Gregorio Fule vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 112212 March 2, 1998 Facts: Petitioner Gregorio Fule, a banker by profession and a jeweler at the same time, acquired a 10-hectare property in Tanay, Rizal which used to be under the name of Fr. Antonio Jacobe. The latter had mortgaged it earlier to the Rural Bank of Alaminos (the Bank), Laguna, Inc. to secure a loan, but the mortgage was later foreclosed and the property offered for public auction. In July 1984, petitioner, as corporate secretary of the bank, asked Remelia Dichoso and Oliva Mendoza to look for a buyer who might be interested in the Tanay property. The two private respondent Dr. Ninevetch Cruz. It so happened that at the time, petitioner had shown interest in buying a pair of emerald-cut diamond earrings owned by Dr. Cruz which he had seen in January of the same year when his mother examined and appraised them as genuine. Dr. Cruz, however, declined petitioner’s offer to buy the jewelry. Subsequently, however, negotiations for the barter of the jewelry and the Tanay property ensued. In an effort to cut through any legal impediment, petitioner executed a deed of redemption on behalf of Fr. Jacobe , the latter purportedly sold the property to the petitioner. In the afternoon of October 23, 1984, petitioner met Atty. Belarmino(private-petitioner’s lawyer) at the latter’s residence to prepare the documents of sale. As pre-arranged, petitioner left Atty. Belarmino’s residence with Dichoso and Mendoza and headed for the bank. Dr. Cruz also arrived shortly thereafter. The cashier returned to the bank and arrived there at 5:48 p.m., ahead of Dr. Cruz and Dichoso who arrived at 5:55 p.m. Dr. Cruz and the cashier then opened the safety deposit box, the former retrieving a transparent plastic or cellophane bag with the jewelry inside and handing over the same to petitioner. The latter took the jewelry from the bag, went near the electric light at the bank’s lobby, held the jewelry against the light and examined it for ten to fifteen minutes. After a while, Dr. Cruz asked, “Okay na ba iyan?” Petitioner expressed his satisfaction by nodding his head. Later, at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day, petitioner

arrived at the residence of Atty. Belarmino complaining that the jewelry given to him was fake. He then used a tester to prove the alleged fakery. Petitioner then accused Dichoso and Mendoza of deceiving him which they, however, denied. They countered that petitioner could not have been fooled because he had vast experience regarding jewelry. Petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City against private respondents praying, among other things, that the contract of sale over the Tanay property be declared null and void on the ground of fraud and deceit. The lower court issued a temporary restraining order directing the Register of Deeds of Rizal to refrain from acting on the pertinent documents involved in the transaction. However, the same court lifted its previous order and denied the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. After trial, the lower court rendered its decision in favor of privaterespondent. In awarding damages to the defendants, the lower court found that the plaintiff acted in bad, awarding Cruz P300k as moral damages and P100k as exemplary damages; Atty. Belarmino P250k as moral damages and P150k as exemplary damages; and granting both P25k each as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. A petition with the Court of Appeals yielded the same result, hence this petition. Issue: Whether or not the appellate court erred in awarding damages. Ruling: No. In the instant case, the TC awarded damages analogous to malicious prosecution under Article 2219(8) of the NCC for the following reasons: (1) The malice with which petitioner filed the case is apparent. As an experienced jeweler who thoroughly examined the earrings himself and went so far as to sketch them earlier, it is illogical that he would fail to exert extra effort to check its genuineness at the precise moment of the exchange. His acts thus failed to accord with what an ordinary prudent man would have done in the same situation.

. return a fake. This is plain and simple.(2) As an experienced businessman and banker. malice and baseless nature of the complaint. Because of the falsity. and get back the property. it would appear that the cause of action in the instant case was contrived by the petitioner himself in hopes of obtaining a favorable outcome in his complaint to take the real jewelry. defendants were compelled to litigate and are thus also entitled to the awarding of attorney’s fees under Article 2208. whose reputations had been soiled by petitioner’s coming to court with unclean hands. Given this. All that considered. (4) Petitioner filed a malicious and unfounded case all the while dragging down private respondents. unjust enrichment. the value of which still fell short of the diamond earrings’ price. (3) Also. he was shrewd enough to bloat the property’s price from 25k to 75k only a few days after he had purchased it for a far lower cost. it took him 2 hours of unexplained delay before complaining the earrings were counterfeit—a period in which anything could have happened while petitioner was in possession of the jewelry. the damages prayed for were reasonably proportionate to the sufferings they underwent.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful