1) the
P3,000,000.00; and attorney's fees amounting to not plaintiffs may not cause a judicial inquiry into the
less than P200,000.00. circumstances of their detention in the guise of a
damage suit because, as to them, the privilege of the
A motion to dismiss was filed by defendants, writ of habeas corpus is suspended; (2) that
through their counsel, then Solicitor-General Estelito assuming that the court can entertain the present
Mendoza, alleging that (1) plaintiffs may not cause a action, defendants are immune from liability for acts
judicial inquiry into the circumstances of their done in the performance of their official duties; and
detention in the guise of a damage suit because, as (3) that the complaint states no cause of action
to them, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is against defendants, since there is no allegation that
suspended; (2) assuming that the courts can the defendants named in the complaint confiscated
entertain the present action, defendants are immune plaintiffs' purely personal properties in violation of
from liability for acts done in the performance of their their constitutional rights, and with the possible
official duties; and (3) the complaint states no cause exception of Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Sergeant
of action against the defendants. Opposition to said Bienvenido Balabo committed acts of torture and
motion to dismiss was filed by plaintiffs Marco maltreatment, or that the defendants had the duty to
Palo, Danilo de la Fuente, Benjamin Sesgundo, Nel exercise direct supervision and control of their
Etabag, Alfredo Mansos and Rolando Salutin on July subordinates or that they had vicarious liability as
8, 1983, and by plaintiffs Edwin Lopez, Manuel Mario employers under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The
Guzman, Alan Jasminez, Nestor Bodino, Carlos lower court stated, "After a careful study of
Palma, Arturo Tabara, Joseph Olayer, Rodolfo defendants' arguments, the court finds the same to
Benosa, Belen Diaz, Flores, Rogelio Aberca, Alex be meritorious and must, therefore, be granted. On
Marcelino and Elizabeth Marcelino on July 21, 1983. the other hand, plaintiffs' arguments in their
On November 7, 1983, a Consolidated Reply was opposition are lacking in merit."
filed by defendants' counsel.
A motion to set aside the order dismissing the
complaint and a supplemental motion for
reconsideration was filed by the plaintiffs on the motion to set aside order of November 8, 1983,
November 18, 1983, and November 24, 1983, issued an order, as follows:
respectively. On December 9, 1983, the defendants
filed a comment on the aforesaid motion of plaintiffs, It appearing from the records that,
furnishing a copy thereof to the attorneys of all the indeed, the following plaintiffs, Rogelio
plaintiffs, namely, Attys. Jose W. Diokno, Procopio Aberca, Danilo de la Fuente and Marco
Beltran, Rene Sarmiento, Efren Mercado, Auguso Palo, represented by counsel, Atty. Jose
Sanchez, Antonio L. Rosales, Pedro B. Ella Jr., Arno W. Diokno, Alan Jasminez represented
V. Sanidad, Alexander Padilla, Joker Arroyo, Rene by counsel, Atty. Augusta Sanchez,
Saguisag, Ramon Esguerra and Felicitas Aquino. Spouses Alex Marcelino and Elizabeth
Protacio-Marcelino, represented by
On December 15, 1983, Judge Fortun issued an counsel, Atty. Procopio Beltran, Alfredo
order voluntarily inhibiting himself from further Mansos represented by counsel, Atty.
proceeding in the case and leaving the resolution of Rene Sarmiento, and Rolando Salutin,
the motion to set aside the order of dismissal to represented by counsel, Atty. Efren
Judge Lising, "to preclude any suspicion that he Mercado, failed to file a motion to
(Judge Fortun) cannot resolve [the] aforesaid reconsider the Order of November 8,
pending motion with the cold neutrality of an 1983, dismissing the complaint, nor
impartial judge and to put an end to plaintiffs interposed an appeal therefrom within
assertion that the undersigned has no authority or the reglementary period, as prayed for
jurisdiction to resolve said pending motion." This by the defendants, said Order is now
order prompted plaintiffs to reesolve an amplificatory final against said plaintiffs.
