Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 81262 August 25, 1989
GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADO CORP., !"# $ERBERT C. $ENDRY, petitioners,
vs.
T$E $ONORABLE COURT O% APPEALS !"# RESTTUTO M. TOBAS, respondents.
Atencia & Arias Law Offices for petitioners.
Romulo C. Felizmena for private respondent.

CORTES, J.:
Private respondent Restituto M. Tobias as e!plo"ed b" petitioner #lobe Mac$a" %able and Radio
%orporation &#'O() M*%+*,- in a dual capacit" as a purchasin. a.ent and ad!inistrative
assistant to the en.ineerin. operations !ana.er. In /012, #'O() M*%+*, discovered fictitious
purchases and other fraudulent transactions for hich it lost several thousands of pesos.
*ccordin. to private respondent it as he ho actuall" discovered the ano!alies and reported the!
on Nove!ber /3, /012 to his i!!ediate superior )duardo T. 4erraren and to petitioner Herbert %.
Hendr" ho as then the )5ecutive Vice6President and #eneral Mana.er of #'O() M*%+*,.
On Nove!ber //, /012, one da" after private respondent Tobias !ade the report, petitioner Hendr"
confronted hi! b" statin. that he as the nu!ber one suspect, and ordered hi! to ta$e a one ee$
forced leave, not to co!!unicate ith the office, to leave his table draers open, and to leave the
office $e"s.
On Nove!ber 23, /012, hen private respondent Tobias returned to or$ after the forced leave,
petitioner Hendr" ent up to hi! and called hi! a 7croo$7 and a 7sindler.7 Tobias as then ordered
to ta$e a lie detector test. He as also instructed to sub!it speci!en of his handritin., si.nature,
and initials for e5a!ination b" the police investi.ators to deter!ine his co!plicit" in the ano!alies.
On Dece!ber 8,/012, the Manila police investi.ators sub!itted a laborator" cri!e report &)5h. 7*7-
clearin. private respondent of participation in the ano!alies.
Not satisfied ith the police report, petitioners hired a private investi.ator, retired %ol. 9ose #.
4ernande:, ho on Dece!ber /3, /012, sub!itted a report &)5h. 727- findin. Tobias .uilt". This
report hoever e5pressl" stated that further investi.ation as still to be conducted.
Nevertheless, on Dece!ber /2, /012, petitioner Hendr" issued a !e!orandu! suspendin. Tobias
fro! or$ preparator" to the filin. of cri!inal char.es a.ainst hi!.
On Dece!ber /0,/012, 't. Dioscoro V. Ta.le, Metro Manila Police %hief Docu!ent )5a!iner, after
investi.atin. other docu!ents pertainin. to the alle.ed ano!alous transactions, sub!itted a second
laborator" cri!e report &)5h. 7(7- reiteratin. his previous findin. that the handritin.s, si.natures,
and initials appearin. in the chec$s and other docu!ents involved in the fraudulent transactions
ere not those of Tobias. The lie detector tests conducted on Tobias also "ielded ne.ative results.
Notithstandin. the to police reports e5culpatin. Tobias fro! the ano!alies and the fact that the
report of the private investi.ator, as, b" its on ter!s, not "et co!plete, petitioners filed ith the
%it" 4iscal of Manila a co!plaint for estafa throu.h falsification of co!!ercial docu!ents, later
a!ended to ;ust estafa. Subse<uentl" five other cri!inal co!plaints ere filed a.ainst Tobias, four
of hich ere for estafa throu.h 4alsification of co!!ercial docu!ent hile the fifth as for of
*rticle 203 of= the Revised Penal %ode &Discoverin. Secrets Throu.h Sei:ure of
%orrespondence-.l wph1.!t To of these co!plaints ere refiled ith the 9ud.e *dvocate #eneral=s Office,
hich hoever, re!anded the! to the fiscal=s office. *ll of the si5 cri!inal co!plaints ere
dis!issed b" the fiscal. Petitioners appealed four of the fiscal=s resolutions dis!issin. the cri!inal
co!plaints ith the Secretar" of 9ustice, ho, hoever, affir!ed their dis!issal.
