ALBENSON VS. CA that the president of Guaranteed was named “Eugenio S. Baltao”.
They
G.R. No. 88694 | 11 January 93 | Bidin | Santos
PETITIONER: Albenson Enterprises Corp., Jesse Yap, Benjamin Mendiona
RESPONDENTS: CA, Eugenio Baltao
RECIT-READY: Petitioner Albenson delivered to Guaranteed Inc. the mild steel
plates it ordered. As payment thereof, Albenson was given a check amounting to
P2,750. When presented for payment, the check was dishonored because the
account was closed. Albenson traced the origin of the check, and discovered that
the person who issued such check was named “Eugenio Baltao”. Albenson,
through counsel, demanded that Eugenio make good of the check that bounced.
However, he refused to do so. Petitioners were compelled to file a criminal case
against private respondent Eugenio for violation of BP22. It must be noted that
private respondent has a namesake, his son Eugenio Baltao III, who manages a
business establishment, E.L. Woodworks, on the ground floor of the Baltao
building, which is the very same address of Guaranteed. The fiscal initially
pushed through with the case however exonerated Eugenio of the charges. This
prompted private respondent to file a case for damages against petitioners under
Arts. 19, 20, 21. The SC said that the claim for damages must be denied.
Petitioners did not violate the principle of abuse of rights. What prompted
petitioners to file the case for violation of BP22 against private respondent was
their failure to collect the amount of P2,750 due on a bounced check which they
honestly believed was issued to them by private respondent. In this case, the act
of petitioners filing a complaint against private respondent was a sincere attempt
to collect the amount of the bouncing check. A person who has not been paid an
obligation owed to him will naturally seek ways to compel the debtor to pay him. It
was normal for petitioners to find means to make the issuer of the check pay the
amount thereof. Hence, petitioners acted in good faith and probable cause in
filing the complaint.
DOCTRINE: Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another
in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corp. delivered to Guaranteed Industries,
Inc. the mild steel plates which the latter ordered. As part payment, Abenson
was given Pacific Banking Corp Check No. 136361 in the amount of P2,750
drawn against the account of E.L. Woodworks.
- When presented for payment, the check was dishonored because the
account was closed.
- Albenson traced the origin of the check. From the SEC, it discovered
likewise found that E.L. Woodworks was registered in the name of
“Eugenio Baltao”. Albenson was likewise advised by Pacific Banking
Corp that the signature appearing on the subject check belonged to one
“Eugenio Baltao”.
2. Albenson, through counsel, made an extrajudicial demand upon private
respondent Eugenio Baltao, president of Guaranteed.
- Respondent Baltao denied that he issued the check, or that the
signature appearing is his.
3. Albenson filed a complaint against Eugenio S. Baltao for violation of BP22.
4. IMPT FACT! Private respondent has a namesake, his son Eugenio Baltao
III, who manages a business establishment, E.L. Woodworks, on the ground
floor of the Baltao building, which is the very same address of Guaranteed.
5. The fiscal filed an information against private respondent Baltao. However,
the fiscal subsequently exonerated Baltao.
6. Due to the alleged unjust filing of a criminal case against him for allegedly
issuing a check which bounced in violation of BP22 for the inconsequential
amount of P2,750, private respondent filed a complaint for damages against
petitioners.
7. RTC – Ruled in favor of private respondent and awarded the following
damages: P133,350 for actual/compensatory damages, P1M for moral
damages, P200,000 for exemplary damages, P100,000 for attorney’s fees.
CA – Affirmed RTC. Only modified the amount of moral damages to
P500,000.
8. Petitioner argues that the civil case filed in the lower court was one for
malicious prosecution. They assert that the absence of malice on their part
absolves them from any liability for malicious prosecution. He asserts that
Arts. 19, 20, 21 of the CC is so encompassing that it likewise includes
malicious prosecution.
9. Private respondent anchored his complaint for damages on Arts. 19, 20, 21
of the Civil Code.
ISSUES: 1. W/N the principle of rights has been violated, resulting in damages
under Art. 21? – YES
2. W/N this case is one of malicious prosecution? – NO
RULING:
1. Art. 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements:
a) An act which is legal;
b) Which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public
policy;
c) It is done with intent to injure.
There is a common element under Art. 19 and 21 – the act must be intentional. In the
case of Art. 20, it does not distinguish. The act may be done either willfully or The presence of probable cause signifies, as a legal consequence, the absence of
negligently. malice. In this case, it is evident that petitioners were not motivated by malicious
intent or by sinister design to unduly harass private respondent, but only a well-
2. Petitioners did not violate the principle of abuse of rights. What prompted founded anxiety to protect their rights.
petitioners to file the case for violation of BP22 against private respondent was their
failure to collect the amount of P2,750 due on a bounced check which they honestly
believed was issued to them by private respondent.

The SC noted that when petitioners sent the demand letter to private respondent, his
reply to petitioners was to check the veracity of their claim. If indeed private
respondent Baltao wanted to clear himself from the baseless accusation, he should
have mentioned the fact that there are 3 persons with the same name: Eugenio
Baltao Sr, Eugenio Baltao Jr (private respondent herein), Eugenio Baltao (issuer of
the check). Private respondent did not even clarify the case of mistaken identity.

In this case, the act of petitioners filing a complaint against private respondent was a
sincere attempt to collect the amount of the bouncing check. A person who has not
been paid an obligation owed to him will naturally seek ways to compel the debtor to
pay him. It was normal for petitioners to find means to make the issuer of the check
pay the amount thereof. Hence, petitioners acted in good faith and probable cause in
filing the complaint.

3. To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the prosecution was
prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, and that it was initiated
deliberately by the defendant, knowing that his charges were false and groundless.
True, a malicious prosecution is allowed under Civil Code. In order that such a case
may prosper, the following elements must concur:

a) The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant
was himself the prosecutor, and that action was finally terminated
with an acquittal;
b) In bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probably cause;
c) The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice.

Hence, a party injured by the filing of a case against case him, even if he is later
absolved, may file a case for damages grounded either on the principle of abuse of
rights or on malicious prosecution.

In this case, the second and third elements do not exist. Petitioners acted with
probable cause. Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as
would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge
of the prosecutor, that the person was guilty of the crime for which he was
prosecuted. In sum, a suit will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been
carried on without probable cause. The rationale behind the rule is that prosecutors
would be greatly discourages were liable to be sued at law for mere tolerable ground
of suspicion.