G.R. No. L-63915 December 29, 1986 LORENZO M. TA;ADA, petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, respondents.

RESOLUTION CRUZ, J.: Due process was invoked by the petitioners in demanding the disclosure of a number of presidential decrees which they claimed had not been published as required by law. The government argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was "otherwise provided," as when the decrees themselves declared that they were to become effective immediately upon their approval. In the decision of this case on April 24, 1985, the Court affirmed the necessity for the publication of some of these decrees, declaring in the dispositive portion as follows: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect. The petitioners are now before us again, this time to move for reconsideration/clarification of that decision. 1Specifically, they ask the following questions: 1. What is meant by "law of public nature" or "general applicability"? 2. Must a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and laws which are not? 3. What is meant by "publication"? 4. Where is the publication to be made? 5. When is the publication to be made? Resolving their own doubts, the petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of general applicability and those which are not; that publication means complete publication; and that the publication must be made forthwith in the Official Gazette. 2 In the Comment 3 required of the then Solicitor General, he claimed first that the motion was a request for an advisory opinion and should therefore be dismissed, and, on the merits, that the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" in Article 2 of the Civil Code meant that the publication required therein was not always imperative; that publication, when necessary, did not have to be made in the Official Gazette; and that in any case the subject decision was concurred in only by three justices and consequently not binding. This elicited a Reply 4 refuting these arguments. Came next the February Revolution and the Court required the new Solicitor General to file a Rejoinder in view of the supervening events, under Rule 3, Section 18, of the Rules of Court. Responding, he submitted that issuances intended only for the internal administration of a government agency or for particular persons did not have to be 'Published; that publication when necessary must be in full and in the Official Gazette; and that, however, the decision under reconsideration was not binding because it was not supported by eight members of this Court. 5 The subject of contention is Article 2 of the Civil Code providing as follows: ART. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication. After a careful study of this provision and of the arguments of the parties, both on the original petition and on the instant motion, we have come to the conclusion and so hold, that the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date, without its previous publication. Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended. An example, as pointed out by the present Chief Justice in his separate concurrence in the original decision, 6 is the Civil Code which did not become effective after fifteen days from its publication in the Official Gazette but "one year after such publication." The general rule did not apply because it was "otherwise provided. " It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be dispensed with altogether. The reason. is that such omission would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern the legislature could validly provide that a law e effective immediately upon its approval notwithstanding the lack of publication (or after an unreasonably short period after publication), it is not unlikely that persons not aware of it would be prejudiced as a result and they would be so not because of a failure to comply with but simply because they did not know of its existence, Significantly, this is not true only of penal laws as is commonly supposed. One can think of many non-penal

measures, like a law on prescription, which must also be communicated to the persons they may affect before they can begin to operate. We note at this point the conclusive presumption that every person knows the law, which of course presupposes that the law has been published if the presumption is to have any legal justification at all. It is no less important to remember that Section 6 of the Bill of Rights recognizes "the right of the people to information on matters of public concern," and this certainly applies to, among others, and indeed especially, the legislative enactments of the government. The term "laws" should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. An example is a law granting citizenship to a particular individual, like a relative of President Marcos who was decreed instant naturalization. It surely cannot be said that such a law does not affect the public although it unquestionably does not apply directly to all the people. The subject of such law is a matter of public interest which any member of the body politic may question in the political forums or, if he is a proper party, even in the courts of justice. In fact, a law without any bearing on the public would be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as anultra vires act of the legislature. To be valid, the law must invariably affect the public interest even if it might be directly applicable only to one individual, or some of the people only, and t to the public as a whole. We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. administrative rules and regulations must a