[Elements]

Issue:

Franklin Drilon et al. v. CA and Homobono Adaza

Whether or not there was malice.

G.R. No. 107019, March 20, 1997

Held:

Ponente: Justice Hermosisima, Jr.

While generally associated with unfounded criminal actions, malicious

prosecution has been expanded to include unfounded civil suits
instituted just to vex and humiliate the defendant despite the absence
of a cause of action or probable cause. See Drilon v. CA for definition
and basis.

Facts:
PR was ordered to be investigated for alleged participation in failed
1989 December coup. The AFP Generals sent the letter-complaint. So
PI. Panel then found PC to hold PR for trial for rebellion with murder
and frustrated murder, so info. PR then filed damages, saying
deliberate and willful and malicious experimentation when fully aware
of non-existence of such crime, motion to dismiss saying no actionable
wrong, denied. Instead of filing answer to denial, went directly to CA,
dismissed saying TC should proceed with trial. SC dismissed saying
failure to pay docketing fees.
Issue:
Whether or not there should be trial.
Held:
R maintains that his claim before the trial court was merely a suit for
damages based on tort by reason of petitioners various malfeasance,
misfeasance and nonfeasance in office, as well as for violation by the
petitioners of RA3019(3e), not a suit for malicious prosecution. No.
Perusal of the complaint reveals it is one for malicious prosecution
because of rebellion case. And nowhere in complaint did R alleged
action based on tort or on RA3019(3e). Malicious prosecution has
been defined as:
An action for damages brought by one against whom a criminal
prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding has been instituted
maliciously and without probable cause, after the termination of such
prosecution, suit, or other proceeding in favor of the defendant therein.
The gist of the action is the putting of legal process in force, regularly,
for the mere purpose of vexation or injury (Cabasaan v. Anota, 14169R, November 19, 1956).
Statutory basis for damages for this found in NCC Human Relations.
To constitute malicious mischief, must be proof that prosecution
prompted by sinister design to vex and humiliate, initiated deliberately
knowing charges false and groundless. Mere act of submitting case to
authorities for prosecution does not make liable, for must prove
3elements:
(1) the fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant
was himself the prosecutor and that the action finally terminated with
an acquittal; (2) that in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without
probable cause; and (3) that the prosecutor was actuated or impelled
by legal malice, that is by improper or sinister motive. All these
requisites must concur.
From Rs complaint, none of elements alleged, so no cause of action.
Also, panel resolution thorough, and that P despite knowing
jurisprudence, honestly thought Rs case differed. 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. Any person who
seeks to establish otherwise has the burden of proving bad faith or illmotive. Here, since P were of honest conviction that there was PC to
hold R, and since R himself did not allege in his complaint lack of PC,
P cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution. Presence of PC
signifies absence of malice.

4elements:
(1) the prosecution did occur, and the defendant was himself the
prosecutor or that he instigated its commencement; (2) the criminal
action finally ended with an acquittal; (3) in bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (4) the prosecution was
impelled by legal malice -- an improper or a sinister motive.
Gravamen is not the filing of a complaint based on wrong provision of
law, but deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that the
charges were false and groundless. On PC, SC has ruled that for
purposes of malicious prosecution, PC means 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. It is
merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Does not require an
inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.
Anent question whether prosecutor acted without PC in bringing action,
there was PC. During PI, RM admitted participating in commission.
Even if RM said she was in duress then, does not detract from fact that
based on RMs admission, there was reason for R to believe suit was
not unfounded.
In an action to recover damages based on malicious prosecution, it
must be established that the prosecution was impelled by legal malice.
There is necessity of proof that the suit was so patently malicious as to
warrant the award of damages under NCC19 to 21, or that the suit was
grounded on malice or bad faith. Moreover, it is a doctrine wellentrenched in jurisprudence that the mere act of submitting a case to
the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious
prosecution, for the law would not have meant to impose a penalty on
the right to litigate. For policemen, merely acting in duty.
Mistakes committed by a public officer are not actionable absent any
clear showing that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence
amounting to bad faith, not established here. And case here for MP, not
for maltreatment from officers.