In the !eanti!e, on 9anuar" /1, /01>, Tobias received a notice &)5h. 747- fro! petitioners that his
e!plo"!ent has been ter!inated effective Dece!ber />, /012. ?hereupon, Tobias filed a
co!plaint for ille.al dis!issal. The labor arbiter dis!issed the co!plaint. On appeal, the National
'abor Relations %o!!ission &N'R%- reversed the labor arbiter=s decision. Hoever, the Secretar"
of 'abor, actin. on petitioners= appeal fro! the N'R% rulin., reinstated the labor arbiter=s decision.
Tobias appealed the Secretar" of 'abor=s order ith the Office of the President. Durin. the pendenc"
of the appeal ith said office, petitioners and private respondent Tobias entered into a co!pro!ise
a.ree!ent re.ardin. the latter=s co!plaint for ille.al dis!issal.
@ne!plo"ed, Tobias sou.ht e!plo"!ent ith the Republic Telephone %o!pan" &R)T)'%O-.
Hoever, petitioner Hendr", ithout bein. as$ed b" R)T)'%O, rote a letter to the latter statin.
that Tobias as dis!issed b" #'O() M*%+*, due to dishonest".
Private respondent Tobias filed a civil case for da!a.es anchored on alle.ed unlaful, !alicious,
oppressive, and abusive acts of petitioners. Petitioner Hendr", clai!in. illness, did not testif" durin.
the hearin.s. The Re.ional Trial %ourt &RT%- of Manila, (ranch IA, throu.h 9ud.e Manuel T. Re"es
rendered ;ud.!ent in favor of private respondent b" orderin. petitioners to pa" hi! ei.ht" thousand
pesos &PB3,333.33- as actual da!a.es, to hundred thousand pesos &P233,333.33- as !oral
da!a.es, tent" thousand pesos &P23,333.33- as e5e!plar" da!a.es, thirt" thousand pesos
&P>3,333.33- as attorne"=s fees, and costs. Petitioners appealed the RT% decision to the %ourt of
*ppeals. On the other hand, Tobias appealed as to the a!ount of da!a.es. Hoever, the %ourt of
*ppeals, an a decision dated *u.ust >/, /0B1 affir!ed the RT% decision in toto. Petitioners= !otion
for reconsideration havin. been denied, the instant petition for revie on certiorari as filed.
The !ain issue in this case is hether or not petitioners are liable for da!a.es to private
respondent.
Petitioners contend that the" could not be !ade liable for da!a.es in the laful e5ercise of their
ri.ht to dis!iss private respondent.
On the other hand, private respondent contends that because of petitioners= abusive !anner in
dis!issin. hi! as ell as for the inhu!an treat!ent he .ot fro! the!, the Petitioners !ust
inde!nif" hi! for the da!a.e that he had suffered.
One of the !ore notable innovations of the Ne %ivil %ode is the codification of 7so!e basic
principles that are to be observed for the ri.htful relationship beteen hu!an bein.s and for the
stabilit" of the social order.7 CR)PORT ON TH) %OD) %OMMISSION ON TH) PROPOS)D %IVI'
%OD) O4 TH) PHI'IPPIN)S, p. >0D. The fra!ers of the %ode, see$in. to re!ed" the defect of the
old %ode hich !erel" stated the effects of the la, but failed to dra out its spirit, incorporated
certain funda!ental precepts hich ere 7desi.ned to indicate certain nor!s that sprin. fro! the
fountain of .ood conscience7 and hich ere also !eant to serve as 7.uides for hu!an conduct
CthatD should run as .olden threads throu.h societ", to the end that la !a" approach its supre!e
ideal, hich is the sa" and do!inance of ;ustice7 &"d.- 4ore!ost a!on. these principles is that
pronounced in *rticle /0 hich providesE
*rt. /0. )ver" person !ust, in the e5ercise of his ri.hts and in the perfor!ance of his
duties, act ith ;ustice, .ive ever"one his due, and observe honest" and .ood faith.
