You are on page 1of 4

Article 19 The absence of probable cause necessarily signifies of


Whether or not Atty. Uypitching’s actions constitute
FACTS abuse of right
Pacilian opened an account DECISSION
a. The existence of a legal right or duty Petition is denied in favor of respondent.
b. Which is exercised in bad faith
c. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring

Bank reserves the right to close an account if the

depositor frequently draws checks against insufficient
funds and/or uncollected deposits FACTS
The depositor is entitled, as a matter if right, to Both entered into a deed of sale with right to
overdraw in this deposit and the bank reserves the repurchase; had two years which to repurchase the
right and any time to return checks of the depositor property
which are drawn against insufficient funds or for any
other reason Respondent failed to exercise his right of repurchase
within the period provided in the deed and no
Respondent overdrawn several times due to his renewal of the contract was made
issuance of checks against sufficient funds.
Several years later, SALADAGA was informed the
There were several instances when the respondent property was mortgaged
issues check deliberately using a signature different
from his specimen signature. Complainant instituted a criminal complaint for estafa
against respondent
Respondent was also guilty of deceit or fraud when he
Whether or not closing PACILAN’s account constitutes represented in the “deed of sale with right to
abuse of rights on the part of FAR EAST BANK repurchase”
Permission was granted in favor of FAR EAST BANK’ Whether or not Atty. Astorga’s actions constiture
abuse of right


The court agrees with the recommendation of IBP

board of governors to suspend respondent from the
FACTS practice of law

UYPITCHING filed a criminal complaint for qualified Atty. Astorga is hereby found guilty of the following;
theft and violation of the anti-fencing breach of the Lawyer’s Oath; unlawful, dishonest, and
deceitful conduct; and disrespect for the court ad
a. Unlawful taking of motorcycle causing undue delay of these cases, for which he is
b. Utterance of a defamatory remark suspended from the practice of law for a period of two
c. Filing of a baseless and malicious complaint years, reckoned from receipt of the decision, with
Atty. Uypitching had no personal knowledge that warning that a similar misconduct in the future shall
respondent stole the motorcycle in question be dealt with more severely.
Coca-Cola v Bernardo


Coca-Cola (Beverage Manufacturing) employs Jolly

Beverage Enterprise (Bernardo, Distributor) was
engaged for 13 years, the parties enjoyed a good and
harmonious business partnership.

After contract expired, Coke required Bernardo to

submit a list of their customers on the pretext that it
would formulate a policy defining its territorial

Petitioner started to reach out to the persons whose

names on the list

Bernardo claimed that because of these schemes, they

lost not only their customers but also small stores.

Respondents failed a complaint for damages.


Whether or not Cokr bottlers violated articles 19, 20,

21, or 28.

Whether or not the award of damages and attorney’s

fees, for abuse of rights and unfair competition


Petitioner is liable for damages for abuse of rights and

unfair competition under the civil code
ARTICLE 36 1) whether there exists a prejudicial question and, if in
the affirmative, 2) whether the dismissal of the
PASI vs Lichauco
complaint on that account is in order.
Prejudicial Questions; The rationale for the principle
PASI concedes that the issues in the civil case are
of prejudicial question is that although it does not
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the
criminal case. It contends, however, that the
accused, it tests the sufficiency of the allegations in
resolution of the issues in the civil case is not
the complaint or information in order to sustain the
determinative of the guilt or innocence of Lichauco, it
further prosecution of the criminal case. Hence, the
arguing that even if she is adjudged liable for
need for its prior resolution before further
damages, it does not necessarily follow that she would
proceedings in the criminal action may be had.
be convicted of the crime charged.

Memorandum of Understanding was entered into by a

consortium of private telecommunications carriers
and the Department of Transportation and Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which was earlier quoted has
Communications represented by then Secretary Jesus the following elements:
B. Garcia, Jr. relative to the launching, ownership,
1. The accused is a public officer discharging
operation and management of a Philippine satellite by
administrative or official functions or private
a Filipino-owned or controlled private consortium or
persons charged in conspiracy with them;
2. The public officer committed the prohibited
The consortium of private telecommunications act during the performance of his official duty
carriers formed a corporation and adopted the or in relation to his public position;
corporate name Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. (PASI). 3. The public officer acted with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross,
By letter, PASI president Rodrigo A. Silverio requested
inexcusable negligence; and
the then DOTC Secretary Amado S. Lagdameo, Jr. for
4. His action caused undue injury to the
official government confirmation of the assignment of
Government or any private party, or gave any
Philippine orbital slots 161 E and 153 E to PASI for its
party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or
AGILA satellites.
preference to such parties.1
In response to Silverio’s letter, Secretary Lagdameo
confirmed the government’s assignment of Philippine
orbital slots 161 E and 153 E to PASI for its AGILA The civil case against Lichauco on the other hand
satellites. involves three causes of action.

Evaluation Report8 dated April 15, 1998, found the 1. for injunction, seeks to enjoin the award of
existence of a prejudicial question after considering orbital slot 153 E, the DOTC having previously
that “the case filed with the RTC involves facts assigned the same to PASI;
intimately related to those upon which the criminal 2. for declaration of nullity of award, seeks to
prosecution would be based and that the guilt or the nullify the award given to the undisclosed
innocence of the accused would necessarily be bidder for being beyond Lichauco’s authority;
determined in the resolution of the issues raised in 3. for damages arising from Lichauco’s
the civil case.” It thus concluded that the filing of the questioned acts
complaint before the Ombudsman “is premature since
If the award to the undisclosed bidder of orbital slot
the issues involved herein are now subject of litigation
153 E is, in the civil case, declared valid for being
in the case filed with the RTC,” and accordingly
within Lichauco’s scope of authority to thus free her
recommended its dismissal.
from liability for damages, there would be no
prohibited act to speak of nor would there be basis for
undue injury claimed to have been suffered by
petitioner. The finding by the Ombudsman of the
existence of a prejudicial question is thus well-taken



The Ombudsman is ORDERED to REINSTATE to its

docket for further proceedings, in line with the

foregoing ratiocination,

Ombudsman order set aside.