This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding a bounced check. Petitioners Albenson Enterprises Corp., Jesse Yap, and Benjamin Mendiona delivered steel plates to Guaranteed Industries, Inc. and were paid partially with a check that bounced. They filed a criminal case against respondent Eugenio S. Baltao for issuing the check, but he was later exonerated. Baltao then filed a civil case against the petitioners. The court found that petitioners did not abuse their rights in honestly believing Baltao had issued the check based on their investigations. However, the appellate court still awarded Baltao damages. The Supreme Court modifies the damages, finding no clear abuse of rights by
1. Atty. Bagay was accused of negligence for allowing his secretary to notarize 18 documents while he was out of the country attending a workshop in Mexico. The IBP found him guilty of negligence and revoked his notarial commission for two years.
2. Complainant Rose Bansig filed a complaint against Atty. Celera for bigamy, as he married Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba in 1998 while still legally married to Gracemarie R. Bunagan in 1997. Certified copies of marriage certificates were submitted as evidence.
3. The Supreme Court found Atty. Celera guilty of grossly immoral conduct and ordered his disbarment. They also found his repeated
This document describes the relevant parties in a legal complaint. It establishes that Plaintiff Vogel Newsome was employed by Defendant Page Kruger & Holland (PKH), a Mississippi law firm, starting in December 2004. In May 2006, PKH terminated Newsome's employment, allegedly due to her filing a housing discrimination lawsuit against her landlord in Hinds County Court in March 2006. The document provides background details on the individuals and entities involved in the complaint.
06/06/12 NOTICE OF LAWSUIT To Louis G. Baine III (PKH Matter)VogelDenise
1. The document describes a tracking summary for a certified mail item sent from Cincinnati, OH to Flowood, MS on June 7-8, 2012.
2. It was processed through USPS sorting facilities in Cincinnati and Jackson, MS before being delivered and signed for in Flowood, MS.
3. The tracking information includes details on the label number, status updates, dates and times, and locations involved in transporting the item.
06/06/12 NOTICE OF LAWSUIT To Linda Thomas (PKH Matter)VogelDenise
1. Federal statutes including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 28 USC § 1331 confer jurisdiction on this court for claims arising under federal law.
2. Diversity jurisdiction is established under 28 USC § 1332 since the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
3. Supplemental jurisdiction exists over related state law claims pursuant to 28 USC § 1367.
06/06/12 NOTICE OF LAWSUIT To Thomas Y Page (PKH Matter)VogelDenise
1. The document describes a tracking record for a certified mail item sent from Cincinnati, OH to Flowood, MS on June 7-8, 2012.
2. It shows the item was processed through sorting facilities in Cincinnati and Jackson, MS before being delivered in Flowood.
3. The tracking provides details on the status, dates, times, and locations associated with the delivery of this certified mail item.
Vantage Lighting Philippines vs. Atty. Jose A. Dino, Jr., A.C. No. 7389 & 105...ElleAlamo
1) The Supreme Court of the Philippines considered two disbarment complaints, one filed against lawyer Jose Diño Jr. by former clients Vantage Lighting Philippines and others, and one filed by Diño against Vantage's new lawyers Paris and Sherwin Real.
2) Diño represented to Vantage that he could secure a temporary restraining order by bribing the judge with P150,000, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. He later threatened Vantage when they refused to pay additional fees.
3) The Court ruled that Diño's conduct, including claiming the judiciary could be bought, warranted disbarment from practicing law. A three-year suspension was too light a penalty given the
1. Atty. Bagay was accused of negligence for allowing his secretary to notarize 18 documents while he was out of the country attending a workshop in Mexico. The IBP found him guilty of negligence and revoked his notarial commission for two years.
2. Complainant Rose Bansig filed a complaint against Atty. Celera for bigamy, as he married Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba in 1998 while still legally married to Gracemarie R. Bunagan in 1997. Certified copies of marriage certificates were submitted as evidence.
3. The Supreme Court found Atty. Celera guilty of grossly immoral conduct and ordered his disbarment. They also found his repeated
This document describes the relevant parties in a legal complaint. It establishes that Plaintiff Vogel Newsome was employed by Defendant Page Kruger & Holland (PKH), a Mississippi law firm, starting in December 2004. In May 2006, PKH terminated Newsome's employment, allegedly due to her filing a housing discrimination lawsuit against her landlord in Hinds County Court in March 2006. The document provides background details on the individuals and entities involved in the complaint.
06/06/12 NOTICE OF LAWSUIT To Louis G. Baine III (PKH Matter)VogelDenise
1. The document describes a tracking summary for a certified mail item sent from Cincinnati, OH to Flowood, MS on June 7-8, 2012.
2. It was processed through USPS sorting facilities in Cincinnati and Jackson, MS before being delivered and signed for in Flowood, MS.
3. The tracking information includes details on the label number, status updates, dates and times, and locations involved in transporting the item.
06/06/12 NOTICE OF LAWSUIT To Linda Thomas (PKH Matter)VogelDenise
1. Federal statutes including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 28 USC § 1331 confer jurisdiction on this court for claims arising under federal law.
2. Diversity jurisdiction is established under 28 USC § 1332 since the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
3. Supplemental jurisdiction exists over related state law claims pursuant to 28 USC § 1367.
06/06/12 NOTICE OF LAWSUIT To Thomas Y Page (PKH Matter)VogelDenise
1. The document describes a tracking record for a certified mail item sent from Cincinnati, OH to Flowood, MS on June 7-8, 2012.
2. It shows the item was processed through sorting facilities in Cincinnati and Jackson, MS before being delivered in Flowood.
3. The tracking provides details on the status, dates, times, and locations associated with the delivery of this certified mail item.
Vantage Lighting Philippines vs. Atty. Jose A. Dino, Jr., A.C. No. 7389 & 105...ElleAlamo
1) The Supreme Court of the Philippines considered two disbarment complaints, one filed against lawyer Jose Diño Jr. by former clients Vantage Lighting Philippines and others, and one filed by Diño against Vantage's new lawyers Paris and Sherwin Real.
