Velayo v shell

Commercial airlines is regularly fueled by shell britian

Commercial airlines attempted to pay its debt to shell by a plane in US. Shell
refused.
Commercial announced insolvency. Creditors formed a committee for
liquidation of the assets.
Committee agreed on pro rata distribution with preferred creditors. RSP is not
one of them.
Shell, afraid that other creditors would be preferred, assigned credit to Shell
US who filed a claim over the plane.
Velayo was assignee to liquidate the assets.
Only after the sale was commercial judicially declared insolvent.
Liquidation committee assigned velayo to take charge of collecting CALIs
properties. He found out about the plane and filed a complaint against shell
Shell says that everything it did was perfectly legal
SC
WoN cause of action exists.? Yes
o Sec 37 of insolvency law
IF ANY PERSON, before the assignment is made, having notice of
the commencement of the proceedings in insolvency, or having
reason to believe that insolvency proceedings are about to be
commenced, embezzles or disposes of any money, goods,
chattels, or effects of the insolvent, he is chargeable therewith,
and liable to an action by the assignee for double the value of
the property sought to be embezzled or disposed of, to be
received for the benefit of the insolvent estate.
o Civil code 19 and 21
maybe said that this article only contains a mere declarations of
principles and while such statement may be is essentially
correct, yet We find that such declaration is implemented by
Article 21 and sequence of the same Chapter which prescribe
the following
the forgoing rule is approved (as it was approved), would
vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold numbers of
moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide
for specifically in the statutes
article obliterate the boundary line between morality and law?
The answer is that, in the last analysis, every good law draws its
breath of life from morals, from those principles which are
written with words of fire in the conscience of man.
there is no belief of more baneful consequence upon the social
order than that a person may with impunity cause damage to his
fellow-men so long as he does not break any law of the State,
though he may be defying the most sacred postulates of
morality. What is more, the victim loses faith in the ability of the
government to afford him protection or relief.
Shell says Defendant may also claim that Mr. Fitzgerald, based on his feeling
of distrust and apprehension, entertained the conviction that intervenors

Alfonso Sycip and Yek Hua Trading Corporation tried to take undue advantage
by infiltrating their credits
o Defendants act finds not justification for no misdeed on the part of a
person is cured by any misdeed of another, and it is to be noted that
neither Alfonso Z. Sycip, nor Yek Hua Trading Corporation were the only
creditors of CALI, nor even preferred ones, and that the infiltration of
ones credit is of no sequence if it cannot be proven in the insolvency
proceedings to the satisfaction of the court
Globe machay v ca

Tobias worked as purchasing agent and admin assistant in PETs company. Pet
discovered certaion fraudulent transactions because tobias reported it to
Hendry.
Tobias was accused and investigated. He was suspended from work and
called a crook and a swindler.
He was made to submit handwriting and signature specimen as well as
undergo a lie detector test. He did and all came out negative. Police
investigation came out negative. Only private investigator found positive
results but he also recommended more investigation.
He was dismissed. 2 years later he applied for work in RETELCO but Hendry
sent them a letter saying that tobias was dismissed due to dishonesty. Tobias
filed illegal dismissal and the company filed 6 crim cases. 5 estafa and 1
discovery of secrets(dismissed). Illdis case dismissed
Tobias filed a civcase for damages against company. It ruled in his favor and
CA affirmed.

SC

Complaint was based on abusive dismissal and inhuman treatment

PET says they had every right to do so

NCC19 was used by SC in saying that there are 3 standards in exercising

rights These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone
his due; and to observe honesty and good faith.
o Right exercised which does not conform to ncc19, legal remedy exists
o Ncc20 and 21 gives remedy to moral wrongs that cause damage
Dismissal was valid but it was abusive. They bad mouthed tobias. They made
sure he was unable to find work (Filipinos cannot be trusted)
WoN malicious suit? Yes
o Even if they filed only 6 crim complaints, hendrys threat makes suit
malicious
o Mere dismissal by fiscal
o Rushed manner of filing shows malice
Affirmed
Albenson v CA

