1

G.R. No. 81262 August 25, 1989 GLOBE MACKAY vs CA

GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., a! "ERBER# C.
"ENDRY, petitioners,
vs.
#"E "ONORABLE CO$R# O% APPEAL& a! RE&#I#$#O M. #OBIA&,
respondents.
Private respondent Restituto M. Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay
Cable and Radio Corporation (GLO! M"C#"$% in a dual capacity as a
purc&asin' a'ent and administrative assistant to t&e en'ineerin' operations
mana'er. (n )*+,, GLO! M"C#"$ discovered -ictitious purc&ases and ot&er
-raudulent transactions -or w&ic& it lost several t&ousands o- pesos.
"ccordin' to private respondent it was &e w&o actually discovered t&e anomalies
and reported t&em on .ovember )/, )*+, to &is immediate superior !duardo T.
0erraren and to petitioner 1erbert C. 1endry w&o was t&en t&e !2ecutive 3ice4
President and General Mana'er o- GLO! M"C#"$.
On .ovember )), )*+,, one day a-ter private respondent Tobias made t&e report,
petitioner 1endry con-ronted &im by statin' t&at &e was t&e number one suspect,
and ordered &im to take a one week -orced leave, not to communicate wit& t&e
o--ice, to leave &is table drawers open, and to leave t&e o--ice keys.
On .ovember ,/, )*+,, w&en private respondent Tobias returned to work a-ter t&e
-orced leave, petitioner 1endry went up to &im and called &im a 5crook5 and a
5swindler.5 Tobias was t&en ordered to take a lie detector test. 1e was also
instructed to submit specimen o- &is &andwritin', si'nature, and initials -or
e2amination by t&e police investi'ators to determine &is complicity in t&e
anomalies.
On 6ecember 7,)*+,, t&e Manila police investi'ators submitted a laboratory crime
report (!2&. 5"5% clearin' private respondent o- participation in t&e anomalies.
.ot satis-ied wit& t&e police report, petitioners &ired a private investi'ator, retired
Col. 8ose G. 0ernande9, w&o on 6ecember )/, )*+,, submitted a report (!2&. 5,5%
-indin' Tobias 'uilty. T&is report &owever e2pressly stated t&at -urt&er investi'ation
was still to be conducted.
.evert&eless, on 6ecember ),, )*+,, petitioner 1endry issued a memorandum
suspendin' Tobias -rom work preparatory to t&e -ilin' o- criminal c&ar'es a'ainst
&im.
On 6ecember )*,)*+,, Lt. 6ioscoro 3. Ta'le, Metro Manila Police C&ie-
6ocument !2aminer, a-ter investi'atin' ot&er documents pertainin' to t&e alle'ed
anomalous transactions, submitted a second laboratory crime report (!2&. 55%
reiteratin' &is previous -indin' t&at t&e &andwritin's, si'natures, and initials
appearin' in t&e c&ecks and ot&er documents involved in t&e -raudulent transactions
were not t&ose o- Tobias. T&e lie detector tests conducted on Tobias also yielded
ne'ative results.
.otwit&standin' t&e two police reports e2culpatin' Tobias -rom t&e anomalies and
t&e -act t&at t&e report o- t&e private investi'ator, was, by its own terms, not yet
complete, petitioners -iled wit& t&e City 0iscal o- Manila a complaint -or esta-a
t&rou'& -alsi-ication o- commercial documents, later amended to :ust esta-a.
;ubse<uently -ive ot&er criminal complaints were -iled a'ainst Tobias, -our o-
w&ic& were -or esta-a t&rou'& 0alsi-ication o- commercial document w&ile t&e -i-t&
was -or o- "rticle ,*/ o-= t&e Revised Penal Code (6iscoverin' ;ecrets T&rou'&
;ei9ure o- Correspondence%.lwph1.t Two o- t&ese complaints were re-iled wit&
t&e 8ud'e "dvocate General=s O--ice, w&ic& &owever, remanded t&em to t&e -iscal=s
o--ice. "ll o- t&e si2 criminal complaints were dismissed by t&e -iscal. Petitioners
appealed -our o- t&e -iscal=s resolutions dismissin' t&e criminal complaints wit& t&e
;ecretary o- 8ustice, w&o, &owever, a--irmed t&eir dismissal.
