You are on page 1of 7



176 SCRA 778 AUGUST 25, 1989

FACTS: In year 1972 GlobeMackay discovered fictitious purchases and other

fraudulent transactions for which it lost several thousands of pesos. Herbert C.
Hendry who was the Executive President alleged Mr. Restituto M. Torbias as a
number one suspect of the said anomalies since, the latter actually made the
report regarding the hot issues in the company. And the petitioner filed 5cases
against the respondent which 4 of those were estafathrough falsification of
commercial documents and 5th was for violation Art. 290 of the Revised Penal
Code(Discovering Secrets Through Seizure of Correspondence) but all these cases
were dismissed by the Judge of RTC for lack supporting evidence. The defendant
file a civil case for damages anchored on alleged unlawful, malicious, oppressive,
and abusive act of the petitioner and fortunately the judge decided in favour of
the private respondents for payable charges. Petitioners appealed the RTC
decision to CA and on the other hand Torbias appeal as to the amount of
damages. However, in decision dated August 31, 1987 affirmed the RTC decision
in toto. Petitioner questioned the award of moral damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is subject to exemplary damages as subject
to him by the private respondents.
HELD: Under Art. 21 Any person causes loss or injury to another in a manner that
is contrary to morals, good customs or public shall compensate the latter for
damages. Wherefore, the petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the CA in
CA-GR CV No. 09055 is AFFIRMED.

Globe Mackay vs.CA 176 SCRA 778

FACTS: Private respondent Restituto M. Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe
Mackay in dual capacity as purchasing agent and administrative assistant to the
engineering operations manager. In 1972, the respondent discovered fraudulent
anomalies and transactions in the said corporation for which it lost several
hundred thousands of pesos. The private respondent reported to his superiors
including Henry, the petitioner. However, he was confronted by Hendry stating
that Tobias was the number one suspect. He was ordered to take a one week
forced leave. When he returned to work, Hendry called him crook and swindler,
and left a scornful remark to the Filipinos. The petitioners also charged six criminal
cases against the respondentfive cases of estafa and one for violating Article
290 of the RPC (Discovering Secrets through Seizure of Correspondence). The
petitioner also sent a poison letter to RETELCO causing the respondent to be
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are liable for damages to the respondent.
HELD: Petitioners invoked the right of damnun absque injuria or the damage or
loss which does not constitute a violation of legal right or amount to a legal wrong
is not actionable. However, this is not applicable in this case. It bears repeating
that even granting that petitioners might have had the right to dismiss Tobias
from work, the abusive manner in which that right was exercised amounted to a
legal wrong for which petitioners must be held liable.
The court awarded Tobias the following: Php 80, 000 as actual damages, Php 200,
000 as moral damages, Php 20, 0000 as exemplary damages; Php 30, 000 as
attorneys fees; and, costs. Petition was denied and the decision of CA is

