Malicious Prosecution

What is Malicious Prosecution?

- An action for damages brought by one against another whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit,
or other legal proceedings has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause, after the
termination of such prosecution, suit or proceeding in favor of the defendant therein.

- The action terminated should be one begun in malice without probable cause to believe the charges
thereon can be sustained and is instituted with the intention of injuring another and which terminates in
favor of the person prosecuted.

Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;

(4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6) Illegal search;

(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution;

(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;

(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

1. Malice

Acting with inexcusable intent to injure, oppress, vex, annoy or humiliate.

Absence of Malice therefore involves good faith on the part of the defendant. This good faith may even
be based on mistake of law. A doubtful or difficult question of law may become the basis of good faith,
and in this regard, the law always accords to public officials the presumption of good faith and regularity
in the performance of official duties.

How to prove Malicious Prosecution?

- There must be a proof that the prosecutor was prompted by a sinister or devious design to vex and
humiliate a person, and that it was initiated deliberately, knowing that the charges are false and
groundless.
2. Absence of probable cause

What is probable cause?

- Existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief of the Prosecutor, that the
person charged is guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.

What is the test of probable cause?

- Probable cause need not be based in convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The test of
determining probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the
belief in a reasonable mind that the person charged and prosecuted in a criminal case is
probably guilty of the crime or wrong doing.

3. Acquittal

- Presupposes that a criminal information is filed in court and final judgment is rendered
dismissing the case against the accused.

Lao vs. CA

FACTS: A contract of sales agent was entered by Lao and The Anglo- American Tobacco Corp
wherein Lao is authorized to sell the tobacco products of the corporation on a commission basis.
Subsequently, the Corporation called his attention for difficulty of obtaining a tally despite of his
avowal of regular remittance. The court ordered both to undergo supervised accounting and
ordered the corporation to pay actual loss of earnings, moral and exemplary damages. The
corporation then filed a case of estafa against Lao, while the case is pending Lao filed malicious
prosecution against the corporation.

ISSUE:WON there is malicious prosecution

HELD: There is no malicious prosecution because it was prematurely filed and it failed to allege a
cause of action. Should the action for malicious prosecution be entertained and the estafa charge
would result in respondent Lao's conviction during the pendency of the damage suit, even if it is
based on Articles 20 and 21, such suit would nonetheless become groundless and unfounded. To
repeat; that the estafa case, in fact, resulted in respondent Lao's acquittal would not infuse a cause
of action on the malicious prosecution case already commenced and pending resolution.
 Que vs. IAC

FACTS: Que filed a complaint for estafa against Nicolas because of the checks the latter issued as
payment for canvass strollers were dishonored. Nicolas allegedly did not continue payment because
of the defective canvass strollers which he never returned to Que. The charge was dismissed in the
fiscal level. Nicolas filed a complaint for malicious prosecution.

ISSUE: WON Que was guilty of malicious prosecution.

HELD: Neither of them is GUILTY OF MALICE. To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be
proof that the prosecution was:

1. Prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person

2. Initiated deliberately by the defendant

3. Knowing that his charges were false and groundless. The presence of probable cause signifies as
a legal consequence the absence of malice.

ONE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR MALICIOUSLY INSTITUTING A PROSECUTION WHERE
HE ACTED WITH PROBABLE CAUSE.

Drilon vs. CA

FACTS: A letter complaint sent to Drilon resulted in an order to investigate several individuals, including
Adaza, for their participation in the failed Dec. 89 coup. The preliminary investigation stated that there
was probable cause to hold respondents for the crime of rebellion with murder and frustrated murder.
Adaza filed a complaint for damages against Drilon for malicious prosecution.

ISSUE: WON Drilon et al was guilty of malicious prosecution.

HELD: There is no malicious prosecution because none of the three elements were present (not
terminated with an acquittal, Drilon acted with probable cause as found in PI, no sinister motive could
be imputed).

Alternative Prosecution

As an alternative to malicious prosecution, a plaintiff may file an action for damages for abuse of
process under Articles 2176 and 26 of the New Civil Code.

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
Article 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.

Unjust Dismissal

Singapore Airlines vs. Pao

FACTS: Carlos E. Cruz was offered employment Engineer Officer with the opportunity to undergo a B-707
I conversion training course requiring him to enter into a bond with Singapore Airlines Limited for 5
years

Claiming that Cruz had applied for "leave without pay" and had gone on leave without approval of the
application during the second year, SIA filed suit for damages against Cruz and his surety, Villanueva, for
violation of the terms and conditions

ISSUE: WON properly cognizable by Courts of justice and not by the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor
Relations Commission

HELD: IF THE DISMISSAL WAS DONE ANTI-SOCIALLY OR OPPRESSIVELY, THEN THE RESPONDENTS
VIOLATED ARTICLE 1701, which prohibits acts of oppression by either capital or labor against the other,
and Article 21, which makes a person liable for damages if he willfully causes loss or injury to another in
a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy

Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

Article 1701. Neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against the other, or impair the interest or
convenience of the public

Medina v. Castro-Bartolome

Medina v. Castro-Bartolome September 11, 1982 FACTS: Cosme de Aboitiz, President and CEO of Pepsi,
shouted and cursed at the plaintiffs in front of their subordinate employees. The petitioners filed a case
of oral defamation against de Aboitiz. It was dismissed since the jurisdiction of claims was transferred
from the CFI to the Labor Arbiters.

ISSUE: WON the Labor Code applies.

HELD: The plaintiffs did not allege any unfair labor practice. It was an action for damages for tortious
acts allegedly committed by the defendants. Such being the case, the governing statute is the Civil Code
and not the Labor Code