Quisaba vs. Sta. Ines

JOVITO N. QUISABA, petitioner,
vs.
STA. INES-MELALE VENEER & PLYWOOD, INC., et al., respondents.
Facts:

[Elements]
Conrado Magbanua v. Pilar Junsay
G.R. No. 132659, February 12, 2007
Ponente: Justice Chico-Nazario
Facts:
P Rosemarie Magbanua worked as housemaid in complainants
residence, charged by R as co-accused for robbery, acquitted. Then
filed damages, together with co-P father against R employer, and R
members of Bacolod police. Complaint said because of crim case,
suffered shame, humiliation, etc. That CM lost job and entire family
suffered, that RM suffered physical pain and mental torture. R said
statute of limitations bars, 4years8mos lapsing. P said cause of action
not for damages, but for malicious prosecution, so not barred. RTC
said complaint not to vex RM, no legal malice, CA affirming.

February 5, 1973 the petitioner Jovito N. Quisaba filed with

the Court of First Instance of Davao a complaint for moral
damages, exemplary damages, termination pay and
attorney's fees against the Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer &
Plywood, Inc. and its vice-president Robert Hyde. The
complaint avers that Quisaba, for eighteen years prior to his
dismissal, was in the employ of the defendant corporation;
that on January 11, 1973 the respondent Robert Hyde
instructed him to purchase logs for the company's plant; that
he refused on the ground that the work of purchasing logs is
inconsistent with his position as internal auditor; that on the
following day Hyde informed him of his temporary relief as
internal auditor so that he could carry out immediately the
instructions thus given, and he was warned that his failure to
comply would be considered a ground for his dismissal; that
on January 16, 1973 he responded with a plea for fairness
and mercy as he would be without a job during an economic
crisis; that he was demoted from a position of dignity to a
servile and menial job; that the defendants did not reconsider
their "clever and subterfugial dismissal" of him which for all
purposes constituted a "constructive discharge;" and that
because of the said acts of the defendants, he suffered
mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock and social humiliate on. The
complaint does not pray for reinstatement or payment of
backwages
defendants filed their answer, they moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Davao
Court of First Instance, asserting that the proper forum is the
National Labor Relations Commission established by
Presidential Decree No. 21
NLRC: we have no jurisdiction
But CFI granted Motion to Dismiss, saying employeremployee relationship

Issue: sole issue of law posed for resolution is whether a complaint for
moral damages, exemplary damages, termination pay and attorney's
fees, arising from an employer's constructive dismissal of an
employee, is exclusively cognizable by the regular courts of justice or
by the National Labor Relations Commission created by Presidential
Decree No. 21, promulgated on October 14, 1972
Held: Although the acts complained of seemingly appear to constitute
"matters involving employee-employer relations" as Quisaba's
dismissal was the severance of a pre-existing employee-employer
relation, his complaint is grounded not on his dismissal per se as in fact
he does not ask for reinstatement or backwages, but on the manner of
his dismissal and the consequent effects of such dismissal.
The "right" of the respondents to dismiss Quisaba should not be
confused with the manner in which the right was exercised and the
effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal was done anti-socially or
oppressively, as the complaint alleges, then the respondents violated
article 1701 of the Civil Code 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 wilfully causes loss or injury to another
in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy,
the sanction for which, by way of moral damages, is provided in article
2219, no. 1.
Case remanded to CFI for further proceedings
Spouses Guanio vs Makati Shangrila Hotel
Facts:

Held:

For their wedding reception on July 28, 2001, spouses Luigi

M. Guanio and Anna Hernandez-Guanio (petitioners) booked
at the Shangri-la Hotel Makati (the hotel)
Food tasting
A day before the event or on July 27, 2001, the parties
finalized and forged their contract
Petitioners claim that during the reception, respondents
representatives, Catering Director Bea Marquez and Sales
Manager Tessa Alvarez, did not show up despite their
assurance that they would; their guests complained of the
delay in the service of the dinner; certain items listed in the
published menu were unavailable; the hotels waiters were
rude and unapologetic when confronted about the delay; and
despite Alvarezs promise that there would be no charge for
the extension of the reception beyond 12:00 midnight, they
were billed and paid P8,000 per hour for the three-hour
extension of the event up to 4:00 A.M. the next day
Petitioners further claim that they brought wine and liquor in
accordance with their open bar arrangement, but these were
not served to the guests who were forced to pay for their
drinks
Petitioners thus sent a letter-complaint to the Makati
Shangri-la Hotel and Resort, Inc. (respondent) and received
an apologetic reply from Krister Svensson, the hotels
Executive Assistant Manager in charge of Food and
Beverage. They nevertheless filed a complaint for breach of
contract and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Makati City
Answer, respondent claimed that petitioners requested a
combination of king prawns and salmon, hence, the price
was increased to P1,200.00 per person, but discounted at
P1,150.00; that contrary to petitioners claim, Marquez and
Alvarez were present during the event, albeit they were not
permanently stationed thereat as there were three other
hotel functions; that while there was a delay in the service of
the meals, the same was occasioned by the sudden increase
of guests to 470 from the guaranteed expected minimum
number of guests of 350 to a maximum of 380, as stated in
the Banquet Event Order (BEO);1[2] and that Isaac Albacea,
Banquet Service Director, in fact relayed the delay in the
service of the meals to petitioner Luigis father, Gil Guanio
Respecting the belated service of meals to some guests,
respondent attributed it to the insistence of petitioners
wedding coordinator that certain guests be served first
Svenssons letter, respondent, denying it as an admission of
liability, claimed that it was meant to maintain goodwill to its
customers
RTC ruled in favor of couple: trial court observed that from
the tenor of the letter . . . the defendant[-herein respondent]
admits that the services the plaintiff[-herein petitioners]
received were unacceptable and definitely not up to their
standards.
CA: reversed the trial courts decision, it holding that the
proximate cause of petitioners injury was an unexpected
increase in their guests

attendance. In case the actual

number
of
attendees exceed the minimum guaranteed
number
by ten percent (10%), the HOTEL shall not in any
way be held liable for any damage or
inconvenience which may be caused thereby. The
ENGAGER shall also undertake to advise the
guests of the situation and take positive steps to
remedy the same

To the Court, the foregoing explanation of the hotels

Banquet Director overcomes any presumption of admission
of breach which Svenssons letter might have conveyed to
show empathy

The exculpatory clause notwithstanding, the Court notes that

respondent could have managed the situation better, it
being held in high esteem in the hotel and service industry.
Given respondents vast experience, it is safe to presume
that this is not its first encounter with booked events
exceeding the guaranteed cover. It is not audacious to
expect that certain measures have been placed in case this
predicament crops up. That regardless of these measures,
respondent still received complaints as in the present case,
does not amuse

Respondent admitted that three hotel functions coincided

with petitioners reception. To the Court, the delay in service
might have been avoided or minimized if respondent
exercised prescience in scheduling events. No less than
quality service should be delivered especially in events
which possibility of repetition is close to nil. Petitioners are
not expected to get married twice in their lifetime

In the present petition, under considerations of equity, the

Court deems it just to award the amount of P50,000.00 by
way of nominal damages to petitioners, for the discomfiture
that they were subjected to during to the event.2[15] The
Court recognizes that every person is entitled to respect of
his dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind.3[16]
Respondents lack of prudence is an affront to this right
CA decision partly reversed.
St. Louis vs. CA
ST. LOUIS REALTY CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and CONRADO J. ARAMIL, respondents.
Facts:

Proximate cause does not apply; contract

Banquet and Meeting Services Contract ENGAGER shall be billed in accordance with the
prescribed rate for the minimum guaranteed
number of persons contracted for; ENGAGER
must inform the HOTEL at least forty eight (48)
hours before the scheduled date and time of the
Function of any change in the minimum
guaranteed covers. In the absence of such notice,
paragraph 4.3 shall apply in the event of under

