0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
67 vues5 pages
1. Private respondent Restituto Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation in dual roles and discovered fraudulent transactions resulting in losses of thousands of pesos. After reporting this, he was accused of involvement and subjected to various investigations and tests which cleared him.
2. Despite being cleared, petitioners filed multiple criminal complaints against Tobias and terminated his employment. Tobias then filed a civil case for damages. The trial court and appellate court both found in favor of Tobias, ordering petitioners to pay various damages.
3. The main issue is whether petitioners are liable for damages. The court discusses the principle of abuse of rights from the Civil Code and finds that petitioners' actions
Description originale:
G.R. No. 187056 September 20, 2010 Del Rosario vs Ferrer
Titre original
1 g.r. No. 81262 August 25, 1989 Globe Mackay vs CA
1. Private respondent Restituto Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation in dual roles and discovered fraudulent transactions resulting in losses of thousands of pesos. After reporting this, he was accused of involvement and subjected to various investigations and tests which cleared him.
2. Despite being cleared, petitioners filed multiple criminal complaints against Tobias and terminated his employment. Tobias then filed a civil case for damages. The trial court and appellate court both found in favor of Tobias, ordering petitioners to pay various damages.
3. The main issue is whether petitioners are liable for damages. The court discusses the principle of abuse of rights from the Civil Code and finds that petitioners' actions
1. Private respondent Restituto Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation in dual roles and discovered fraudulent transactions resulting in losses of thousands of pesos. After reporting this, he was accused of involvement and subjected to various investigations and tests which cleared him.
2. Despite being cleared, petitioners filed multiple criminal complaints against Tobias and terminated his employment. Tobias then filed a civil case for damages. The trial court and appellate court both found in favor of Tobias, ordering petitioners to pay various damages.
3. The main issue is whether petitioners are liable for damages. The court discusses the principle of abuse of rights from the Civil Code and finds that petitioners' actions
GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., a! "ERBER# C. "ENDRY, petitioners, vs. #"E "ONORABLE CO$R# O% APPEAL& a! RE&#I#$#O M. #OBIA&, respondents. Private respondent Restituto M. Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GLO! M"C#"$% in a dual capacity as a purc&asin' a'ent and administrative assistant to t&e en'ineerin' operations mana'er. (n )*+,, GLO! M"C#"$ discovered -ictitious purc&ases and ot&er -raudulent transactions -or w&ic& it lost several t&ousands o- pesos. "ccordin' to private respondent it was &e w&o actually discovered t&e anomalies and reported t&em on .ovember )/, )*+, to &is immediate superior !duardo T. 0erraren and to petitioner 1erbert C. 1endry w&o was t&en t&e !2ecutive 3ice4 President and General Mana'er o- GLO! M"C#"$. On .ovember )), )*+,, one day a-ter private respondent Tobias made t&e report, petitioner 1endry con-ronted &im by statin' t&at &e was t&e number one suspect, and ordered &im