Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cojuangco vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Ryw
    118 views1 page
    Eduardo Cojuangco owned racehorses that won prizes in sweepstakes races between 1986-1989. However, the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) chairman Fernando Carrascoso withheld the winnings based on the advice of the Presidential Commission on Good Government. Cojuangco sued, arguing this violated his right to due process. The Supreme Court ruled that Carrascoso violated Cojuangco's constitutional right to property by withholding the winnings without a court-issued writ of sequestration. While Carrascoso did not act in bad faith, damages are still due under the Civil Code if a public officer violates a person's rights, even if

    Original Description:

    Cojuangco v. CA

    Original Title

    Cojuangco vs. Court of Appeals.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Eduardo Cojuangco owned racehorses that won prizes in sweepstakes races between 1986-1989. However, the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) chairman Fernando Carrascoso withheld the winnings based on the advice of the Presidential Commission on Good Government. Cojuangco sued, arguing this violated his right to due process. The Supreme Court ruled that Carrascoso violated Cojuangco's constitutional right to property by withholding the winnings without a court-issued writ of sequestration. While Carrascoso did not act in bad faith, damages are still due under the Civil Code if a public officer violates a person's rights, even if

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    118 views1 page

    Cojuangco vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Ryw
    Eduardo Cojuangco owned racehorses that won prizes in sweepstakes races between 1986-1989. However, the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) chairman Fernando Carrascoso withheld the winnings based on the advice of the Presidential Commission on Good Government. Cojuangco sued, arguing this violated his right to due process. The Supreme Court ruled that Carrascoso violated Cojuangco's constitutional right to property by withholding the winnings without a court-issued writ of sequestration. While Carrascoso did not act in bad faith, damages are still due under the Civil Code if a public officer violates a person's rights, even if

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    COJUANGCO vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No.

    119398 July 2, 1999


    Facts:

    Eduardo Cojuangco is a known businessman-sportsman owing several racehorses which he entered in the
    sweepstake races on March 6, 1986 to September 18, 1989. Several of his horses won the races on various dates,
    landing first, second or third places, respectively, and winning prizes together with the 30% due for trainer and grooms.
    Unfortunately, the winnings were being withheld on the advice of Presidential Commission on Good Government
    Commissioner Ramon A. Diaz.
    The Chairman of PCSO and the Private Respondent, Fernando O. Carrascoso, offered to give back the winnings but
    it was refused by the petitioner for the reason that the matter is already in court. The trial court held that Carrascoso
    had no authority to withhold the winnings since there was no writ of sequestration evidencing the orders of PCGG.
    Carrascoso feared that if he did not withhold the winning he would be liable for neglect of duty. Carrascoso maintained
    that bad faith did not attend his acts therefore he is not liable for damages. In fact, Carrascoso stated that he returned
    the principal amount of the winning evidencing his good faith. Petitioner begs to differ.
    Issue:

    Whether or not petitioner is entitled to damages for the violation of his constitutional rights to due process.
    Ruling:

    The Supreme Court held that petitioner is entitled for damages in accordance with Article 32 of the Civil Code. Article
    32(6) of the Civil Code provides that any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly
    obstruct, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another
    person shall be liable to the latter for damages, in this case the right against deprivation of property without due
    process of law.
    Carrascoso's decision to withhold petitioner's winnings could not be characterized as arbitrary or whimsical, or even
    the product of ill will or malice. He had particularly sought from PCGG a clarification of the extent and coverage of the
    sequestration order issued against the properties of petitioner. Although it is true that a public officer shall not be liable
    by way of moral and exemplary damages for acts done in the performance of official duties, the Court nevertheless
    states that bad faith is not necessary in praying for damages in Article 32 of the Civil Code. Under the Article, it is not
    necessary that the public officer acted with malice or bad faith. To be liable, it is enough that there was a violation of
    the constitutional rights of petitioner, even on the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the performance of one's
    duties.
    A little exercise of prudence would have disclosed that there was no writ issued specifically for the sequestration of
    the racehorse winnings of petitioner. There was apparently no record of any such writ covering his racehorses either.
    The issuance of a sequestration order requires the showing of a prima facie case and due regard for the requirements
    of due process. The withholding of the prize winnings of petitioner without a properly issued sequestration order clearly
    spoke of a violation of his property rights without due process of law.

    You might also like