This article, $non to contain hat is co!!onl" referred to as the principle of abuse of ri.hts, sets
certain standards hich !ust be observed not onl" in the e5ercise of one=s ri.hts but also in the
perfor!ance of one=s duties. These standards are the folloin.E to act ith ;usticeF to .ive ever"one
his dueF and to observe honest" and .ood faith. The la, therefore, reco.ni:es a pri!ordial li!itation
on all ri.htsF that in their e5ercise, the nor!s of hu!an conduct set forth in *rticle /0 !ust be
observed. * ri.ht, thou.h b" itself le.al because reco.ni:ed or .ranted b" la as such, !a"
nevertheless beco!e the source of so!e ille.alit". ?hen a ri.ht is e5ercised in a !anner hich
does not confor! ith the nor!s enshrined in *rticle /0 and results in da!a.e to another, a le.al
ron. is thereb" co!!itted for hich the ron.doer !ust be held responsible. (ut hile *rticle /0
la"s don a rule of conduct for the .overn!ent of hu!an relations and for the !aintenance of social
order, it does not provide a re!ed" for its violation. #enerall", an action for da!a.es under either
*rticle 23 or *rticle 2/ ould be proper.
*rticle 23, hich pertains to da!a.e arisin. fro! a violation of la, provides thatE
*rt. 23. )ver" person ho contrar" to la, ilfull" or ne.li.entl" causes da!a.e to
another, shall inde!nif" the latter for the sa!e.
Hoever, in the case at bar, petitioners clai! that the" did not violate an" provision of la since the"
ere !erel" e5ercisin. their le.al ri.ht to dis!iss private respondent. This does not, hoever, leave
private respondent ith no relief because *rticle 2/ of the %ivil %ode provides thatE
*rt. 2/. *n" person ho ilfull" causes loss or in;ur" to another in a !anner that is
contrar" to !orals, .ood custo!s or public polic" shall co!pensate the latter for the
da!a.e.
This article, adopted to re!ed" the 7countless .aps in the statutes, hich leave so !an" victi!s of
!oral ron.s helpless, even thou.h the" have actuall" suffered !aterial and !oral in;ur"7 C"d.D
should 7vouchsafe ade<uate le.al re!ed" for that untold nu!ber of !oral ron.s hich it is
i!possible for hu!an foresi.ht to provide for specificall" in the statutes7 C"d. it p. G3F #ee also PN( v.
%*, #.R. No. '621/HH, Ma" /B,/01B, B> S%R* 2>1, 2G1D.
In deter!inin. hether or not the principle of abuse of ri.hts !a" be invo$ed, there is no ri.id test
hich can be applied. ?hile the %ourt has not hesitated to appl" *rticle /0 hether the le.al and
factual circu!stances called for its application C#ee for e..., Vela"o v. Shell %o. of the Phil., 'td., /33
Phil. /B8 &/0H8-F PN( v. %*, supra$#rand @nion Super!ar$et, Inc. v. )spino, 9r., #.R. No. '6GB2H3,
Dece!ber 2B, /010, 0G S%R* 0H>F P*' v. %*, #.R. No. '6G8HHB, 9ul" >/,/0B/,/38 S%R* >0/F
@nited #eneral Industries, Inc, v. Paler #.R. No. '6>323H, March /H,/0B2,//2 S%R* G3GF Rubio v.
%*, #.R. No. H30//, *u.ust 2/, /0B1, /H> S%R* /B>D the <uestion of hether or not the principle of
abuse of ri.hts has been violated resultin. in da!a.es under *rticle 23 or *rticle 2/ or other
applicable provision of la, depends on the circu!stances of each case. *nd in the instant case, the
%ourt, after e5a!inin. the record and considerin. certain si.nificant circu!stances, finds that all
petitioners have indeed abused the ri.ht that the" invo$e, causin. da!a.e to private respondent
and for hich the latter !ust no be inde!nified.