SC

Albenson delivered to guaranteed industries mild steel plates. Latter paid

check worth 2.5k drawd against EL woodworks.
Checks dishonored. Albenson traced origin of the check and found that EL
woodworks was headed by eugenio baltao SR.
Albenson made EJ-demand but Baltao SR did not do anything. Baltao has a
namesake baltao III who operates guaranteed on same building as EL
woodworks.
Information for bp 22 filed against baltao SR. hi was then dismissed by fiscal
Baltao filed civil case for damages against albenson and owner yap
RTC acknowledged source of confusion but graned damages. CA affirmed

WoN actionable? No
o Discussion about ncc19-21
19 requisites: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) which is
exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or
injuring another
21 requisites: 1) There is an act which is legal; 2) but which is
contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy;
3) and it is done with intent to injure.
20 allows for both willful and negligent acts
WoN damages should eb awarded? No
o Proper inquiries were conducted
o Baltao SR could have cleared up confusion after EJ-demand
o Albenson believed justly that filing crim case was best remedy
WoN malicious prosecution
o Reqts: (1) The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the
defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that the action was finally
terminated with an acquittal; (2) That in bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without probable cause; (3) The prosecutor was
actuated or impelled by legal malice
o No clear malice and therewas probable cause (bounced check PFev for
bp22)
Reversed
UE v jader
Jader was enrolled in UE law from 1984-88. He failed to take finals in practice
court 1 on 4thyear 1st sem. He filed an application from removal which was
approved. He paid the fee and took the exam. His professor gave him a
failing grade
He was still included in the commencement exercises and tentative list of
graduates. He attended grad ceremony
He enrolled in bar review and took leave w/o pay from work. He then found
out about his deficiency and dropped out of class.
He filed claim for damages. RTC and CA awared actual and moral damages
SC
WON damages should be awarded? Yes

Contract of educ between school and student. Teachers are merely

agents. School cannot attribute negligence to the teacher who failed
him and did not inform so.
o Student cannot be said to be negligent because it is the school who
holds all records
o School bears obligation of informing students on time any problems
o No good faith attributable on such belated notice.
o that the institution of learning involved herein is a university which is
engaged in legal education, it should have practiced what it inculcates
in its students, more specifically the principle of good dealings
enshrined in Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code
o it cannot excuse itself by saying that jader could have done something
because jader was never informed of his deficiency.
Affirmed. Only actual damages. No moral because jader also had the duty to verify
(he cannot be shocked)
o

Saudi Arabian airlines v CA

1990-plaintiff morada works as a flight attendant to PET. In Jakarta, she went
to a disco with co-employees thamer and allah. Thamer attempted to rape
her but she was rescued.
She refused to drop the charges or to sign blank papers or to sign papers in
Indonesian language.
She went home and worked. She was then asked by PET to go to Jakarta and
help in the release of both employees. She refused to sign anything.
1992 she was asked by PET to go to Jeddah and was made to sign papers in
exchange for return of her passport. She found out the she signed a court
notice. She was convicted for violations of shariah laws consisting of going
out and talking to men and adultery. She was apparently under trial. She was
sentenced to 5months imprisonment. During trial, she worked in Saudi to
support herself.
She asked PET for help but it ignored her
Prince Makkah of Saudi dismissed the case. She filed complaint for damages
against PET and its country manager (latter to be dropped)

SC

PET filed motion to dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction and other causes
((1) that the Complaint states no cause of action against Saudia; (2) that
defendant Al-Balawi is not a real party in interest; (3) that the claim or
demand set forth in the Complaint has been waived, abandoned or otherwise
extinguished; and (4) that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case)
It said that Saudi courts have jurisdiction because saudi laws are applicable
RSP said complaints based on ncc19 and 21
Denied. CA also denied

