WASSMER v.

VELEZ that the court may award exemplary damages if “the defendant acted in a
G.R. No. L-20089 | December 26, 1964 wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.”

PETITION OF DEFENDANT FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT ON GROUNDS OF FRAUD,

FACTS: ACCIDENT, MISTAKE OR EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE MUST BE SUPPORTED BY AN
1. On August 23, 1954, defendant-appellant Francisco Velez and plaintiff-appellee AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT CONSTITUTING OF FACTS AND A VALID DEFENSE.
Beatriz Wassmer applied for a marriage license, which was subsequently issued.  Velez’ affidavit of merits attached to his petition simply stated that his failure to
They have then decided to get married on September 4, 1954, and necessary marry Wassmer was due to a fortuitous event.
preparations were undertaken for the wedding.  The Court ruled that affidavits of merits are required to state not mere
2. On September 2, 1954, two days before the wedding, Velez left a note for conclusions, but facts. Velez’ affidavit stated no facts, but merely an inference. It
Wassmer advising her that the wedding will have to be postponed, because his did not contain, nor did it reveal anything that would explain the “fortuitous event”
mother opposed the union. The next day however, Velez sent a telegram used for his defense.
informing Wassmer that nothing has changed and that he shall be returning
soon. Afterwards, Velez was never seen nor heard from again. MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES WERE OWED TO WASSMER BY VELEZ, AS THE
3. Wassmer subsequently sued Velez for damages. Velez failed to respond and LATTER WAS CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 SUPPORTED BY THE PROVISIONS
was declared in default. On April 29, 1955, the defendant was ordered to pay UNDER ARTICLES 2219 AND 2232.
plaintiff actual, moral and exemplary damages.  The Supreme Court modified the initial amount of 25,000 awarded by the trial
4. On June 21, 1955, Velez filed a “petition for relief from orders, judgment and court to 15,000, as this is deemed to be a reasonable sum, given the
proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration,” which was denied by circumstances of the case.
the trial court.
5. Velez appealed the decision, asserting that his breach of promise to marry
should not be held as an actionable wrong, as there is no provision under the Disposition of the Court
Civil Code upon which he may be held civilly liable for such. PREMISES CONSIDERED, with the above-indicated modification, the lower court's
judgment is hereby affirmed, with costs.
ISSUE: Whether or not Velez should be held liable to pay Wassmer damages for breach of
promise to marry?

RULING: YES.
WHILE A MERE BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY MAY NOT BE USED AS GROUNDS TO
AWARD DAMAGES TO THE INJURED PARTY, THIS CASE WAS NOT A SIMPLE BREACH.
WASSMER HAS ALREADY MADE NECESSARY PREPARATIONS FOR THE WEDDING, ONLY
FOR VELEZ TO CANCEL TWO DAYS BEFORE SAID WEDDING. THIS ACT IS CLEARLY
CONTRARY TO MORALS, GOOD CUSTOMS, OR PUBLIC POLICY.
 Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides in part that “ any person
who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage”, and any violation of the aforementioned article entitles the injured party
to be paid damages.
 The award of moral and exemplary damages to Wassmer is supported in Article
2219, which states in part that acts referred to in Article 21 entitles the injured
party the recovery of moral damages, and Article 2232, which provides in part
 7. On January 20, the Supreme Court declared that the seat of presidency was
vacant. Noon of the same day, Chief Justice Davide administered the oath to
respondent Arroyo as President of the Philippines. At 2:00 p.m., Estrada released
a letter stating that he had “strong and serious doubts about the legality and
constitutionality of her proclamation as president,” but otherwise stated that he
would give up his office for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing
process of the nation. Estrada and his family later left the Malacañang Palace.
8. After his fall from power, Estrada’s legal problems started appearing. He
countered by filing a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction. He also prayed for judgment “confirming petitioner to be the lawful
and incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to
discharge the duties of his office, and declaring respondent to have taken her
ESTRADA v. ARROYO
oath as and to be holding the Office of the President, only in an acting capacity
G.R. Nos.146710-15 | March 02, 2001
pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution.”

