Torts and Damages Case Digest: Cometa v. CA (1999)

G.R. No. 124062 January 21, 1999
Lessons Applicable: Unfounded Suits (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

1979: State Investment Trust, Inc (SITI), formerly State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI) extended loans in various amounts to Guevent Industrial Development Corp. (GIDC) which failed to pay when due.
A rehabilitation plan where GIDC mortgaged its property but it still defaulted resulting in a foreclosure sale where SITI is the highest bidder.
GIDC filed in the RTC alleging irregularities in the foreclosure of the mortgages and the sale of properties to petitioner SITI which ended with a compromise agreement wherein HBI offered to purchasea and SITI agreed
RTC AND CA: compelled SITI to accept HBI's offer to purchase
HBI applied to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board for a permit to develop the property submitting an affidavit by SITTI president Cometa releasing the mortgage.
Cometa denied executing an affidavit as supported by the NBI's finding that it is forged. Cometa filed a complaint for falsification of public document against HBI president Guevara
RTC: dismissed
HBI filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against petitioners Cometa and SITI alleging that it was filed with the sole intent of harassing and pressuring Guevara, in his capacity as chairman of GIDC, to give in to their illicit and malicious desire to appropriate the remaining unsold properties of GIDC

Cometa and SITI answered that the action seeks to impose a penalty on the right to litigate and for that reason is unconstitutional and against settled public policy

ISSUE: W/N Cometa and SITI should be penalized for malicious prosecution

HELD: NO. CA affirmed

It is hardly necessary to say that to allow the present action to proceed is not to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. For trial is still to be conducted and liability is not automatic.
Just as it is bad to encourage the indiscriminate filing of actions for damages by accused persons after they have been acquitted, whether correctly or incorrectly, a blanket clearance of all who may be minded to charge others with offenses, fancied or otherwise, without any chance of the aggrieved parties in the appropriate cases of false accusation to obtain relief, is in Our Opinion short of being good law

Torts and Damages Case Digest: J Marketing v. Sia (1998)

G.R. No. 127823 January 29, 1998

Lessons Applicable:Unfounded Suits (Torts and Damages)
Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

April 24, 1983: J. Marketing Corporation received from Kawasaki Motors (Phils.) brand new Kawasaki motorcycle
April 20, 1987: the motorcycle was missing and was reported to the police
J. Marketing was alleged that the motorcycle was found to be with Felicidad Sia, Jr. who allegedly bought from Renato Pelande, Jr. who bought from J. Marketing but with a different model
J. Marketing filed with the RTC against Felicidad C. Sia Jr. who filed a third party complaint against Renato Pelante Jr.
RTC: dismissed but awarded damages and attorney’s fees to Sia
CA: affirmed

ISSUE: W/N J. Marketing should be penalized for damages and attorney's fees for litigating an unfounded suit

HELD: NO. AFFIRMED WITH THE MODIFICATION that the award of damages, attorney’s fees and cost to private respondent is deleted

it cannot be said that the institution of the replevin suit was tainted with gross and evident bad faith or was done maliciously to harass, embarrass, annoy or ridicule private respondent.
No damages can be charged on those who may exercise such precious right in good faith, even if done erroneously.
There being no bad faith reflected in petitioner’s persistence in pursuing its case, other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of its cause, attorney’s fees cannot be recovered as cost.

G.R. No. L-81827 March 28, 1994
Lessons Applicable: Unfounded Suits (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

Ciriaco Reducto was occupying a 24-hectare parcel of land in Sulongvale, Sulop, Davao del Norte for which he filed Homestead Application with the Bureau of Lands
Potenciano Nazaret also filed the same over the same lot.
Ciriaco transferred his possessory rights over 6 lots to Pantaleon de la Peña
Director of Lands directed Potenciano to apply for the portion himself w/in 60 days but he did not
Ciriaco transferred his rights over another 1 1/2-hectare to Michael Doble who sold it to Ricardo Tan
Upon a survey by the Bureau of Lands, it was found that Tan's lot was smaller than what he had bougth while De la Peña's lot was bigger than what he had bought. Tan built a fence on his reclaimed portion but Dela Peña keeps on destroying it.
Ricardo Tan then transferred the lot to Herotido Tan
Dela Peña filed a complaint for forcible entry against Ricardo Tan amended to Herotido Tan
RTC and MTC: favored Dela Peña
Dela Peña instituted action for reconveyance with damages with the RTC
RTC: rejected. counterclaim was granted and Dela Peña was ordered to pay P6,000 attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, P15,000 for moral damages and the costs of the proceedings
CA: affirmed stating that fraud and misrepresentation was not substantiated

ISSUE: W/N Dela Peña should be liable for moral damages, attorney's fees and cost of proceedings.

HELD: NO. AFFIRMED, with the sole modification that the award for attorney's fees, expenses of litigation, and moral damages is DELETED

award for attorney's fees and moral damages is unfounded in the absence of a deliberate intent to cause prejudice to the other party. The right to litigate is so precious that a Penalty should not be charged on those who may exercise it erroneously

G.R. No.113558 April 18, 1997
Lessons Applicable: Unfounded Suits (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

Spouses Editha Mijares and Glicerio T.Mijares under the business name Aklan Drug purchased various products of P32,034.42 from Metro Drug, Inc.
Editha Mijares, aside from being the operator of Aklan Drug, was also an officer of the Ospital Ng Maynila Consumers Cooperative, Inc. The Cooperative was subsequently dissolved and operations stopped.
Solomon Silverio was the new lessee of the store at Ospital ng Maynila who and received delivery through Luz Espares and Hilda Rodrigona totalling P32,034.42 from Metro through Dioscoro Lamenta
Solomon Silverio, Jr. draw a check for Metro but it was dishonored for insufficient fund
Metro demanded payment from Aklan Drug but Editha referred Lamenta to Silverio who manages the store at Ospital ng Maynila. Lamenta never checked the owner of the store he was delivering to and always perceived Editha as the owner.
Metro Drug, Inc. filed with the RTC for P32,034.42, 25% attorney's fees and cost of suit
RTC: dismissed Metro Drug, Inc. to pay P30,000 for moral damages, P10,000 as attorney's fees and cost of suit since not delivered to Mijares
CA: reversed.

ISSUE: W/N RTC made an error in awarding moral damages to Mijares

HELD: YES. RTC REINSTATED but only insofar as it dismisses Metro Drug's complaint

failed to show motivated by bad faith when it instituted the action for collection
Malicious prosecution, both in criminal and civil cases, requires the presence of two elements, to wit: a) malice; and b) absence of probable cause.Moreover, 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 knowing that the charge was false and baseless
For the same reasons, the award for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must likewise be deleted