motion for reconsideration signed in the name of the
Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) of Mabini Assailing the said order of May 11, 1984, the
Legal Aid Committee, by Attys. Joker P. Arroyo, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on May
Felicitas Aquino and Arno Sanidad on April 12, 1984. 28,1984, alleging that it was not true that plaintiffs
On May 2,1984, the defendants filed a comment on Rogelio Aberca, Danilo de la Fuente, Marco Palo,
said amplificatory motion for reconsideration. Alan Jasminez, Alex Marcelino, Elizabeth Protacio-
Marcelino, Alfredo Mansos and Rolando Salutin
In an order dated May 11, 1984, the trial court, failed to file a motion to reconsider the order of
Judge Esteban Lising, Presiding, without acting on November 8, 1983 dismissing the complaint, within
the reglementary period. Plaintiffs claimed that the 3. Col. Rolando Abadilla
motion to set aside the order of November 8, 1983
and the amplificatory motion for reconsideration was 4. Lt. Col. Conrado
filed for all the plaintiffs, although signed by only Lantoria, Jr.
some of the lawyers.
5. Col. Galileo Montanar
In its resolution of September 21, 1984, the
respondent court dealt with both motions (1) to 6. Col. Panfilo Lacson
reconsider its order of May 11, 1984 declaring that
with respect to certain plaintiffs, the resolution of 7. Capt. Danilo Pizaro
November 8, 1983 had already become final, and (2)
to set aside its resolution of November 8, 1983 8. 1 Lt Pedro Tango
granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. In the
dispositive portion of the order of September 21, 9. Lt. Romeo Ricardo
1984, the respondent court resolved:
10. Lt. Raul Bacalso
(1) That the motion to set aside the
order of finality, dated May 11, 1984, of the motion to set aside and reconsider
the Resolution of dismissal of the the Resolution of dismissal of the
complaint of plaintiffs Rogelio Aberca, present action or complaint, dated
Danilo de la Fuente, Marco Palo, Alan November 8, 1983, is also denied but in
Jasminez Alex Marcelino, Elizabeth so far as it affects and refers to
Protacio-Marcelino, Alfredo Mansos and defendants, to wit:
Rolando Salutin is deed for lack of merit;
1. Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo, and
(2) For lack of cause of action as against
2. Master Sgt. Bienvenido Balaba
the following defendants, to wit:
the motion to reconsider and set aside
1. Gen Fabian Ver
the Resolution of dismissal dated
2. Col. Fidel Singson November 3, 1983 is granted and the
 Resolution of dismissal is, in this (3) Freedom to write for the press or to
respect, reconsidered and modified. maintain a periodical publication;

Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition for (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal
certiorari on March 15, 1985 seeking to annul and detention;
set aside the respondent court's resolution of
November 8, 1983, its order of May 11, 1984, and its (5) Freedom of suffrage;
resolution dated September 21, 1984. Respondents
were required to comment on the petition, which it (6) The right against deprivation of
did on November 9, 1985. A reply was filed by property without due process
petitioners on August 26, 1986.
(7) of law;
We find the petition meritorious and decide to give it
due course. (8) The right to a just compensation
when private property is taken for public
At the heart of petitioners' complaint is Article 32 of use;
the Civil Code which provides:
(9) The right to the equal protection of
ART. 32. Any public officer or employee, the laws;
or any private individual who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or (10) The right to be secure in one's
in any manner impedes or impairs any person, house, papers, and effects
of the following rights and liberties of against unreasonable searches and
another person shall be liable to the seizures;
latter for damages:
(11) The liberty of abode and of
(1) Freedom of religion; changing the same;

(2) Freedom of speech; (12) The privacy of cmmunication and

correspondence;
(13) The right to become a member of (19) Freedom from excessive fines or
associations or societies for purposes cruel and unusual punishment, unless
not contrary to law; the same is imposed or inflicted in
accordance with a statute which has not
(14) The right to take part in a been judicially declared unconstitutional;
peaceable assembly to petition the and
Government for redress of grievances;
(20) Freedom of access to the courts.
