Chan V Iglesia Ni Cristo
Chan V Iglesia Ni Cristo
Chan V Iglesia Ni Cristo
septic tank was just a cover-up of their real intention. The aim of the
petitioner and Yoro to intrude and surreptitiously hunt for hidden
treasure in INCs premises should make both parties liable.
It should be noted that findings of the lower courts on this point are in
complete unison. Petitioner and Yoro were in quest for hidden treasure
and, undoubtedly, they were partners in this endeavor.
The basis of their solidarity is not the Memorandum of
Agreement but the fact that they have become joint
tortfeasors. There is solidary liability only when the obligation
expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation
requires solidarity.
All the requisites of a quasi-delict are attendant in the instant case. The
tortious act was the excavation which caused damage to the
respondent because it was done surreptitiously within its premises and
it may have affected the foundation of the chapel. The excavation on
INCs premises was caused by fault. Finally, there was no pre-existing
contractual relation between the petitioner and Yoro on the one hand,
and the respondent on the other. For the damage caused to
respondent, petitioner and Yoro are jointly liable as they are joint
tortfeasors. Verily, the responsibility of two or more persons who are
liable for a quasi-delict is solidary.
The heavy reliance of petitioner in the MOA cited earlier cannot steer
him clear of any liability. As a general rule, joint tortfeasors are all the
persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise,
countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or
who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit.
Indubitably, petitioner and Yoro cooperated in committing the tort.
They even had provisions in their MOA as to how they would divide the
treasure if any was found within or outside petitioners property line.
Thus, the MOA, instead of exculpating petitioner from liability, is the
very noose that insures that he be so declared as liable.
Besides, petitioner cannot claim that he did not know that the
excavation traversed the respondents property. In fact, he had two (2)
of his employees actually observe the diggings, his security guard and
his engineer Teofilo Oller.
Side issue (You may skip): INC wanted more exemplary damages. In
quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant
acted with gross negligence.