(n t&e meantime, on 8anuary )+, )*+>, Tobias received a notice (!2&. 505% -rom
petitioners t&at &is employment &as been terminated e--ective 6ecember )>, )*+,.
?&ereupon, Tobias -iled a complaint -or ille'al dismissal. T&e labor arbiter
dismissed t&e complaint. On appeal, t&e .ational Labor Relations Commission
(.LRC% reversed t&e labor arbiter=s decision. 1owever, t&e ;ecretary o- Labor,
actin' on petitioners= appeal -rom t&e .LRC rulin', reinstated t&e labor arbiter=s
decision. Tobias appealed t&e ;ecretary o- Labor=s order wit& t&e O--ice o- t&e
President. 6urin' t&e pendency o- t&e appeal wit& said o--ice, petitioners and
private respondent Tobias entered into a compromise a'reement re'ardin' t&e
latter=s complaint -or ille'al dismissal.
@nemployed, Tobias sou'&t employment wit& t&e Republic Telep&one Company
(R!T!LCO%. 1owever, petitioner 1endry, wit&out bein' asked by R!T!LCO,
wrote a letter to t&e latter statin' t&at Tobias was dismissed by GLO! M"C#"$
due to dis&onesty.
2
Private respondent Tobias -iled a civil case -or dama'es anc&ored on alle'ed
unlaw-ul, malicious, oppressive, and abusive acts o- petitioners. Petitioner 1endry,
claimin' illness, did not testi-y durin' t&e &earin's. T&e Re'ional Trial Court (RTC%
o- Manila, ranc& (A, t&rou'& 8ud'e Manuel T. Reyes rendered :ud'ment in -avor
o- private respondent by orderin' petitioners to pay &im ei'&ty t&ousand pesos
(PB/,///.//% as actual dama'es, two &undred t&ousand pesos (P,//,///.//% as
moral dama'es, twenty t&ousand pesos (P,/,///.//% as e2emplary dama'es, t&irty
t&ousand pesos (P>/,///.//% as attorney=s -ees, and costs. Petitioners appealed t&e
RTC decision to t&e Court o- "ppeals. On t&e ot&er &and, Tobias appealed as to t&e
amount o- dama'es. 1owever, t&e Court o- "ppeals, an a decision dated "u'ust >),
)*B+ a--irmed t&e RTC decision in toto. Petitioners= motion -or reconsideration
&avin' been denied, t&e instant petition -or review on certiorari was -iled.
T&e main issue in t&is case is w&et&er or not petitioners are liable -or dama'es to
private respondent.
Petitioners contend t&at t&ey could not be made liable -or dama'es in t&e law-ul
e2ercise o- t&eir ri'&t to dismiss private respondent.
On t&e ot&er &and, private respondent contends t&at because o- petitioners= abusive
manner in dismissin' &im as well as -or t&e in&uman treatment &e 'ot -rom t&em,
t&e Petitioners must indemni-y &im -or t&e dama'e t&at &e &ad su--ered.
One o- t&e more notable innovations o- t&e .ew Civil Code is t&e codi-ication o-
5some basic principles t&at are to be observed -or t&e ri'&t-ul relations&ip between
&uman bein's and -or t&e stability o- t&e social order.5 CR!PORT O. T1! CO6!
COMM(;;(O. O. T1! PROPO;!6 C(3(L CO6! O0 T1! P1(L(PP(.!;, p.
