ALBENSON V. CA
GR No. 88694
January 11, 1993
Ponente: Justice Bidin
PARTIES:
·
Petitioners: Albenson Enterprises Corp., Jesse Yap,
Ben-hamin Mendiona
·
Respondents: CA, Eugenio S. Baltao
BACKGROUND
FACTS
·
Sept., Oct., and Nov. 1980 - Albenson delivered to
Guaranteed Industries, Inc. mild steel plates which the latter ordered
o
Albenson was given Pacific Banking Corporation Check
No. 136361 in the amount of P2,575.00 and drawn against the account of E.L.
Woodworks
When presented for payment, the check was dishonored
for the
reason “Account Closed.”
·
Thereafter, petitioner Albenson, through counsel,
traced the origin of the dishonored check. From the record of the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), Albenson discovered that the president of Guaranteed,
the recipient of the unpaid mild steel plates, was one “Eugenio S. Baltao.” Upon
further inquiry, Albenson was informed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry
that E.L. Woodworks, a single proprietorship business, was registered in the
name of one “Eugenio Baltao”.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
o
Albenson made an extrajudicial demand upon private
respondent Eugenio S. Baltao (Pres. Of Gauranteed) to replace/or make good the
dishonored check.
o
On February 14, 1983, Albenson filed with the Office
of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal a complaint against Eugenio S. Baltao for violation
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Submitted to support said charges was an affidavit
of petitioner Benjamin Men-diona, an employee of Albenson. In said affidavit,
the above-mentioned circumstances were stated. It appears, however, that
private respondent has namesake, his son Eugenio Baltao III, who manages a
business establishment, E.L. Woodworks
o
Sept. 5, 1983 - Assistant Fiscal filed an information against
Eugenio Baltao for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. In filing, Fiscal
claimed he had given Baltao opportunity to submit controverting evidence, but
the latter failed to do so thus is deemed to have waived his right.
·
Baltao: complaining of ignorance of the complaint;
filed motion for reinvestigation; claiming: had not been heard in the prelim. Investigation
never had dealings with Albenson or Benjamin, check was not issued by him.
o
Jan. 30, 1984 - Provincial Fiscal reversed the finding of the
Assistant Fiscal and exonerated Baltao.
·
Instructed Trial Fiscal to move for dismissal of
information against Baltao; found that the signature on the check was not
Baltao's, no showing in the records of prelim investigation that Baltao
received notice of the said investigation
·
Castigated Assistant Fiscal for failing to exercise
care and prudence in the performance of his duties, causing injustice to the
respondent
o
Baltao filed a complaint for damages against Albenson,
Jesse Yap (owner) and Benjamin Mendiona (employee) - RTC Quezon City
·
RTC: check was drawn against the account of EL
Woodworks of Guaranteed (inactive and ceased to exist since 1975)
·
rendered
judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiff
jointly and severally:
- P133,350.00 (actual or compensatory damages)
- P1M (moral damages)
- P2000,000 (exemplary damages)
- P100,000 (attorney's fees)
o
On appeal, CA modified RTC decision as follows:
·
Reducing the moral damages forom 1M to P500,000
·
Attorney's fees from P100,000 to P50,000
·
Affirmed RTC decision in all other aspects
o
Albenson, Yap and Mendiona filed instant petition
against CA
·
Contends that the civil case filed in the lower court
was one for malicious prosecution. Absence of malice on their part absolves
them from any liability for malicious prosecution
o
Baltao anchored his complaint for damages on Articles
19, 20, 21 of the Civil Code
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent has the cause of action
to claim damages based on the principle of abuse of rights. (Art. 19)
HOLDING/RATIONALE:
·
No
·
No damages can be awarded in this instant case whether
based on the principle of abuse of rights, or for malicious prosecution.
·
Questioned judgment attests to the propensity of trial
judges to award damages without basis; lower courts cautioned anew against
awarding unconscious able sums and damages without bases thereof.
JUDGMENT:
·
Judgment is GRANTED
·
CA judgment hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
·
Costs against respondent Baltao.
HOLDING/RATIONALE
·
Petitioners could not be said to have had violated
aforestated principle of abuse of rights.
o
Petitioners were prompted to file a case against
Baltao under Batas Pambansa due to his failure to pay said amount which the
petitioners honestly believed was issued to them by respondent.
o
Petitioners conducted inquiries regarding the origin
of the check
o
Respondent did not clear himself from baseless
accusation and did not mention the fact that there are three persons with the
same name: Eugenio Baltao Sr., Eugenio S. Baltao, Jr. (private respondent) and
Eugenio Baltao III (PR's son, who as it turned out later issued the check)
o
Petitioners had every reason to believe that PR was
the one who issues the check.