2) Diño represented to Vantage that he could secure a temporary restraining order by bribing the judge with P150,000, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. He later threatened Vantage when they refused to pay additional fees.
3) The Court ruled that Diño's conduct, including claiming the judiciary could be bought, warranted disbarment from practicing law. A three-year suspension was too light a penalty given the
Petitioner Dioscoro Bacsin, a public school teacher, was charged with grave misconduct for allegedly touching and fondling the breast of his student AAA. The Civil Service Commission dismissed Bacsin from service. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. Bacsin then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the dismissal, finding that sexual harassment of students constitutes grave misconduct based on relevant laws like the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.
Rana passed the 2000 Bar Examinations but before taking his oath, he appeared as counsel for an election candidate before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers. He was later allowed to take his oath but could not sign the Roll of Attorneys pending resolution of the complaint against him. The Court ruled that Rana could not be admitted to the Bar as he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing clients before taking his oath as a lawyer. The right to practice law is a privilege limited to those who have passed the Bar and taken their oath; it is not acquired simply by passing the examinations.
This document is a Supreme Court case from 1942 regarding civil liability for damages caused by an employee's negligence. The key details are:
- Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by Fausto Barredo, caused a car accident through negligence that killed 16-year-old Faustino Garcia.
- Fontanilla was criminally convicted but the family reserved the right to a separate civil case. They sued Barredo under Article 1903 of the Civil Code for negligence in hiring Fontanilla.
- Barredo argued his liability was only subsidiary under the Penal Code since Fontanilla wasn't sued civilly first. However, the Court found quasi-delicts under the Civil Code are
This document summarizes a court case between First American Title Insurance Company, Winnebago County Title Company, and TCF Bank regarding a mortgage on a property owned by Patricia Bartholomew. TCF Bank held the first mortgage on the property as a revolving line of credit. Winnebago acted as an agent in a second mortgage taken out by Bartholomew. Winnebago paid off the TCF Bank mortgage but TCF did not release its lien. Bartholomew then took out more funds through the revolving credit and defaulted. The court found that TCF Bank was not legally required to release the lien until the revolving credit was cancelled by Bartholomew. However
1) A former employee filed a complaint with the NLRC against a mining corporation and its president for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages and benefits.
2) The labor arbiter and NLRC found for the employee and ordered the corporation and its president to pay the monetary claims.
3) The Supreme Court upheld the finding of illegal dismissal but modified the decision by removing the personal liability of the corporation president, finding no evidence he acted in bad faith.
Alicias, Jr. v. Baclig, A.C. No. 9919, July 19, 2017, 813 PHIL 893-900.pdfElleAlamo
The Supreme Court ruled that while the lawyer, Atty. Baclig, could not be faulted for consenting to assertions made by his clients in an amended complaint, he was guilty of forum shopping. There was an existing case regarding the same subject property filed by his clients against the complainant in the Municipal Trial Court. However, while that case was pending, Atty. Baclig consented to the filing of another complaint in the Regional Trial Court seeking similar relief. This amounted to forum shopping. As a former judge, Atty. Baclig should have been mindful to observe the proper tenets of the legal profession and not engage in actions that undermine the administration of justice, such as forum shopping. The Court found Atty
This document summarizes a court case regarding the classification of copra for tax purposes. The Bureau of Internal Revenue issued a revenue memorandum classifying copra as a non-food agricultural product subject to VAT at all stages of production and distribution. Previously, copra was exempt from VAT as a food product. The petitioner challenged this classification. The Supreme Court upheld the BIR's classification, finding that the BIR has authority to interpret tax laws and its opinion is entitled to great weight absent a showing it is plainly wrong. The Court also found the revenue memorandum to be an interpretive rule not requiring public hearing, as it was not subordinate legislation but merely providing guidelines to implement the law.
This document discusses a text message exchange between the respondent and petitioner regarding picking up their children from an undisclosed event. It also references exhibits of email exchanges between the respondent's attorney and petitioner's attorney regarding requests for respondent's employee plan information and other disclosures. The document indicates the respondent is combative and unreasonable in communications with the petitioner.
This case involves a dispute over attorney's fees. The spouses Cadavedo hired Atty. Lacaya to represent them in a land dispute, agreeing to a contingent fee of PHP 2,000. However, Atty. Lacaya later took half of the disputed land as his fee without the spouses' consent. The RTC found this fee excessive and unconscionable, reducing the land area awarded to Atty. Lacaya. The CA then reversed the RTC's decision, upholding the original partition agreement. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC ruling, finding the contingent fee agreement binding and Atty. Lacaya's actions as exceeding the scope of the agreement.
This document summarizes 4 court cases related to qualifications for public office and legal practice:
1. Cayetano v. Monsod - The Supreme Court upheld the appointment of Christian Monsod as COMELEC chairman, finding that he met the 10-year law practice requirement despite not being in private practice.
2. Philippine Lawyer's Association v. Agrava - The Court found that representation before the Philippine Patent Office constitutes the practice of law, so members of the bar are qualified without further examination.
3. People of the Philippines v. Villanueva - The Court affirmed that a city attorney could represent a complainant in a single criminal case as a private prosecutor without violating rules against private
This document is a summary of a court case regarding a land registration dispute between Flordeliza and Honorio Valisno (petitioners) and Vicencio Cayaba (private respondent). The petitioners opposed Cayaba's application to register title to the land in question. The lower court dismissed the opposition based on res judicata, citing a previous court decision in favor of Cayaba. The petitioners appealed, arguing the lower court erred in several ways. The key issues discussed are whether res judicata can be invoked in a land registration case, and whether the elements of res judicata are met based on the previous court decision.
Bank of Philippine Islands Vs Quiaoit, 890 SCRA 509, G.R. No. 199562, January...GiNo103890
1) The spouses Quiaoit withdrew $20,000 from their BPI account through a representative. Some of the dollar bills were later found to be counterfeit when used abroad, causing embarrassment.