>*D. T&e -ramers o- t&e Code, seekin' to remedy t&e de-ect o- t&e old Code w&ic&
merely stated t&e e--ects o- t&e law, but -ailed to draw out its spirit, incorporated
certain -undamental precepts w&ic& were 5desi'ned to indicate certain norms t&at
sprin' -rom t&e -ountain o- 'ood conscience5 and w&ic& were also meant to serve as
5'uides -or &uman conduct Ct&atD s&ould run as 'olden t&reads t&rou'& society, to
t&e end t&at law may approac& its supreme ideal, w&ic& is t&e sway and dominance
o- :ustice5 (Id.% 0oremost amon' t&ese principles is t&at pronounced in "rticle )*
w&ic& providesE
"rt. )*. !very person must, in t&e e2ercise o- &is ri'&ts and in t&e
per-ormance o- &is duties, act wit& :ustice, 'ive everyone &is due,
and observe &onesty and 'ood -ait&.
T&is article, known to contain w&at is commonly re-erred to as t&e principle o-
abuse o- ri'&ts, sets certain standards w&ic& must be observed not only in t&e
e2ercise o- one=s ri'&ts but also in t&e per-ormance o- one=s duties. T&ese standards
are t&e -ollowin'E to act wit& :usticeF to 'ive everyone &is dueF and to observe
&onesty and 'ood -ait&. T&e law, t&ere-ore, reco'ni9es a primordial limitation on all
ri'&tsF t&at in t&eir e2ercise, t&e norms o- &uman conduct set -ort& in "rticle )*
must be observed. " ri'&t, t&ou'& by itsel- le'al because reco'ni9ed or 'ranted by
law as suc&, may nevert&eless become t&e source o- some ille'ality. ?&en a ri'&t is
e2ercised in a manner w&ic& does not con-orm wit& t&e norms ens&rined in "rticle
)* and results in dama'e to anot&er, a le'al wron' is t&ereby committed -or w&ic&
t&e wron'doer must be &eld responsible. ut w&ile "rticle )* lays down a rule o-
conduct -or t&e 'overnment o- &uman relations and -or t&e maintenance o- social
order, it does not provide a remedy -or its violation. Generally, an action -or
dama'es under eit&er "rticle ,/ or "rticle ,) would be proper.
"rticle ,/, w&ic& pertains to dama'e arisin' -rom a violation o- law, provides t&atE
"rt. ,/. !very person w&o contrary to law, wil-ully or ne'li'ently
causes dama'e to anot&er, s&all indemni-y t&e latter -or t&e same.
1owever, in t&e case at bar, petitioners claim t&at t&ey did not violate any provision
o- law since t&ey were merely e2ercisin' t&eir le'al ri'&t to dismiss private
respondent. T&is does not, &owever, leave private respondent wit& no relie- because
"rticle ,) o- t&e Civil Code provides t&atE
"rt. ,). "ny person w&o wil-ully causes loss or in:ury to anot&er
in a manner t&at is contrary to morals, 'ood customs or public
policy s&all compensate t&e latter -or t&e dama'e.
T&is article, adopted to remedy t&e 5countless 'aps in t&e statutes, w&ic& leave so
many victims o- moral wron's &elpless, even t&ou'& t&ey &ave actually su--ered
material and moral in:ury5 CId.D s&ould 5vouc&sa-e ade<uate le'al remedy -or t&at
untold number o- moral wron's w&ic& it is impossible -or &uman -oresi'&t to
provide -or speci-ically in t&e statutes5 CId. it p. G/F See also P. v. C", G.R. .o.
L4,+)HH, May )B,)*+B, B> ;CR" ,>+, ,G+D.