Factual situation is basis of foreign element when it cuts across territorial

lines.
o The foreign element may simply consist in the fact that one of the
parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or that a
contract between nationals of one State involves properties situated in
another State. In other cases, the foreign element may assume a
complex form.
o Morada is Filipino and saudia is foreign corpo . events happened across
borders.
Conflict arises. Ncc 19-21 are actionable. 19 is general principle and 21 is
specific. Rtc has jurisdiction on damages cases.
o Pragmatic situations also present since RSP can litigate here more
effectively.
PET submitted itself to RTC jurisdiction when it filed motion to dismiss based
on other grounds and not just jurisdiction.
Legal system is chosen through doctrine of qualification.
o It is the process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind
of question specified in a conflicts rule.[55] The purpose of
characterization is to enable the forum to select the proper law.
o Not legal relation but factual situation
o Factors: court gave 8 but highlighted one
(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus
actus, such as the place where a contract has been
made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort
committed.The lex loci actus is particularly important in
contracts and torts;
o morada was already in manila when PET gave her to Saudi police. This
is beyond the duties of the emlployer.
o Being in the Philippines, the act of deceit occurred here.
o Factors to consider on which State has most significant relationship
(a) the place where the injury occurred; (b) the place where the
conduct causing the injury occurred; (c) the domicile,
residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of
business of the parties, and (d) the place where the
relationship, if any, between the parties is centered
o No need to prove Saudi laws since complaint grounded on 19 and 21.
Affirmed
Petrophil v CA and cruz
1970 petron entered into contract with Dr cruz to allow her to haul and
transport petron products.
Contract provided that it could be terminated by breach of by petrons will.
On 1987, petron terminated the contract after it suspended such. This was
done 1 week after a strike occurred where Dr. cruz participated.
Dr Cruz and her employees filed separate damage claims against petron
They testified bad faith because termination happened after the strike and
that the strike happened because petron was trying to have dr cruzs
business closed down.

RTC and CA awarded damages

SC

WoN petron violated 19 and 21? yes

o Petron says that the contract provided for termination for cause and
without cause.
o While it had the right to do so, it could not with bad faith. Termination
was close to the strike is a badge of bad faith. Dr cruz allowed refusal
to load petrol and such was cause for termination
o Petron said that no deliberate harm was intended for drivers and only
dr cruz should be awarded damages (both were). Ncc20 says harm
both willfully or negligently done.
Affirmed
Avon v luna
Luna worked for beautifont later absorbed by avon as franchise dealer then
supervisor.
As supervisor, luna had no EER with avon. However, she must sell only avon
products as espoused in her contract of supervisor.
She asked a Makati law firm to clarify if the exclusivity clause was valid. The
firm gave an opinion that it is not since it limits trade which is a violation of
the constitution.
She then furnished other avon supervisors copies of the opinion. She began
working for sander Philippines, a company that sells vitamins as group
franchise director.
Avon notified her of her termination because of breach of section 5 and
because she induced others to breach.
Damage complaint in rtc. RTC and CA held that section5 was against public
policy for restraint of trade
SC
WoN section5 is valid? Yes
o Luna says the sander and avon are not competitors because of
different products
o Avon said that sander is utilizing training and experience that they
have given their supervisors
o Exclusivity clause is subject to critical scrutiny because it might collide
with consti provision against restraint
o Restraint against public policy occurs when it is undue or unreasonable
or if they are unenforceable due to custom.
o public policy is that principle of the law which holds that no subject or
citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the
public or against the public good.[
As applied to contracts, in the absence of express legislation or
constitutional prohibition, a court, in order to declare a contract
void as against public policy, must find that the contract as to
the consideration or thing to be done, has a tendency to injure
the public, is against the public good, or contravenes some
established interests of society

Only those arrangements whose probable effect is to foreclose

competition in a substantial share of the line of commerce affected can
be considered as void for being against public policy
Exclusivity clause does not eliminate sandre
o Newly-formed sander is poaching
WoN termination valid? Yes
o Both with and without cause okay as long as no bad faith.
o

Manila doctors v so un chua.