2) BPI argued it followed proper procedures in exchanging the money and the bills did not come from them. However, the courts ruled BPI was negligent for not listing the serial numbers of the bills and had the last opportunity to prevent the harm by doing so.
3) The courts affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding BPI liable for damages. BPI was ordered to pay the spouses $4,400 in actual damages and monetary awards for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney
This document is a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel opposing a motion to dismiss from Defendant Unigestion Holding. The letter argues that the complaint provides sufficient details about Unigestion's involvement in an alleged conspiracy to illegally impose fees on phone calls and money transfers to Haiti in violation of antitrust laws. The letter cites evidence from a New York Times article and videos showing an agreement was made between Unigestion and other defendants to fix prices. The letter also argues the complaint meets pleading standards and that dismissal would be improper at this stage.
- Complainant filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents' client which was ruled in complainant's favor by the NLRC. Respondents filed numerous motions and cases to delay execution of the NLRC decision awarding back wages and separation pay to complainant.
- The IBP found that respondents had abused and misused legal processes to unduly delay execution, in violation of their duties as lawyers.
- The Supreme Court suspended respondents from practice for 1 year, finding they made a mockery of the judicial system and demonstrated a lack of respect for the courts and legal processes.
AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARIFinni Rice
This document is an amended motion to strike an opposition brief filed in the Supreme Court of the United States. The petitioner, Kimberly Cox, argues that the opposition brief should be stricken for several reasons, including that the entities filing the opposition, NewRez LLC and The Bank of New York Mellon, lack standing because they were not named as respondents in the petition and were not involved in the underlying legal proceedings. Cox also argues that the corporate disclosure filed with the opposition is incomplete and misleading. The motion provides detailed arguments supporting Cox's position that the opposition brief should be stricken from the record.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals which dismissed a complaint filed by Amelita Constantino seeking acknowledgment, support and damages from Ivan Mendez. The Court of Appeals had found that Amelita failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Ivan was the father of her son Michael. The Supreme Court found no reversible error, as the Court of Appeals' factual findings were supported by evidence showing inconsistencies in Amelita's testimony about the timing of her sexual encounters with Ivan around the estimated time of conception. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals did not err in its evaluation of evidence and setting aside of the trial court decision.
This summary provides the high level details of a Supreme Court of the Philippines case involving a breach of promise to marry claim.
1) A woman filed a complaint against an Iranian exchange student for damages resulting from his breach of their agreement to marry. She alleged they had a relationship, he proposed marriage, but then broke off the engagement.
2) The trial court ruled in favor of the woman, ordering the man to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling.
3) The case was appealed to the Supreme Court regarding whether Article 21 of the Civil Code, which allows damages for moral wrongs, was applicable. The Supreme Court upheld the previous rulings, finding the man had fraudulently promised
Petitioner Dioscoro Bacsin, a public school teacher, was charged with grave misconduct for allegedly touching and fondling the breast of his student AAA. The Civil Service Commission dismissed Bacsin from service. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. Bacsin then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the dismissal, finding that sexual harassment of students constitutes grave misconduct based on relevant laws like the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.
Rana passed the 2000 Bar Examinations but before taking his oath, he appeared as counsel for an election candidate before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers. He was later allowed to take his oath but could not sign the Roll of Attorneys pending resolution of the complaint against him. The Court ruled that Rana could not be admitted to the Bar as he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing clients before taking his oath as a lawyer. The right to practice law is a privilege limited to those who have passed the Bar and taken their oath; it is not acquired simply by passing the examinations.
This document is a Supreme Court case from 1942 regarding civil liability for damages caused by an employee's negligence. The key details are:
- Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by Fausto Barredo, caused a car accident through negligence that killed 16-year-old Faustino Garcia.
- Fontanilla was criminally convicted but the family reserved the right to a separate civil case. They sued Barredo under Article 1903 of the Civil Code for negligence in hiring Fontanilla.
- Barredo argued his liability was only subsidiary under the Penal Code since Fontanilla wasn't sued civilly first. However, the Court found quasi-delicts under the Civil Code are
This document summarizes a court case between First American Title Insurance Company, Winnebago County Title Company, and TCF Bank regarding a mortgage on a property owned by Patricia Bartholomew. TCF Bank held the first mortgage on the property as a revolving line of credit. Winnebago acted as an agent in a second mortgage taken out by Bartholomew. Winnebago paid off the TCF Bank mortgage but TCF did not release its lien. Bartholomew then took out more funds through the revolving credit and defaulted. The court found that TCF Bank was not legally required to release the lien until the revolving credit was cancelled by Bartholomew. However
1) A former employee filed a complaint with the NLRC against a mining corporation and its president for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages and benefits.
2) The labor arbiter and NLRC found for the employee and ordered the corporation and its president to pay the monetary claims.
3) The Supreme Court upheld the finding of illegal dismissal but modified the decision by removing the personal liability of the corporation president, finding no evidence he acted in bad faith.
Alicias, Jr. v. Baclig, A.C. No. 9919, July 19, 2017, 813 PHIL 893-900.pdfElleAlamo
The Supreme Court ruled that while the lawyer, Atty. Baclig, could not be faulted for consenting to assertions made by his clients in an amended complaint, he was guilty of forum shopping. There was an existing case regarding the same subject property filed by his clients against the complainant in the Municipal Trial Court. However, while that case was pending, Atty. Baclig consented to the filing of another complaint in the Regional Trial Court seeking similar relief. This amounted to forum shopping. As a former judge, Atty. Baclig should have been mindful to observe the proper tenets of the legal profession and not engage in actions that undermine the administration of justice, such as forum shopping. The Court found Atty
This document summarizes a court case regarding the classification of copra for tax purposes. The Bureau of Internal Revenue issued a revenue memorandum classifying copra as a non-food agricultural product subject to VAT at all stages of production and distribution. Previously, copra was exempt from VAT as a food product. The petitioner challenged this classification. The Supreme Court upheld the BIR's classification, finding that the BIR has authority to interpret tax laws and its opinion is entitled to great weight absent a showing it is plainly wrong. The Court also found the revenue memorandum to be an interpretive rule not requiring public hearing, as it was not subordinate legislation but merely providing guidelines to implement the law.