(n determinin' w&et&er or not t&e principle o- abuse o- ri'&ts may be invoked, t&ere
is no ri'id test w&ic& can be applied. ?&ile t&e Court &as not &esitated to apply
"rticle )* w&et&er t&e le'al and -actual circumstances called -or its application CSee
-or e.'., 3elayo v. ;&ell Co. o- t&e P&il., Ltd., )// P&il. )B7 ()*H7%F P. v. C",
3
supra; Grand @nion ;upermarket, (nc. v. !spino, 8r., G.R. .o. L4GB,H/, 6ecember
,B, )*+*, *G ;CR" *H>F P"L v. C", G.R. .o. L4G7HHB, 8uly >),)*B),)/7 ;CR"
>*)F @nited General (ndustries, (nc, v. Paler G.R. .o. L4>/,/H, Marc& )H,)*B,,)),
;CR" G/GF Rubio v. C", G.R. .o. H/*)), "u'ust ,), )*B+, )H> ;CR" )B>D t&e
<uestion o- w&et&er or not t&e principle o- abuse o- ri'&ts &as been violated
resultin' in dama'es under "rticle ,/ or "rticle ,) or ot&er applicable provision o-
law, depends on t&e circumstances o- eac& case. "nd in t&e instant case, t&e Court,
a-ter e2aminin' t&e record and considerin' certain si'ni-icant circumstances, -inds
t&at all petitioners &ave indeed abused t&e ri'&t t&at t&ey invoke, causin' dama'e to
private respondent and -or w&ic& t&e latter must now be indemni-ied.
T&e trial court made a -indin' t&at notwit&standin' t&e -act t&at it was private
respondent Tobias w&o reported t&e possible e2istence o- anomalous transactions,
petitioner 1endry 5s&owed belli'erence and told plainti-- (private respondent
&erein% t&at &e was t&e number one suspect and to take a one week vacation leave,
not to communicate wit& t&e o--ice, to leave &is table drawers open, and to leave &is
keys to said de-endant (petitioner 1endry%5 CRTC 6ecision, p. ,F Rollo, p. ,>,D.
T&is, petitioners do not dispute. ut re'ardless o- w&et&er or not it was private
respondent Tobias w&o reported t&e anomalies to petitioners, t&e latter=s reaction
towards t&e -ormer upon uncoverin' t&e anomalies was less t&an civil. "n employer
w&o &arbors suspicions t&at an employee &as committed dis&onesty mi'&t be
:usti-ied in takin' t&e appropriate action suc& as orderin' an investi'ation and
directin' t&e employee to 'o on a leave. 0irmness and t&e resolve to uncover t&e
trut& would also be e2pected -rom suc& employer. ut t&e &i'&4&anded treatment
accorded Tobias by petitioners was certainly uncalled -or. "nd t&is repre&ensible
attitude o- petitioners was to continue w&en private respondent returned to work on
.ovember ,/, )*+, a-ter &is one week -orced leave. @pon reportin' -or work,
Tobias was con-ronted by 1endry w&o said. 5Tobby, you are t&e crook and swindler
in t&is company.5 Considerin' t&at t&e -irst report made by t&e police investi'ators
was submitted only on 6ecember )/, )*+, C;ee !2&. "D t&e statement made by
petitioner 1endry was baseless. T&e imputation o- 'uilt wit&out basis and t&e
pattern o- &arassment durin' t&e investi'ations o- Tobias trans'ress t&e standards o-
&uman conduct set -ort& in "rticle )* o- t&e Civil Code. T&e Court &as already ruled
t&at t&e ri'&t o- t&e employer to dismiss an employee s&ould not be con-used wit&
t&e manner in w&ic& t&e ri'&t is e2ercised and t&e e--ects -lowin' t&ere-rom. (- t&e
dismissal is done abusively, t&en t&e employer is liable -or dama'es to t&e employee
CIuisaba v. ;ta. (nes4Melale 3eneer and Plywood (nc., G.R. .o. L4>B/BB, "u'ust
>/, )*+G, HB ;CR" ++)F See also P&ilippine Re-inin' Co., (nc. v. Garcia, G.R. .o.
