Republic of the Philippines Not satisfied with the police report, petitioners hired a

SUPREME COURT private investigator, retired Col. Jose G. Fernandez,

Manila who on December 10, 1972, submitted a report (Exh.
"2") finding Tobias guilty. This report however
THIRD DIVISION expressly stated that further investigation was still to
be conducted.
G.R. No. 81262 August 25, 1989
Nevertheless, on December 12, 1972, petitioner
Hendry issued a memorandum suspending Tobias
GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., and from work preparatory to the filing of criminal charges
HERBERT C. HENDRY, petitioners, against him.
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and
RESTITUTO M. TOBIAS, respondents. On December 19,1972, Lt. Dioscoro V. Tagle, Metro
Manila Police Chief Document Examiner, after
investigating other documents pertaining to the
Atencia & Arias Law Offices for petitioners. alleged anomalous transactions, submitted a second
laboratory crime report (Exh. "B") reiterating his
Romulo C. Felizmena for private respondent. previous finding that the handwritings, signatures, and
initials appearing in the checks and other documents
involved in the fraudulent transactions were not those
of Tobias. The lie detector tests conducted on Tobias
also yielded negative results.
CORTES, J.:
Notwithstanding the two police reports exculpating
Private respondent Restituto M. Tobias was employed Tobias from the anomalies and the fact that the report
by petitioner Globe Mackay Cable and Radio of the private investigator, was, by its own terms, not
Corporation (GLOBE MACKAY) in a dual capacity as yet complete, petitioners filed with the City Fiscal of
a purchasing agent and administrative assistant to the Manila a complaint for estafa through falsification of
engineering operations manager. In 1972, GLOBE commercial documents, later amended to just estafa.
MACKAY discovered fictitious purchases and other Subsequently five other criminal complaints were filed
fraudulent transactions for which it lost several against Tobias, four of which were for estafa through
thousands of pesos. Falsification of commercial document while the fifth
was for of Article 290 of' the Revised Penal Code
According to private respondent it was he who (Discovering Secrets Through Seizure of
actually discovered the anomalies and reported them Correspondence).lâwphî1.ñèt Two of these
on November 10, 1972 to his immediate superior complaints were refiled with the Judge Advocate
Eduardo T. Ferraren and to petitioner Herbert C. General's Office, which however, remanded them to
Hendry who was then the Executive Vice-President the fiscal's office. All of the six criminal complaints
and General Manager of GLOBE MACKAY. were dismissed by the fiscal. Petitioners appealed
four of the fiscal's resolutions dismissing the criminal
complaints with the Secretary of Justice, who,
On November 11, 1972, one day after private
however, affirmed their dismissal.
respondent Tobias made the report, petitioner Hendry
confronted him by stating that he was the number one
suspect, and ordered him to take a one week forced In the meantime, on January 17, 1973, Tobias
leave, not to communicate with the office, to leave his received a notice (Exh. "F") from petitioners that his
table drawers open, and to leave the office keys. employment has been terminated effective December
13, 1972. Whereupon, Tobias filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter dismissed the
On November 20, 1972, when private respondent
complaint. On appeal, the National Labor Relations
Tobias returned to work after the forced leave,
Commission (NLRC) reversed the labor arbiter's
petitioner Hendry went up to him and called him a
decision. However, the Secretary of Labor, acting on
"crook" and a "swindler." Tobias was then ordered to
petitioners' appeal from the NLRC ruling, reinstated
take a lie detector test. He was also instructed to
the labor arbiter's decision. Tobias appealed the
submit specimen of his handwriting, signature, and
Secretary of Labor's order with the Office of the
initials for examination by the police investigators to
President. During the pendency of the appeal with
determine his complicity in the anomalies.
said office, petitioners and private respondent Tobias
entered into a compromise agreement regarding the
On December 6,1972, the Manila police investigators latter's complaint for illegal dismissal.
submitted a laboratory crime report (Exh. "A") clearing
private respondent of participation in the anomalies.
Unemployed, Tobias sought employment with the Art. 19. Every person must, in the
Republic Telephone Company (RETELCO). However, exercise of his rights and in the
petitioner Hendry, without being asked by RETELCO, performance of his duties, act with
wrote a letter to the latter stating that Tobias was justice, give everyone his due, and
dismissed by GLOBE MACKAY due to dishonesty. observe honesty and good faith.