This document discusses a text message exchange between the respondent and petitioner regarding picking up their children from an undisclosed event. It also references exhibits of email exchanges between the respondent's attorney and petitioner's attorney regarding requests for respondent's employee plan information and other disclosures. The document indicates the respondent is combative and unreasonable in communications with the petitioner.
This case involves a dispute over attorney's fees. The spouses Cadavedo hired Atty. Lacaya to represent them in a land dispute, agreeing to a contingent fee of PHP 2,000. However, Atty. Lacaya later took half of the disputed land as his fee without the spouses' consent. The RTC found this fee excessive and unconscionable, reducing the land area awarded to Atty. Lacaya. The CA then reversed the RTC's decision, upholding the original partition agreement. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC ruling, finding the contingent fee agreement binding and Atty. Lacaya's actions as exceeding the scope of the agreement.
This document summarizes 4 court cases related to qualifications for public office and legal practice:
1. Cayetano v. Monsod - The Supreme Court upheld the appointment of Christian Monsod as COMELEC chairman, finding that he met the 10-year law practice requirement despite not being in private practice.
2. Philippine Lawyer's Association v. Agrava - The Court found that representation before the Philippine Patent Office constitutes the practice of law, so members of the bar are qualified without further examination.
3. People of the Philippines v. Villanueva - The Court affirmed that a city attorney could represent a complainant in a single criminal case as a private prosecutor without violating rules against private
This document is a summary of a court case regarding a land registration dispute between Flordeliza and Honorio Valisno (petitioners) and Vicencio Cayaba (private respondent). The petitioners opposed Cayaba's application to register title to the land in question. The lower court dismissed the opposition based on res judicata, citing a previous court decision in favor of Cayaba. The petitioners appealed, arguing the lower court erred in several ways. The key issues discussed are whether res judicata can be invoked in a land registration case, and whether the elements of res judicata are met based on the previous court decision.
Bank of Philippine Islands Vs Quiaoit, 890 SCRA 509, G.R. No. 199562, January...GiNo103890
1) The spouses Quiaoit withdrew $20,000 from their BPI account through a representative. Some of the dollar bills were later found to be counterfeit when used abroad, causing embarrassment.
2) BPI argued it followed proper procedures in exchanging the money and the bills did not come from them. However, the courts ruled BPI was negligent for not listing the serial numbers of the bills and had the last opportunity to prevent the harm by doing so.
3) The courts affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding BPI liable for damages. BPI was ordered to pay the spouses $4,400 in actual damages and monetary awards for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney
This document is a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel opposing a motion to dismiss from Defendant Unigestion Holding. The letter argues that the complaint provides sufficient details about Unigestion's involvement in an alleged conspiracy to illegally impose fees on phone calls and money transfers to Haiti in violation of antitrust laws. The letter cites evidence from a New York Times article and videos showing an agreement was made between Unigestion and other defendants to fix prices. The letter also argues the complaint meets pleading standards and that dismissal would be improper at this stage.
- Complainant filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents' client which was ruled in complainant's favor by the NLRC. Respondents filed numerous motions and cases to delay execution of the NLRC decision awarding back wages and separation pay to complainant.
- The IBP found that respondents had abused and misused legal processes to unduly delay execution, in violation of their duties as lawyers.
- The Supreme Court suspended respondents from practice for 1 year, finding they made a mockery of the judicial system and demonstrated a lack of respect for the courts and legal processes.
AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARIFinni Rice
This document is an amended motion to strike an opposition brief filed in the Supreme Court of the United States. The petitioner, Kimberly Cox, argues that the opposition brief should be stricken for several reasons, including that the entities filing the opposition, NewRez LLC and The Bank of New York Mellon, lack standing because they were not named as respondents in the petition and were not involved in the underlying legal proceedings. Cox also argues that the corporate disclosure filed with the opposition is incomplete and misleading. The motion provides detailed arguments supporting Cox's position that the opposition brief should be stricken from the record.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals which dismissed a complaint filed by Amelita Constantino seeking acknowledgment, support and damages from Ivan Mendez. The Court of Appeals had found that Amelita failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Ivan was the father of her son Michael. The Supreme Court found no reversible error, as the Court of Appeals' factual findings were supported by evidence showing inconsistencies in Amelita's testimony about the timing of her sexual encounters with Ivan around the estimated time of conception. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals did not err in its evaluation of evidence and setting aside of the trial court decision.
This summary provides the high level details of a Supreme Court of the Philippines case involving a breach of promise to marry claim.
1) A woman filed a complaint against an Iranian exchange student for damages resulting from his breach of their agreement to marry. She alleged they had a relationship, he proposed marriage, but then broke off the engagement.
2) The trial court ruled in favor of the woman, ordering the man to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling.
3) The case was appealed to the Supreme Court regarding whether Article 21 of the Civil Code, which allows damages for moral wrongs, was applicable. The Supreme Court upheld the previous rulings, finding the man had fraudulently promised
This case involves a paternity suit filed by Antonia L. de Jesus against Cesar Syquia. Antonia alleges that Cesar is the father of her children Ismael and Pacita. The trial court ruled that Cesar must acknowledge paternity of Ismael and pay child support of 50 pesos per month. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court upholds the trial court's ruling, finding that letters written by Cesar acknowledging the expected birth of a child to Antonia and referring to the child as "junior" constitute legal acknowledgment of paternity under the Civil Code. Additionally, Cesar's financial support of Antonia and Ismael for a year further demonstrate Ismael's possession of
1) Araceli Santos filed a complaint against Apolonio Tanjanco seeking damages for breach of promise to marry after Tanjanco ended their relationship when Santos became pregnant.