to take a one week -orced leave, not to communicate wit& t&e o--ice, to leave &is table drawers open, and to leave t&e o--ice keys. On .ovember ,/, )*+,, w&en private respondent Tobias returned to work a-ter t&e -orced leave, petitioner 1endry went up to &im and called &im a 5crook5 and a 5swindler.5 Tobias was t&en ordered to take a lie detector test. 1e was also instructed to submit specimen o- &is &andwritin', si'nature, and initials -or e2amination by t&e police investi'ators to determine &is complicity in t&e anomalies. On 6ecember 7,)*+,, t&e Manila police investi'ators submitted a laboratory crime report (!2&. 5"5% clearin' private respondent o- participation in t&e anomalies. .ot satis-ied wit& t&e police report, petitioners &ired a private investi'ator, retired Col. 8ose G. 0ernande9, w&o on 6ecember )/, )*+,, submitted a report (!2&. 5,5% -indin' Tobias 'uilty. T&is report &owever e2pressly stated t&at -urt&er investi'ation was still to be conducted. .evert&eless, on 6ecember ),, )*+,, petitioner 1endry issued a memorandum suspendin' Tobias -rom work preparatory to t&e -ilin' o- criminal c&ar'es a'ainst &im. On 6ecember )*,)*+,, Lt. 6ioscoro 3. Ta'le, Metro Manila Police C&ie- 6ocument !2aminer, a-ter investi'atin' ot&er documents pertainin' to t&e alle'ed anomalous transactions, submitted a second laboratory crime report (!2&. 55% reiteratin' &is previous -indin' t&at t&e &andwritin's, si'natures, and initials appearin' in t&e c&ecks and ot&er documents involved in t&e -raudulent transactions were not t&ose o- Tobias. T&e lie detector tests conducted on Tobias also yielded ne'ative results. .otwit&standin' t&e two police reports e2culpatin' Tobias -rom t&e anomalies and t&e -act t&at t&e report o- t&e private investi'ator, was, by its own terms, not yet complete, petitioners -iled wit& t&e City 0iscal o- Manila a complaint -or esta-a t&rou'& -alsi-ication o- commercial documents, later amended to :ust esta-a. ;ubse<uently -ive ot&er criminal complaints were -iled a'ainst Tobias, -our o- w&ic& were -or esta-a t&rou'& 0alsi-ication o- commercial document w&ile t&e -i-t& was -or o- "rticle ,*/ o-= t&e Revised Penal Code (6iscoverin' ;ecrets T&rou'& ;ei9ure o- Correspondence%.lwph1.t Two o- t&ese complaints were re-iled wit& t&e 8ud'e "dvocate General=s O--ice, w&ic& &owever, remanded t&em to t&e -iscal=s o--ice. "ll o- t&e si2 criminal complaints were dismissed by t&e -iscal. Petitioners appealed -our o- t&e -iscal=s resolutions dismissin' t&e criminal complaints wit& t&e ;ecretary o- 8ustice, w&o, &owever, a--irmed t&eir dismissal. (n t&e meantime, on 8anuary )+, )*+>, Tobias received a notice (!2&. 505% -rom petitioners t&at &is employment &as been terminated e--ective 6ecember )>, )*+,. ?&ereupon, Tobias -iled a complaint -or ille'al dismissal. T&e labor arbiter dismissed t&e complaint. On appeal, t&e .ational Labor Relations Commission (.LRC% reversed t&e labor arbiter=s decision. 1owever, t&e ;ecretary o- Labor, actin' on petitioners= appeal -rom t&e .LRC rulin', reinstated t&e labor arbiter=s decision. Tobias appealed t&e ;ecretary o- Labor=s order wit& t&e O--ice o- t&e President. 6urin' t&e pendency o- t&e appeal wit& said o--ice, petitioners and private respondent Tobias entered into a compromise a'reement re'ardin' t&e latter=s complaint -or ille'al dismissal. @nemployed, Tobias sou'&t employment wit& t&e Republic Telep&one Company (R!T!LCO%. 