The trial court !ade a findin. that notithstandin. the fact that it as private respondent Tobias ho
reported the possible e5istence of ano!alous transactions, petitioner Hendr" 7shoed belli.erence
and told plaintiff &private respondent herein- that he as the nu!ber one suspect and to ta$e a one
ee$ vacation leave, not to co!!unicate ith the office, to leave his table draers open, and to
leave his $e"s to said defendant &petitioner Hendr"-7 CRT% Decision, p. 2F Rollo, p. 2>2D. This,
petitioners do not dispute. (ut re.ardless of hether or not it as private respondent Tobias ho
reported the ano!alies to petitioners, the latter=s reaction toards the for!er upon uncoverin. the
ano!alies as less than civil. *n e!plo"er ho harbors suspicions that an e!plo"ee has co!!itted
dishonest" !i.ht be ;ustified in ta$in. the appropriate action such as orderin. an investi.ation and
directin. the e!plo"ee to .o on a leave. 4ir!ness and the resolve to uncover the truth ould also be
e5pected fro! such e!plo"er. (ut the hi.h6handed treat!ent accorded Tobias b" petitioners as
certainl" uncalled for. *nd this reprehensible attitude of petitioners as to continue hen private
respondent returned to or$ on Nove!ber 23, /012 after his one ee$ forced leave. @pon reportin.
for or$, Tobias as confronted b" Hendr" ho said. 7Tobb", "ou are the croo$ and sindler in this
co!pan".7 %onsiderin. that the first report !ade b" the police investi.ators as sub!itted onl" on
Dece!ber /3, /012 CSee )5h. *D the state!ent !ade b" petitioner Hendr" as baseless. The
i!putation of .uilt ithout basis and the pattern of harass!ent durin. the investi.ations of Tobias
trans.ress the standards of hu!an conduct set forth in *rticle /0 of the %ivil %ode. The %ourt has
alread" ruled that the ri.ht of the e!plo"er to dis!iss an e!plo"ee should not be confused ith the
!anner in hich the ri.ht is e5ercised and the effects floin. therefro!. If the dis!issal is done
abusivel", then the e!plo"er is liable for da!a.es to the e!plo"ee CIuisaba v. Sta. Ines6Melale
Veneer and Pl"ood Inc., #.R. No. '6>B3BB, *u.ust >3, /01G, HB S%R* 11/F #ee also Philippine
Refinin. %o., Inc. v. #arcia, #.R. No. '62/B1/, Septe!ber 21,/088, /B S%R* /31D @nder the
circu!stances of the instant case, the petitioners clearl" failed to e5ercise in a le.iti!ate !anner
their ri.ht to dis!iss Tobias, .ivin. the latter the ri.ht to recover da!a.es under *rticle /0 in relation
to *rticle 2/ of the %ivil %ode.
(ut petitioners ere not content ith ;ust dis!issin. Tobias. Several other tortious acts ere
co!!itted b" petitioners a.ainst Tobias after the latter=s ter!ination fro! or$. Toards the latter
part of 9anuar", /01>, after the filin. of the first of si5 cri!inal co!plaints a.ainst Tobias, the latter
tal$ed to Hendr" to protest the actions ta$en a.ainst hi!. In response, Hendr" cut short Tobias=
protestations b" tellin. hi! to ;ust confess or else the co!pan" ould file a hundred !ore cases
a.ainst hi! until he landed in ;ail. Hendr" added that, 7,ou 4ilipinos cannot be trusted.7 The threat
un!as$ed petitioner=s bad faith in the various actions ta$en a.ainst Tobias. On the other hand, the
scornful re!ar$ about 4ilipinos as ell as Hendr"=s earlier state!ents about Tobias bein. a 7croo$7
and 7sindler7 are clear violations of =Tobias= personal di.nit" CSee *rticle 28, %ivil %odeD.
The ne5t tortious act co!!itted b" petitioners as the ritin. of a letter to R)T)'%O so!eti!e in
October /01G, statin. that Tobias had been dis!issed b" #'O() M*%+*, due to dishonest".
(ecause of the letter, Tobias failed to .ain e!plo"!ent ith R)T)'%O and as a result of hich,
Tobias re!ained une!plo"ed for a lon.er period of ti!e. 4or this further da!a.e suffered b"
Tobias, petitioners !ust li$eise be held liable for da!a.es consistent ith *rticle 2/18 of the %ivil
%ode. Petitioners, hoever, contend that the" have a 7!oral, if not le.al, dut" to forearn other
e!plo"ers of the $ind of e!plo"ee the plaintiff &private respondent herein- as.7 CPetition, p. /GF
Rollo, p. /HD. Petitioners further clai! that 7it is the accepted !oral and societal obli.ation of ever"
!an to advise or arn his fello!en of an" threat or dan.er to the latter=s life, honor or propert".
