(Article 26)

Zenaida Gregorio, petitioner, v. Court of Appeals, Sansio Philippines, Inc. and Emma J. Datuin,
respondents GR No. 179799, September 11, 2009

FACTS: Respondents Emma J. Datuin (Datuin) and Sansio Philippines, Inc. (Sansio) filed an affidavit of
complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) against petitioner Zenaida R. Gregorio
(Gregorio), a proprietor of Alvi Marketing. Datuin and Sansio claimed that Gregorio delivered insufficiently
funded bank checks as payment for appliances Alvi Marketing bought from Sansio. Gregorio was then
indicted for three counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Branch 3,
Manila. The MTC issued a warrant of arrest and she was subsequently arrested by armed operatives while
visiting her family house in Quezon City. On December 5, 1997, Gregorio filed before the MTC a Motion
for Deferment of Arraignment and Reinvestigation. She alleged that she could not have issued the
bounced checks as she did not have a checking account with the bank on which the checks were drawn.
This was certified by the manager of the said bank. Gregorio also alleged that the signature on the
bounced checks were radically and patently different from her own signature. The MTC granted the
motion, and a reinvestigation was conducted. Subsequently, the MTC ordered the B.P. Blg. 22 cases
dismissed. On August 18, 2000, Gregorio filed a complaint for damages against Sansio and Datuin before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Ligao, Albay. Part of her complaint was that as a result of her
wrongful arrest and arraignment, she suffered helplessness, hunger and humiliation and being distraught.
Datuin and Sansio meanwhile filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds that Gregorio’s complaint arose from
grounds of compensation arising from malicious prosecution. On October 10, 2000, the RTC denied this
Motion to Dismiss. Sansio and Datuin then filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was again denied in
January 5, 2001. They went to the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
presiding judge of the RTC in denying their motions to dismiss and for reconsideration. On January 31,
2007, the CA rendered a Decision granting the petition and ordering Gregorio’s damage suit to be
dismissed.

ISSUE: Are Sansio and Datuin liable for damages to Gregorio?

HELD: Yes. Among other reasons, the Supreme Court decided that Gregorio’s rights “to personal dignity,
personal security, privacy, and peace of mind were infringed by Sansio and Datuin when they failed to
exercise the requisite diligence in determining the identity of the person they should rightfully accuse of
tendering insufficiently funded checks. . . . Because she was not able to refute the charges against her,
petitioner was falsely indicted for three (3) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Gregorio was conveniently
at her city residence while visiting her family. She suffered embarrassment and humiliation over her
sudden arrest and detention and she had to spend time, effort, and money to clear her tarnished name
and reputation, considering that she had held several honorable positions in different organizations and
offices in the public service, particularly her being a Kagawad in Oas, Albay at the time of her arrest.”