1owever, petitioner 1endry, wit&out bein' asked by R!T!LCO, wrote a letter to t&e latter statin' t&at Tobias was dismissed by GLO! M"C#"$ due to dis&onesty. 2 Private respondent Tobias -iled a civil case -or dama'es anc&ored on alle'ed unlaw-ul, malicious, oppressive, and abusive acts o- petitioners. Petitioner 1endry, claimin' illness, did not testi-y durin' t&e &earin's. T&e Re'ional Trial Court (RTC% o- Manila, ranc& (A, t&rou'& 8ud'e Manuel T. Reyes rendered :ud'ment in -avor o- private respondent by orderin' petitioners to pay &im ei'&ty t&ousand pesos (PB/,///.//% as actual dama'es, two &undred t&ousand pesos (P,//,///.//% as moral dama'es, twenty t&ousand pesos (P,/,///.//% as e2emplary dama'es, t&irty t&ousand pesos (P>/,///.//% as attorney=s -ees, and costs. Petitioners appealed t&e RTC decision to t&e Court o- "ppeals. On t&e ot&er &and, Tobias appealed as to t&e amount o- dama'es. 1owever, t&e Court o- "ppeals, an a decision dated "u'ust >), )*B+ a--irmed t&e RTC decision in toto. Petitioners= motion -or reconsideration &avin' been denied, t&e instant petition -or review on certiorari was -iled. T&e main issue in t&is case is w&et&er or not petitioners are liable -or dama'es to private respondent. Petitioners contend t&at t&ey could not be made liable -or dama'es in t&e law-ul e2ercise o- t&eir ri'&t to dismiss private respondent. On t&e ot&er &and, private respondent contends t&at because o- petitioners= abusive manner in dismissin' &im as well as -or t&e in&uman treatment &e 'ot -rom t&em, t&e Petitioners must indemni-y &im -or t&e dama'e t&at &e &ad su--ered. One o- t&e more notable innovations o- t&e .ew Civil Code is t&e codi-ication o- 5some basic principles t&at are to be observed -or t&e ri'&t-ul relations&ip between &uman bein's and -or t&e stability o- t&e social order.5 CR!PORT O. T1! CO6! COMM(;;(O. O. T1! PROPO;!6 C(3(L CO6! O0 T1! P1(L(PP(.!;, p. >*D. T&e -ramers o- t&e Code, seekin' to remedy t&e de-ect o- t&e old Code w&ic& merely stated t&e e--ects o- t&e law, but -ailed to draw out its spirit, incorporated certain -undamental precepts w&ic& were 5desi'ned to indicate certain norms t&at sprin' -rom t&e -ountain o- 'ood conscience5 and w&ic& were also meant to serve as 5'uides -or &uman conduct Ct&atD s&ould run as 'olden t&reads t&rou'& society, to t&e end t&at law may approac& its supreme ideal, w&ic& is t&e sway and dominance o- :ustice5 (Id.% 0oremost amon' t&ese principles is t&at pronounced in "rticle )* w&ic& providesE "rt. )*. !very person must, in t&e e2ercise o- &is ri'&ts and in t&e per-ormance o- &is duties, act wit& :ustice, 'ive everyone &is due, and observe &onesty and 'ood -ait&. T&is article, known to contain w&at is commonly re-erred to as t&e principle o- abuse o- ri'&ts, sets certain standards w&ic& must be observed not only in t&e e2ercise o- one=s ri'&ts but also in t&e per-ormance o- one=s duties. T&ese standards are t&e -ollowin'E to act wit& :usticeF to 'ive everyone &is dueF and to observe &onesty and 'ood -ait&. T&e law, t&ere-ore, reco'ni9es a primordial limitation on all ri'&tsF t&at in t&eir e2ercise, t&e norms o- &uman conduct set -ort& in "rticle )* must be observed. " ri'&t, t&ou'& by itsel- le'al because reco'ni9ed or 'ranted by law as suc&, may nevert&eless become t&e source o- some ille'ality. ?