CASE #4

MENANDRO SOSMEñA vs BENIGNO BONAFE, et.al.

G.R. No. 232677, June 08 2020

FACTS:

Petitioner Menandro Sosmeña is the managing director of Expo Logistics

Philipines, Inc. Respondent Benigno Bonafe was engaged by the petitioner as Air
Conditioner Assistant in January 2001. The other respondents Jimmy Escobar and Joel
Gomez were employed as petitioner’s assistants, and Hector Pangilinan as the lead
carpenter. Petitioner’s foreign business partner, a certain Abdul Majid Sattar became
suspicious of the latter and approached Bonafe to spy for him against the petitioner.
Petitioner discovered that he was being surveilled by Bonafe, and the relationship of the
two became sour. Not long after, Bonafe was forced to resign, so were the other
respondents.

Petitioner filed criminal cases against the respondents alleging that they
conspired to commit malicious mischief when they allegedly cut-off the cable wires of
five air conditioning units during an event (which was 4 months ago since the cases
were filed) which could have caused a ₱30 million damage to the business if the wires
were not placed on time. He also charged Bonafe of absconding with ₱29,000.00, and
the other respondents with theft of materials with the value of ₱2,000.00.

The respondents in turn filed a civil complaint of malicious prosecution against

the petitioner. They allege that the criminal complaints caused them to suffer damages
both actual and moral and even the cost of Attorney’s fees.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner is guilty of malicious prosecution.

HELD:

YES. The following are the elements of malicious prosecution:

1. The prosecution did occur, and the defendant himself was the prosecutor or that he
instigated its commencement;
2. The criminal action finally ended with an acquittal;
3. In bringing the action, the prosecution acted without probable cause; and
4. The prosecution was impelled by legal malice – an improper or sinister motive.
 All of these elements are present in this case. First, the preliminary investigation
for the criminal cases occurred and the petitioner instigated its commencement.
Second, the preliminary investigation finally ended with the dismissal of the complaints.
Third, petitioner delayed in initiating the criminal complaints as the Office of the
Prosecutor and challenging the investigating prosecutor’s findings. The delay probably
points to petitioner’s lack of genuine complaints against respondents – otherwise he
would not have waited four months and would have acted promptly as any reasonable
person would have expectedly done. Fourth, in all probability, the petitioner was
motivated by ill will and bad blood against respondents in the initiation of the criminal
complaints at the Office of the Prosecutor. More likely than not, he had no legitimate
grievances that had spurred him to act.