2) The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. However, the Court of Appeals reinstated the complaint, finding it stated a cause of action for damages under the Civil Code.
3) The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the lower court's dismissal, finding that Santos' allegations did not establish the tort of seduction as Santos willingly engaged in a sexual relationship with Tanjanco for over a year, proving it was based on mutual passion rather than deceit.
Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer planned to marry on September 4, 1954. However, on the day of the wedding, Velez left Beatriz a note postponing the wedding because his mother opposed it, and then disappeared without contact. Beatriz sued Velez for damages. The court found in favor of Beatriz, ordering Velez to pay damages. Velez appealed. Ordinarily, merely breaching a marriage promise is not grounds for a lawsuit. However, in this case Velez formally planned an elaborate wedding, invited guests, and left Beatriz humiliated just before the ceremony. The court found Velez's actions unjustifiable and awarded Beatriz moral and exempl
This case involved a petition for certiorari brought by Antonio Geluz, a physician, to review a decision awarding damages to Oscar Lazo for Geluz performing an abortion on Lazo's wife, Nita Villanueva. The Supreme Court reversed the award, finding that damages could not be recovered for the death of an unborn fetus lacking legal personality. While Geluz's actions in performing the abortion were illegal, the record showed Lazo was indifferent to Villanueva's previous abortions and seemed primarily interested in obtaining a large monetary payment from Geluz rather than pursuing criminal or administrative charges. The Court concluded there were no legal or factual bases to support the damages award against Geluz.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding Imelda Marcos' eligibility to run for representative of the First District of Leyte. The Commission on Elections ruled she did not meet the one-year residency requirement based on her voter registration and certificate of candidacy stating she had lived in Tolosa, Leyte for only 7 months. The COMELEC also did not allow her to amend her certificate to say she had lived in the district "since childhood." While Marcos argued this was an honest mistake, the COMELEC found evidence she had lived in other places like Manila in prior years. The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC's decision disqualifying Marcos from the ballot and sus
This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines ruling from 1959 regarding a promissory note signed in 1944. Rosario de Braganza and her sons Rodolfo and Guillermo received 70,000 Japanese war notes as a loan from Fernando de Villa Abrille and promised to repay 10,000 Philippine currency after hostilities ceased. The sons argued they should not be liable as they were minors when signing, but the court found Rosario fully responsible and the sons partially responsible based on legal precedent and statutes regarding minority and benefit received. The court modified the damages owed to account for the sons' minority but still requiring some restitution.
The plaintiff sued the defendants claiming he did not sell land to them that was rightfully his. The defendants argued they purchased the land from the plaintiff according to a document signed by the plaintiff. However, the court found the document was invalid because the plaintiff was a minor at the time of signing and there was no evidence he intended to sell the land. Therefore, the defendants did not acquire rights to the property through the document alone, even if it was properly executed, since the sale by a minor is not binding. The court affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.
This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from 1917 regarding a land dispute. Domingo and Josefa Mercado filed a complaint to annul the sale of land that was inherited from their mother and sold to Luis Espiritu in 1910. They argued they were minors at the time of the sale. The court reviewed evidence presented, including birth and census records showing the plaintiffs were ages 19 and 18 in 1910 when the sale occurred. Therefore, the court found the plaintiffs were capable of annulling the sale as minors within the legal period, and were entitled to restitution of their shares of the inherited land.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from 1911 regarding Vicente Sixto Villanueva, who had signed a bond obligating himself and others to pay a debt but later claimed to have been insane at the time of signing. The court heard testimony from physicians and others about Villanueva's mental state and condition of "monomania of wealth," in which he believed himself to be wealthier than he was. Ultimately, the court found that this monomania did not necessarily imply that Villanueva was legally incapable of understanding and signing the bond, and it upheld the lower court's rejection of Villanueva's attempt to void the bond on grounds of insanity.
The Supreme Court ruled that (1) laws must be published in the Official Gazette in order to be valid and enforceable, even if the laws themselves provide an effective date, (2) publication is required for all laws, not just those of general applicability, and (3) publication must be made in full in the Official Gazette and cannot be omitted for any reason. The Court affirmed that the people have a right to be informed of the laws that govern them and secret or unpublished laws are invalid.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Receivership and liquidation Accounts
Being a Paper Presented at Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) on Friday, August 18, 2023.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
1. Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 88694 January 11, 1993
ALBENSON ENTERPRISES CORP., JESSE YAP, AND BENJAMIN MENDIONA, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND EUGENIO S. BALTAO, respondents.
Puruganan, Chato, Chato & Tan for petitioners.
Lino M. Patajo, Francisco Ma. Chanco, Ananiano Desierto and Segundo Mangohig for private
respondent.
BIDIN, J.:
This petition assails the decision of respondent Court of Appeals in
CA-GR CV No. 14948 entitled "Eugenio S. Baltao, plaintiff-appellee vs. Albenson Enterprises
Corporation, et al, defendants-appellants", which modified the judgment of the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City, Branch XCVIII in Civil Case No. Q-40920 and ordered petitioner to pay private
respondent, among others, the sum of P500,000.00 as moral damages and attorney's fees in the
amount of P50,000.00.
The facts are not disputed.
In September, October, and November 1980, petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corporation (Albenson
for short) delivered to Guaranteed Industries, Inc. (Guaranteed for short) located at 3267 V. Mapa
Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila, the mild steel plates which the latter ordered. As part payment thereof,
Albenson was given Pacific Banking Corporation Check No. 136361 in the amount of P2,575.00 and
drawn against the account of E.L. Woodworks (Rollo, p. 148).
When presented for payment, the check was dishonored for the reason "Account Closed."
Thereafter, petitioner Albenson, through counsel, traced the origin of the dishonored check. From
the records of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Albenson discovered that the
president of Guaranteed, the recipient of the unpaid mild steel plates, was one "Eugenio S. Baltao."
Upon further inquiry, Albenson was informed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry that E.L.
Woodworks, a single proprietorship business, was registered in the name of one "Eugenio Baltao".
