英语论文网

the 'countless gaps in the statutes, which leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even though they have actually suffered material and moral injury' [ ] should 'vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which it is impossible for human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes'. [57]

Even if no positive law was violated, but the act willfully done is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, damages may be claimed by the injured party under this Article. [58] “It is essential … that the act be done … with the knowledge of its injurious effect otherwise the act will not fall under the article.” [59] Similar to Article 19, the act of the person causing the damage should be intentional, unlike Article 20 which does not distinguish. Hence, for the purposes of this thesis, which focuses on donations made in good faith, Article 21 cannot be invoked.

C. Separate Civil Action for Physical Injuries

In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. [60]

According to the Civil Code Commission, this article “creates an independent civil action in case of defamation, fraud, or physical injuries.” [61] It permits an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages that is independent of the criminal prosecution on any of the three cases.

It is worth noting that in earlier decisions of the Court, it was held that Article 33 should only apply to injuries intentionally committed, and not for those which arose from criminal negligence. [62] In Corpus v. Paje, the Court said,

Criminal negligence, that is, reckless imprudence, is not one of the three crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil Code which authorizes the institution of an independent civil action, that is, of an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, which shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall be proved only by a preponderance of evidence. Said article mentions only the crimes of defamation, fraud (estafa) and physical injuries. … As reckless imprudence or criminal negligence is not one of the three crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil Code, there is no independent civil action for damages that may be instituted in connection with said offense. … [T]he extinction of the criminal action by acquittal of the defendant on the ground that the criminal act charged against him did not exist, necessarily extinguished also the civil action for damages based upon the same act. [63]

However, in the subsequent case of Madeja v. Caro, the Court reversed itself and held that the civil action may proceed independently of the criminal action for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide, reasoning that the rule in,

Corpus vs. Paje … which states that reckless imprudence is not included in Article 33 of the Civil Code, was deemed not an authoritative doctrine because, of eleven Justices, only nine took part in the Decision and four of them merely concurred in the result. [64]

D. Strict Liability

Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and simila