Uypitching v Quiamco

Facts:
Davalan, Gabutero and Generoso approached Quiamco and surrendered a motorcycle
subject of a crim case for robbery filed by Quiamco against the three and a photocopy of its
certificate of registration. The motorcycle was parked in an open spaces inside Quiamco's
business establishment, visible and accessible to the public. Petitioner corporation sold the
motorcycle on instalment basis to Gabutero and to secure the payment, said motorcycle was
mortgaged to petitioner corporation and when Gabutero could no longer pay for the instalments,
Davalan assumed the obligation but discontinued the payment when the motorcycle was taken
by Quiamco's men. 9 years later, Uypitching accompanied by policemen went to Quiamco's
business establishment to recover the motorcycle and while waiting for the police personnel to
explain what their objective for the visit was for, Uypitching was pacing and stated that Quiamco
is a motorcycle thief. Quiamco was not in the establishment and the policemen went to look for
him in his residence while Uypitching stayed and took pictures of the motorcycle and upon the
return of the policemen who were still unable to locate Quiamco, on Uypitching's instruction and
over the clerk's objection, took the motorcycle. Uypitching then filed a criminal complaint for
qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing law, Quiamco moved to dismiss the complaint
as it did not charge an offense since he had neither stolen nor bought the motorcycle. The
complaint was dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dumaguete and Uypitching's MFR
was denied. Quiamco filed for damages and sought to hold petitioners liable for: 1) unlawful
taking of the motorcycle; 2) utterance of a defamatory remark ; and 3) precipitate filing of a
baseless and malicious complaint which humiliated and embarrassed Quiamco and injured his
reputation and integrity. RTC found Uypitching guilty and motivated with malice and ill-will when
he called Quiamco a thief, took the motorcycle in an abusive manner and filed a baseless
complaint for qualified theft. Contrary to Art. 1911 and 2012, awarded moral, exemplary and
attorney's fees plus costs in favor of Quiamco. CA affirmed the finding but reduced the damages
and MFR by Uypitching was denied.
Issue:
W/N the filing of a groundless complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the AntiFencing law warranted an award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and
costs in favor of Quiamco.
Ruling:
CA's findings that malice and ill-will attended the public imputation of the crime to
Quiamco but also the taking of the motorcycle, petitioners never questioned such findings and
are deemed to have accepted the correctness of such findings. This alone will be sufficient to
hold them liable for damages. As a lawyer, Uypitching knew that there was no probable cause for
the filing of the criminal case and he was only told that Davalan stopped paying because the
motorcycle was taken by Quiamco and not unlawfully taken. Such absence of probably cause
signifies that the filing of the criminal complaint was tainted with malice and such can be
gleaned from his statement as to why he still filed the complaint when he already has recovered
the motorcycle and he answered that it was to teach Quiamco a lesson. Petitioners abused their
right of recovery as mortgagees. A mortgagee may take steps to recover the mortgaged property
to enable it to enforce or protect its foreclosure right and if this is not possible, he must bring a
civil action either to recover such possession as a preliminary step to the sale or to obtain judicial
foreclosure. Petitioner corporation failed to bring the proper civil action and instead descended
on Quiamco's business establishment and ordered the illegal seizure of the motorcycle without
warrant or court order and worse, in the course of the illegal seizure of the motorcycle,
Uypitching uttered a slanderous statement. Petitioners' acts violated the law as well as public
morals and transgressed the proper norms of human relations. Art. 19 prescribes the basic
principle of human relation and the principle of abuse of right prescribes that a person should not
use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise he opens himself to

liability. The manner in which the motorcycle was taken was not only attended by bad faith but
was also contrary to the procedure laid down by the law. The defamatory statement as well as
the filing of the groundless complaint against Quiamco was utterly prejudicial and injurious. The
totality of petitioners' actions showed a calculated design to embarrass, humiliate and publicly
ridicule Quiamco by acting in an excessive fashion to the prejudice of Quiamco's person. CA's
decision is affirMed and the costs were tripled considering that Uypitching is a lawyer and an
officer of the court for his improper behavior.