L4,)B+), ;eptember ,+,)*77, )B ;CR" )/+D @nder t&e circumstances o- t&e instant
case, t&e petitioners clearly -ailed to e2ercise in a le'itimate manner t&eir ri'&t to
dismiss Tobias, 'ivin' t&e latter t&e ri'&t to recover dama'es under "rticle )* in
relation to "rticle ,) o- t&e Civil Code.
ut petitioners were not content wit& :ust dismissin' Tobias. ;everal ot&er tortious
acts were committed by petitioners a'ainst Tobias a-ter t&e latter=s termination -rom
work. Towards t&e latter part o- 8anuary, )*+>, a-ter t&e -ilin' o- t&e -irst o- si2
criminal complaints a'ainst Tobias, t&e latter talked to 1endry to protest t&e actions
taken a'ainst &im. (n response, 1endry cut s&ort Tobias= protestations by tellin' &im
to :ust con-ess or else t&e company would -ile a &undred more cases a'ainst &im
until &e landed in :ail. 1endry added t&at, 5$ou 0ilipinos cannot be trusted.5 T&e
t&reat unmasked petitioner=s bad -ait& in t&e various actions taken a'ainst Tobias.
On t&e ot&er &and, t&e scorn-ul remark about 0ilipinos as well as 1endry=s earlier
statements about Tobias bein' a 5crook5 and 5swindler5 are clear violations o-
=Tobias= personal di'nity C;ee "rticle ,7, Civil CodeD.
T&e ne2t tortious act committed by petitioners was t&e writin' o- a letter to
R!T!LCO sometime in October )*+G, statin' t&at Tobias &ad been dismissed by
GLO! M"C#"$ due to dis&onesty. ecause o- t&e letter, Tobias -ailed to 'ain
employment wit& R!T!LCO and as a result o- w&ic&, Tobias remained
unemployed -or a lon'er period o- time. 0or t&is -urt&er dama'e su--ered by Tobias,
petitioners must likewise be &eld liable -or dama'es consistent wit& "rticle ,)+7 o-
t&e Civil Code. Petitioners, &owever, contend t&at t&ey &ave a 5moral, i- not le'al,
duty to -orewarn ot&er employers o- t&e kind o- employee t&e plainti-- (private
respondent &erein% was.5 CPetition, p. )GF Rollo, p. )HD. Petitioners -urt&er claim t&at
5it is t&e accepted moral and societal obli'ation o- every man to advise or warn &is
-ellowmen o- any t&reat or dan'er to t&e latter=s li-e, &onor or property. "nd t&is
includes warnin' one=s bret&ren o- t&e possible dan'ers involved in dealin' wit&, or
acceptin' into con-idence, a man w&ose &onesty and inte'rity is suspect5 CId.D.
T&ese ar'uments, rat&er t&an :usti-y petitioners= act, reveal a seemin' obsession to
prevent Tobias -rom 'ettin' a :ob, even a-ter almost two years -rom t&e time Tobias
was dismissed.
0inally, t&ere is t&e matter o- t&e -ilin' by petitioners o- si2 criminal complaints
a'ainst Tobias. Petitioners contend t&at t&ere is no case a'ainst t&em -or malicious
prosecution and t&at t&ey cannot be 5penali9ed -or e2ercisin' t&eir ri'&t and
prero'ative o- seekin' :ustice by -ilin' criminal complaints a'ainst an employee
w&o was t&eir principal suspect in t&e commission o- -or'eries and in t&e
perpetration o- anomalous transactions w&ic& de-rauded t&em o- substantial sums o-
money5 CPetition, p. )/, Rollo, p. ))D.