Chuas mother and sister were confined in PETs hospital. Chua initially paid
400k as partial payment for the bills. Her sister was released
o Chua alleges that PET harassed her to pay and coerced her to make
PNs for the payment.
o She alleged further that her mother was still confined and was not
allowed to leave because of the non-payment and that her mother was
mistreated
Cancelled ref, AC, TV and telephone
Food delivered late
These caused damage to her health
Hospital alleges different facts
o Chuas mother was healthy as stated by their common witness, dr sy.
Hospital administrator galeno also did regular rounds and saw mrs
chua healthy
o They were never barred from exit
o Removal of facilities was done only after consultation with doctors.
o Chua refused to pay even after multiple demands
o Civ case was only filed for leverage because hospital filed case for
bp22 against chua because she paid with empty checks
RTC and CA ruled for chua and ordered hospital to pay
SC
WoN damages are necessary? No
o Hospitals can remove or reduce non-essential facilities if it would not
be to the detriment of patients health.
o These were only removed with dr Sys approval.
o Mrs chua was healthy. Bed sores and hypertension were never proved.
o Barring of nurses and midwives never proven
o not every suppression of the things that one has grown accustomed to
enjoy amounts to an actionable wrong, nor does every physical or
emotional discomfort amount to the kind of anguish that warrants the
award of moral damages under the general principles of tort.
o The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that
an individual was injured in contemplation of law. Thus, there must first
be the breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that
breach before damages may be awarded;
o not sufficient to state that there should be tort liability merely because
the plaintiff suffered some pain and suffering
o removal of facilities only under exceptional circumstances

standard for tort on medical cases must be based on expert testimony. None
here
gate clearance requirement of hospitals is not bar, they can leave anytime. It
is merely notice that the hospital will pursue legal action.
Detainment must be restraining movement in all direction. Few exceptions
o detained or convicted prisoner
o the patient is suffering from a very contagious disease where his
release will be prejudicial to public health
o the patient is mentally ill such that his release will endanger public
safety
o other exigent cases as may be provided by law.
Momentary interruption by staff to remind them of possible legal action is not
barring.
Private hospitals are businesses. They expect to be paid. Requiring a PN is
only to make concrete the implied obligations to pay
Counterclaim of malicious suit never appealed by hospital
Reversed. Chua ordered to pay.
Madela v caro
Crim case of CFI was filed against dr japzon for homicide through RI (wrong
nomenclature)
Civ action reserved but such was dismissed because of the pending criminal
action
SC
WON dismissal valid? No
o Art 33 provides for ex-delicto action that is independent of the criminal
case. ROC 111 contemplates RPC100
o Same provision onf ROC alloes actionas based on ncc33 to prosper
o Physical injury is deemed to be used in generic sense like defamation
or fraud since both do not have rpc definitions. Physical injury in ncc33
is not just rpc definition.
Reversed
Aquino concurring. Action may also be based on 2176
Ponce v Legaspi
Spouses ponce are stockholders of LNOR (marine service corp). other
stockholders are spouses porter. They retain atty Legaspi.
Ponce allege that porter and Legaspi conspired to establish a new corp called
yrasport. They used LNOR facilities and funds for the benefit of Yrasport.
Porter acted as officer of both corpos and Legaspi acted as corposecretary.
The bough cables for 10k for yrasport using LNORs money and they doubled
the prices on the receipts
Porter was charged with estafa and he was represented by Legaspi even
when he was under retainer of LNOR. LNOR had to secure a different attorney.
Porter was acquitted
Disbarment case was filed against legaspi. His defense was that he helped
porter do perfectly legal things and that corpo code does not prohibit new

corporations to be established with officers of old corporations. If it does

prohibit such, the law was not active yet.
He filed for damages in malicious prosecution. RTC and CA treated it as a
case for libel because both held that malicious prosecution is only applicable
to crim cases
Libel was found because Legaspi found out about the disbarment charge from
different clients. Both courts awarded damages