(15) The right to be free from involuntary
servitude in any form; In any of the cases referred to in this
article, whether or not the defendant's
(16) The rigth of the accused against act or omission constitutes a criminal
excessive bail; offense, the against grieved party has a
right to commence an entirely separate
(17) The rigth of the aaccused to be and distinct civil action for damages, and
heard by himself and counsel, to be for other relief. Such civil action shall
informed of the nature and cause of the proceed independently of any criminal
accusation against him, to have a prosecution (if the latter be instituted),
speedy and public trial, to meet the and may be proved by a preponderance
witnesses face to face, and to have of evidence.
compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witness in behalf; The indemnity shall include moral
damages. Exemplary damages may
(18) Freedom from being compelled to also be adjudicated.
be a witness against ones self, or from
being forced to confess guilt, or from The responsibility herein set forth is not
being induced by a promise of immunity demandable from a judge unless his act
or reward to make such confession, or omission constitutes a violation of the
except when the person confessing Penal Code or other penal statute.
becomes a State witness;
It is obvious that the purpose of the above codal performance of official duties or function In support
provision is to provide a sanction to the deeply of said contention, respondents maintain that —
cherished rights and freedoms enshrined in the
Constitution. Its message is clear; no man may seek Respondents are members of the
to violate those sacred rights with impunity. In times Armed Forces of the Philippines. Their
of great upheaval or of social and political stress, primary duty is to safeguard public
when the temptation is strongest to yield — safety and order. The Constitution no
borrowing the words of Chief Justice Claudio less provides that the President may call
Teehankee — to the law of force rather than the them "to prevent or supress lawless
force of law, it is necessary to remind ourselves that violence, invasion, insurrection or
certain basic rights and liberties are immutable and rebellion, or imminent danger thereof."
cannot be sacrificed to the transient needs or (Constitution, Article VII, Section 9).
imperious demands of the ruling power. The rule of
law must prevail, or else liberty will perish. Our On January 17, 1981, the President
commitment to democratic principles and to the rule issued Proclamation No. 2045 lifting
of law compels us to reject the view which reduces martial law but providing for the
law to nothing but the expression of the will of the continued suspension of the privilege of
predominant power in the community. "Democracy the writ of habeas corpus in view of the
cannot be a reign of progress, of liberty, of justice, remaining dangers to the security of the
unless the law is respected by him who makes it and nation. The proclamation also provided
by him for whom it is made. Now this respect implies "that the call to the Armed Forces of the
a maximum of faith, a minimum of Idealism. On Philippines to prevent or suppress
going to the bottom of the matter, we discover that lawless violence, insuitection rebellion
life demands of us a certain residuum of sentiment and subversion shall continue to be in
which is not derived from reason, but which reason force and effect."
nevertheless controls. 2

Petitioners allege in their complaint that

Seeking to justify the dismissal of plaintiffs' their causes of action proceed from
complaint, the respondents postulate the view that respondent General Ver's order to Task
as public officers they are covered by the mantle of Force Makabansa to launch pre-emptive
state immunity from suit for acts done in the strikes against communist terrorist
underground houses in Metro Manila. State, 35 Cal. App. 605; Metran v.
Petitioners claim that this order and its Paredes, 79 Phil. 819).
subsequent implementation by elements
of the task force resulted in the violation xxx xxx xxx
of their constitutional rights against
unlawful searches, seizures and arrest, The immunity of public officers from
rights to counsel and to silence, and the liability arising from the performance of
right to property and that, therefore, their duties is now a settled
respondents Ver and the named jurisprudence Alzua v. Johnson, 21 Phil.
members of the task force should be 308; Zulueta v. Nicolas, 102 Phil. 944;
held liable for damages. Spalding v. Vilas, 161 US 483; 40 L. Ed.