Private respondent Tobias filed a civil case for This article, known to contain what is commonly
damages anchored on alleged unlawful, malicious, referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets
oppressive, and abusive acts of petitioners. Petitioner certain standards which must be observed not only in
Hendry, claiming illness, did not testify during the the exercise of one's rights but also in the
hearings. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, performance of one's duties. These standards are the
Branch IX, through Judge Manuel T. Reyes rendered following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due;
judgment in favor of private respondent by ordering and to observe honesty and good faith. The law,
petitioners to pay him eighty thousand pesos therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all
(P80,000.00) as actual damages, two hundred rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human
thousand pesos (P200,000.00) as moral damages, conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A
twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) as exemplary right, though by itself legal because recognized or
damages, thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as granted by law as such, may nevertheless become
attorney's fees, and costs. Petitioners appealed the the source of some illegality. When a right is
RTC decision to the Court of Appeals. On the other exercised in a manner which does not conform with
hand, Tobias appealed as to the amount of damages. the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in
However, the Court of Appeals, an a decision dated damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby
August 31, 1987 affirmed the RTC decision in toto. committed for which the wrongdoer must be held
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration having been responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of
denied, the instant petition for review on certiorari was conduct for the government of human relations and
filed. for the maintenance of social order, it does not
provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action
The main issue in this case is whether or not for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21
petitioners are liable for damages to private would be proper.
respondent.
Article 20, which pertains to damage arising from a
Petitioners contend that they could not be made liable violation of law, provides that:
for damages in the lawful exercise of their right to
dismiss private respondent. Art. 20. Every person who contrary
to law, wilfully or negligently causes
On the other hand, private respondent contends that damage to another, shall indemnify
because of petitioners' abusive manner in dismissing the latter for the same.
him as well as for the inhuman treatment he got from
them, the Petitioners must indemnify him for the However, in the case at bar, petitioners claim that
damage that he had suffered. they did not violate any provision of law since they
were merely exercising their legal right to dismiss
One of the more notable innovations of the New Civil private respondent. This does not, however, leave
Code is the codification of "some basic principles that private respondent with no relief because Article 21 of
are to be observed for the rightful relationship the Civil Code provides that:
between human beings and for the stability of the
social order." [REPORT ON THE CODE Art. 21. Any person who wilfully
COMMISSION ON THE PROPOSED CIVIL CODE causes loss or injury to another in a
OF THE PHILIPPINES, p. 39]. The framers of the manner that is contrary to morals,
Code, seeking to remedy the defect of the old Code good customs or public policy shall
which merely stated the effects of the law, but failed compensate the latter for the
to draw out its spirit, incorporated certain fundamental damage.
precepts which were "designed to indicate certain
norms that spring from the fountain of good This article, adopted to remedy the "countless gaps in
conscience" and which were also meant to serve as the statutes, which leave so many victims of moral
"guides for human conduct [that] should run as golden wrongs helpless, even though they have actually
threads through society, to the end that law may suffered material and moral injury" [Id.] should
approach its supreme ideal, which is the sway and "vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold
dominance of justice" (Id.) Foremost among these number of moral wrongs which it is impossible for
principles is that pronounced in Article 19 which human foresight to provide for specifically in the
provides:
statutes" [Id. it p. 40; See also PNB v. CA, G.R. No. L- an employee should not be confused with the manner
27155, May 18,1978, 83 SCRA 237, 247]. in which the right is exercised and the effects flowing
therefrom. If the dismissal is done abusively, then the
In determining whether or not the principle of abuse of employer is liable for damages to the employee
rights may be invoked, there is no rigid test which can [Quisaba v. Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer and Plywood
be applied. While the Court has not hesitated to apply Inc., G.R. No. L-38088, August 30, 1974, 58 SCRA
Article 19 whether the legal and factual circumstances 771; See also Philippine Refining Co., Inc. v. Garcia,
called for its application [See for e.g., Velayo v. Shell G.R. No. L-21871, September 27,1966, 18 SCRA
Co. of the Phil., Ltd., 100 Phil. 186 (1956); PNB v. 107] Under the circumstances of the instant case, the
CA, supra; Grand Union Supermarket, Inc. v. Espino, petitioners clearly failed to exercise in a legitimate
Jr., G.R. No. L-48250, December 28, 1979, 94 SCRA manner their right to dismiss Tobias, giving the latter
953; PAL v. CA, G.R. No. L-46558, July 31,1981,106 the right to recover damages under Article 19 in
SCRA 391; United General Industries, Inc, v. Paler relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code.