also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. Accordingly, even the charter of a city must be published notwithstanding that it applies to only a portion of the national territory and directly affects only the inhabitants of that place. All presidential decrees must be published, including even, say, those naming a public place after a favored individual or exempting him from certain prohibitions or requirements. The circulars issued by the Monetary Board must be published if they are meant not merely to interpret but to "fill in the details" of the Central Bank Act which that body is supposed to enforce. However, no publication is required of the instructions issued by, say, the Minister of Social Welfare on the case studies to be made in petitions for adoption or the rules laid down by the head of a government agency on the assignments or workload of his personnel or the wearing of office uniforms. Parenthetically, municipal ordinances are not covered by this rule but by the Local Government Code. We agree that publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. As correctly pointed out by the petitioners, the mere mention of the number of the presidential decree, the title of such decree, its whereabouts (e.g., "with Secretary Tuvera"), the supposed date of effectivity, and in a mere supplement of the Official Gazette cannot satisfy the publication requirement. This is not even substantial compliance. This was the manner, incidentally, in which the General Appropriations Act for FY 1975, a presidential decree undeniably of general applicability and interest, was "published" by the Marcos administration. 7 The evident purpose was to withhold rather than disclose information on this vital law. Coming now to the original decision, it is true that only four justices were categorically for publication in the Official Gazette 8 and that six others felt that publication could be made elsewhere as long as the people were sufficiently informed. 9 One reserved his vote 10 and another merely acknowledged the need for due publication without indicating where it should be made. 11 It is therefore necessary for the present membership of this Court to arrive at a clear consensus on this matter and to lay down a binding decision supported by the necessary vote. There is much to be said of the view that the publication need not be made in the Official Gazette, considering its erratic releases and limited readership. Undoubtedly, newspapers of general circulation could better perform the function of communicating, the laws to the people as such periodicals are more easily available, have a wider

readership, and come out regularly. The trouble, though, is that this kind of publication is not the one required or authorized by existing law. As far as we know, no amendment has been made of Article 2 of the Civil Code. The Solicitor General has not pointed to such a law, and we have no information that it exists. If it does, it obviously has not yet been published. At any rate, this Court is not called upon to rule upon the wisdom of a law or to repeal or modify it if we find it impractical. That is not our function. That function belongs to the legislature. Our task is merely to interpret and apply the law as conceived and approved by the political departments of the government in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Consequently, we have no choice but to pronounce that under Article 2 of the Civil Code, the publication of laws must be made in the Official Gazett and not elsewhere, as a requirement for their effectivity after fifteen days from such publication or after a different period provided by the legislature. We also hold that the publication must be made forthwith or at least as soon as possible, to give effect to the law pursuant to the said Article 2. There is that possibility, of course, although not suggested by the parties that a law could be rendered unenforceable by a mere refusal of the executive, for whatever reason, to cause its publication as required. This is a matter, however, that we do not need to examine at this time. Finally, the claim of the former Solicitor General that the instant motion is a request for an advisory opinion is untenable, to say the least, and deserves no further comment. The days of the secret laws and the unpublished decrees are over. This is once again an open society, with all the acts of the government subject to public scrutiny and available always to public cognizance. This has to be so if our country is to remain democratic, with sovereignty residing in the people and all government authority emanating from them. Although they have delegated the power of legislation, they retain the authority to review the work of their delegates and to ratify or reject it according to their lights, through their freedom of expression and their right of suffrage. This they cannot do if the acts of the legislature are concealed. Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep secrets. Mysterious pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding unless their existence and contents are confirmed by a valid publication intended to make full disclosure and give proper notice to the people. The furtive law is like a scabbarded saber that cannot feint parry or cut unless the naked blade is drawn. WHEREFORE, it is hereby declared that all laws as above defined shall immediately upon their approval, or as soon thereafter as possible, be published in full in the Official Gazette, to become effective only after fifteen days from their publication, or on another date specified by the legislature, in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code. SO ORDERED. Teehankee, C.J., Feria, Yap, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr., and Paras, JJ., concur. Separate Opinions FERNAN, J., concurring: While concurring in the Court's opinion penned by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, I would like to add a few observations. Even as a Member of the defunct Batasang Pambansa, I took a strong stand against the insidious manner by which the previous dispensation had promulgated and made effective thousands of decrees, executive orders, letters of instructions, etc. Never has the law-making power which traditionally belongs to the legislature been used and abused to satisfy the whims and caprices of a one-man legislative mill as it happened in the past regime. Thus, in those days, it was not surprising to witness the sad spectacle of two presidential decrees bearing the same number, although covering two different subject matters. In point is the case of two presidential decrees bearing number 1686 issued on March 19, 1980, one granting Philippine citizenship to Michael M. Keon the then President's nephew and the other imposing a tax on every motor vehicle equipped with airconditioner. This was further exacerbated by the issuance of PD No. 1686-A also on March 19, 1980 granting Philippine citizenship to basketball players Jeffrey Moore and Dennis George Still The categorical statement by this Court on the need for publication before any law may be made effective seeks prevent abuses on the part of the lawmakers and, at the same time, ensures to the people their constitutional right to due process and to information on matters of public concern. FELICIANO, J., concurring:

I agree entirely with the opinion of the court so eloquently written by Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz. At the same time, I wish to add a few statements to reflect my understanding of what the Court is saying. A statute which by its terms provides for its coming into effect immediately upon approval thereof, is properly interpreted as coming into effect immediately upon publication thereof in the Official Gazette as provided in Article 2 of the Civil Code. Such statute, in other words, should not be regarded as purporting literally to come into effect immediately upon its approval or enactment and without need of publication. For so to interpret such statute would be to collide with the constitutional obstacle posed by the due process clause. The enforcement of prescriptions which are both unknown to and unknowable by those subjected to the statute, has been throughout history a common tool of tyrannical governments. Such application and enforcement constitutes at bottom a negation of the fundamental principle of legality in the relations between a government and its people. At the same time, it is clear that the requirement of publication of a statute in the Official Gazette, as distinguished from any other medium such as a newspaper of general circulation, is embodied in a statutory norm and is not a constitutional command. The statutory norm is set out in Article 2 of the Civil Code and is supported and reinforced by Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 638 and Section 35 of the Revised Administrative Code. A specification of the Official Gazette as the prescribed medium of publication may therefore be changed. Article 2 of the Civil Code could, without creating a constitutional problem, be amended by a subsequent statute providing, for instance, for publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the country. Until such an amendatory statute is in fact enacted, Article 2 of the Civil Code must be obeyed and publication effected in the Official Gazette and not in any other medium. G.R. No. 88694 January 11, 1993 ALBENSON ENTERPRISES CORP., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.. BIDIN, J.: This petition assails the decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 14948 entitled "Eugenio S. Baltao, plaintiff-appellee vs. Albenson Enterprises Corporation, et al, defendants-appellants", which modified the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch XCVIII in Civil Case No. Q-40920 and ordered petitioner to pay private respondent, among others, the sum of P500,000.00 as moral damages and attorney's fees in the amount of P50,000.00. The facts are not disputed. In September, October, and November 1980, petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corporation (Albenson for short) delivered to Guaranteed Industries, Inc. (Guaranteed for short) located at 3267 V. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila, the mild steel plates which the latter ordered. As part payment thereof, 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 (Rollo, p. 148). 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 records 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". In addition, upon verification with the drawee bank, Pacific Banking Corporation, Albenson was advised that the signature appearing on the subject check belonged to one "Eugenio Baltao." After obtaining the foregoing information, Albenson, through counsel, made an extrajudicial demand upon private respondent Eugenio S. Baltao, president of Guaranteed, to replace and/or make good the dishonored check. Respondent Baltao, through counsel, denied that he issued the check, or that the signature appearing thereon is his. He further alleged that Guaranteed was a defunct entity and hence, could not have transacted business with Albenson. 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 Mendiona, an employee of Albenson. In said affidavit, the above-mentioned circumstances were stated.