*nd this includes arnin. one=s brethren of the possible dan.ers involved in dealin. ith, or
acceptin. into confidence, a !an hose honest" and inte.rit" is suspect7 C"d.D. These ar.u!ents,
rather than ;ustif" petitioners= act, reveal a see!in. obsession to prevent Tobias fro! .ettin. a ;ob,
even after al!ost to "ears fro! the ti!e Tobias as dis!issed.
4inall", there is the !atter of the filin. b" petitioners of si5 cri!inal co!plaints a.ainst Tobias.
Petitioners contend that there is no case a.ainst the! for !alicious prosecution and that the" cannot
be 7penali:ed for e5ercisin. their ri.ht and prero.ative of see$in. ;ustice b" filin. cri!inal co!plaints
a.ainst an e!plo"ee ho as their principal suspect in the co!!ission of for.eries and in the
perpetration of ano!alous transactions hich defrauded the! of substantial su!s of !one"7
CPetition, p. /3, Rollo, p. //D.
?hile sound principles of ;ustice and public polic" dictate that persons shall have free resort to the
courts for redress of ron.s and vindication of their ri.hts C(uenaventura v. Sto. Do!in.o, /3> Phil.
2>0 &/0HB-D, the ri.ht to institute cri!inal prosecutions can not be e5ercised !aliciousl" and in bad
faith CVentura v. (ernabe, #.R. No. '628183, *pril >3, /01/, >B S%R* HB1/.D Hence, in %utu& '.
(anila )lectric Co., #.R. No. '6/>3/8, Ma" >/, /08/, 2 S%R* >>1, the %ourt held that the ri.ht to
file cri!inal co!plaints should not be used as a eapon to force an alle.ed debtor to pa" an
indebtedness. To do so ould be a clear perversion of the function of the cri!inal processes and of
the courts of ;ustice. *nd in *awpia %*, #.R. No. '6233G1, 9une >3, /081. 23 S%R* H>8 the %ourt
upheld the ;ud.!ent a.ainst the petitioner for actual and !oral da!a.es and attorne"=s fees after
!a$in. a findin. that petitioner, ith persistence, filed at least si5 cri!inal co!plaints a.ainst
respondent, all of hich ere dis!issed.
To constitute !alicious prosecution, there !ust be proof that the prosecution as pro!pted b" a
desi.n to ve5 and hu!iliate a person and that it as initiated deliberatel" b" the defendant $noin.
that the char.es ere false and .roundless CManila #as %orporation v. %*, #.R. No. '6GG/03,
October >3,/0B3, /33 S%R* 832D. %oncededl", the filin. of a suit b" itself, does not render a person
liable for !alicious prosecution CInhelder %orporation v. %*, #.R. No. H2>HB, Ma" >3/0B>/22 S%R*
H18D. The !ere dis!issal b" the fiscal of the cri!inal co!plaint is not a .round for an aard of
da!a.es for !alicious prosecution if there is no co!petent evidence to sho that the co!plainant
had acted in bad faith CSison v. David, #.R. No. '6//28B, 9anuar" 2B,/08/, / S%R* 83D.
In the instant case, hoever, the trial court !ade a findin. that petitioners acted in bad faith in filin.
the cri!inal co!plaints a.ainst Tobias, observin. thatE
5 5 5
Defendants &petitioners herein- filed ith the 4iscal=s Office of Manila a total of si5 &8-
cri!inal cases, five &H- of hich ere for estafa thru falsification of co!!ercial
docu!ent and one for violation of *rt. 203 of the Revised Penal %ode 7discoverin.
secrets thru sei:ure of correspondence,7 and all ere dis!issed for insufficienc" or
lac$ of evidence.7 The dis!issal of four &G- of the cases as appealed to the Ministr"
of 9ustice, but said Ministr" invariabl" sustained the dis!issal of the cases. *s above
adverted to, to of these cases ere refiled ith the 9ud.e *dvocate #eneral=s
Office of the *r!ed 4orces of the Philippines to railroad plaintiffs arrest and detention
in the !ilitar" stoc$ade, but this as frustrated b" a presidential decree transferrin.
cri!inal cases involvin. civilians to the civil courts.