G.R. No. L-30205, March 15,1982,112 SCRA 404;
Rubio v. CA, G.R. No. 50911, August 21, 1987, 153 But petitioners were not content with just dismissing
SCRA 183] the question of whether or not the Tobias. Several other tortious acts were committed by
principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting petitioners against Tobias after the latter's termination
in damages under Article 20 or Article 21 or other from work. Towards the latter part of January, 1973,
applicable provision of law, depends on the after the filing of the first of six criminal complaints
circumstances of each case. And in the instant case, against Tobias, the latter talked to Hendry to protest
the Court, after examining the record and considering the actions taken against him. In response, Hendry
certain significant circumstances, finds that all cut short Tobias' protestations by telling him to just
petitioners have indeed abused the right that they confess or else the company would file a hundred
invoke, causing damage to private respondent and for more cases against him until he landed in jail. Hendry
which the latter must now be indemnified. added that, "You Filipinos cannot be trusted." The
threat unmasked petitioner's bad faith in the various
The trial court made a finding that notwithstanding the actions taken against Tobias. On the other hand, the
fact that it was private respondent Tobias who scornful remark about Filipinos as well as Hendry's
reported the possible existence of anomalous earlier statements about Tobias being a "crook" and
transactions, petitioner Hendry "showed belligerence "swindler" are clear violations of 'Tobias' personal
and told plaintiff (private respondent herein) that he dignity [See Article 26, Civil Code].
was the number one suspect and to take a one week
vacation leave, not to communicate with the office, to The next tortious act committed by petitioners was the
leave his table drawers open, and to leave his keys to writing of a letter to RETELCO sometime in October
said defendant (petitioner Hendry)" [RTC Decision, p. 1974, stating that Tobias had been dismissed by
2; Rollo, p. 232]. This, petitioners do not dispute. But GLOBE MACKAY due to dishonesty. Because of the
regardless of whether or not it was private respondent letter, Tobias failed to gain employment with
Tobias who reported the anomalies to petitioners, the RETELCO and as a result of which, Tobias remained
latter's reaction towards the former upon uncovering unemployed for a longer period of time. For this
the anomalies was less than civil. An employer who further damage suffered by Tobias, petitioners must
harbors suspicions that an employee has committed likewise be held liable for damages consistent with
dishonesty might be justified in taking the appropriate Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Petitioners, however,
action such as ordering an investigation and directing contend that they have a "moral, if not legal, duty to
the employee to go on a leave. Firmness and the forewarn other employers of the kind of employee the
resolve to uncover the truth would also be expected plaintiff (private respondent herein) was." [Petition, p.
from such employer. But the high-handed treatment 14; Rollo, p. 15]. Petitioners further claim that "it is the
accorded Tobias by petitioners was certainly uncalled accepted moral and societal obligation of every man
for. And this reprehensible attitude of petitioners was to advise or warn his fellowmen of any threat or
to continue when private respondent returned to work danger to the latter's life, honor or property. And this
on November 20, 1972 after his one week forced includes warning one's brethren of the possible
leave. Upon reporting for work, Tobias was dangers involved in dealing with, or accepting into
confronted by Hendry who said. "Tobby, you are the confidence, a man whose honesty and integrity is
crook and swindler in this company." Considering that suspect" [Id.]. These arguments, rather than justify
the first report made by the police investigators was petitioners' act, reveal a seeming obsession to
submitted only on December 10, 1972 [See Exh. A] prevent Tobias from getting a job, even after almost
the statement made by petitioner Hendry was two years from the time Tobias was dismissed.
