GR No 81262

GLOBE MACKAY V. CA, RESTITUTO TOBIAS

Facts:

Restituto M. Tobias is an employee at the Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (Globe
Mackay.) In 1972, Globe Mackay discovered fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions that
led to the company losing several thousands of pesos.

Accdg to Tobias he was the one who discovered the anomalies and reported them to Eduardo
Ferraren and Herbert Hendry, his superiors, on Nov 10, 1972. The day after, after he has reported what
he has discovered, Hendry confronted him and stating that he was the number one suspect, thus,
ordering him to take on force leave and leave his table drawers open and to leave the office keys.

Tobias returned to work after his one week forced leave and he was immediately confronted by
Hendry and stating that he was the one responsible for the anomalies and calling him a “crook” and
“swindler.” Tobias was ordered to take on lie detector test, submit specimen of his handwriting,
signature, and initials for examination by the police to prove whether or not he committed such
dishonesty at work. The police cleared the respondent from the anomalies.

Unsatisfied, Petitioners hired another investigator and he proclaimed Tobias guilty. However, this
report stated that they would stil conduct further investigations. While the investigation is still in process
Globe Mackay has suspended Tobias’s employment. A few days later, after the investigations were
conducted, Tobias was proven that he was not responsible for the anomalies as the specimens and lie
detector tests turned to be negative.

Nothwithstanding the case Globe Mackay filed six criminal complaints with the City Fiscal of
Manila. Tobias protested to Hendry but Hendry threatened to file hundred more cases if Tobias does not
admit that he is responsible for the anomalies. All of the complaints were dismissed by the fiscal, as well
as the Secretary of Justice. In the meantime, on jan 17, 1973, Tobias received a notice that he has been
officially terminated. Aggrieved, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal which was later on dismissed by
the Labor arbiter.

Tobias sought employment with Republic Telephone Comapany (ReTelCo) but Hendry, without
being asked by ReTelCo, wrote a letter to them stating that Tobias was dismissed due to dishonesty.
Tobias was then rejected by the Company.

Tobias filed civil cases for damges anchored on alleged unlawful, malicious, oppressive, and
abusive acts of petitioners. Hendry did not testify during the hearings. The RTC of Manila favored Tobias
and ordered petitioners to pay him:

80,000 PHP (Actual Damages)

200,000 (Moral Damages)

20, 000 (Exemplary damages)

30, 000 (Attorney’s Fee)

 Petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the CA that they should not be liable for damages to
Tobias but the latter affirmed the RTC Decision in toto.

Thus, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent.

RULING:

After considering the circumstances, the court finds that the Petitioners have abused the right
that they invoke and caused damage to Tobias for which the latter must be indemnified. Hendry
threatened Tobias to file more cases unless he confesses although the case was still pending and even if
the results in the investigations turned to be negative. Hendry also wrote to ReTelCo that Tobias was
dismissed due to dishonesty. These reveal that petitioners are motivated by malicious and unlawful
intents to harass or oppress Tobias. The imputation of guilt without basis and pattern of harassment
during the investigations transgress the standards of human conduct set forth in Art. 19 of the Civil Code.

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.

Although Art. 19 does not provide a remedy for the petitioners’ violation Art 20 and 21 are the
proper provisions:

Art 20 “Every person who contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same.”

And in relation with Article 20 is 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.”

With the present circumstances and acts that the petitioners has committed against Tobias they
are obliged to pay Tobias the payments which were decided by the RTC of Manila.

The petition is denied.