780, 16 S. Ct. 631; Barr v. Mateo, 360;
But, by launching a pre-emptive strike Butz v. Economon, 438 US 478; 57 L.
against communist terrorists, Ed. 2d 895, 98 S. Ct. 2894; Scheuer v.
respondent members of the armed Rhodes, 416 US 232; Forbes v. Chuoco
forces merely performed their official Tiaco, supra; Miller v. de Leune, 602 F.
and constitutional duties. To allow 2d 198; Sami v. US, 617 F. 2d 755).
petitioners to recover from respondents
by way of damages for acts performed Respondents-defendants who merely
in the exercise of such duties run obeyed the lawful orders of the
contrary to the policy considerations to President and his call for the
shield respondents as public officers suppression of the rebellion involving
from undue interference with their duties petitioners enjoy such immunity from
and from potentially disabling threats of Suit.3

hability (Aarlon v. Fitzgerald 102 S. Ct.

2731-1 Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco, 16 Phil. We find respondents' invocation of the doctrine of
634), and upon the necessity of state immunity from suit totally misplaced. The cases
protecting the performance of invoked by respondents actually involved acts done
governmental and public functions from by officers in the performance of official duties
being harassed unduly or constantly written the ambit of their powers. As held in Forbes,
interrupted by private suits (McCallan v. etc. vs. Chuoco Tiaco and Crossfield: 4
 No one can be held legally responsible roving commission untrammelled by any
in damages or otherwise for doing in a constitutional restraint, to disregard or transgress
legal manner what he had authority, upon the rights and liberties of the individual citizen
under the law, to do. Therefore, if the enshrined in and protected by the Constitution. The
Governor-General had authority, under Constitution remains the supreme law of the land to
the law to deport or expel the which all officials, high or low, civilian or military, owe
defendants, and circumstances justifying obedience and allegiance at all times.
the deportation and the method of
carrying it out are left to him, then he Article 32 of the Civil Code which renders any
cannot be held liable in damages for the public officer or employee or any private individual
exercise of this power. Moreover, if the liable in damages for violating the Constitutional
courts are without authority to interfere rights and liberties of another, as enumerated
in any manner, for the purpose of therein, does not exempt the respondents from
controlling or interferring with the responsibility. Only judges are excluded from liability
exercise of the political powers vested in under the said article, provided their acts or
the chief executive authority of the omissions do not constitute a violation of the Penal
Government, then it must follow that the Code or other penal statute.
courts cannot intervene for the purpose
of declaring that he is liable in damages This is not to say that military authorities are
for the exeercise of this authority. restrained from pursuing their assigned task or
carrying out their mission with vigor. We have no
It may be that the respondents, as members of the quarrel with their duty to protect the Republic from its
Armed Forces of the Philippines, were merely enemies, whether of the left or of the right, or from
responding to their duty, as they claim, "to prevent or within or without, seeking to destroy or subvert our
suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion democratic institutions and imperil their very
and subversion" in accordance with Proclamation existence. What we are merely trying to say is that in
No. 2054 of President Marcos, despite the lifting of carrying out this task and mission, constitutional and
martial law on January 27, 1981, and in pursuance of legal safeguards must be observed, otherwise, the
such objective, to launch pre- emptive strikes against very fabric of our faith will start to unravel. In the
alleged communist terrorist underground houses. But battle of competing Ideologies, the struggle for the
this cannot be construed as a blanket license or a mind is just as vital as the struggle of arms. The
linchpin in that psychological struggle is faith in the valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. What is
rule of law. Once that faith is lost or compromised, suspended is merely the right of the individual to
the struggle may well be abandoned. seek release from detention through the writ of
habeas corpus as a speedy means of obtaining his
We do not find merit in respondents' suggestion that liberty.