baseless. The imputation of guilt without basis and
the pattern of harassment during the investigations of Finally, there is the matter of the filing by petitioners of
Tobias transgress the standards of human conduct six criminal complaints against Tobias. Petitioners
set forth in Article 19 of the Civil Code. The Court has contend that there is no case against them for
already ruled that the right of the employer to dismiss malicious prosecution and that they cannot be
"penalized for exercising their right and prerogative of correspondence," and all were
seeking justice by filing criminal complaints against an dismissed for insufficiency or lack of
employee who was their principal suspect in the evidence." The dismissal of four (4)
commission of forgeries and in the perpetration of of the cases was appealed to the
anomalous transactions which defrauded them of Ministry of Justice, but said Ministry
substantial sums of money" [Petition, p. 10, Rollo, p. invariably sustained the dismissal of
11]. the cases. As above adverted to,
two of these cases were refiled with
While sound principles of justice and public policy the Judge Advocate General's
dictate that persons shall have free resort to the Office of the Armed Forces of the
courts for redress of wrongs and vindication of their Philippines to railroad plaintiffs
rights [Buenaventura v. Sto. Domingo, 103 Phil. 239 arrest and detention in the military
(1958)], the right to institute criminal prosecutions can stockade, but this was frustrated by
not be exercised maliciously and in bad faith [Ventura a presidential decree transferring
v. Bernabe, G.R. No. L-26760, April 30, 1971, 38 criminal cases involving civilians to
SCRA 5871.] Hence, in Yutuk V. Manila Electric Co., the civil courts.
G.R. No. L-13016, May 31, 1961, 2 SCRA 337, the
Court held that the right to file criminal complaints xxx
should not be used as a weapon to force an alleged
debtor to pay an indebtedness. To do so would be a To be sure, when despite the two
clear perversion of the function of the criminal (2) police reports embodying the
processes and of the courts of justice. And findings of Lt. Dioscoro Tagle, Chief
in Hawpia CA, G.R. No. L-20047, June 30, 1967. 20 Document Examiner of the Manila
SCRA 536 the Court upheld the judgment against the Police Department, clearing plaintiff
petitioner for actual and moral damages and of participation or involvement in
attorney's fees after making a finding that petitioner, the fraudulent transactions
with persistence, filed at least six criminal complaints complained of, despite the negative
against respondent, all of which were dismissed. results of the lie detector tests
which defendants compelled
To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be plaintiff to undergo, and although
proof that the prosecution was prompted by a design the police investigation was "still
to vex and humiliate a person and that it was initiated under follow-up and a
deliberately by the defendant knowing that the supplementary report will be
charges were false and groundless [Manila Gas submitted after all the evidence has
Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. L-44190, October been gathered," defendants hastily
30,1980, 100 SCRA 602]. Concededly, the filing of a filed six (6) criminal cases with the
suit by itself, does not render a person liable for city Fiscal's Office of Manila, five (5)
malicious prosecution [Inhelder Corporation v. CA, for estafa thru falsification of
G.R. No. 52358, May 301983122 SCRA 576]. The commercial document and one (1)
mere dismissal by the fiscal of the criminal complaint for violation of Art. 290 of the
is not a ground for an award of damages for malicious Revised Penal Code, so much so
prosecution if there is no competent evidence to show that as was to be expected, all six
that the complainant had acted in bad faith [Sison v. (6) cases were dismissed, with one
David, G.R. No. L-11268, January 28,1961, 1 SCRA of the investigating fiscals, Asst.
60]. Fiscal de Guia, commenting in one
case that, "Indeed, the haphazard
In the instant case, however, the trial court made a way this case was investigated is
finding that petitioners acted in bad faith in filing the evident. Evident likewise is the
criminal complaints against Tobias, observing that: flurry and haste in the filing of this
case against respondent Tobias,"
there can be no mistaking that
xxx defendants would not but be
motivated by malicious and
Defendants (petitioners herein) filed unlawful intent to harass, oppress,
with the Fiscal's Office of Manila a and cause damage to plaintiff.
total of six (6) criminal cases, five
(5) of which were for estafa thru xxx
falsification of commercial
document and one for violation of
Art. 290 of the Revised Penal Code [RTC Decision, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp. 235-236].