Illegal Dismissal and Malicious ProsecutionGlobe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp.
vs. CAFacts:
Restituto Tobias, private respondent, is a purchasing administrative assistantto
the engineering operations manager, discovered fictitious purchases and
otherfraudulent transactions, which caused Globe Mackay to lose several
thousands ofpesos. He reported it to his immediate superior Eduardo Ferraren and
to the executive vice president and general manager Herbert Hendry. The next
morning, Hendry told Tobias that he was the number one suspect and thus he was
ordered to a force leaveof one week. When he returned to work, Hendry called
him a crook and a swindler,ordered him to take a lie detector test, and to
submit specimen of his handwriting,signature and initials for police investigation.
Moreover, petitioners hired a privateinvestigator. The investigation was not
completes, the lie detector tests result wasnegative; reports from the police
investigators are in favour of Tobias, but such werenot given merits. Tobias
received a notice of termination of his employment from petitioners. Hesought
employment with the Republic Telephone Company (RETELCO); but Hendry wrote
to RETELCO stating that Tobias was dismissed by Globe Mackay due todishonesty.
Tobies, then, filed a civil case for damages anchored on alleged
unlawful,malicious, oppressive, and abusive acts of petitioners. The RTC ruled in
favour of Tobias. Hence this petition.
1. Whether or not Globe Mackay is liable for damages in illegally dismissing
Tobias; 2. Whether or not Globe Mackay was liable for damages for
1. Yes. One of the more notable innovations of the NCC is the codification ofsome
basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship
betweenhuman beings and for the stability of the social order. Foremost among
theseprinciples is that pronounced in Article 19 which provides: Art. 19. Every
person must, in the exercise of his rights and in theperformance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honestyand good faith. This
article, known to contain what is commonly called as the
principle ofabuse of rights,
sets certain standards which must be observed only in the exercise ofones rights
but also in the performance of ones duties. The law, therefore, recognizes
a primordial limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of
humanconduct set forth in the said article must be observed. A right, thoush by
itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless
become the source ofsome illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which
does not conform with thenorms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to
another, a legal wrong isthereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held
responsible. But hile Article19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of
human relations and for themaintenance of social order, it does not provide a
remedy for its violation. Generally,an action for damages under either Article 20
or Article 21 would be proper. Article 20. Every person who contrary to law,
wilfully or negligently causesdamage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.However, in the case at bar, petitioners claim that they did not violate any
provision oflaw since they were merely exercising their right to dismiss Tobias.
This does not,however, leave Tobias with no relief. Article 21. Any person who
wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a mannerthat is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the latterfor the damage.In
determining whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked, there
isno rigid test which can be applied. The question of whether or not the principle
ofabuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages depends on the
circumstancesof ech case. And in the instant case, the Court, after examining the
record andconsidering certain significant circumstances, finds that petitioners
have indeedabused the right that they invoke, causing damage to private
respondent and for which the latter must now be indemnified.2. Yes. Globe

Mackay is liable for damages. The court, after examining the record
andconsidering certain significant circumstances, finds that all petitioners have
indeedabused the right that they invoke, causing damage too private respondent
and for which the latter must now be indemnified. When Hendry told Tobias to just
confess orelse the company would file a hundred more cases against him until he
landed in jail;Hendrys remarks about Filipinos (You Filipinos cannot be trusted.)
as well asagainst Tobias (crook and swindler); the writing of a letter to
RETELCO stating that Tobias was dishonest; and the filing of six criminal cases by
petitioners against Tobias. All these reveal that petitioners are motivated by
malicious and unlawful intent toharass, oppress, and cause damage to Tobias. The
imputation of guilt without basis
and the pattern of harassment during the investigation of Tobias transgress
thestandards of human conduc set forth in Article 19 of the NCC.

On October 30, 1984 Wage Order No. 6 mandated an increased in the cost-ofliving allowance of non-agricultural workers in the private sector for P3.00. The
order was complied by the petitioner Corporation by multiplying the same by 22
days, equivalent to the number of working days in the company.
Respondent union alleges that instead of multiplying the COLA by 22 it should be
multiplied by 30 representing the number of days in a month, as what the
corporation's normal practice prior to the said Wage Order. Thus the union filed a
complaint against the Corporation for for illegal deduction, underpayment, unpaid
allowances, and violation of Wage Order No. 6.
Whether or not COLA under Wage Order No. 6 should be multiplied by 22 or 30
representing the number of working days in a month.
Labor Arbiter Adelaido F. Martinez sustained the position of Petitioner Corporation
by holding that since the individual petitioners acted in their corporate capacity
they should not have been impleaded; and that the monthly COLA should be
computed on the basis of twenty two (22) days, since the evidence showed that
there are only 22 paid days in a month for monthly-paid employees in the
company. His reasoning, inter alia, was as follows:
To compel the respondent company to use 30 days in a month to compute the
allowance and retain 22 days for vacation and sick leave, overtime pay and other
benefits is inconsistent and palpably unjust. If 30 days is used as divisor, then it
must be used for the computation of all benefits, not just the allowance. But this
is not fair to complainants, not to mention that it will contravene the provision of
the parties' CBA.
Section 5 of the Rules Implementing Wage Orders Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 uniformly
read as follows:
Section 5. Allowance for Unworked Days.
All covered employees shall be entitled to their daily living allowance during the
days that they are paid their basic wage, even if unworked. (Emphasis supplied)
... it is evident that the intention of the law is to grant ECOLA upon the payment of
basic wages. Hence, we have the principle of 'No Pay, No ECOLA.