plaintiffs' cause of action is barred by the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Moreover, as pointed out by petitioners, their right
Respondents contend that "Petitioners cannot and cause of action for damages are explicitly
circumvent the suspension of the privilege of the writ recognized in P.D. No. 1755 which amended Article
by resorting to a damage suit aimed at the same 1146 of the Civil Code by adding the following to its
purpose-judicial inquiry into the alleged illegality of text:
their detention. While the main relief they ask by the
present action is indemnification for alleged However, when the action (for injury to
damages they suffered, their causes of action are the rights of the plaintiff or for a quasi-
inextricably based on the same claim of violations of delict) arises from or out of any act,
their constitutional rights that they invoked in the activity or conduct of any public officer
habeas corpus case as grounds for release from involving the exercise of powers or
detention. Were the petitioners allowed the present authority arising from Martial Law
suit, the judicial inquiry barred by the suspension of including the arrest, detention and/or
the privilege of the writ will take place. The net result trial of the plaintiff, the same must be
is that what the courts cannot do, i.e. override the brought within one (1) year.
suspension ordered by the President, petitioners will
be able to do by the mere expedient of altering the Petitioners have a point in contending that even
title of their action." assuming that the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus suspends petitioners' right of
We do not agree. We find merit in petitioners' action for damages for illegal arrest and detention, it
contention that the suspension of the privilege of the does not and cannot suspend their rights and causes
writ of habeas corpus does not destroy petitioners' of action for injuries suffered because of
right and cause of action for damages for illegal respondents' confiscation of their private belongings,
arrest and detention and other violations of their the violation of their right to remain silent and to
constitutional rights. The suspension does not render counsel and their right to protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures and against the constitutional rights and liberties of another.
torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment. Thus, it is not the actor alone (i.e. the one directly
responsible) who must answer for damages under
However, we find it unnecessary to address the Article 32; the person indirectly responsible has also
constitutional issue pressed upon us. On March 25, to answer for the damages or injury caused to the
1986, President Corazon C. Aquino issued aggrieved party.
Proclamation No. 2, revoking Proclamation Nos.
2045 and 2045-A and lifting the suspension of the By this provision, the principle of accountability of
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The question public officials under the Constitution   acquires
5

therefore has become moot and academic. added meaning and asgilrnes a larger dimension. No
longer may a superior official relax his vigilance or
This brings us to the crucial issue raised in this abdicate his duty to supervise his subordinates,
petition. May a superior officer under the notion of secure in the thought that he does not have to
respondent superior be answerable for damages, answer for the transgressions committed by the latter
jointly and severally with his subordinates, to the against the constitutionally protected rights and
person whose constitutional rights and liberties have liberties of the citizen. Part of the factors that
been violated? propelled people power in February 1986 was the
widely held perception that the government was
Respondents contend that the doctrine callous or indifferent to, if not actually responsible
of respondent superior is applicable to the case. We for, the rampant violations of human rights. While it
agree. The doctrine of respondent superior has been would certainly be go naive to expect that violators of
generally limited in its application to principal and human rights would easily be deterred by the
agent or to master and servant (i.e. employer and prospect of facing damage suits, it should
employee) relationship. No such relationship exists nonetheless be made clear in no ones terms that
between superior officers of the military and their Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the persons who
subordinates. are directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for the
transgression joint tortfeasors.
Be that as it may, however, the decisive factor in this
case, in our view, is the language of Article 32. The In the case at bar, the trial court dropped defendants
law speaks of an officer or employee or person General Fabian Ver, Col. Fidel Singson, Col.
'directly' or "indirectly" responsible for the violation of Rolando Abadilla, Col. Gerardo Lantoria, Jr., Col.
Galileo Kintanar, Col. Panfilo Lacson, Capt. Danilo 4. The privacy of communication and
Pizarro, lst Lt. Pedro Tango, Lt. Romeo Ricardo and correspondence;
Lt. Ricardo Bacalso from the acts of their
subordinates. Only Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo and 5. Freedom from being compelled to be
Master Sgt. Bienvenido Balaba were kept as a witness against one's self, or from
defendants on the ground that they alone 'have been being forced to confess guilt, or from
specifically mentioned and Identified to have being induced by a promise of immunity
allegedly caused injuries on the persons of some of or reward to make a confession, except
the plaintiff which acts of alleged physical violence when the person confessing becomes a
constitute a delict or wrong that gave rise to a cause state witness.