&en a ri'&t is e2ercised in a manner w&ic& does not con-orm wit& t&e norms ens&rined in "rticle )* and results in dama'e to anot&er, a le'al wron' is t&ereby committed -or w&ic& t&e wron'doer must be &eld responsible. ut w&ile "rticle )* lays down a rule o- conduct -or t&e 'overnment o- &uman relations and -or t&e maintenance o- social order, it does not provide a remedy -or its violation. Generally, an action -or dama'es under eit&er "rticle ,/ or "rticle ,) would be proper. "rticle ,/, w&ic& pertains to dama'e arisin' -rom a violation o- law, provides t&atE "rt. ,/. !very person w&o contrary to law, wil-ully or ne'li'ently causes dama'e to anot&er, s&all indemni-y t&e latter -or t&e same. 1owever, in t&e case at bar, petitioners claim t&at t&ey did not violate any provision o- law since t&ey were merely e2ercisin' t&eir le'al ri'&t to dismiss private respondent. T&is does not, &owever, leave private respondent wit& no relie- because "rticle ,) o- t&e Civil Code provides t&atE "rt. ,). "ny person w&o wil-ully causes loss or in:ury to anot&er in a manner t&at is contrary to morals, 'ood customs or public policy s&all compensate t&e latter -or t&e dama'e. T&is article, adopted to remedy t&e 5countless 'aps in t&e statutes, w&ic& leave so many victims o- moral wron's &elpless, even t&ou'& t&ey &ave actually su--ered material and moral in:ury5 CId.D s&ould 5vouc&sa-e ade<uate le'al remedy -or t&at untold number o- moral wron's w&ic& it is impossible -or &uman -oresi'&t to provide -or speci-ically in t&e statutes5 CId. it p. G/F See also P. v. C", G.R. .o. L4,+)HH, May )B,)*+B, B> ;CR" ,>+, ,G+D. (n determinin' w&et&er or not t&e principle o- abuse o- ri'&ts may be invoked, t&ere is no ri'id test w&ic& can be applied. ?&ile t&e Court &as not &esitated to apply "rticle )* w&et&er t&e le'al and -actual circumstances called -or its application CSee -or e.'., 3elayo v. ;&ell Co. o- t&e P&il., Ltd., )// P&il. )B7 ()*H7%F P. v. C", 3 supra; Grand @nion ;upermarket, (nc. v. !spino, 8r., G.R. .o. L4GB,H/, 6ecember ,B, )*+*, *G ;CR" *H>F P"L v. C", G.R. .o. L4G7HHB, 8uly >),)*B),)/7 ;CR" >*)F @nited General (ndustries, (nc, v. Paler G.R. .o. L4>/,/H, Marc& )H,)*B,,)), ;CR" G/GF Rubio v. C", G.R. .o. H/*)), "u'ust ,), )*B+, )H> ;CR" )B>D t&e <uestion o- w&et&er or not t&e principle o- abuse o- ri'&ts &as been violated resultin' in dama'es under "rticle ,/ or "rticle ,) or ot&er applicable provision o- law, depends on t&e circumstances o- eac& case. "nd in t&e instant case, t&e Court, a-ter e2aminin' t&e record and considerin' certain si'ni-icant circumstances, -inds t&at all petitioners &ave indeed abused t&e ri'&t t&at t&ey invoke, causin' dama'e to private respondent and -or w&ic& t&e latter must now be indemni-ied. T&e trial court made a -indin' t&at notwit&standin' t&e -act t&at it was private respondent Tobias w&o reported t&e possible e2istence o- anomalous transactions, petitioner 1endry 5s&owed belli'erence and told plainti-- (private respondent &erein% t&at &e was t&e number one suspect and to take a one week vacation leave, not to communicate wit& t&e o--ice, to leave &is table drawers open, and to leave &is keys to said de-endant (petitioner 1endry%5 CRTC 6ecision, p. ,F Rollo, p. ,>,D. T&is, petitioners do not dispute. ut re'ardless o- w&et&er or not it was private respondent Tobias w&o reported t&e anomalies to petitioners, t&e latter=s reaction towards t&e -ormer upon uncoverin' t&e anomalies was less t&an civil. "n employer w&o &arbors suspicions t&at an employee &as committed dis&onesty mi'&t be :usti-ied in takin' t&e appropriate action suc& as orderin' an investi'ation and directin' t&e employee to 'o on a leave. 