Globe Mackay v.

CA (1989)
GR No. 81262
August 25, 1989
Ponentia: Justice Romero
 
I. FACTS
 Petitioner: Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation & Herbert Hendry
 Respondent:
o Court of Appeals
o Restituto M. Tobas (Private Respondent)
 Purchasing agent and administrative assistant (dual capacity)

 1972 - Globe Mackay discovered fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions for
which it lost several thousand pesos
 Tobias claimed to have been the one to have discovered the anomalies and reported them
on Nov. 10, 1972 to Eduardo T. Ferran (supervisor) and Herbert Hendry (Executive Vice
President and General Manager).
 Nov. 11, 1972 - one day after Tobias' report, Hendry confronted him stating he is a suspect
and ordered to take one leave, not to communicate with the office, to leave his table drawers
open, and to leave the office keys.
 Nov. 20, 1972 - Returning after forced leave, Hendry called Tobias a "crook" and "swindler."
Tobias was ordered to take a lie detector test, to submit handwritten specimen, signature and
initials for examination by the police to determine his complicity with the anomalies.
 October 6, 1972 - Manila police investigators submitted a lab crime report clearing Tobias of
participation in the anomalies.
 Dec. 10, 1972 - Petitioners hired private investigator (Col. Jose G. Fernandez) finding Tobias
guilty. However, this report expressly stated that further investigation was still be conducted.
 Dec. 12, 1972 - Hendry issued memorandum suspending Tobias from work in preparation to
file criminal charges against him
 Dec. 19, 1972 - Lt. Dioscoro V. Tagle (Metro Manila Police Chief Document Examiner)
reiterated previous findings that handwritings, signatures and initials appearing in the checks
and other documents involving fraudulent transactions did not match Tobias; lie detector test
on Tobias also yielded negative results
 
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
 Petitioners filed complaint notwithstanding 2 police reports exculpating Tobias from
anomalies and regardless of the private investigator's incomplete/unfinished report
 Petitioners filed complaint for estafa through falsification of commercial documents, later
amended to just estafa
 Five other criminal complaints were filed against Tobias (2 of these were filed to the Judge
Advocate General's office --> remanded to the fiscal)
o Estafa through falsification of commercial document (4 charges)
o Violation of Article 290 of the Revised Penal Code (Discovering Secrets through
Seizure of Correspondence)
 All six complaints were dismissed by fiscal; 4 charges of estafa were appealed; Secretary of
Justice affirmed fiscal's dismissal
 Jan. 17, 1973 - Tobias received termination of employment from petitioners effective Dec.
13, 1972.
 Tobias filed a complaint against illegal dismissal --> dismissed by the labor arbiter
 National Labor Relations Commission - on appeal, reversed labor arbiter's decision
 Secretary of Labor (acting on petitioner's appeal) reinstated the labor arbiter's decision
  Tobias appealed Sec. of Labor's order with the Office of the President
 During pendency of appeal to the Office of the President, Tobias entered into a compromise
agreement regarding the latter's complaint for illegal dismissal.
 Tobias sought employment with Republic Telephone Company (RETELCO)
o Without being asked, Hendry wrote a letter to RETELCO stating Tobias was dismissed
due to dishonesty
 Tobias filed CIVIL CASE FOR DAMAGES (alleged unlawful, malicious, and abusive acts of
petitioners)
o Hendry did not testify (claiming illness)
o RTC Branch IX Manila (Judge Reyes) rendered judgment in favor of Tobias
o Petitioners ordered to pay 80,000 (actual damages), 200,000 (moral damages),
P20,000 (exemplary damages), P30,000 (attorney's fees), and costs.
o Petitioners appealed RTC decision to CA; Tobias appealed for the amount of
damages
 Aug. 31, 1987 - CA affirmed RTC decision
 Petitioners filed an instant petition for review on certiorari
 
ISSUE/S:
 W/N petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent.
 
HOLDING/RATIONALE:
  
 Petitions have indeed abused the right that they invoke causing damage to private
respondent and for which the latter must now be indemnified.
 
JUDGMENT:
 Petition is DENIED; decision of CA affirmed
 
RATIONAL
 Petitioners failed to exercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias, giving the
latter the right to recover damages under Article 19 in relation Article 21 of the Civil Code.
 Tortious acts committed by petitioner:
o Hendry calling Tobias a "crook" and "swindler"
o Scornful remark that Filipinos cannot be trusted (statements masked petitioner's
bad faith)
o Writing a letter to RETELCO stating that Tobias has been dismissed due to
dishonesty; Tobias remaining unemployed
 Court finds: Petitioners were motivated by malicious intent:
o Petitioners still pursued the case notwithstanding two police reports exculpating
Tobias
o Criminal complaints were filed during the pendency of illegal dismissal case against
petitioner
 
 
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT
 Cannot be held liable due to their lawful exercise of their right to dismiss private
respondent.
 
RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT
 Due to petitioner's abusive manner in dismissing him as well as for the inhuman treatment
he got from them, the petitioners must indemnify him for the damage that he had suffered.
 
DICTA: (On the New Civil Code and Article 19 thereof)
 Notable innovations of the New Civil Code is the codification of "some basic principles that
are to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings for the stability of the
social order." (Code Commission on the Proposed Civil Code, p. 39)

 Incorporates certain fundamental aspects which are "designed to indicate certain norms
that spring from the fountain of good conscience," "guides for human conduct that should run
as golden threads through society to he end that law may approach its supreme ideal, which is
he sway and dominance of justice."

 Article 19: the principle of abuse of rights - sets certain standards which must be observed
not only for the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties
o Act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith
 The law recognizes primordial limitation on all rights; in their exercise, the norms of human
conduct set forth in the Article must be observed

 A right, although itself legal because recognized/granted by law as such, may nevertheless
become the source of some illegality

 Article 19 lays down rule of conduct of human relations but does not provide a remedy for
violation

 The question of whether/not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting to
damages under Article 20 or 21 depends on the circumstances of each case
 Malicious Prosecution:
o Proof that the prosecution was designed to vex and humiliate a person;
o That it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that the charges were
false and groundless.

 DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA: damage or loss which does not constitute a violation of a legal
right or amount to a legal wrong is not actionable.
o Does not apply in this case; Tobias's dismissal from work in a abusive manner
amounted to a legal wrong for which the petitioners must now be held liable.