2
3

recovery of damages for a wrongful advertisement in the

Sunday Times where Saint Louis Realty Corporation
misrepresented that the house of Doctor Conrado J. Aramil
belonged to Arcadio S. Arcadio
St. Louis Realty caused to be published with the permission
of Arcadio S. Arcadio (but without permission of Doctor
Aramil) in the issue of the Sunday Times of December 15,
1968 an advertisement with the heading "WHERE THE
HEART IS". Below that heading was the photograph of the
residence of Doctor Aramil and the Arcadio family and then
below the photograph was the following write-up
The same advertisement appeared in the Sunday Times
dated January 5, 1969. Doctor Aramil a neuropsychiatrist
and a member of the faculty of the U. E. Ramon Magsaysay
Memorial Hospital, noticed the mistake. On that same date,
he wrote St. Louis Realty the following letter of protest (This
unauthorized use of my house for your promotional gain and
much more the apparent distortions therein are I believe not
only transgression to my private property but also damaging
to my prestige in the medical profession I have had invited in
several occasions numerous medical colleagues, medical
students and friends to my house and after reading your
December 15 advertisement some of them have uttered
some remarks purporting doubts as to my professional and
personal integrity. Such sly remarks although in light vein as
"it looks like your house," "how much are you renting from
the Arcadios?", " like your wife portrayed in the papers as
belonging to another husband," etc., have resulted in no little
mental anguish on my part)
letter was received by Ernesto Magtoto, an officer of St.
Louis Realty in charge of advertising. He stopped publication
of the advertisement. He contacted Doctor Aramil and
offered his apologies. However, no rectification or apology
was published
Aramil's counsel demanded from St. Louis Realty actual,
moral and exemplary damages of P110,000 (Exh. D). In its
answer dated March 10, St. Louis Realty claimed that there
was an honest mistake and that if Aramil so desired,
rectification would be published in the Manila Times
March 29, Aramil filed his complaint for damages. St. Louis
Realty published in the issue of the Manila Times of April 15,
1969 the following "NOTICE OF RECTIFICATION" in a
space 4 by 3 inches
Judge Jose M. Leuterio observed that St. Louis Realty
should have immediately published a rectification and
apology. He found that as a result of St. Louis Realty's
mistake, magnified by its utter lack of sincerity, Doctor Aramil
suffered mental anguish and his income was reduced by
about P1,000 to P1,500 a month. Moreover, there was
violation of Aramil's right to privacy (Art. 26, Civil Code)

TC ruled in favor of Aramil

CA affirmed; Appellate Court reasoned out that St. Louis
Realty committed an actionable quasi-delict under articles 21
and 26 of the Civil Code because the questioned
advertisements pictured a beautiful house which did not
belong to Arcadio but to Doctor Aramil who, naturally, was
annoyed by that contretemps
SL argues that the case is not covered by article 26 which
provides that "every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and
other persons". "Prying into the privacy of another's
residence" and "meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another" and "similar acts", "though they
may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause
of action for damages, prevention and other relief".

Held:

St. Louis Realty's employee was grossly negligent in mixing

up the Aramil and Arcadio residences in a widely circulated
publication like the Sunday Times. To suit its purpose, it
never made any written apology and explanation of the mixup. It just contented itself with a cavalier "rectification "

Persons, who know the residence of Doctor Aramil, were

confused by the distorted, lingering impression that he was
renting his residence from Arcadio or that Arcadio had leased
it from him. Either way, his private life was mistakenly and
unnecessarily exposed. He suffered diminution of income
and mental anguish
CA decision affirmed
Gregorio vs. CA
Facts:

4
5
6
7
8

case arose from the filing of an Affidavit of Complaint4[4]

for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 22
(Bouncing Checks Law) by respondent Emma J. Datuin
(Datuin), as Officer-in-Charge of the Accounts
Receivables Department, and upon authority of
petitioner Sansio Philippines, Inc. (Sansio), against
petitioner Zenaida R. Gregorio (Gregorio) and one Vito
Belarmino, as proprietors of Alvi Marketing, allegedly for
delivering insufficiently funded bank checks as payment
for the numerous appliances bought by Alvi Marketing
from Sansio
As the address stated in the complaint was incorrect,
Gregorio was unable to controvert the charges against
her. Consequently, she was indicted for three (3)
counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22
The MeTC issued a warrant5[5] for her arrest, and it
was served upon her by the armed operatives of the
Public Assistance and Reaction Against Crime (PARAC)
of the Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG) on October 17, 1997, Friday, at around 9:30
a.m. in Quezon City while she was visiting her husband
and their two (2) daughters at their city residence.
Gregorio was brought to the PARAC-DILG Office where
she was subjected to fingerprinting and mug shots, and
was detained. She was released in the afternoon of the
same day when her husband posted a bond for her
P Gregorio filed for Motion for Reinvestigation,
Conducted, Result: Affidavit of Desistance stating,
among others, that Gregorio was not one of the
signatories of the bounced checks subject of
prosecution
Granted, Dismissed
Gregorio filed a complaint6[10] for damages against
Sansio and Datuin
Complaint: Be that as it may, incalculable damage has
been inflicted on the plaintiff on account of the
defendants wanton, callous and reckless disregard of
the fundamental legal precept that every person shall
respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of
mind of his neighbors and other persons (Art. 26, Civil
Code of the Philippines)
Sansio and Datuin filed a Motion to Dismiss7[12] on the
ground that the complaint, being one for damages
arising from malicious prosecution, failed to state a
cause of action, as the ultimate facts constituting the
elements thereof were not alleged in the complaint
RTC denied motion to dismiss
CA dismissed Gregorios suit
position of Sansio and Datuin that the complaint for
damages filed by Gregorio before the RTC was for
malicious prosecution, but it failed to allege the
elements thereof, such that it was aptly dismissed on
appeal by the CA on the ground of lack of cause of
action. In their comment, citing Albenson Enterprise
Corporation v. Court of Appeals,8[20] they posit that
Article 26 of the Civil Code, cited by Gregorio as one of
the bases for her complaint, and Articles 19, 20, and 21

