Que v. IAC

MAGTANGGOL QUE v. IAC and ANTONIO NICOLAS

1989 / Cruz

Human Relations Torts > Acts Contra Bonus Mores

In 1975, Antonio Nicolas ordered from Magtanggol Que canvass strollers, and Nicolas issued to Que 5 post-dated checks with a total face value of P7,600.00. Nicolas ordered a "stop payment" because of defects in the articles sold which Que had not corrected, so Que was unable to encash the checks.

Que filed a complaint for estafa against Nicolas. The charge was dismissed for lack of merit, as the investigating fiscal held that it was an accounting matter, which did not necessarily involve deceit on Nicolas’ part of Nicolas.

In 1976, Nicolas filed his own complaint for damages against Que for malicious prosecution. Que averred that Nicolas had maliciously filed the complaint in Bulacan although he was a resident of Caloocan City, and Nicolas was indebted to him in any case, and that it was he [Que] who suffered damages due to the unwarranted suit.

Judge Puno held in favor of Nicolas, finding that Que acted maliciously in filing the estafa charge and in alleging that Nicolas issued the dishonored checks with deceit. Que’s MfR was denied. A 2^nd MfR was filed, and Que averred the mere dismissal of the charge in the fiscal's office was not a ground for damages nor did it constitute an actionable wrong. The trial court reversed the original decision, so Que won.

Nicolas contended that the amended decision was null and void for several technical reasons. IAC reinstated the original decision of Judge Puno—so Nicolas won.

QUE NOT GUILTY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

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. The mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution.

One cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted with probable cause. The presence of probable cause signifies as a legal consequence the absence of malice. If the charge, although false, was made with an honest belief in its truth and justice, and there were reasonable grounds on which such a belief could be founded, the accusation could not be held to have been false in the legal sense. [Buchanan v. Esteban]

Proof and motive that the prosecution or institution of the action was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person and to cast dishonor and disgrace must be clearly and preponderantly established to entitle the victims to damages and other rights granted by law. Otherwise, there would always be a civil action for damages after the prosecution's failure to prove its cause. 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 exercise it erroneously.

Considering that the checks could not be encashed and the supposedly defective goods had not been returned, Que had reason to believe that Nicolas intended to deceive him. Que was not motivated by ill feeling but only by an anxiety to protect his rights. Even if the fiscal found that no deceit was involved and that Que’s claim was unfounded, the mistaken charge was not malicious.

The mere dismissal of the criminal complaint by the fiscal's office did not create a cause of action. What was inquired into was WON there was a prima facie showing of estafa. Nowhere in the fiscal's investigation report is there any statement imputing malice to Que.

SC finds Que’s claim of harassment more plausible. However, inasmuch as good faith is presumed, absent sufficient rebuttable evidence, neither of them is guilty of malice. SC denied both parties their respective claims for damages. Each of them must bear the financial consequences of one’s own acts, including the litigation expenses.

IAC DECISION SET ASIDE; AMENDED DECISION OF TRIAL COURT REINSTATED