SC

WoN malicious prosecution only for crim cases? No

o America jurisprudence has applied malicious prosecution to all judicial
proceedings. Civ cases and dibarment cases are judicial in nature
WoN malicious prosec? No
o Elements: 1) the fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the
defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that the action finally
terminated with an acquittal; (2) that in bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (3) that the prosecutor
was actuated or impelled by legal malice
o Malice is essential element but it is preceeded by essential element of
probable cause
o Ponce had PC to file disbarment case
Infidelity because of representing two corpos
Infidelity because of using fiduciary relations between two corpo
Conflicting interests because of representing an adverse party
to LNOR who retains him
WoN libel? No
o Never alleged and proven
o Disbarment cases are public records. It could have reached his clients
through such
Granted. CA set aside.
Yutuk v meralco
Yutuk is a lawyer. Her house was visited by one Eliseo Jamie who worked for
meralco as inspector. He asked to inspect the electric meter outside the
house. He did not ask anyone to supervise him and then he asked yutuk to
sign a form saying that the electric meter was checked with her supervision.
She refused and said that he did it unsupervised
Jamie accused yutuk of being a thief because she used a jumper and he has
now fixed it.
Yutuk asked public service commission to check and it said that there was
nothing wrong with it.
Action for grave slander was filed against Jamie. He was convicted. Meralco
furnished him with its lawyers
Meralco filed crim case four months later against yutuk but this was
dismissed by city prosecutor.
Jamie, in his testimonies admitted that he broke the meralco seal and that he
was not supervised. He said the prior to breaking the seal, it was twisted.
Meralco said that they filed the crim case late because they attempted a
compAG with yutuk but she allegedly refused in bad faith.

SC

Jamie and meralco said that a newspaper delivery person named santos
supervised him but this was disregarded by the court because of a lot of
inconsistencies
Jamie gave in evidence his report that yutuk used a jumper. Meralco practice
is that such reports are supervised by client but this was not the case.
Meralco said that after the inspection, her bills went up
Yutuk filed complaint for damages. Lower court ruled for yutuk.

WoN damages proper? Yes

o Jamie was convicted of grave slander. His testimonies were self-serving
o Fiscal found that there was no PC because Jamie himself admitted that
he broke the seal.
o Belated filing only shows bad faith. Their explanation of compAG(for
unsettled bills) does not explain why they did not file a civil case first
for collection.
o Bad language to yutuk including its disregard of the admin complaint
she filed against Jaime shows bad faith
o Dismissal is not outright bad faith but the factual antecedents show
such. Affirmed
Medina v castro-bartolome, cosme and pepsi
PETs were GM and plant controller of muntinlupa factory of pepsi; two of the
highest positions there. Pepsi CEO cosme went to the factory and yelled at
them GOD DAMN IT. YOU FUCKED ME UP ... YOU SHUT UP! FUCK YOU! YOU
ARE BOTH SHIT TO ME! YOU ARE FIRED (referring to Ernesto Medina). YOU
TOO ARE FIRED
They filed crim case for oral defamation but it was dismissed since the
statements were in anger and not defamation
They allege that the dimissals were done in bad faith and that they suffered
terrible anguish (crying in front of their families ready for xmas dinner)
Dismissal could have been done privately and the cause was baseless since
all factories delayed in releasing promotional crowns.
Blatant disregard for Filipino socleg and labor laws
Filed civ case for damages
Law saying that Las must defer to civcourts claims for damages.
Mtd filed for lack of j.dict but it was dismissed
New law passed giving Las jdict for ULP. Second MTD upheld
SC
MTD should not be upheld because the caouse of action is damages based on
ncc. Labor code is not relevant
Aquino dissent
Ulp case and res judicata is applicable. Case already dismissed by Las because of
quitclaims signed by PETs
Tenchavez v escano
Pastor tenchavez (32) and vincenta escano (27) had a secret love affair.
Escano was from a wealthy family. Pastor was an engineer and ex-military.
They got married in secret. Escanos parents were shocked and they asked
that the marriage be solemnized properly. However, vincenta got a letter that

pastor was in an affair with their matchmaker pacita. She showed the letter
to her father mamerto and he opposed the marriage. The only reason for
their despair was that it was an illicit marriage. They initially wanted pastor to
marry escano.
Escano went back to living with her parents.
Escano went abroad in 1950 and secured a divorce. She then married an US
citizen and changed her citizenship in 1957.
Pastor filed legal separation and complaint for damages against escanos
parents. They filed counterclaim for malicious suit.
RTC granted legsep, dismissed pastors claim and favored counterclaim
ordering pastor to pay 45k