5 5 5
To be sure, hen despite the to &2- police reports e!bod"in. the findin.s of 't.
Dioscoro Ta.le, %hief Docu!ent )5a!iner of the Manila Police Depart!ent, clearin.
plaintiff of participation or involve!ent in the fraudulent transactions co!plained of,
despite the ne.ative results of the lie detector tests hich defendants co!pelled
plaintiff to under.o, and althou.h the police investi.ation as 7still under follo6up
and a supple!entar" report ill be sub!itted after all the evidence has been
.athered,7 defendants hastil" filed si5 &8- cri!inal cases ith the cit" 4iscal=s Office
of Manila, five &H- for estafa thru falsification of co!!ercial docu!ent and one &/- for
violation of *rt. 203 of the Revised Penal %ode, so !uch so that as as to be
e5pected, all si5 &8- cases ere dis!issed, ith one of the investi.atin. fiscals, *sst.
4iscal de #uia, co!!entin. in one case that, 7Indeed, the hapha:ard a" this case
as investi.ated is evident. )vident li$eise is the flurr" and haste in the filin. of this
case a.ainst respondent Tobias,7 there can be no !ista$in. that defendants ould
not but be !otivated b" !alicious and unlaful intent to harass, oppress, and cause
da!a.e to plaintiff.
5 5 5
CRT% Decision, pp. H68F Rollo, pp. 2>H62>8D.
In addition to the observations !ade b" the trial court, the %ourt finds it si.nificant that the cri!inal
co!plaints ere filed durin. the pendenc" of the ille.al dis!issal case filed b" Tobias a.ainst
petitioners. This e5plains the haste in hich the co!plaints ere filed, hich the trial court earlier
noted. (ut petitioners, to prove their .ood faith, point to the fact that onl" si5 co!plaints ere filed
a.ainst Tobias hen the" could have alle.edl" filed one hundred cases, considerin. the nu!ber of
ano!alous transactions co!!itted a.ainst #'O() M*%+*,. Hoever, petitioners= .ood faith is
belied b" the threat !ade b" Hendr" after the filin. of the first co!plaint that one hundred !ore
cases ould be filed a.ainst Tobias. In effect, the possible filin. of one hundred !ore cases as
!ade to han. li$e the sord of Da!ocles over the head of Tobias. In fine, considerin. the haste in
hich the cri!inal co!plaints ere filed, the fact that the" ere filed durin. the pendenc" of the
ille.al dis!issal case a.ainst petitioners, the threat !ade b" Hendr", the fact that the cases ere
filed notithstandin. the to police reports e5culpatin. Tobias fro! involve!ent in the ano!alies
co!!itted a.ainst #'O() M*%+*,, coupled b" the eventual dis!issal of all the cases, the %ourt is
led into no other conclusion than that petitioners ere !otivated b" !alicious intent in filin. the si5
cri!inal co!plaints a.ainst Tobias.
Petitioners ne5t contend that the aard of da!a.es as e5cessive. In the co!plaint filed a.ainst
petitioners, Tobias pra"ed for the folloin.E one hundred thousand pesos &P/33,333.33- as actual
da!a.esF fift" thousand pesos &PH3,333.33- as e5e!plar" da!a.esF ei.ht hundred thousand pesos
&PB33,333.33- as !oral da!a.esF fift" thousand pesos &PH3,333.33- as attorne"=s feesF and costs.