of the same Code, mentioned by the RTC as bases for

sustaining the complaint, are the very same provisions
upon which malicious prosecution is grounded. And in
order to further buttress their position that Gregorios
complaint was indeed one for malicious prosecution,
they even pointed out the fact that Gregorio prayed for
moral damages, which may be awarded only in case of
malicious prosecution or, if the case is for quasi-delict,
only if physical injury results therefrom
Held:

We disagree.
A perusal of the allegations of Gregorios complaint for
damages readily shows that she filed a civil suit against
Sansio and Datuin for filing against her criminal charges
for violation of B.P. Blg. 22; that respondents did not
exercise diligent efforts to ascertain the true identity of
the person who delivered to them insufficiently funded
checks as payment for the various appliances
purchased; and that respondents never gave her the
opportunity to controvert the charges against her,
because they stated an incorrect address in the criminal
complaint. Gregorio claimed damages for the
embarrassment and humiliation she suffered when she
was suddenly arrested at her city residence in Quezon
City while visiting her family. She was, at the time of
her arrest, a respected Kagawad in Oas, Albay.
Gregorio anchored her civil complaint on Articles 26,9
[21] 2176,10[22] and 218011[23] of the Civil Code.
Noticeably, despite alleging either fault or negligence on
the part of Sansio and Datuin, Gregorio never imputed
to them any bad faith in her complaint

On the other hand, Article 26 of the Civil Code grants a

cause of action for damages, prevention, and other
relief in cases of breach, though not necessarily
constituting a criminal offense, of the following rights:
(1) right to personal dignity; (2) right to personal
security; (3) right to family relations; (4) right to social
intercourse; (5) right to privacy; and (6) right to peace of
mind

A scrutiny of Gregorios civil complaint reveals that the

averments thereof, taken together, fulfill the elements of
Article 2176, in relation to Article 26 of the Civil Code. It
appears that Gregorios 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. This fault was
compounded when they failed to ascertain the correct
address of petitioner, thus depriving her of the
opportunity to controvert the charges, because she was
not given proper notice. 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.
Although she was never found at No. 76 Pearanda St.,
Legaspi City, the office address of Alvi Marketing as
stated in the criminal complaint, Gregorio was
conveniently arrested by armed operatives of the
PARAC-DILG at her city residence at 78 K-2 St.,
Kamuning, Quezon City, 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. There
exists no contractual relation between Gregorio and
Sansio. On the other hand, Gregorio is prosecuting
Sansio, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, for its
vicarious liability, as employer, arising from the act or
omission of its employee Datuin

Sansio and Datuin are in error when they insist that

Gregorios complaint is based on malicious prosecution.
In an action to recover damages for malicious
prosecution, it must be alleged and established that
Sansio and Datuin were impelled by legal malice or bad
faith in deliberately initiating an action against Gregorio,
knowing that the charges were false and groundless,
intending to vex and humiliate her.12[27] As previously
mentioned, Gregorio did not allege this in her
complaint. Moreover, the fact that she prayed for moral
damages did not change the nature of her action based
on quasi-delict. She might have acted on the mistaken
notion that she was entitled to moral damages,
considering that she suffered physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation
on account of her indictment and her sudden arrest
Petition granted.

9
10
11
12