SC

Marriage was valid. Escano is still married to pastor but legsep is also valid.
o Marriage contracted through alleged deceit is merely voidable
o No divorce in phils
Mamerto escano was did not act out of malice. According to old Philippine
law, a parent may only be held liable for alienating the parents child to the
childs spouse if such parent acted with malice
o Support is not malice. Escanos acts of leaving even when supported
by her parents were hers alone
Pastor is liable for damages
o His suit may not have been malicious but it was reckless based on
proven facts
o Mamerto did not discriminate against him based on social class.
Mamerto wanted him to get married properly
o 45k is excessive
Mamerto should pay damages
o Pastor can never marry again
Modified
MVRS publication v Islamic dawah council of the Philippines.
RSP filed a class action suit against bulgar newspaper for publishing an article
that says that muslims all over the world worship pigs.
Defense says the article was merely an expression of opinion with no intent
to damage muslims
RTC dismissed for lack of cause of action since no one was specifically
identified.
CA reversed saying it was damaging to all muslims
SC
WoN cause of action exists? No
o Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means the offense of
injuring a person's character, fame or reputation through false and
malicious statements
o It is that which tends to injure reputation or to diminish the esteem,
respect, good will or confidence in the plaintiff or to excite derogatory
feelings or opinions about the plaintiff
o It is the publication of anything which is injurious to the good name or
reputation of another or tends to bring him into disrepute

Defamation is an invasion of a relational interest si

Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted
to advert to an identified or identifiable individual. Absent
circumstances specifically pointing or alluding to a particular
member of a class, no member of such class has a right of
action11 without at all impairing the equally demanding right of free
speech and expression, as well as of the press, nce it involves the
opinion which others in the community may have, or tend to have, of
the plaintiff
Defamation of a large group can only give cause of action if an individual can
show that he is personally the target
o Different cases: small groups usually are favorably ruled for
o Football team of 60 members succeeded
o Aim of law is to protect individuals, not groups
o Test: Is the description of the member implicit in the description of the
body, or is there a possibility that a description of the body may
consist of a variety of persons, those included within the charge, and
those excluded from it?
o Muslims too large a group
o Reqts: (1) published a statement that was (2) defamatory (3) of and
concerning the plaintiff.
WoN intentional tort by causing mental distress
o Personal action
WoN protected by free speech? Yes
o Past doctrines included obscene things in banned speech along with
fighting words
o Now it is only for fighting words. Obscenity is okay as long as it is not
specifically targeted
o Fighting words must be tested under clear and present danger
Council not large enough to represent all muslim community from class
action suit
Reversed
o
o

Vitug dissent: vexing is not actionable if it only causes irritation

Carpio dissent:
not libel but mental anguish under ncc 26. Here both the trial and appellate
courts found the newspaper article in question insulting and humiliating to
Muslims, causing wounded feelings and mental anguish to believers of Islam.
This is a finding of fact that the Court is duty bound to respect. 5 This finding
of fact establishes that petitioners have inflicted on private respondents an
intentional wrongful act humiliating persons because of their religious
beliefs
seeks to eliminate damnum absque injuria
Austria Martinez
In other words, it is not the intention of the speaker or writer, or the
understanding of the plaintiff or of any particular hearer or reader, by which
the actionable quality of the words is to be determined. It is the meaning that
the words in fact conveyed, rather than the effect which the language
complained of was fairly calculated to produce and would naturally produce

on the minds of persons of reasonable understanding, discretion, and candor,

taking into consideration accompanying explanations and surrounding
circumstances which were known to the hearer or reader.
The alleged defamatory statement should be construed not only as to the
expression used but also with respect to the whole scope and apparent object
of the writer