4
?&ile sound principles o- :ustice and public policy dictate t&at persons s&all &ave
-ree resort to t&e courts -or redress o- wron's and vindication o- t&eir ri'&ts
Cuenaventura v. ;to. 6omin'o, )/> P&il. ,>* ()*HB%D, t&e ri'&t to institute criminal
prosecutions can not be e2ercised maliciously and in bad -ait& C3entura v. ernabe,
G.R. .o. L4,7+7/, "pril >/, )*+), >B ;CR" HB+).D 1ence, in Yutuk V. Manila
Electric Co., G.R. .o. L4)>/)7, May >), )*7), , ;CR" >>+, t&e Court &eld t&at t&e
ri'&t to -ile criminal complaints s&ould not be used as a weapon to -orce an alle'ed
debtor to pay an indebtedness. To do so would be a clear perversion o- t&e -unction
o- t&e criminal processes and o- t&e courts o- :ustice. "nd in awpia C", G.R. .o.
L4,//G+, 8une >/, )*7+. ,/ ;CR" H>7 t&e Court up&eld t&e :ud'ment a'ainst t&e
petitioner -or actual and moral dama'es and attorney=s -ees a-ter makin' a -indin'
t&at petitioner, wit& persistence, -iled at least si2 criminal complaints a'ainst
respondent, all o- w&ic& were dismissed.
To constitute malicious prosecution, t&ere must be proo- t&at t&e prosecution was
prompted by a desi'n to ve2 and &umiliate a person and t&at it was initiated
deliberately by t&e de-endant knowin' t&at t&e c&ar'es were -alse and 'roundless
CManila Gas Corporation v. C", G.R. .o. L4GG)*/, October >/,)*B/, )// ;CR"
7/,D. Concededly, t&e -ilin' o- a suit by itsel-, does not render a person liable -or
malicious prosecution C(n&elder Corporation v. C", G.R. .o. H,>HB, May
>/)*B>),, ;CR" H+7D. T&e mere dismissal by t&e -iscal o- t&e criminal complaint
is not a 'round -or an award o- dama'es -or malicious prosecution i- t&ere is no
competent evidence to s&ow t&at t&e complainant &ad acted in bad -ait& C;ison v.
6avid, G.R. .o. L4)),7B, 8anuary ,B,)*7), ) ;CR" 7/D.
(n t&e instant case, &owever, t&e trial court made a -indin' t&at petitioners acted in
bad -ait& in -ilin' t&e criminal complaints a'ainst Tobias, observin' t&atE
2 2 2
6e-endants (petitioners &erein% -iled wit& t&e 0iscal=s O--ice o-
Manila a total o- si2 (7% criminal cases, -ive (H% o- w&ic& were -or
esta-a t&ru -alsi-ication o- commercial document and one -or
violation o- "rt. ,*/ o- t&e Revised Penal Code 5discoverin'
secrets t&ru sei9ure o- correspondence,5 and all were dismissed -or
insu--iciency or lack o- evidence.5 T&e dismissal o- -our (G% o- t&e
cases was appealed to t&e Ministry o- 8ustice, but said Ministry
invariably sustained t&e dismissal o- t&e cases. "s above adverted
to, two o- t&ese cases were re-iled wit& t&e 8ud'e "dvocate
General=s O--ice o- t&e "rmed 0orces o- t&e P&ilippines to railroad
plainti--s arrest and detention in t&e military stockade, but t&is was
-rustrated by a presidential decree trans-errin' criminal cases
involvin' civilians to t&e civil courts.
