Case Digest: SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. and PANLILIO v. . SOLUTA et al . 482 SCRA 660 (2006)

SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. and PANLILIO v. SOLUTA et al . 482 SCRA 660 (2006)

Petitioner Jose Marcel Panlilio, Vice President for Finance of petitioner Silahis International Hotel, Inc. (Silahis), with his personal secretary, a Bulletin reporter, and a security guard entered the union office located at the hotel basement. The same is with the permission of union officer Henry Babay. Babay was apprised about the suspected illegal activities. During the search they discovered marijuana flowering tops in the union office. An Information indicting the union officers was then filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for violation of Republic Act 6425, as amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 179 (The Dangerous Drugs Act). The RTC acquitted the accused on the ground that the marijuana tops are inadmissible as evidence. Soluta and his fellow union officers including the union thereafter filed before the RTC a complaint against Silahis, Panlilio and those who cooperated for malicious prosecution and violation of their constitutional right against illegal search. The RTC granted such petition. It ruled that Silahis and Panlilio are jointly and severally liable to pay for damages in favor of Soluta et al. Silahis and Panlilio appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On appeal, the CA affirmed the lower court‘s decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Silahis and Panlilio violated the constitutional right of Soluta et al.

HELD:

As constitutional rights, like the right to be secure in one‘s person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, occupy a lofty position in every civilized and democratic community and not infrequently susceptible to abuse, their violation, whether constituting a penal offense or not, must be guarded against. The Code Commission thus deemed it necessary to hold not only public officers but also private individuals civilly liable for violation of rights enumerated in Article 32 of the Civil Code. That is why it is not even necessary that the defendant under this Article should have acted with malice or bad faith, otherwise, it would defeat its main purpose, which is the effective protection of individual rights. It suffices that there is a violation of the constitutional right of the plaintiff. In the present case, as priorly stated, Silahis and Panlilio had, by their own claim, already received reports in late 1987 of illegal activities allegedly undertaken in the union office and Maniego conducted surveillance of the union officers. Yet, in the morning of January 11, 1988, Silahis, Panlilio and their companions barged into and searched the union office without a search warrant, despite ample time for them to obtain one, and notwithstanding the objection of Babay. The course taken by Silahis and company stinks in illegality, it not falling under any of the exceptional instances when a warrantless search is allowed by law. Silahis and Panlilio‘s violation of individual Soluta et al.‘s constitutional right against unreasonable search thus furnishes the basis for the award of damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code. As for Silahis et al.‘s contention that property rights justified the search of the union office, the same does not lie. For Soluta et al., being the lawful occupants of the office, had the right to raise the question of validity of the search and seizure. Neither does Silahis et al.‘s claim that they were allowed by union officer Babay to enter the union office lie. Babay‘s account of why Silahis and company went to the union office – to consider Panlilio‘s suggestion to settle the mauling incident is more credible, as is his claim that he protested the search, and even asked if they were armed with a search warrant. While it is doctrinal that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be waived expressly or impliedly, a waiver by implication cannot be presumed. There must be clear and convincing evidence of an actual intention to relinquish it to constitute a waiver thereof. There must be proof of the following: (a) that the right exists; (b) that the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; and, (c) that the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. In other words, the waiver must be voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made. The evidence shows otherwise, however.