Lao v assoc anglo American tobacco corp

Lao was given rights to sell products of RSP. He sold tobacco with high yield
and the company praised him.
Accounting showed certain losses from the company and they blamed it on
lao. Lao mortgaged property as security.
Lao filed suit for damages against RSP and such was granted. Writ of
execution was ordered
Computation by the court showed that Lao overpaid by 500k
A crim case for estafa was filed against Lao.
Lao filed a suit for malicious prosecution based on 20 and 21. He was not
present during PI. The estafa case was not yet terminated. RTC and CA ruled
in his favor.
Corpo appealed writ of execution CA granted and issued TRO for writ of
execution
The CA affirmed that RSP should reimburse LAO based on the computations
made by the court commissioners
SC
WoN writ of execution should be upheld in lieu of a bond? No
o Needs proper court adjudication.
o Substantial compliance when RSP attached copies or writs on second
motion
WoN malicious prosecution should prosper? No
o Needs final judgement specifically acquittal.
o Otherwise, suit for malicious prosecution would be groundless
o The facts are irrelevant even when his liabilities are civil in nature. The
suit must be finished before filing
o Even 19 and 21 will not grant relief
WoN lao is entitled to reimbursement? No
o Computation wrong
Bayani v panay electric
Bayani is owner of pension houses. PECO accused bayani of violation of RA
7832 saying the the businesses cheated electricity and such was cut.
peco filed crim cases in 1996 but was dismissed by city fiscal. Appeal to SOJ
on 1998 (dismissed with finality)
bayani filed civ case for MP against PECO. RTC granted WPI and ordered PECO
to supply electricity(1996)
CA reversed saying no cause of action
SC
WoN premature? Yes
o Acquittal is essential element.

1) the fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the
defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that the action was
finally terminated with an acquittal; (2) that in bringing the
action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (3) the
prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice
No acquittal when civ case was filed. Premature. SOJ only dismissed on
1998. Case filed in 1996

Chua v ca
Co leases the second floor of a building in binondo. Beneath him, petitioners
chua manage jollibeee yumburger business
1984 Co filed complaint with safety division of manila city engineer office
saying that Chue installed AC and water pump that gave of heat and blocked
his entry.
Secretary of mayor issued order for chua to close business until permits were
secured
Secretary of mayo lifted the order when chua said they made corrective
measurs.
Co filed mandamus in RTC saying that SOM and chua should be liable for
damages. GAD in issuing lifting order. WPI for such
RTC issued WPI but dismissed the case becase Co was never disturbed since
he only used the place for stockroom.
Spouses made counterclaim saying that no damage was cuased by their AC
and that CO had no cause of action because of corrective measuers and that
they have a permit.
RTC held Co liable for damages
CA affirmed but deleted damages
SC
Law presumes goof faith. No proof of bad faith given by chua
o Counterclaim was nature of malicious perosecution
o Applicable in crim and civ cases (unfounded/baseless)
o Co had belief that he was going to be damaged. He merely went to
court to seek redress. His perception was not fantastic or exaggerated.
Denied
Guitar v court of appeals
MMIC guards shot the MMIC general manager which prompted the company
to do a psych eval on all its security personnel.
Dr Rena Nora conducted the psyc exam her findings on RSP haguisan
o admitted to frequent "absent minded spells" in the last few years. ...
Calculating ability is poor, indicating poor concentration and
memory. ... With memory for design test, he made six mistakes which
is interpreted as borderline for motor-perceptual skill impairment ... .
His profile shows that of a poorly adjusted individual both in his
personal adjustments and his social adjustment ...
haguisan was terminated because he was unfit to work as security guard
based on the findings.

Haguisan asked guitar MMIC admin officer for certification of his service.
Guita gave a certification that says he was terminated after he was found
mentally unfit to work.
Haguisan filed a complaint that guita saying that the false and derogatory
statements under haguisans mental state.ruin his chances of employment
RTC dismissed complaint saying no cause of action
CA reversed except for guita because he did not qualify mentally unfit to
work (shouldve said security guard) dr nora qualified it in her findings that he
cannot security guard

SC

WoN malice on guita part? No

o No proof of malice. Statement should be construed as a whole and that
guita meant unfit to work as security
o Fact finding of trail court to testimonies.