2 2 2
To be sure, w&en despite t&e two (,% police reports embodyin' t&e
-indin's o- Lt. 6ioscoro Ta'le, C&ie- 6ocument !2aminer o- t&e
Manila Police 6epartment, clearin' plainti-- o- participation or
involvement in t&e -raudulent transactions complained o-, despite
t&e ne'ative results o- t&e lie detector tests w&ic& de-endants
compelled plainti-- to under'o, and alt&ou'& t&e police
investi'ation was 5still under -ollow4up and a supplementary
report will be submitted a-ter all t&e evidence &as been 'at&ered,5
de-endants &astily -iled si2 (7% criminal cases wit& t&e city 0iscal=s
O--ice o- Manila, -ive (H% -or esta-a t&ru -alsi-ication o-
commercial document and one ()% -or violation o- "rt. ,*/ o- t&e
Revised Penal Code, so muc& so t&at as was to be e2pected, all si2
(7% cases were dismissed, wit& one o- t&e investi'atin' -iscals,
"sst. 0iscal de Guia, commentin' in one case t&at, 5(ndeed, t&e
&ap&a9ard way t&is case was investi'ated is evident. !vident
likewise is t&e -lurry and &aste in t&e -ilin' o- t&is case a'ainst
respondent Tobias,5 t&ere can be no mistakin' t&at de-endants
would not but be motivated by malicious and unlaw-ul intent to
&arass, oppress, and cause dama'e to plainti--.
2 2 2
CRTC 6ecision, pp. H47F Rollo, pp. ,>H4,>7D.
(n addition to t&e observations made by t&e trial court, t&e Court -inds it si'ni-icant
t&at t&e criminal complaints were -iled durin' t&e pendency o- t&e ille'al dismissal
case -iled by Tobias a'ainst petitioners. T&is e2plains t&e &aste in w&ic& t&e
complaints were -iled, w&ic& t&e trial court earlier noted. ut petitioners, to prove
t&eir 'ood -ait&, point to t&e -act t&at only si2 complaints were -iled a'ainst Tobias
w&en t&ey could &ave alle'edly -iled one &undred cases, considerin' t&e number o-
anomalous transactions committed a'ainst GLO! M"C#"$. 1owever,
petitioners= 'ood -ait& is belied by t&e t&reat made by 1endry a-ter t&e -ilin' o- t&e
-irst complaint t&at one &undred more cases would be -iled a'ainst Tobias. (n e--ect,
t&e possible -ilin' o- one &undred more cases was made to &an' like t&e sword o-
6amocles over t&e &ead o- Tobias. (n -ine, considerin' t&e &aste in w&ic& t&e
5
criminal complaints were -iled, t&e -act t&at t&ey were -iled durin' t&e pendency o-
t&e ille'al dismissal case a'ainst petitioners, t&e t&reat made by 1endry, t&e -act t&at
t&e cases were -iled notwit&standin' t&e two police reports e2culpatin' Tobias -rom
involvement in t&e anomalies committed a'ainst GLO! M"C#"$, coupled by
t&e eventual dismissal o- all t&e cases, t&e Court is led into no ot&er conclusion t&an
t&at petitioners were motivated by malicious intent in -ilin' t&e si2 criminal
complaints a'ainst Tobias.
Petitioners ne2t contend t&at t&e award o- dama'es was e2cessive. (n t&e complaint
-iled a'ainst petitioners, Tobias prayed -or t&e -ollowin'E one &undred t&ousand
pesos (P)//,///.//% as actual dama'esF -i-ty t&ousand pesos (PH/,///.//% as
e2emplary dama'esF ei'&t &undred t&ousand pesos (PB//,///.//% as moral
dama'esF -i-ty t&ousand pesos (PH/,///.//% as attorney=s -eesF and costs. T&e trial
court, a-ter makin' a computation o- t&e dama'es incurred by Tobias CSee RTC
6ecision, pp. +4BF Rollo, pp. )HG4)HH), awarded &im t&e -ollowin'E ei'&ty t&ousand
pesos (PB/,///.//% as actual dama'esF two &undred t&ousand pesos (P,//,///.//%
as moral dama'esF twenty t&ousand pesos (P,/,///.//% as e2emplary dama'esF
t&irty t&ousand pesos (P>/,///.//% as attorney=s -eesF and, costs. (t must be
underscored t&at petitioners &ave been 'uilty o- committin' several actionable
tortious acts, i.e., t&e abusive manner in w&ic& t&ey dismissed Tobias -rom work
includin' t&e baseless imputation o- 'uilt and t&e &arassment durin' t&e
investi'ationsF t&e de-amatory lan'ua'e &eaped on Tobias as well as t&e scorn-ul
remark on 0ilipinosF t&e poison letter sent to R!T!LCO w&ic& resulted in Tobias=
loss o- possible employmentF and, t&e malicious -ilin' o- t&e criminal complaints.