·
Petitioners were not motivated by malicious intent or
by sinister design to unduly harass private respondent
o
There is no proof of a sinister design on the part of
petitioners to vex/humiliate private respondent by instituting criminal case
against him
·
While petitioners may have been negligent to some
extent in determining liability of respondent for the dishonored check, it is
not so gross or reckless to amount to bad faith
·
Case is founded on case of mistaken identity:
assiduous investigation could have prevented such
·
Error in the proceeding against wrong individual was
an innocent mistake; cannot be characterized as bad faith
·
The law could not have meant to impose a penalty on
the right to litigate, such right is so precious that moral damages may not be
charged on those who may even exercise it erroneously.
·
Adverse decision does not ipso facto justify the award
of attorney's fees to winning party
o
Award of damages and attorney's fees is unwarranted
where the action was filed in good faith.
o
If damage results from a person's exercising his legal
rights, it is damnum absque injuria.
·
On respondent's claim for compensatory
damages: no proof of the cost of the medical treatment he claimed to have
undergone as a result of a nervous breakdown; no proof of the actual loss of
earnings caused by unjust litigation against him.
·
No evidence of the other party having
acted in wanton, fraudulent or recklessness, or oppressive manner, neither may
exemplary damages be awarded.
o
No malicious prosecution against private
respondent, attorney's fees cannot be awarded him on that ground.
·
No proof or showing petitioners acted
maliciously or in bad faith in the filing of the case against private
respondent.
o
Absence of proof of fraud and bad faith
committed by petitioners cannot hold them liable for damages
DICTA:
·
Art. 19 - "principle of abuse of rights"
·
Standards which may be observed not only in the
exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of his duties: act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
·
Art. 19, 20, 21 all related to each other
o
An act which causes injury to another may be made the
basis for an award of damages
o
Common element: act must be intentional
o
Art. 20 - does not distinguish, the act may be done
willfully or negligently
·
Elements of abuse of right under article 19:
o
There is a legal right or duty
o
Which is exercised in bad faith
o
For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another
·
Article 21: deals with acts contra bonus mores.
Elements:
o
There is an act which is legal
o
But which is contrary to morals, good custom, public
order, public policy
o
It is done with intent to injure
·
To constitute a malicious prosecution:
- there must be proof that the prosecution was
prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person,
- and that it was initiated deliberately by the
defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless.
- The mere act of submitting a case to the
authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious
prosecution.
·
A civil action for damages for malicious prosecution
is allowed under the New Civil Code (specifically Art. 19, 20, 26, 29, 32, 33,
35 and 2219(8). But the case must have the following elements:
o
The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that
the defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that the action was finally
terminated with an acquittal.
o
That, in brining the action, the prosecutor acted
without probable cause;
o
The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal
malice.
·
A party injured by the filing of a court case against
him, even if he later on absolved, may file a case of damages on grounded
either on the principle of abuse of rights, or on malicious prosecution.
·
It is well-settled that one cannot be held liable for
maliciously instituting a prosecution where one has acted with probable cause.
·
Probable cause is the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was
guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. In other words, a suit will
lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without
probable cause. The reason for this rule is that it would be a very great
discouragement to public justice, if prosecutors, who had tolerable ground of
suspicion, were liable to be sued at law when their indictment miscarried”
·
The presence of probable cause signifies, as a legal
consequence, the absence of malice.
·
The law could not have meant to impose a penalty on
the right to litigate, such right is so precious that moral damages may not be
charged on those who may even exercise it erroneously.
·
In determining actual damages, the court cannot rely
on speculation, conjectures or guesswork as to the amount. Without the actual
proof of loss, the award for damages becomes erroneous.
·
Actual and compensatory damages are those recoverable
because of pecuniary loss -- in business, trade, property, profession, job or
occupation -- and the same must be proved.
o
If proof is flimsy and unsubstantiated, no damages
will be given.
·
Award of attorney's fees must be
disallowed where he awards of exemplary damages is eliminated.
·
In the absence of malice and bad faith,
moral damages cannot be awarded.
·
(Damnum
absque injuria literally means damage without wrongful act. It
means that a loss or harm incurred from something other than a wrongful act
does not warrant a legal remedy. For example, a person may harm another in due
exercise of his right. However, the injured person cannot sue the person who
exercised his rights).