In addition, upon verification with the drawee bank, Pacific Banking Corporation, Albenson was
advised that the signature appearing on the subject check belonged to one "Eugenio Baltao."
After obtaining the foregoing information, Albenson, through counsel, made an extrajudicial demand
upon private respondent Eugenio S. Baltao, president of Guaranteed, to replace and/or make good
the dishonored check.
2. Respondent Baltao, through counsel, denied that he issued the check, or that the signature
appearing thereon is his. He further alleged that Guaranteed was a defunct entity and hence, could
not have transacted business with Albenson.
On February 14, 1983, Albenson filed with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal a complaint
against Eugenio S. Baltao for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Submitted to support said
charges was an affidavit of petitioner Benjamin Mendiona, an employee of Albenson. In said
affidavit, the above-mentioned circumstances were stated.
It appears, however, that private respondent has a namesake, his son Eugenio Baltao III, who
manages a business establishment, E.L. Woodworks, on the ground floor of the Baltao Building,
3267 V. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila, the very same business address of Guaranteed.
On September 5, 1983, Assistant Fiscal Ricardo Sumaway filed an information against Eugenio S.
Baltao for Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. In filing said information, Fiscal Sumaway claimed
that he had given Eugenio S. Baltao opportunity to submit controverting evidence, but the latter
failed to do so and therefore, was deemed to have waived his right.
Respondent Baltao, claiming ignorance of the complaint against him, immediately filed with the
Provincial Fiscal of Rizal a motion for reinvestigation, alleging that it was not true that he had been
given an opportunity to be heard in the preliminary investigation conducted by Fiscal Sumaway, and
that he never had any dealings with Albenson or Benjamin Mendiona, consequently, the check for
which he has been accused of having issued without funds was not issued by him and the signature
in said check was not his.
On January 30, 1984, Provincial Fiscal Mauro M. Castro of Rizal reversed the finding of Fiscal
Sumaway and exonerated respondent Baltao. He also instructed the Trial Fiscal to move for
dismissal of the information filed against Eugenio S. Baltao. Fiscal Castro found that the signature in
PBC Check No. 136361 is not the signature of Eugenio S. Baltao. He also found that there is no
showing in the records of the preliminary investigation that Eugenio S. Baltao actually received
notice of the said investigation. Fiscal Castro then castigated Fiscal Sumaway for failing to exercise
care and prudence in the performance of his duties, thereby causing injustice to respondent who
was not properly notified of the complaint against him and of the requirement to submit his counter
evidence.
Because of the alleged unjust filing of a criminal case against him for allegedly issuing a check which
bounced in violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 for a measly amount of P2,575.00, respondent
Baltao filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for damages against herein
petitioners Albenson Enterprises, Jesse Yap, its owner, and Benjamin Mendiona, its employee.
In its decision, the lower court observed that "the check is drawn against the account of "E.L.
Woodworks," not of Guaranteed Industries of which plaintiff used to be President. Guaranteed
Industries had been inactive and had ceased to exist as a corporation since 1975. . . . . The
possibility is that it was with Gene Baltao or Eugenio Baltao III, a son of plaintiff who had a business
on the ground floor of Baltao Building located on V. Mapa Street, that the defendants may have been
dealing with . . . ." (Rollo, pp. 41-42).
The dispositive portion of the trial court 's decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against
defendants ordering the latter to pay plaintiff jointly and severally:
3. 1. actual or compensatory damages of P133,350.00;
2. moral damages of P1,000,000.00 (1 million pesos);
3. exemplary damages of P200,000.00;
4. attorney's fees of P100,000.00;
5 costs.
Defendants' counterclaim against plaintiff and claim for damages against Mercantile
Insurance Co. on the bond for the issuance of the writ of attachment at the instance
of plaintiff are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. (Rollo, pp. 38-39).
On appeal, respondent court modified the trial court's decision as follows:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED by reducing the moral
damages awarded therein from P1,000,000.00 to P500,000.00 and the attorney's
fees from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00, said decision being hereby affirmed in all its
other aspects. With costs against appellants. (Rollo, pp. 50-51)
Dissatisfied with the above ruling, petitioners Albenson Enterprises Corp., Jesse Yap, and Benjamin
Mendiona filed the instant Petition, alleging that the appellate court erred in:
1. Concluding that private respondent's cause of action is not one based on
malicious prosecution but one for abuse of rights under Article 21 of the Civil Code
notwithstanding the fact that the basis of a civil action for malicious prosecution is
Article 2219 in relation to Article 21 or Article 2176 of the Civil Code . . . .
2. Concluding that "hitting at and in effect maligning (private respondent) with an
unjust criminal case was, without more, a plain case of abuse of rights by
misdirection" and "was therefore, actionable by itself," and which "became
inordinately blatant and grossly aggravated when . . . (private respondent) was
deprived of his basic right to notice and a fair hearing in the so-called preliminary
investigation . . . . "
3. Concluding that petitioner's "actuations in this case were coldly deliberate and
calculated", no evidence having been adduced to support such a sweeping
statement.
4. Holding the petitioner corporation, petitioner Yap and petitioner Mendiona jointly
and severally liable without sufficient basis in law and in fact.
5. Awarding respondents —
5.1. P133,350.00 as actual or compensatory damages, even in the
absence of sufficient evidence to show that such was actually
suffered.
5.2. P500,000.00 as moral damages considering that the evidence in
this connection merely involved private respondent's alleged
4. celebrated status as a businessman, there being no showing that the
act complained of adversely affected private respondent's reputation
or that it resulted to material loss.
5.3. P200,000.00 as exemplary damages despite the fact that
petitioners were duly advised by counsel of their legal recourse.
5.4. P50,000.00 as attorney's fees, no evidence having been
adduced to justify such an award (Rollo, pp. 4-6).
Petitioners contend that the civil case filed in the lower court was one for malicious prosecution.