of action. But such finding is not supported by the
record, nor is it in accord with law and jurisprudence. The complaint in this litigation alleges facts showing
with abundant clarity and details, how plaintiffs'
Firstly, it is wrong to at the plaintiffs' action for constitutional rights and liberties mentioned in Article
damages 5 Section 1, Article 19. to 'acts of alleged 32 of the Civil Code were violated and impaired by
physical violence" which constituted delict or wrong. defendants. The complaint speaks of, among others,
Article 32 clearly specifies as actionable the act of searches made without search warrants or based on
violating or in any manner impeding or impairing any irregularly issued or substantially defective warrants;
of the constitutional rights and liberties enumerated seizures and confiscation, without proper receipts, of
therein, among others — cash and personal effects belonging to plaintiffs and
other items of property which were not subversive
1. Freedom from arbitrary arrest or and illegal nor covered by the search warrants;
illegal detention; arrest and detention of plaintiffs without warrant or
under irregular, improper and illegal circumstances;
2. The right against deprivation of detention of plaintiffs at several undisclosed places
property without due process of law; of 'safehouses" where they were kept
incommunicado and subjected to physical and
3. The right to be secure in one's psychological torture and other inhuman, degrading
person, house, papers and effects and brutal treatment for the purpose of extracting
against unreasonable searches and incriminatory statements. The complaint contains a
seizures;
detailed recital of abuses perpetrated upon the This brings us to the last issue. Was the trial court
plaintiffs violative of their constitutional rights. correct in dismissing the complaint with respect to
plaintiffs Rogelio Aberca, Danilo de la Puente, Marco
Secondly, neither can it be said that only those Palo, Alan Jazminez, Alex Marcelino, Elizabeth
shown to have participated "directly" should be held Protacio-Marcelino, Alfredo Mansos and Rolando
liable. Article 32 of the Civil Code encompasses Salutin, on the basis of the alleged failure of said
within the ambit of its provisions those directly, as plaintiffs to file a motion for reconsideration of the
well as indirectly, responsible for its violation. court's resolution of November 8, 1983, granting the
respondent's motion to dismiss?
The responsibility of the defendants, whether direct
or indirect, is amply set forth in the complaint. It is It is undisputed that a timely motion to set aside said
well established in our law and jurisprudence that a order of November 8, 1983 was filed by 'plaintiffs,
motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint through counsel. True, the motion was signed only
states no cause of action must be based on what by Atty. Joker P. Arroyo, counsel for Benjamin
appears on the face of the complaint.   To determine
6
Sesgulido; Atty. Antonio Rosales, counsel for Edwin
the sufficiency of the cause of action, only the facts Lopez and Manuel Martin Guzman; Atty. Pedro B.
alleged in the complaint, and no others, should be Ella, Jr., counsel for Nestor Bodino and Carlos
considered.   For this purpose, the motion to dismiss
7
Palma; Atty. Arno V. Sanidad, counsel for Arturo
must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts Tabara; Atty. Felicitas S. Aquino, counsel for Joseph
alleged in the complaint.  8
Olayer; and Atty. Alexander Padilla, counsel for
Rodolfo Benosa.
Applying this test, it is difficult to justify the trial
court's ruling, dismissing for lack of cause of action But the body of the motion itself clearly indicated that
the complaint against all the defendants, except the motion was filed on behalf of all the plaintiffs.
Major Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Master Sgt. Bienvenido And this must have been also the understanding of
Balaba. The complaint contained allegations against defendants' counsel himself for when he filed his
all the defendants which, if admitted hypothetically, comment on the motion, he furnished copies thereof,
would be sufficient to establish a cause or causes of not just to the lawyers who signed the motion, but to
action against all of them under Article 32 of the Civil all the lawyers of plaintiffs, to wit: Attys. Jose Diokno,
Code. Procopio Beltran, Rene Sarmiento, Efren Mercado,
Augusto Sanchez, Antonio Rosales, Pedro Efla Jr.,
Arno Sanidad, Alexander Padilla, Joker Arroyo, SO ORDERED.
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 plaintiff. 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.