Compensation not enrichment - A Law Each Day (Keeps Trouble Away)

A person against whom a court suit (whether criminal, civil, or any legal proceeding) has been filed maliciously and without probable cause may in turn file an action for moral and exemplary damages after the termination of such prosecution, suit or other proceeding. Or he may file said action as counterclaim for damages in the very same unfounded and malicious action filed by the other party against him. This is known as an action for damages based on malicious prosecution. This case illustrates when a suit for malicious prosecution can be filed successfully and how damages are computed.

The case started when Narciso filed a complaint against his illegitimate cousin Orlando and Atty. Margie Santos as well as his Auntie Marina and the boss of Margie, Atty. Dante Falcon.

In his complaint, Narciso claimed that Orlando and Margie induced his aunt Marina thru ruse and artifice, in the execution and signing of documents that transferred in favor of Orlando, Marina's rights and interest over certain parcels of property to his prejudice and exclusion. Among these documents are the Deed of Sale of a two-storey house of wooden material, his Auntie Marina's share in the inheritance of her late father, and the notarial act of recognition where his auntie Marina recognized Orlando as an illegitimate offspring of Marina's older brother.

In his complaint Narciso also accused Margie and Orlando of engaging in an illicit sexual liaison perpetrated in his house which created public scandal and caused him shame and embarrassment. Narciso included Margie's boss. Atty. Falcon for allegedly condoning and abetting the scandalous sexual relations and the fraud committed by Margie and Orlando.

In answer, Orlando, Margie, Marina and Atty. Falcon denied Narciso's allegations as pure fabrications, false and unfounded. They therefore lodged a counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages.

After trial on the merits, the lower court, and later on the Court of Appeals found that Narciso's allegations were the product of mere speculations and suspicions which were definitely unsubstantiated by facts which Narciso himself admitted. And so the lower court dismissed Narciso's complaint and ordered him to pay moral and exemplary damages respectively as follows: Margie, P300,000.00 and P100,000.00; to Orlando P50,000.00 and P10,000.00; to his Auntie Marina P50,000.00 and P10,000.00; and to Atty. Falcon P100,000.00 and P50,000.00.

Narciso questioned this award of moral and exemplary damages contending that such award in effect penalizes him for exercising his right to litigate and renders him liable for the absolutely privileged statements set forth in the pleadings he filed in court. Was Narciso correct?

No. Our laws indeed grant a person the remedial right to prosecute or institute a civil action against another for the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong. But when the action or suit is found to be unsubstantiated by facts, moral damages can be awarded in favor of the person sued. This is known as malicious prosecution and is enumerated in Art. 2219 as one of the instances whereby moral damages can be recovered. To merit an award for moral damages predicated on malicious prosecution the claimants (the person sued) must prove that (1) they had been denounced and falsely charged; (2) that the person suing or charging knew that the charge was false; (3) that the latter acted with malice and (4) they had suffered moral injury as a result of the malicious charge.

In this case, Narciso's accusations of illicit relations and illegal conduct were found to be mere speculations and suspicions and he himself admitted that he has no evidence to prove the existence of the documents supposedly falsified and that he improvidently filed the complaint to harass, vituperate, and vilify the honor and dignity of Margie et. al. Thus he should be liable for moral damages under Art. 2219. And since moral damages is awarded an adjudication of exemplary damages is also in order.

An additional justification is Art. 21 of the Civil Code which states that any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for damages. Denouncing persons for allegedly engaging in illicit sexual affairs and illegitimate activities which undermine their good name and honor is contrary to morals and good customs.

Narciso's reliance on the rule of privileged communication is misplaced. This defense is applicable only to actions for libel. A damage suit for malicious prosecution is not grounded in defamatory imputations but predicated on the legal malice of the person instituting a criminal prosecution or civil suit and the lack of probable cause of such suits.

But the amount of moral and exemplary damages awarded here, though not enriching is still excessive. Moral damages are in concepts of grants which are not punitive or corrective in nature calculated to compensate the claimant for the injury suffered. Exemplary damages serve as deterrents against or as negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions. Both are designed not to enrich claimants at the expense of defendants. Using this as guideline the damages awarded to Margie should be reduced to P100,000.00 moral and P50,000.00 exemplary. While the damages awarded to Atty. Falcon should be reduced to P50,000.00. and P10,000.00 respectively (Tiongco vs. Deguma et. al. G.R. No. 133619 October 26, 1999).

Atty. Sison's e-mail address: [email protected].