Atty naverrete v generoso

RSP filed a case for annulment of sale saying that her signature was forged
by Pumaren and Profeta.
Deed of sale with right to repurchase was notarized by PET. He is now
claiming that testimonies made by RSP during trial were malicious and that
such slandered him. It is worth noting that these statements were made
before he was impleaded
RSP said bastards, swindlers, stupid, and plunderers.
RTC declared deed of sale null but ordered RSP to pay PET damages
CA affirmed but deleted damages
SC

WoN damages proper? No

o PET alleges that his reputation as a lawyer was besmirched and such
was actionable in US jurisdiction.
o Judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged.
o Privilege covers everything that is relevant. This allows litigators to
speak her mind
o it is the rule that what is relevant or pertinent should be liberally
considered to favor the writer, and the words are not to be scrutinized
with microscopic intensity
o The RSPs accusations of swindlers etc
o Forging, malicious etc are relevant
o Irrelevant words were ot aimed at PET sincethey were made before he
was impleaded. Others were aimed at the document witnesses. He was
not a witness he was notary.
Affirmed
Relatives of Lolita Pe v alfonso Pe
Lolita pe is 24 years old and unmarried and alfonso is a collateral relative of
lolitas father who is married. Alfonso worked in la perla cigar and he often
stayed in Gasan where Lolita stayed with her family.

Being a collateral relative, she often visited their house. He made up excuses
like asking Lolita to teach him how to pray the rosary to come. They
eventually fell in love. They exchanged love letters. He even went to boac
where Lolita teaches
Rumors circled around of their affair. Petitioners forbade alfonso from coming
over and filed deportation proceedings
Lolita ran away and a letter was found saying that she will meet alfonso
Damage case based on ncc 21 was filed in rtc which dismissed it for lack of
cause of action since both could have fallen in love without and deceit or bad
faith. (human emotion unpredictable)

SC

WoN cause of action exists? Yes

o The circumstances under which defendant tried to win Lolita's affection
cannot lead, to any other conclusion than that it was he who, thru an
ingenious scheme or trickery, seduced the latter to the extent of
making her fall in love with him.
o After discovery of affair, he still continued his pursuits.
o He committed injury to Lolita and her family

Hermosisima v CA
Soledad filed a complaint in CFI against chris hermosisima for support and
breach of promise to marry
Soledad is a highschool teacher who is 10 years older than chris who is an
apprentice pilot.
They were public with their love and people thought they were engaged.
They had sex on his cabin on board mv escano. On 18954, soledad advised
him that a child was on the way. He promised to marry her but he then
married perez 4 months later.
Action for breach, damages and support was filed. Support pendente lite was
given. RTC then awarded actual and moral damages
CA increased
SC
WoN breach of promise to marry actionable.
o Spanish code says it is not. Plaintiff may recover expenses from
anticipating the marriage but nothing more. Drafts of the civil code
contain such provisions but these were later removed. The intent it to
be more progressive with breach cases
WoN seduction? No
o No moral guilt of seduction because he is 10 years younger. CFI also
found that she willingly had sex with him
WoN damages proper? Yes
o Lost income during marriage, hospital expenses and child support
Modified
Tanjaco v ca
Apolonio Tanjaco courted Araceli santos.they became acquainted in 1957.
Both were of legal age. They became close and in july 1958, tanjaco

promised santos marriage. They had sex regularly undtil 1959. She told him
she was pregnant and he left her.
She filed action for damages saying that the humiliation forced her to quit her
job in ibm. She also filed for support.
CFI dismissed for lack of cause of action
CA reversed using ncc21 and directed CFI to proceed.

SC

WoN cause of action exists? No

o Breach only if minor is seduced.
o To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some sufficient
promise or inducement and the woman must yield because of the
promise or other inducement.
o It is not seduction if she allowed it to happen for over a year.
Dismissal no prejudice for support