The trial court, after !a$in. a co!putation of the da!a.es incurred b" Tobias C#ee RT% Decision,
pp. 16BF Rollo, pp. /HG6/HH/, aarded hi! the folloin.E ei.ht" thousand pesos &PB3,333.33- as
actual da!a.esF to hundred thousand pesos &P233,333.33- as !oral da!a.esF tent" thousand
pesos &P23,333.33- as e5e!plar" da!a.esF thirt" thousand pesos &P>3,333.33- as attorne"=s feesF
and, costs. It !ust be underscored that petitioners have been .uilt" of co!!ittin. several actionable
tortious acts, i.e., the abusive !anner in hich the" dis!issed Tobias fro! or$ includin. the
baseless i!putation of .uilt and the harass!ent durin. the investi.ationsF the defa!ator" lan.ua.e
heaped on Tobias as ell as the scornful re!ar$ on 4ilipinosF the poison letter sent to R)T)'%O
hich resulted in Tobias= loss of possible e!plo"!entF and, the !alicious filin. of the cri!inal
co!plaints. %onsiderin. the e5tent of the da!a.e rou.ht on Tobias, the %ourt finds that, contrar"
to petitioners= contention, the a!ount of da!a.es aarded to Tobias as reasonable under the
circu!stances.
,et, petitioners still insist that the aard of da!a.es as i!proper, invo$in. the principle of da!nu!
abs<uein+uria. It is ar.ued that 7CtDhe onl" probable actual da!a.e that plaintiff &private respondent
herein- could have suffered as a direct result of his havin. been dis!issed fro! his e!plo"!ent,
hich as a valid and le.al act of the defendants6appellants &petitioners herein-.lwph1.!t 7 CPetition, p. /1F
Rollo, p. /BD.
*ccordin. to the principle of damnum a,s-ue in+uria, da!a.e or loss hich does not constitute a
violation of a le.al ri.ht or a!ount to a le.al ron. is not actionable C)scano v. %*, #.R. No. '6
G1231, Septe!ber 2H, /0B3, /33 S%R* /01F See also #ilchrist v. %udd" 20 Phil, HG2 &/0/H-F The
(oard of 'i<uidators v. +ala, #.R. No. '6/BB3H, *u.ust /G, /081, 23 S%R* 0B1D. This principle
finds no application in this case. It bears repeatin. that even .rantin. that petitioners !i.ht have had
the ri.ht to dis!iss Tobias fro! or$, the abusive !anner in hich that ri.ht as e5ercised
a!ounted to a le.al ron. for hich petitioners !ust no be held liable. Moreover, the da!a.e
incurred b" Tobias as not onl" in connection ith the abusive !anner in hich he as dis!issed
but as also the result of several other <uasi6delictual acts co!!itted b" petitioners.
Petitioners ne5t <uestion the aard of !oral da!a.es. Hoever, the %ourt has alread" ruled
in .assmer v. 'elez, #.R. No. '6233B0, Dece!ber 28, /08G, /2 S%R* 8GB, 8H>, that CpDer e5press
provision of *rticle 22/0 &/3- of the Ne %ivil %ode, !oral da!a.es are recoverable in the cases
!entioned in *rticle 2/ of said %ode.7 Hence, the %ourt of *ppeals co!!itted no error in aardin.
!oral da!a.es to Tobias.
'astl", the aard of e5e!plar" da!a.es is i!pu.ned b" petitioners. *lthou.h *rticle 22>/ of the
%ivil %ode provides that 7CiDn <uasi6delicts, e5e!plar" da!a.es !a" be .ranted if the defendant
acted ith .ross ne.li.ence,7 the %ourt, in /ulueta v. 0an American .orld Airwa1s2 "nc., #.R. No. '6
2BHB0, 9anuar" B, /01>, G0 S%R* /, ruled that if .ross ne.li.ence arrants the aard of e5e!plar"
da!a.es, ith !ore reason is its i!position ;ustified hen the act perfor!ed is deliberate, !alicious
and tainted ith bad faith. *s in the /uluetacase, the nature of the ron.ful acts shon to have been
co!!itted b" petitioners a.ainst Tobias is sufficient basis for the aard of e5e!plar" da!a.es to
the latter.
?H)R)4OR), the petition is hereb" D)NI)D and the decision of the %ourt of *ppeals in %*6#.R.
%V No. 303HH is *44IRM)D.
SO ORD)R)D.
Fernan2 C.3.2 4utierrez2 3r. and 5idin2 33.2 concur.
Feliciano2 3.2 too& no part.