"discovering secrets thru seizure of
In addition to the observations made by the trial court, Yet, petitioners still insist that the award of damages
the Court finds it significant that the criminal was improper, invoking the principle of damnum
complaints were filed during the pendency of the absque injuria. It is argued that "[t]he only probable
illegal dismissal case filed by Tobias against actual damage that plaintiff (private respondent
petitioners. This explains the haste in which the herein) could have suffered was a direct result of his
complaints were filed, which the trial court earlier having been dismissed from his employment, which
noted. But petitioners, to prove their good faith, point was a valid and legal act of the defendants-appellants
to the fact that only six complaints were filed against (petitioners herein).lâwphî1.ñèt " [Petition, p. 17;
Tobias when they could have allegedly filed one Rollo, p. 18].
hundred cases, considering the number of anomalous
transactions committed against GLOBE MACKAY. According to the principle of damnum absque injuria,
However, petitioners' good faith is belied by the threat damage or loss which does not constitute a violation
made by Hendry after the filing of the first complaint of a legal right or amount to a legal wrong is not
that one hundred more cases would be filed against actionable [Escano v. CA, G.R. No. L-47207,
Tobias. In effect, the possible filing of one hundred September 25, 1980, 100 SCRA 197; See also
more cases was made to hang like the sword of Gilchrist v. Cuddy 29 Phil, 542 (1915); The Board of
Damocles over the head of Tobias. In fine, Liquidators v. Kalaw, G.R. No. L-18805, August 14,
considering the haste in which the criminal complaints 1967, 20 SCRA 987]. This principle finds no
were filed, the fact that they were filed during the application in this case. It bears repeating that even
pendency of the illegal dismissal case against granting that petitioners might have had the right to
petitioners, the threat made by Hendry, the fact that dismiss Tobias from work, the abusive manner in
the cases were filed notwithstanding the two police which that right was exercised amounted to a legal
reports exculpating Tobias from involvement in the wrong for which petitioners must now be held liable.
anomalies committed against GLOBE MACKAY, Moreover, the damage incurred by Tobias was not
coupled by the eventual dismissal of all the cases, the only in connection with the abusive manner in which
Court is led into no other conclusion than that he was dismissed but was also the result of several
petitioners were motivated by malicious intent in filing other quasi-delictual acts committed by petitioners.
the six criminal complaints against Tobias.
Petitioners next question the award of moral
Petitioners next contend that the award of damages damages. However, the Court has already ruled
was excessive. In the complaint filed against in Wassmer v. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, December
petitioners, Tobias prayed for the following: one 26, 1964, 12 SCRA 648, 653, that [p]er express
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) as actual provision of Article 2219 (10) of the New Civil Code,
damages; fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages are recoverable in the cases
exemplary damages; eight hundred thousand pesos mentioned in Article 21 of said Code." Hence, the
(P800,000.00) as moral damages; fifty thousand Court of Appeals committed no error in awarding
pesos (P50,000.00) as attorney's fees; and costs. The moral damages to Tobias.
trial court, after making a computation of the damages
incurred by Tobias [See RTC Decision, pp. 7-8; Rollo,
pp. 154-1551, awarded him the following: eighty Lastly, the award of exemplary damages is impugned
thousand pesos (P80,000.00) as actual damages; two by petitioners. Although Article 2231 of the Civil Code
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) as moral provides that "[i]n quasi-delicts, exemplary damages
damages; twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) as may be granted if the defendant acted with gross
exemplary damages; thirty thousand pesos negligence," the Court, in Zulueta v. Pan American
(P30,000.00) as attorney's fees; and, costs. It must be World Airways, Inc., G.R. No. L- 28589, January 8,
underscored that petitioners have been guilty of 1973, 49 SCRA 1, ruled that if gross negligence
committing several actionable tortious acts, i.e., the warrants the award of exemplary damages, with more
abusive manner in which they dismissed Tobias from reason is its imposition justified when the act
work including the baseless imputation of guilt and the performed is deliberate, malicious and tainted with
harassment during the investigations; the defamatory bad faith. As in the Zulueta case, the nature of the
language heaped on Tobias as well as the scornful wrongful acts shown to have been committed by
remark on Filipinos; the poison letter sent to petitioners against Tobias is sufficient basis for the
RETELCO which resulted in Tobias' loss of possible award of exemplary damages to the latter.
employment; and, the malicious filing of the criminal
complaints. Considering the extent of the damage WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the
wrought on Tobias, the Court finds that, contrary to decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
petitioners' contention, the amount of damages 09055 is AFFIRMED.
awarded to Tobias was reasonable under the
circumstances. SO ORDERED.