0irmness and t&e resolve to uncover t&e trut& would also be e2pected -rom suc& employer. ut t&e &i'&4&anded treatment accorded Tobias by petitioners was certainly uncalled -or. "nd t&is repre&ensible attitude o- petitioners was to continue w&en private respondent returned to work on .ovember ,/, )*+, a-ter &is one week -orced leave. @pon reportin' -or work, Tobias was con-ronted by 1endry w&o said. 5Tobby, you are t&e crook and swindler in t&is company.5 Considerin' t&at t&e -irst report made by t&e police investi'ators was submitted only on 6ecember )/, )*+, C;ee !2&. "D t&e statement made by petitioner 1endry was baseless. T&e imputation o- 'uilt wit&out basis and t&e pattern o- &arassment durin' t&e investi'ations o- Tobias trans'ress t&e standards o- &uman conduct set -ort& in "rticle )* o- t&e Civil Code. T&e Court &as already ruled t&at t&e ri'&t o- t&e employer to dismiss an employee s&ould not be con-used wit& t&e manner in w&ic& t&e ri'&t is e2ercised and t&e e--ects -lowin' t&ere-rom. (- t&e dismissal is done abusively, t&en t&e employer is liable -or dama'es to t&e employee CIuisaba v. ;ta. (nes4Melale 3eneer and Plywood (nc., G.R. .o. L4>B/BB, "u'ust >/, )*+G, HB ;CR" ++)F See also P&ilippine Re-inin' Co., (nc. v. Garcia, G.R. .o. L4,)B+), ;eptember ,+,)*77, )B ;CR" )/+D @nder t&e circumstances o- t&e instant case, t&e petitioners clearly -ailed to e2ercise in a le'itimate manner t&eir ri'&t to dismiss Tobias, 'ivin' t&e latter t&e ri'&t to recover dama'es under "rticle )* in relation to "rticle ,) o- t&e Civil Code. ut petitioners were not content wit& :ust dismissin' Tobias. ;everal ot&er tortious acts were committed by petitioners a'ainst Tobias a-ter t&e latter=s termination -rom work. Towards t&e latter part o- 8anuary, )*+>, a-ter t&e -ilin' o- t&e -irst o- si2 criminal complaints a'ainst Tobias, t&e latter talked to 1endry to protest t&e actions taken a'ainst &im. (n response, 1endry cut s&ort Tobias= protestations by tellin' &im to :ust con-ess or else t&e company would -ile a &undred more cases a'ainst &im until &e landed in :ail. 1endry added t&at, 5$ou 0ilipinos cannot be trusted.5 T&e t&reat unmasked petitioner=s bad -ait& in t&e various actions taken a'ainst Tobias. On t&e ot&er &and, t&e scorn-ul remark about 0ilipinos as well as 1endry=s earlier statements about Tobias bein' a 5crook5 and 5swindler5 are clear violations o- =Tobias= personal di'nity C;ee "rticle ,7, Civil CodeD. T&e ne2t tortious act committed by petitioners was t&e writin' o- a letter to R!T!LCO sometime in October )*+G, statin' t&at Tobias &ad been dismissed by GLO! M"C#"$ due to dis&onesty. ecause o- t&e letter, Tobias -ailed to 'ain employment wit& R!T!LCO and as a result o- w&ic&, Tobias remained unemployed -or a lon'er period o- time. 0or t&is -urt&er dama'e su--ered by Tobias, petitioners must likewise be &eld liable -or dama'es consistent wit& "rticle ,)+7 o- t&e Civil Code. Petitioners, &owever, contend t&at t&ey &ave a 5moral, i- not le'al, duty to -orewarn ot&er employers o- t&e kind o- employee t&e plainti-- (private respondent &erein% was.5 CPetition, p. )GF Rollo, p. )HD. Petitioners -urt&er claim t&at 5it is t&e accepted moral and societal obli'ation o- every man to advise or warn &is -ellowmen o- any t&reat or dan'er to t&e latter=s li-e, &onor or property. "nd t&is includes warnin' one=s bret&ren o- t&e possible dan'ers involved in dealin' wit&, or acceptin' into con-idence, a man w&ose &onesty and inte'rity is suspect5 CId.D. T&ese ar'uments, rat&er t&an :usti-y petitioners= act, reveal a seemin' obsession to prevent Tobias -rom 'ettin' a :ob, even a-ter almost two years -rom t&e time Tobias was dismissed. 