Citing the case ofMadera vs. Lopez (102 SCRA 700 [1981]), they assert that the absence of malice
on their part absolves them from any liability for malicious prosecution. Private respondent, on the
other hand, anchored his complaint for Damages on Articles 19, 20, and 21 ** of the Civil Code.
Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets
certain standards which may be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the
performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone
his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes the primordial
limitation on all rights: that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must
be observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may
nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which
does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal
wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. Although the
requirements of each provision is different, these three (3) articles are all related to each other. As
the eminent Civilist Senator Arturo Tolentino puts it: "With this article (Article 21), combined with
articles 19 and 20, the scope of our law on civil wrongs has been very greatly broadened; it has
become much more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-American law on torts. It is now difficult to
conceive of any malevolent exercise of a right which could not be checked by the application of
these articles" (Tolentino, 1 Civil Code of the Philippines 72).
There is however, no hard and fast rule which can be applied to determine whether or not the
principle of abuse of rights may be invoked. The question of whether or not the principle of abuse of
rights has been violated, resulting in damages under Articles 20 and 21 or other applicable provision
of law, depends on the circumstances of each case. (Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation
vs. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 778 [1989]).
The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty;
(2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Article 20
speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their
own sanction (Tolentino, supra, p. 71). Thus, anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the
exercise of his legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries
suffered thereby. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following elements: 1)
There is an act which is legal; 2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public
policy; 3) and it is done with intent to injure.
Thus, under any of these three (3) provisions of law, an act which causes injury to another may be
made the basis for an award of damages.
There is a common element under Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act must be intentional.
However, Article 20 does not distinguish: the act may be done either "willfully", or "negligently". The
trial court as well as the respondent appellate court mistakenly lumped these three (3) articles
5. together, and cited the same as the bases for the award of damages in the civil complaint filed
against petitioners, thus:
With the foregoing legal provisions (Articles 19, 20, and 21) in focus, there is not
much difficulty in ascertaining the means by which appellants' first assigned error
should be resolved, given the admitted fact that when there was an attempt to collect
the amount of P2,575.00, the defendants were explicitly warned that plaintiff Eugenio
S. Baltao is not the Eugenio Baltao defendants had been dealing with (supra, p. 5).
When the defendants nevertheless insisted and persisted in filing a case — a
criminal case no less — against plaintiff, said defendants ran afoul of the legal
provisions (Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code) cited by the lower court and
heretofore quoted (supra).
Defendants, not having been paid the amount of P2,575.00, certainly had the right to
complain. But that right is limited by certain constraints. Beyond that limit is the area
of excess, of abuse of rights. (Rollo, pp.
44-45).
Assuming, arguendo, that all the three (3) articles, together and not independently of each one,
could be validly made the bases for an award of damages based on the principle of "abuse of right",
under the circumstances, We see no cogent reason for such an award of damages to be made in
favor of private respondent.
Certainly, petitioners could not be said to have violated the aforestated principle of abuse of right.
What prompted petitioners to file the case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against private
respondent was their failure to collect the amount of P2,575.00 due on a bounced check which they
honestly believed was issued to them by private respondent. Petitioners had conducted inquiries
regarding the origin of the check, and yielded the following results: from the records of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, it was discovered that the President of Guaranteed (the recipient of the
unpaid mild steel plates), was one "Eugenio S. Baltao"; an inquiry with the Ministry of Trade and
Industry revealed that E.L. Woodworks, against whose account the check was drawn, was
registered in the name of one "Eugenio Baltao"; verification with the drawee bank, the Pacific
Banking Corporation, revealed that the signature appearing on the check belonged to one "Eugenio
Baltao".
In a letter dated December 16, 1983, counsel for petitioners wrote private respondent demanding
that he make good the amount of the check. Counsel for private respondent wrote back and denied,
among others, that private respondent ever transacted business with Albenson Enterprises
Corporation; that he ever issued the check in question. Private respondent's counsel even went
further: he made a warning to defendants to check the veracity of their claim. It is pivotal to note at
this juncture that in this same letter, if indeed private respondent wanted to clear himself from the
baseless accusation made against his person, he should have made mention of the fact that there
are three (3) persons with the same name, i.e.: Eugenio Baltao, Sr., Eugenio S. Baltao, Jr. (private
respondent), and Eugenio Baltao III (private respondent's son, who as it turned out later, was the
issuer of the check). He, however, failed to do this. The last two Baltaos were doing business in the
same building — Baltao Building — located at 3267 V. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila. The mild
steel plates were ordered in the name of Guaranteed of which respondent Eugenio S. Baltao is the
president and delivered to Guaranteed at Baltao building. Thus, petitioners had every reason to
believe that the Eugenio Baltao who issued the bouncing check is respondent Eugenio S. Baltao
when their counsel wrote respondent to make good the amount of the check and upon refusal, filed
the complaint for violation of BP Blg. 22.
6. Private respondent, however, did nothing to clarify the case of mistaken identity at first hand.
Instead, private respondent waited in ambush and thereafter pounced on the hapless petitioners at a
time he thought was propitious by filing an action for damages. The Court will not countenance this
devious scheme.
The criminal complaint filed against private respondent after the latter refused to make good the
amount of the bouncing check despite demand was a sincere attempt on the part of petitioners to
find the best possible means by which they could collect the sum of money due them. A person who
has not been paid an obligation owed to him will naturally seek ways to compel the debtor to pay
him. It was normal for petitioners to find means to make the issuer of the check pay the amount
thereof. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot
be awarded and that the adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and
subject the actor to the payment of damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty
on the right to litigate (Rubio vs. Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 488 [1986]).
In the case at bar, private respondent does not deny that the mild steel plates were ordered by and
delivered to Guaranteed at Baltao building and as part payment thereof, the bouncing check was
issued by one Eugenio Baltao. Neither had private respondent conveyed to petitioner that there are
two Eugenio Baltaos conducting business in the same building — he and his son Eugenio Baltao III.
Considering that Guaranteed, which received the goods in payment of which the bouncing check
was issued is owned by respondent, petitioner acted in good faith and probable cause in filing the
complaint before the provincial fiscal.
