GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP AND HERBERT HENDRY V CA AND RESITUTO TOBIAS

Page | 1
GR 81262 08-25-1989
FACTS:
Tobias was employed by Globe Mackay Cable in a dual capacity as purchasing agent and admin assistant
to the engineering ops manager. In 1972 Globe Mackay discovered fictitious purchases and other
fraudulent transactions, costing several thousands of pesos. Tobias alleged that he was the one who
discovered the anomalies and reported it to his immediate superior Ferraren and Hendry, executive VP and
GM of Globe Mackay. After reporting the anomalies, Hendry informed him that he was the primary suspect
and had him take one week of forced leave, upon returning to work after the forced leave, Hendry accused
him of being a "crook" and a "swindler". Tobias was subjected to an investigation where the Manila police
investigators cleared him of participation in the anomalies. Hendry hired a private investigator who found
Tobias guilty pending further investigation. Hendry then issued a memorandum suspending Tobias from
work preparatory to the filing of criminal charges against him. Metro Manila Police Chief Document
Examiner then submitted a reiteration of the first police investigation report that Tobias was not involved
and that the lie detector test had negative results. Petitioners filed criminal complaints for estafa through
falsification of commercial documents [amended to estafa] before the Fiscal and a complaint for violation
of Art. 290 RPC Discovering Secrets Through Seizure of Correspondence, all dismissed by the Fiscal,
affirmed by SOJ. Tobias received a notice that his employment had been terminated and filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal, dismissed by the LA and also appealed the Sec. of Labor's decision with the Office of
the President, while pending appeal, Hendry and Tobias entered into a compromise agreement regarding
the illegal dismissal complaint.
Tobias then applied with RETELCO, Hendry wrote a letter stating that Tobias was dismissed by Globe
Mackay due to dishonestly without being asked by RETELCO. Tobias filed a civil action for damages
anchored on alleged unlawful, malicious, oppressive and abusive acts of petitioners. Hendry claimed illness
and did not attend hearings, RTC rendered a decision in favor of Tobias and ordered petitioners to pay 80k
as actual damages, 200k moral, 20k exemplary, 30k attorney's fees and costs. Petitioners appealed the
decision with CA, Tobias appealed the amount for damages. CA affirmed RTC's decision in toto. Petitioner's
MFR was denied, hence this petition for review on certiorari
Issue: W/N petitioners are liable for damages.
Ruling:
Petitioners invoked their lawful right to dismiss Tobias. Tobias contends that the abusive manner in
dismissing him and the inhuman treatment he got entitles him to sue them for damages.
Art. 19 is known as the principle of abuse of rights, sets standards which must be observed not only in the
exercise of one's rights but also in the performace of one's duties. These are the ff: to act with justice, give
everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. The law recognizes a primordial limitation on all
rights, that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Art. 19 must be observed. A right,
though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source
of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined
in Art. 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer
must be held responsible. but while Art. 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the govt of human relations and
for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for
damages under either Art. 20 or Art 21 would be proper. in determining whether or not the principle of
abuse of rights can be invoked, there is no rigid test which can be applied.
The trial court made a finding that notwithstanding the fact that it was Tobias who reported the possible
existence of anomalous transactions, Hendry showed belligerence and told Tobias that he was the number
one suspect and ordered him to take a forced leave. But regardless of whether or not it was Tobias who
reported the anomalies, the reaction towards Tobias was less than civil and this high-handed attitude
continued upon Tobias' return after the forced leave when he was confronted by Hendry and was told he
was the crook and the swindler in the company which was baseless. The imputation of guilt without basis
and the pattern of harassment during the investigations of Tobias transgress the standards of human
conduct set forth in Art.19. The right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not be confused with

the manner in which the right is exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. if the dismissal is done
Page | 2
abusively, then the employer is liable for damages to the employee. The petitioners clearly failed to
exercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias which gives rise to Tobias' claim under Art. 19,
in relation to Art. 21 of the CC. But petitioners were not content with just dismissing Tobias, the criminal
complaints to which Tobias protested to and was told to confess or else petitioners will file a hundred more
cases against him until he landed in jail. Hendry's scornful remark about Filipinos as well as the statements
about Tobias being a crook and a swindler are clear violations of Tobias' personal dignity. the writing of the
letter to RETELCO which resulted in Tobias' failure to gain employment which gave rise to petitioners'
liability under Art 2176 of the CC. principles of justice and public policy dictate that persons shall have free
resort to the courts for redress of wrongs and vindication of their rights, but the right to institute criminal
prosecutions cannot be exercised maliciously and in bad faith. There must be proof that the prosecution
was prompted by a design to vex and humiliate a person to constitute malicious prosecution and that it
was initiated deliberately knowing that the charges were false and groundless. The filing of a suit by itself
does not render a person liable for malicious prosecution and the mere dismissal of the fiscal of the
criminal complaint is not a ground for an award of damages if there is no competent evidence to show that
the complainant had acted in bad faith. The six criminal complaints were all dismissed for lack of evidence.
despite the 2 reports embodying finding clearing Tobias of participation in the fraudulent transactions, the
negative results of the lie detector tests, petitioner hastily filed 6 criminal complaints, with one fiscal
commenting that the investigation was done haphazardly in the case filed and that there can be no
mistaking that petitioners were motivated by malicious and unlawful intent to harass, oppress and cause
damage to Tobias. Petitioners invoked the principle of damnum absque injuria or damage or loss which
does not constitute a violation of a legal right or amount to a legal wrong is not actionable. Granting that
petitioners might have had the right to dismiss Tobias but the abusive manner in which this was
accomplished amounted to a legal wrong for which petitioners must be held liable. Moreover the damage
incurred by Tobias was not only in connection with the abusive manner in which he was dismissed but was
also the result of several other quasi-delictual acts committed by petitioners. Wassmer v Velez ruled that
moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Art 21. In Zulueta v Pan American World
Airways, it was ruled that if gross negligence warrants the award of exemplary damages, with more reason
is its imposition justified when the act performed is deliberate, malicious and tainted with bad faith. CA's
decision was affirmed.