It appears, however, that private respondent has a namesake, his son Eugenio Baltao III, who manages a business establishment, E.L. Woodworks, on the ground floor of the Baltao Building, 3267 V. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila, the very same business address of Guaranteed. On September 5, 1983, Assistant Fiscal Ricardo Sumaway filed an information against Eugenio S. Baltao for Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. In filing said information, Fiscal Sumaway claimed that he had given Eugenio S. Baltao opportunity to submit controverting evidence, but the latter failed to do so and therefore, was deemed to have waived his right. Respondent Baltao, claiming ignorance of the complaint against him, immediately filed with the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal a motion for reinvestigation, alleging that it was not true that he had been given an opportunity to be heard in the preliminary investigation conducted by Fiscal Sumaway, and that he never had any dealings with Albenson or Benjamin Mendiona, consequently, the check for which he has been accused of having issued without funds was not issued by him and the signature in said check was not his. On January 30, 1984, Provincial Fiscal Mauro M. Castro of Rizal reversed the finding of Fiscal Sumaway and exonerated respondent Baltao. He also instructed the Trial Fiscal to move for dismissal of the information filed against Eugenio S. Baltao. Fiscal Castro found that the signature in PBC Check No. 136361 is not the signature of Eugenio S. Baltao. He also found that there is no showing in the records of the preliminary investigation that Eugenio S. Baltao actually received notice of the said investigation. Fiscal Castro then castigated Fiscal Sumaway for failing to exercise care and prudence in the performance of his duties, thereby causing injustice to respondent who was not properly notified of the complaint against him and of the requirement to submit his counter evidence. Because of the alleged unjust filing of a criminal case against him for allegedly issuing a check which bounced in violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for a measly amount of P2,575.00, respondent Baltao filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for damages against herein petitioners Albenson Enterprises, Jesse Yap, its owner, and Benjamin Mendiona, its employee. In its decision, the lower court observed that "the check is drawn against the account of "E.L. Woodworks," not of Guaranteed Industries of which plaintiff used to be President. Guaranteed Industries had been inactive and had ceased to exist as a corporation since 1975. . . . . The possibility is that it was with Gene Baltao or Eugenio Baltao III, a son of plaintiff who had a business on the ground floor of Baltao Building located on V. Mapa Street, that the defendants may have been dealing with . . . ." (Rollo, pp. 41-42). The dispositive portion of the trial court 's decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants ordering the latter to pay plaintiff jointly and severally: 1. actual or compensatory damages of P133,350.00; 2. moral damages of P1,000,000.00 (1 million pesos); 3. exemplary damages of P200,000.00; 4. attorney's fees of P100,000.00; 5 costs. Defendants' counterclaim against plaintiff and claim for damages against Mercantile Insurance Co. on the bond for the issuance of the writ of attachment at the instance of plaintiff are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. (Rollo, pp. 38-39). On appeal, respondent court modified the trial court's decision as follows: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED by reducing the moral damages awarded therein from P1,000,000.00 to P500,000.00 and the attorney's fees from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00, said decision being hereby affirmed in all its other aspects. With costs against appellants. (Rollo, pp. 50-51) Dissatisfied with the above ruling, petitioners Albenson Enterprises Corp., Jesse Yap, and Benjamin Mendiona filed the instant Petition, alleging that the appellate court erred in: 1. Concluding that private respondent's cause of action is not one based on malicious prosecution but one for abuse of rights under Article 21 of the Civil Code notwithstanding the fact that the basis of a civil action for malicious prosecution is Article 2219 in relation to Article 21 or Article 2176 of the Civil Code . . . . 2. Concluding that "hitting at and in effect maligning (private respondent) with an unjust

criminal case was, without more, a plain case of abuse of rights by misdirection" and "was therefore, actionable by itself," and which "became inordinately blatant and grossly aggravated when . . . (private respondent) was deprived of his basic right to notice and a fair hearing in the so-called preliminary investigation . . . . " 3. Concluding that petitioner's "actuations in this case were coldly deliberate and calculated", no evidence having been adduced to support such a sweeping statement. 4. Holding the petitioner corporation, petitioner Yap and petitioner Mendiona jointly and severally liable without sufficient basis in law and in fact. 5. Awarding respondents 5.1. P133,350.00 as actual or compensatory damages, even in the absence of sufficient evidence to show that such was actually suffered. 5.2. P500,000.00 as moral damages considering that the evidence in this connection merely involved private respondent's alleged celebrated status as a businessman, there being no showing that the act complained of adversely affected private respondent's reputation or that it resulted to material loss. 5.3. P200,000.00 as exemplary damages despite the fact that petitioners were duly advised by counsel of their legal recourse. 5.4. P50,000.00 as attorney's fees, no evidence having been adduced to justify such an award (Rollo, pp. 4-6). Petitioners contend that the civil case filed in the lower court was one for malicious prosecution. Citing the case ofMadera vs. Lopez (102 SCRA 700 [1981]), they assert that the absence of malice on their part absolves them from any liability for malicious prosecution. Private respondent, on the other hand, anchored his complaint for Damages on Articles 19, 20, and 21 ** of the Civil Code. Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which may be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes the primordial limitation on all rights: that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. Although the requirements of each provision is different, these three (3) articles are all related to each other. As the eminent Civilist Senator Arturo Tolentino puts it: "With this article (Article 21), combined with articles 19 and 20, the scope of our law on civil wrongs has been very greatly broadened; it has become much more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-American law on torts. It is now difficult to conceive of any malevolent exercise of a right which could not be checked by the application of these articles" (Tolentino, 1 Civil Code of the Philippines 72). There is however, no hard and fast rule which can be applied to determine whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked. The question of whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated, resulting in damages under Articles 20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law, depends on the circumstances of each case. (Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 778 [1989]). The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction (Tolentino, supra, p.