Considerin' t&e e2tent o- t&e dama'e wrou'&t on Tobias, t&e Court -inds t&at,
contrary to petitioners= contention, t&e amount o- dama'es awarded to Tobias was
reasonable under t&e circumstances.
$et, petitioners still insist t&at t&e award o- dama'es was improper, invokin' t&e
principle o- damnum abs<ue in!uria. (t is ar'ued t&at 5CtD&e only probable actual
dama'e t&at plainti-- (private respondent &erein% could &ave su--ered was a direct
result o- &is &avin' been dismissed -rom &is employment, w&ic& was a valid and
le'al act o- t&e de-endants4appellants (petitioners &erein%.lwph1.t 5 CPetition, p.
)+F Rollo, p. )BD.
"ccordin' to t&e principle o- da"nu" a#s$ue in!uria, dama'e or loss w&ic& does
not constitute a violation o- a le'al ri'&t or amount to a le'al wron' is not
actionable C!scano v. C", G.R. .o. L4G+,/+, ;eptember ,H, )*B/, )// ;CR" )*+F
;ee also Gilc&rist v. Cuddy ,* P&il, HG, ()*)H%F T&e oard o- Li<uidators v. #alaw,
G.R. .o. L4)BB/H, "u'ust )G, )*7+, ,/ ;CR" *B+D. T&is principle -inds no
application in t&is case. (t bears repeatin' t&at even 'rantin' t&at petitioners mi'&t
&ave &ad t&e ri'&t to dismiss Tobias -rom work, t&e abusive manner in w&ic& t&at
ri'&t was e2ercised amounted to a le'al wron' -or w&ic& petitioners must now be
&eld liable. Moreover, t&e dama'e incurred by Tobias was not only in connection
wit& t&e abusive manner in w&ic& &e was dismissed but was also t&e result o-
several ot&er <uasi4delictual acts committed by petitioners.
Petitioners ne2t <uestion t&e award o- moral dama'es. 1owever, t&e Court &as
already ruled in %ass"er &. Vele', G.R. .o. L4,//B*, 6ecember ,7, )*7G, ),
;CR" 7GB, 7H>, t&at CpDer e2press provision o- "rticle ,,)* ()/% o- t&e .ew Civil
Code, moral dama'es are recoverable in t&e cases mentioned in "rticle ,) o- said
Code.5 1ence, t&e Court o- "ppeals committed no error in awardin' moral dama'es
to Tobias.
Lastly, t&e award o- e2emplary dama'es is impu'ned by petitioners. "lt&ou'&
"rticle ,,>) o- t&e Civil Code provides t&at 5CiDn <uasi4delicts, e2emplary dama'es
may be 'ranted i- t&e de-endant acted wit& 'ross ne'li'ence,5 t&e Court, in (ulueta
&. )an *"erican %orld *irwa+s, Inc., G.R. .o. L4 ,BHB*, 8anuary B, )*+>, G*
;CR" ), ruled t&at i- 'ross ne'li'ence warrants t&e award o- e2emplary dama'es,
wit& more reason is its imposition :usti-ied w&en t&e act per-ormed is deliberate,
malicious and tainted wit& bad -ait&. "s in t&e (ulueta case, t&e nature o- t&e
wron'-ul acts s&own to &ave been committed by petitioners a'ainst Tobias is
su--icient basis -or t&e award o- e2emplary dama'es to t&e latter.
?1!R!0OR!, t&e petition is &ereby 6!.(!6 and t&e decision o- t&e Court o-
"ppeals in C"4G.R. C3 .o. /*/HH is "00(RM!6.