To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a
sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, and that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant
knowing that his charges were false and groundless. Concededly, the mere act of submitting a case
to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution. (Manila Gas
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 602 [1980]). Still, private respondent argues that
liability under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code is so encompassing that it likewise includes
liability for damages for malicious prosecution under Article 2219 (8). True, a civil action for damages
for malicious prosecution is allowed under the New Civil Code, more specifically Articles 19, 20, 26,
29, 32, 33, 35, and 2219 (8) thereof. In order that such a case can prosper, however, the following
three (3) elements must be present, to wit: (1) The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that
the defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that the action was finally terminated with an
acquittal; (2) That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; (3) The
prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice (Lao vs. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 58,
[1991]).
Thus, a party injured by the filing of a court case against him, even if he is later on absolved, may file
a case for damages grounded either on the principle of abuse of rights, or on malicious prosecution.
As earlier stated, a complaint for damages based on malicious prosecution will prosper only if the
three (3) elements aforecited are shown to exist. In the case at bar, the second and third elements
were not shown to exist. It is well-settled that one cannot be held liable for maliciously instituting a
prosecution where one has acted with probable cause. "Probable cause is the existence of 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. In other words, a suit will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried
on without probable cause. The reason for this rule is that it would be a very great discouragement
to public justice, if prosecutors, who had tolerable ground of suspicion, were liable to be sued at law
when their indictment miscarried" (Que vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 169 SCRA 137 [1989]).
7. The presence of probable cause signifies, as a legal consequence, the absence of malice. In the
instant case, it is evident that petitioners were not motivated by malicious intent or by sinister design
to unduly harass private respondent, but only by a well-founded anxiety to protect their rights when
they filed the criminal complaint against private respondent.
To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the prosecution was
prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, that it was initiated
deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless.
Concededly, the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does
not make one liable for malicious prosecution. Proof and motive that the institution of
the action was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person must be
clearly and preponderantly established to entitle the victims to damages (Ibid.).
In the case at bar, there is no proof of a sinister design on the part of petitioners to vex or humiliate
private respondent by instituting the criminal case against him. While petitioners may have been
negligent to some extent in determining the liability of private respondent for the dishonored check,
the same is not so gross or reckless as to amount to bad faith warranting an award of damages.
The root of the controversy in this case is founded on a case of mistaken identity. It is possible that
with a more assiduous investigation, petitioners would have eventually discovered that private
respondent Eugenio S. Baltao is not the "Eugenio Baltao" responsible for the dishonored check.
However, the record shows that petitioners did exert considerable effort in order to determine the
liability of private respondent. Their investigation pointed to private respondent as the "Eugenio
Baltao" who issued and signed the dishonored check as the president of the debtor-corporation
Guaranteed Enterprises. Their error in proceeding against the wrong individual was obviously in the
nature of an innocent mistake, and cannot be characterized as having been committed in bad faith.
This error could have been discovered if respondent had submitted his counter-affidavit before
investigating fiscal Sumaway and was immediately rectified by Provincial Fiscal Mauro Castro upon
discovery thereof, i.e., during the reinvestigation resulting in the dismissal of the complaint.
Furthermore, the adverse result of an action does not per se make the act wrongful and subject the
actor to the payment of moral damages. The law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the
right to litigate, such right is so precious that moral damages may not be charged on those who may
even exercise it erroneously. And an adverse decision does not ipso facto justify the award of
attorney's fees to the winning party (Garcia vs. Gonzales, 183 SCRA 72 [1990]).
Thus, an award of damages and attorney's fees is unwarranted where the action was filed in good
faith. If damage results from a person's exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque
injuria (Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 5 [1989]).
Coming now to the claim of private respondent for actual or compensatory damages, the records
show that the same was based solely on his allegations without proof to substantiate the same. He
did not present proof of the cost of the medical treatment which he claimed to have undergone as a
result of the nervous breakdown he suffered, nor did he present proof of the actual loss to his
business caused by the unjust litigation against him. In determining actual damages, the court
cannot rely on speculation, conjectures or guesswork as to the amount. Without the actual proof of
loss, the award of actual damages becomes erroneous (Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan, 171 SCRA
382 [1989]).
Actual and compensatory damages are those recoverable because of pecuniary loss — in business,
trade, property, profession, job or occupation — and the same must be proved, otherwise, if the
proof is flimsy and unsubstantiated, no damages will be given (Rubio vs. Court of Appeals, 141
8. SCRA 488 [1986]). For these reasons, it was gravely erroneous for respondent court to have
affirmed the award of actual damages in favor of private respondent in the absence of proof thereof.
Where there is no evidence of the other party having acted in wanton, fraudulent or reckless, or
oppressive manner, neither may exemplary damages be awarded (Dee Hua Liong Electrical
Equipment Corporation vs. Reyes, 145 SCRA 488 [1986]).
As to the award of attorney's fees, it is well-settled that the same is the exception rather than the
general rule. Needless to say, the award of attorney's fees must be disallowed where the award of
exemplary damages is eliminated (Article 2208, Civil Code; Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA
375 [1990]). Moreover, in view of the fact that there was no malicious prosecution against private
respondent, attorney's fees cannot be awarded him on that ground.
In the final analysis, there is no proof or showing that petitioners acted maliciously or in bad faith in
the filing of the case against private respondent. Consequently, in the absence of proof of fraud and
bad faith committed by petitioners, they cannot be held liable for damages (Escritor, Jr. vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 155 SCRA 577 [1987]). No damages can be awarded in the instant
case, whether based on the principle of abuse of rights, or for malicious prosecution. The questioned
judgment in the instant case attests to the propensity of trial judges to award damages without basis.
Lower courts are hereby cautioned anew against awarding unconscionable sums as damages
without bases therefor.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. C.V.
No. 14948 dated May 13, 1989, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs against respondent
Baltao.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., Davide, Jr., Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.
# Footnotes
** "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.
"Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
"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.