71). Thus, anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following elements: 1) There is an act which is legal; 2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; 3) and it is done with intent to injure. Thus, under any of these three (3) provisions of law, an act which causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages. There is a common element under Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act must be intentional. However, Article 20 does not distinguish: the act may be done either "willfully", or "negligently". The trial court as well as the respondent appellate court mistakenly lumped these three (3) articles together, and cited the same as the bases for the award of damages in the civil complaint filed against petitioners, thus: With the foregoing legal provisions (Articles 19, 20, and 21) in focus, there is not much difficulty in ascertaining the means by which appellants' first assigned error should be resolved, given the admitted fact that when there was an attempt to collect the amount of P2,575.00, the defendants were explicitly warned that plaintiff Eugenio S. Baltao is not the Eugenio Baltao defendants had been dealing with (supra, p. 5). When the defendants nevertheless insisted and persisted in filing a case a criminal case no less against plaintiff, said defendants ran afoul of the legal provisions (Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code) cited by the lower court and heretofore quoted (supra). Defendants, not having been paid the amount of P2,575.00, certainly had the right to complain. But that right is limited by certain constraints. Beyond that limit is the area of excess, of abuse of rights. (Rollo, pp. 44-45). Assuming, arguendo, that all the three (3) articles, together and not independently of each one, could be validly made the bases for an award of damages based on the principle of "abuse of right", under the circumstances, We see no cogent reason for such an award of damages to be made in favor of private respondent. Certainly, petitioners could not be said to have violated the aforestated principle of abuse of right. What prompted petitioners to file the case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against private respondent was their failure to collect the amount of P2,575.00 due on a bounced check which they honestly believed was issued to them by private respondent. Petitioners had conducted inquiries regarding the origin of the check, and yielded the following results: from the records of the Securities and Exchange Commission, it was discovered that the President of Guaranteed (the recipient of the unpaid mild steel plates), was one "Eugenio S. Baltao"; an inquiry with the Ministry of Trade and Industry revealed that E.L. Woodworks, against whose account the check was drawn, was registered in the name of one "Eugenio Baltao"; verification with the drawee bank, the Pacific Banking Corporation, revealed that the signature appearing on the check belonged to one "Eugenio Baltao". In a letter dated December 16, 1983, counsel for petitioners wrote private respondent demanding that he make good the amount of the check. Counsel for private respondent wrote back and denied, among others, that private respondent ever transacted business with Albenson Enterprises Corporation; that he ever issued the check in question. Private respondent's counsel even went further: he made a warning to defendants to check the veracity of their claim. It is pivotal to note at this juncture that in this same letter, if indeed private respondent wanted to clear himself from the baseless accusation made against his person, he should have made mention of the fact that there are three (3) persons with the same name, i.e.: Eugenio Baltao, Sr., Eugenio S. Baltao, Jr. (private respondent), and Eugenio Baltao III (private respondent's son, who as it turned out later, was the issuer of the check). He, however, failed to do this. The last two Baltaos were doing business in the same building Baltao Building located at 3267 V. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila. The mild steel plates were ordered in the name of Guaranteed of which respondent Eugenio S. Baltao is the president and delivered to Guaranteed at Baltao building. Thus, petitioners had every reason to believe that the Eugenio Baltao who issued the bouncing check is respondent Eugenio S. Baltao when their counsel wrote respondent to make good the amount of the check and upon refusal, filed the complaint for violation of BP Blg. 22. Private respondent, however, did nothing to clarify the case of mistaken identity at first hand. Instead, private respondent waited in ambush and thereafter pounced on the hapless petitioners at a time he

thought was propitious by filing an action for damages. The Court will not countenance this devious scheme. The criminal complaint filed against private respondent after the latter refused to make good the amount of the bouncing check despite demand was a sincere attempt on the part of petitioners to find the best possible means by which they could collect the sum of money due them. A person who has not been paid an obligation owed to him will naturally seek ways to compel the debtor to pay him. It was normal for petitioners to find means to make the issuer of the check pay the amount thereof. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded and that the adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate (Rubio vs. Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 488 [1986]). In the case at bar, private respondent does not deny that the mild steel plates were ordered by and delivered to Guaranteed at Baltao building and as part payment thereof, the bouncing check was issued by one Eugenio Baltao. Neither had private respondent conveyed to petitioner that there are two Eugenio Baltaos conducting business in the same building he and his son Eugenio Baltao III. Considering that Guaranteed, which received the goods in payment of which the bouncing check was issued is owned by respondent, petitioner acted in good faith and probable cause in filing the complaint before the provincial fiscal. To constitute 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. Concededly, the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution. (Manila Gas Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 602 [1980]). Still, private respondent argues that liability under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code is so encompassing that it likewise includes liability for damages for malicious prosecution under Article 2219 (8). True, a civil action for damages for malicious prosecution is allowed under the New Civil Code, more specifically Articles 19, 20, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, and 2219 (8) thereof. In order that such a case can prosper, however, the following three (3) elements must be present, to wit: (1) 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; (2) That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; (3) The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice (Lao vs. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 58, [1991]). Thus, a party injured by the filing of a court case against him, even if he is later on absolved, may file a case for damages grounded either on the principle of abuse of rights, or on malicious prosecution. As earlier stated, a complaint for damages based on malicious prosecution will prosper only if the three (3) elements aforecited are shown to exist. In the case at bar, the second and third elements were not shown to exist. 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" (Que vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 169 SCRA 137 [1989]). The presence of probable cause signifies, as a legal consequence, the absence of malice. In the instant case, it is evident that petitioners were not motivated by malicious intent or by sinister design to unduly harass private respondent, but only by a well-founded anxiety to protect their rights when they filed the criminal complaint against private respondent. To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. Concededly, the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution. Proof and motive that the institution of the action was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person must be clearly and preponderantly established to entitle the victims to damages (Ibid.). In the case at bar, there is no proof of a sinister design on the part of petitioners to vex or humiliate private respondent by instituting the

criminal case against him. While petitioners may have been negligent to some extent in determining the liability of private respondent for the dishonored check, the same is not so gross or reckless as to amount to bad faith warranting an award of damages. The root of the controversy in this case is founded on a case of mistaken identity. It is possible that with a more assiduous investigation, petitioners would have eventually discovered that private respondent Eugenio S. Baltao is not the "Eugenio Baltao" responsible for the dishonored check. However, the record shows that petitioners did exert considerable effort in order to determine the liability of private respondent. Their investigation pointed to private respondent as the "Eugenio Baltao" who issued and signed the dishonored check as the president of the debtor-corporation Guaranteed Enterprises. Their error in proceeding against the wrong individual was obviously in the nature of an innocent mistake, and cannot be characterized as having been committed in bad faith. This error could have been discovered if respondent had submitted his counter-affidavit before investigating fiscal Sumaway and was immediately rectified by Provincial Fiscal Mauro Castro upon discovery thereof, i.e., during the reinvestigation resulting in the dismissal of the complaint. Furthermore, the adverse result of an action does not per se make the act wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of moral damages. 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. And an adverse decision does not ipso facto justify the award of attorney's fees to the winning party (Garcia vs. Gonzales, 183 SCRA 72 [1990]). Thus, an award of damages and attorney's fees is unwarranted where the action was filed in good faith. If damage results from a person's exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria (Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 5 [1989]). Coming now to the claim of private respondent for actual or compensatory damages, the records show that the same was based solely on his allegations without proof to substantiate the same. He did not present proof of the cost of the medical treatment which he claimed to have undergone as a result of the nervous breakdown he suffered, nor did he present proof of the actual loss to his business caused by the unjust litigation against him. 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 of actual damages becomes erroneous (Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan, 171 SCRA 382 [1989]). 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, otherwise, if the proof is flimsy and unsubstantiated, no damages will be given (Rubio vs. Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 488 [1986]). For these reasons, it was gravely erroneous for respondent court to have affirmed the award of actual damages in favor of private respondent in the absence of proof thereof. Where there is no evidence of the other party having acted in wanton, fraudulent or reckless, or oppressive manner, neither may exemplary damages be awarded (Dee Hua Liong Electrical Equipment Corporation vs. Reyes, 145 SCRA 488 [1986]). As to the award of attorney's fees, it is well-settled that the same is the exception rather than the general rule. Needless to say, the award of attorney's fees must be disallowed where the award of exemplary damages is eliminated (Article 2208, Civil Code; Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 375 [1990]). Moreover, in view of the fact that there was no malicious prosecution against private respondent, attorney's fees cannot be awarded him on that ground. In the final analysis, there is no proof or showing that petitioners acted maliciously or in bad faith in the filing of the case against private respondent. Consequently, in the absence of proof of fraud and bad faith committed by petitioners, they cannot be held liable for damages (Escritor, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 155 SCRA 577 [1987]). No damages can be awarded in the instant case, whether based on the principle of abuse of rights, or for malicious prosecution. The questioned judgment in the instant case attests to the propensity of trial judges to award damages without basis. Lower courts are hereby cautioned anew against awarding unconscionable sums as damages without bases therefor. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. C.V. No. 14948 dated May 13, 1989, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs against respondent Baltao. SO ORDERED. Gutierrez, Jr., Davide, Jr., Romero and Melo, JJ., concur. # Footnotes

** "Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. "Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. "Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 200 June 18, 1987 PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF LAWS EITHER IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OR IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THEIR EFFECTIVITY WHEREAS, Article 2 of the Civil Code partly provides that "laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided . . .;" WHEREAS, the requirement that for laws to be effective only a publication thereof in the Official Gazette will suffice has entailed some problems, a point recognized by the Supreme Court in Taada. et al. vs. Tuvera, et al. (G.R. No. 63915, December 29, 1986) when it observed that "[t]here is much to be said of the view that the publication need not be made in the Official Gazette, considering its erratic release and limited readership"; WHEREAS, it was likewise observed that "[u]ndoubtedly, newspapers of general circulation could better perform the function of communicating the laws to the people as such periodicals are more easily available, have a wider readership, and come out regularly"; and WHEREAS, in view of the foregoing premises Article 2 of the Civil Code should accordingly be amended so the laws to be effective must be published either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the country; NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order: Sec. 1. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided. Sec. 2. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the "Civil Code of the Philippines," and all other laws inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Sec. 3. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately after its publication in the Official Gazette. Done in the City of Manila, this 18th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-seven. CHAPTER I EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS Article 1. This Act shall be known as the "Civil Code of the Philippines." (n) Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication. (1a) Art. 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. (2) Art. 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.(3) Art. 5. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity. (4a) Art. 6. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. (4a) Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary. When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. (5a) Art. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. (n)

Art. 9. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws. (6) Art. 10. In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. (n) Art. 11. Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be countenanced. (n) Art. 12. A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence. (n) Art. 13. When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years are of three hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of twenty-four hours; and nights from sunset to sunrise. If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days which they respectively have. In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day included. (7a) Art. 14. Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. (8a) Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. (9a) Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated. However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. (10a) Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution. Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have, for their object, public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. (11a) Art. 18. In matters which are governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws, their deficiency shall be supplied by the provisions of this Code.(16a) CHAPTER 2 HUMAN RELATIONS (n) Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited. Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection. Art. 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution. Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief: (1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence: (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition. Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage. Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground. Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.