0inally, t&ere is t&e matter o- t&e -ilin' by petitioners o- si2 criminal complaints a'ainst Tobias. Petitioners contend t&at t&ere is no case a'ainst t&em -or malicious prosecution and t&at t&ey cannot be 5penali9ed -or e2ercisin' t&eir ri'&t and prero'ative o- seekin' :ustice by -ilin' criminal complaints a'ainst an employee w&o was t&eir principal suspect in t&e commission o- -or'eries and in t&e perpetration o- anomalous transactions w&ic& de-rauded t&em o- substantial sums o- money5 CPetition, p. )/, Rollo, p. ))D. 4 ?&ile sound principles o- :ustice and public policy dictate t&at persons s&all &ave -ree resort to t&e courts -or redress o- wron's and vindication o- t&eir ri'&ts Cuenaventura v. ;to. 6omin'o, )/> P&il. ,>* ()*HB%D, t&e ri'&t to institute criminal prosecutions can not be e2ercised maliciously and in bad -ait& C3entura v. ernabe, G.R. .o. L4,7+7/, "pril >/, )*+), >B ;CR" HB+).D 1ence, in Yutuk V. Manila Electric Co., G.R. .o. L4)>/)7, May >), )*7), , ;CR" >>+, t&e Court &eld t&at t&e ri'&t to -ile criminal complaints s&ould not be used as a weapon to -orce an alle'ed debtor to pay an indebtedness. To do so would be a clear perversion o- t&e -unction o- t&e criminal processes and o- t&e courts o- :ustice. "nd in awpia C", G.R. .o. L4,//G+, 8une >/, )*7+. ,/ ;CR" H>7 t&e Court up&eld t&e :ud'ment a'ainst t&e petitioner -or actual and moral dama'es and attorney=s -ees a-ter makin' a -indin' t&at petitioner, wit& persistence, -iled at least si2 criminal complaints a'ainst respondent, all o- w&ic& were dismissed. To constitute malicious prosecution, t&ere must be proo- t&at t&e prosecution was prompted by a desi'n to ve2 and &umiliate a person and t&at it was initiated deliberately by t&e de-endant knowin' t&at t&e c&ar'es were -alse and 'roundless CManila Gas Corporation v. C", G.R. .o. L4GG)*/, October >/,)*B/, )// ;CR" 7/,D. Concededly, t&e -ilin' o- a suit by itsel-, does not render a person liable -or malicious prosecution C(n&elder Corporation v. C", G.R. .o. H,>HB, May >/)*B>),, ;CR" H+7D. T&e mere dismissal by t&e -iscal o- t&e criminal complaint is not a 'round -or an award o- dama'es -or malicious prosecution i- t&ere is no competent evidence to s&ow t&at t&e complainant &ad acted in bad -ait& C;ison v. 6avid, G.R. .o. L4)),7B, 8anuary ,B,)*7), ) ;CR" 7/D. (n t&e instant case, &owever, t&e trial court made a -indin' t&at petitioners acted in bad -ait& in -ilin' t&e criminal complaints a'ainst Tobias, observin' t&atE 2 2 2 6e-endants (petitioners &erein% -iled wit& t&e 0iscal=s O--ice o- Manila a total o- si2 (7% criminal cases, -ive (H% o- w&ic& were -or esta-a t&ru -alsi-ication o- commercial document and one -or violation o- "rt. ,*/ o- t&e Revised Penal Code 5discoverin' secrets t&ru sei9ure o- correspondence,5 and all were dismissed -or insu--iciency or lack o- evidence.5 T&e dismissal o- -our (G% o- t&e cases was appealed to t&e Ministry o- 8ustice, but said Ministry invariably sustained t&e dismissal o- t&e cases. "s above adverted to, two o- t&ese cases were re-iled wit& t&e 8ud'e "dvocate General=s O--ice o- t&e "rmed 0orces o- t&e P&ilippines to railroad plainti--s arrest and detention in t&e military stockade, but t&is was -rustrated by a presidential decree trans-errin' criminal cases involvin' civilians to t&e civil courts. 