Kristina C.
Manducdoc for a measly amount of P 2,575 against
Law 100: Persons and Family Relations
Topic:
Introduction to Civil Law →Human Relations
List of Statutes / Law discussed:
Art. 19, 20, 21 NCC
G.R. No. 88694 Jan. 11, 1993
Case Title: Albenson Enterprises Corp vs. CA
Ponente: Bidin, J.
FACTS:
 Petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corp
(Albenson) delivered to Guaranteed Industries
(Guaranteed) mild steel plates which the latter
ordered.
 As part payment, Albenson was given a check in
the amount of P 2,575.00, drawn against the
account of E.L. Woodworks. The same was
dishonored for the reason account closed
 Albenson traced the origin of the check. They
gathered the following information: (1) From
SEC - the president of Guaranteed, the recipient
of the unpaid steel plates, was one Eugenio S.
Baltao (2) From the Ministry of Trade and
Industry - E.L. Woodworks, a single
proprietorship business, was registered under
the name of Eugenio Baltao (3) Pacific Banking
Corp – the signature appearing on the check
belonged to one “Eugenio Baltao”
 Albenson made an extrajudicial demand upon
private respondent Eugenio S. Baltao, president
of Guaranteed to replace/or make good the
dishonored check.
 Complaint was filed by petitioner with the Office
of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal for violation of BP
22. Fiscal Sumaway filed an Information against
Eugenio S. Baltao.
 However, it appears that respondent Baltao has
a namesake, his son Eugenio Baltao III, who
manages E.L. Woodworks which holds office at
the same building as that of Guaranteed.
 Eugenio S. Baltao filed a Motion for
Reinvestigation alleging that he was not given an
opportunity to be heard in the preliminary
investigation conducted by Sumaway, that he
never had dealings with Albenson, and that the
check was not issued by him and the signature
on said check was not his.
 Provincial Fiscal Castro reversed the finding of
Fiscal Sumaway. He likewise directed Sumaway
to move for the dismissal of the Information on
the grounds that the signature was not that of
Eugenio S. Baltao and that there was no proof of
receipt of notice of the investigation
 Respondent Baltao filed a complaint for
damages for the unjust filing of the criminal case
petitioners Albenson, Jesse Yap, its owner and
Benjamin Mendiona its employee
 RTC rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and
against defendants ordering the latter to pay
actual damages P 133,350; moral damages Php
1M, exemplary damages P 200,000; atty’s fees
P 100,000 and cost of suit
 On Appeal, CA modified the decision as follows:
Moral Damages P 1M to P 500,000
Atty’s fees from P 100,000 to P 50,000
Affirmed in all other aspects
Issue/s:
WON private respondent is entitled to damages
arising from malicious prosecution
RATIO:
 Common element in Articles 19 and 21 is that the
act must be intentional. However, Art. 20 does
not distinguish; the act may be done willfully or
negligently
 Trial court and appellate court mistakenly
lumped these 3 articles together and cited the
same as basis for the award of damages.
 In malicious prosecution, there must be proof
that the prosecution had a sinister design to vex
and humiliate a person, that it was initiated
deliberately by the defendant knowing that his
charges were false and groundless
 For damages for malicious prosecution, 3
elements must be present (1) The fact of the
prosecution and the fact that the defendant
himself was the prosecutor (2) the prosecutor
acted without probable cause and (3) the
prosecutor acted or was impelled by legal malice
 In the case at bar, the 2nd and 3rd elements do
not exist. There was probable cause which
founded by the petitioner’s anxiety to protect
their rights when they filed the criminal case. The
existence of probable cause signifies the
absence of malice.
 The controversy lies in mistaken identity. While
the petitioners may have been negligent, it was
not so gross or reckless as to amount to bad
faith.
 Award for damages and atty’s fees is
unwarranted where the action was filed in good
faith
FALLO:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the
Decision of CA in G.R. C.V. No. 14948 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs against
respondent Baltao.