ISSUE:
FACTS:
(i) Whether or not petitioner Estrada resigned as President?
1. In the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Joseph Estrada was elected as
(ii) Whether or not petitioner Estrada is only temporarily unable to act as
President of the Republic of the Philippines with respondent Gloria Macapagal-
President, while respondent Arroyo is only an Acting President?
Arroyo as his Vice-President.
2. On October 4, 2000, Ilocos Sur governor and longtime friend of the petitioner Luis
RULING:
“Chavit” Singson went on air and alleged that Estrada, along with his family and
(i) YES.
friends, have been receiving payoffs from jueteng lords amounting to millions of
USING THE TOTALITY TEST, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT PETITIONER
pesos. The allegations immediately caused controversy among the nation.
ESTRADA RESIGNED AS PRESIDENT.
3. On November 13, 2000, House Speaker Manny Villar transmitted the Articles of
 Element of a valid resignation include: (a) an intent to resign and (b) intent must
Impeachment, signed by 115 representatives or more than 1/3 of all the
be coupled by acts of relinquishment. Both were undoubtedly present when
members of the House of Representatives.
petitioner left the Palace.
4. On November 20, 2000, the impeachment trial was formally opened by the
 In the cases at bar, the petitioner did not write any formal letter of resignation.
Senate. Twenty-one senators took their oath as judges with Chief Justice Davide
Consequently, whether or not he resigned must be determined from his acts and
Jr. as presiding officer.
omissions before, during, and after January 20, 2001 or by the totality of prior,
5. On January 16, 2001, by a vote of 11-10, the senator-judges voted against the
contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a
opening of the second envelope which supposedly contained evidence showing
material relevance on the issue. Using this totality test, it is held that petitioner
that Estrada held Php 3.3 billion in a bank account under the name “Jose
resigned as President.
Velarde”. The ruling was met with reactions of rage, and on January 18, a crowd
o The proposal for a snap presidential election by petitioner where he
continuously grew at EDSA. On January 19, the PNP and AFP also withdrew their
would not be a candidate indicated that petitioner has intended to give
support to the Estrada government and joined the masses gathered at the EDSA
up the presidency.
Shrine. Other Cabinet secretaries and trusted economic advisers also resigned
o The Angara Diary reveals some of the petitioner’s statements that also
from their posts.
indicates intent and exhibits acts of relinquishment.
6. At 6:15 pm the same day, Estrada appeared on television, calling for a snap
 If the enveloped is opened on Monday, he [the president] says,
presidential election to be held concurrently with congressional and local
he will leave by Monday.
elections on May 14, 2001, wherein he will not be running.
  The President says, “Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na Court holds otherwise. The impeachment proceeding cannot be considered
masyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, pending at the time of the petitioner’s resignation because the process already
bureaucracy, intriga.” “Ayoko na” are words of resignation. broke down when the senators voted against the opening of the second
o In the petitioner’s press release containing his final statement, (1) he envelope, the prosecutors walked out and filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal
acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President, albeit of Appearance, and the proceedings were postponed indefinitely. In effect, there
with reservations about its legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving was no impeachment case pending at the time of the petitioner’s resignation.
the Palace for the sake of peace, not because of any kind of disability, Again, for this reason, Section 12 of RA No. 3019 cannot be invoked by petitioner.
nor did he say that he was going to reassume Presidency as soon as
the disability disappears; (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people (ii) NO.
for the opportunity to serve them as President (referring to past SECTION 11 OF ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT “CONGRESS
opportunities); (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future HAS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO DETERMINE
challenges that may come in the same service to his country (referring WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS INCAPABLE OF PERFORMING HIS FUNCTIONS.” BOTH
to future challenges); (5) he called on his supporters to join him in HOUSES OF CONGRESS HAVE EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED RESPONDENT ARROYO AS
promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES.
solidarity (which could not be attained if he did not give up the  The Congress passed House Resolution No. 176 stating its support to
presidency). respondent Arroyo as President, and subsequently passed H.R. 178 confirming
the nomination by Arroyo of Teofisto T. Guingona Jr. as Vice President.
THE SUPREME COURT REJECTS PETITIONER’S CONTENTION THAT HE COULD NOT  Senate passed H.R. No. 83 declaring the Impeachment Courts as Functus Officio
RESIGN AS A MATTER OF LAW. and has been thereby terminated.
 The petitioner cites Section 12 of RA No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft o Implicit in these recognitions is the premise that the petitioner’s
and Corrupt Practices Act, which allegedly prohibits his resignation. The act inability to hold his office is no longer temporary.
provides as follows: o Even if Estrada can prove that he, in fact, did not resign, he cannot
claim that he is merely a President on leave and that he is just unable to
SECTION 12. No public officer shall be allowed to resign retire pending an govern temporarily. This claim has been laid to rest by Congress and
investigation, criminal or administrative, pending a prosecution against him, for the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de jure President made by a
any offense under this Act under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by the Supreme
bribery. Court without transgressing the principle of separation of powers.

 The intent of the law is apparent, which is to prevent the act of resignation or Disposition of the Court
retirement from being used by a public official as a shield to stop investigations IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent
of pending criminal or administrative cases against him. Be that as it may, a Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED.
public official has the right not to serve if he really wants to retire or resign.
 Nevertheless, if at the time he resigns or retires, a public official is facing
administrative or criminal investigation, such resignation or retirement will not
cause the dismissal of the proceedings against him.
 Additionally, the respondent Ombudsman refrained from conducting preliminary
investigation of the cases that have been filed against the petitioner, since as the
elected President then, petitioner was immune from suit. Technically, said cases
cannot be considered pending for the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to act on
them. For this reason, Section 12 of RA No. 3019 cannot be invoked by petitioner.
 Petitioner also contends that the impeachment proceeding against him is an
administrative investigation, which again, bars him from resigning. The Supreme