2 2 2 To be sure, w&en despite t&e two (,% police reports embodyin' t&e -indin's o- Lt. 6ioscoro Ta'le, C&ie- 6ocument !2aminer o- t&e Manila Police 6epartment, clearin' plainti-- o- participation or involvement in t&e -raudulent transactions complained o-, despite t&e ne'ative results o- t&e lie detector tests w&ic& de-endants compelled plainti-- to under'o, and alt&ou'& t&e police investi'ation was 5still under -ollow4up and a supplementary report will be submitted a-ter all t&e evidence &as been 'at&ered,5 de-endants &astily -iled si2 (7% criminal cases wit& t&e city 0iscal=s O--ice o- Manila, -ive (H% -or esta-a t&ru -alsi-ication o- commercial document and one ()% -or violation o- "rt. ,*/ o- t&e Revised Penal Code, so muc& so t&at as was to be e2pected, all si2 (7% cases were dismissed, wit& one o- t&e investi'atin' -iscals, "sst. 0iscal de Guia, commentin' in one case t&at, 5(ndeed, t&e &ap&a9ard way t&is case was investi'ated is evident. !vident likewise is t&e -lurry and &aste in t&e -ilin' o- t&is case a'ainst respondent Tobias,5 t&ere can be no mistakin' t&at de-endants would not but be motivated by malicious and unlaw-ul intent to &arass, oppress, and cause dama'e to plainti--. 2 2 2 CRTC 6ecision, pp. H47F Rollo, pp. ,>H4,>7D. (n addition to t&e observations made by t&e trial court, t&e Court -inds it si'ni-icant t&at t&e criminal complaints were -iled durin' t&e pendency o- t&e ille'al dismissal case -iled by Tobias a'ainst petitioners. T&is e2plains t&e &aste in w&ic& t&e complaints were -iled, w&ic& t&e trial court earlier noted. ut petitioners, to prove t&eir 'ood -ait&, point to t&e -act t&at only si2 complaints were -iled a'ainst Tobias w&en t&ey could &ave alle'edly -iled one &undred cases, considerin' t&e number o- anomalous transactions committed a'ainst GLO! M"C#"$. 1owever, petitioners= 'ood -ait& is belied by t&e t&reat made by 1endry a-ter t&e -ilin' o- t&e -irst complaint t&at one &undred more cases would be -iled a'ainst Tobias. (n e--ect, t&e possible -ilin' o- one &undred more cases was made to &an' like t&e sword o- 6amocles over t&e &ead o- Tobias. (n -ine, considerin' t&e &aste in w&ic& t&e 5 criminal complaints were -iled, t&e -act t&at t&ey were -iled durin' t&e pendency o- t&e ille'al dismissal case a'ainst petitioners, t&e t&reat made by 1endry, t&e -act t&at t&e cases were -iled notwit&standin' t&e two police reports e2culpatin' Tobias -rom involvement in t&e anomalies committed a'ainst GLO! M"C#"$, coupled by t&e eventual dismissal o- all t&e cases, t&e Court is led into no ot&er conclusion t&an t&at petitioners were motivated by malicious intent in -ilin' t&e si2 criminal complaints a'ainst Tobias. Petitioners ne2t contend t&at t&e award o- dama'es was e2cessive. (n t&e complaint -iled a'ainst petitioners, Tobias prayed -or t&e -ollowin'E one &undred t&ousand pesos (P)//,///.//% as actual dama'esF -i-ty t&ousand pesos (PH/,///.//% as e2emplary dama'esF ei'&t &undred t&ousand pesos (PB//,///.//% as moral dama'esF -i-ty t&ousand pesos (PH/,///.//% as attorney=s -eesF and costs. T&e trial court, a-ter makin' a computation o- t&e dama'es incurred by Tobias CSee RTC 6ecision, pp. +4BF Rollo, pp. )HG4)HH), awarded &im t&e -ollowin'E ei'&ty t&ousand pesos (PB/,///.