GLOBE MACKAY CABLE VS CA

176 SCRA 778

FACTS:
Respondent Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation
(GLOBE MACKAY) in a dual capacity as a purchasing agent and administrative assistant to the
engineering operations manager. The private respondent discovered fictitious purchases and other
fraudulent transactions and reported them to his immediate superior Ferraren and to petitioner
Hendry who was then the Executive Vice-President and General Manager of GLOBE MACKAY. One day
after Tobias made the report, petitioner confronted him by stating that he was the number one
suspect, and ordered him to take a one week forced leave. When private respondent Tobias returned
to work, petitioner went up to him and called him a crook and a swindler. Tobias was then
ordered to take a lie detector test. He was also instructed to submit specimen of his handwriting,
signature, and initials for examination by the police investigators to determine his complicity in the
anomalies.
The Manila police investigators submitted a laboratory crime report clearing private
respondent of participation in the anomalies. Petitioners also hired a private investigator but the
report was still in favor of Tobias. Nevertheless, Tobias received a notice of termination of work from
petitioners. Unemployed, Tobias sought employment with the RETELCO. However, petitioner Hendry,
without being asked by RETELCO, wrote a letter to the latter stating that Tobias was dismissed by
GLOBE MACKAY due to dishonesty. Private respondent Tobias filed a civil case for damages anchored
on alleged unlawful, malicious, oppressive, and abusive acts of petitioners. The RTC of Manila
rendered judgment in favor of private respondent by ordering petitioners to pay actual damages,
moral damages, exemplary damages, attorneys fees, and costs. Petitioners appealed the RTC decision
to the CA. On the other hand, Tobias appealed as to the amount of damages. The CA affirmed the RTC
decision in toto. Hence the petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent.

HELD:
Yes. They are held liable in contemplation of Article 19 and Article 21 of the Civil code. The
Court, after examining the record and considering certain significant circumstances, finds that all
petitioners have indeed abused the right that they invoke, causing damage to private respondent and
for which the latter must now be indemnified. The damage was caused by the belligerent act of one
of the petitioners through harboring suspicions and the remarks even after the one week leave of the
respondent and the investigations held which were uncalled for. The respondent was eventually
terminated from work through questionable means in the exercise of the right to dismiss. Damage
was also caused through the letter sent by one of the petitioners to the company where the
respondent applied for which lead to him not being hired.