//% as actual dama'esF two &undred t&ousand pesos (P,//,///.//% as moral dama'esF twenty t&ousand pesos (P,/,///.//% as e2emplary dama'esF t&irty t&ousand pesos (P>/,///.//% as attorney=s -eesF and, costs. (t must be underscored t&at petitioners &ave been 'uilty o- committin' several actionable tortious acts, i.e., t&e abusive manner in w&ic& t&ey dismissed Tobias -rom work includin' t&e baseless imputation o- 'uilt and t&e &arassment durin' t&e investi'ationsF t&e de-amatory lan'ua'e &eaped on Tobias as well as t&e scorn-ul remark on 0ilipinosF t&e poison letter sent to R!T!LCO w&ic& resulted in Tobias= loss o- possible employmentF and, t&e malicious -ilin' o- t&e criminal complaints. Considerin' t&e e2tent o- t&e dama'e wrou'&t on Tobias, t&e Court -inds t&at, contrary to petitioners= contention, t&e amount o- dama'es awarded to Tobias was reasonable under t&e circumstances. $et, petitioners still insist t&at t&e award o- dama'es was improper, invokin' t&e principle o- damnum abs<ue in!uria. (t is ar'ued t&at 5CtD&e only probable actual dama'e t&at plainti-- (private respondent &erein% could &ave su--ered was a direct result o- &is &avin' been dismissed -rom &is employment, w&ic& was a valid and le'al act o- t&e de-endants4appellants (petitioners &erein%.lwph1.t 5 CPetition, p. )+F Rollo, p. )BD. "ccordin' to t&e principle o- da"nu" a#s$ue in!uria, dama'e or loss w&ic& does not constitute a violation o- a le'al ri'&t or amount to a le'al wron' is not actionable C!scano v. C", G.R. .o. L4G+,/+, ;eptember ,H, )*B/, )// ;CR" )*+F ;ee also Gilc&rist v. Cuddy ,* P&il, HG, ()*)H%F T&e oard o- Li<uidators v. #alaw, G.R. .o. L4)BB/H, "u'ust )G, )*7+, ,/ ;CR" *B+D. T&is principle -inds no application in t&is case. (t bears repeatin' t&at even 'rantin' t&at petitioners mi'&t &ave &ad t&e ri'&t to dismiss Tobias -rom work, t&e abusive manner in w&ic& t&at ri'&t was e2ercised amounted to a le'al wron' -or w&ic& petitioners must now be &eld liable. Moreover, t&e dama'e incurred by Tobias was not only in connection wit& t&e abusive manner in w&ic& &e was dismissed but was also t&e result o- several ot&er <uasi4delictual acts committed by petitioners. Petitioners ne2t <uestion t&e award o- moral dama'es. 1owever, t&e Court &as already ruled in %ass"er &. Vele', G.R. .o. L4,//B*, 6ecember ,7, )*7G, ), ;CR" 7GB, 7H>, t&at CpDer e2press provision o- "rticle ,,)* ()/% o- t&e .ew Civil Code, moral dama'es are recoverable in t&e cases mentioned in "rticle ,) o- said Code.5 1ence, t&e Court o- "ppeals committed no error in awardin' moral dama'es to Tobias. Lastly, t&e award o- e2emplary dama'es is impu'ned by petitioners. "lt&ou'& "rticle ,,>) o- t&e Civil Code provides t&at 5CiDn <uasi4delicts, e2emplary dama'es may be 'ranted i- t&e de-endant acted wit& 'ross ne'li'ence,5 t&e Court, in (ulueta &. )an *"erican %orld *irwa+s, Inc., G.R. .o. L4 ,BHB*, 8anuary B, )*+>, G* ;CR" ), ruled t&at i- 'ross ne'li'ence warrants t&e award o- e2emplary dama'es, wit& more reason is its imposition :usti-ied w&en t&e act per-ormed is deliberate, malicious and tainted wit& bad -ait&. "s in t&e (ulueta case, t&e nature o- t&e wron'-ul acts s&own to &ave been committed by petitioners a'ainst Tobias is su--icient basis -or t&e award o- e2emplary dama'es to t&e latter. ?1!R!0OR!, t&e petition is &ereby 6!.(!6 and t&e decision o- t&e Court o- "ppeals in C"4G.R. C3 .o. /*/HH is "00(RM!6.