Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53028:gr-179799-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:44:55+00:00

Document:
ZENAIDA R. GREGORIO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, SANSIO PHILIPPINES, INC., and EMMA J. DATUIN, Respondents.
This is a petition1 for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 31, 2007 and its Resolution3 dated September 12, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 63602, entitled "Sansio Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Hon. Romulo SG. Villanueva, et al."
The case arose from the filing of an Affidavit of Complaint4 for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) by respondent Emma J. Datuin (Datuin), as Officer-in-Charge of the Accounts Receivables Department, and upon authority of petitioner Sansio Philippines, Inc. (Sansio), against petitioner Zenaida R. Gregorio (Gregorio) and one Vito Belarmino, as proprietors of Alvi Marketing, allegedly for delivering insufficiently funded bank checks as payment for the numerous appliances bought by Alvi Marketing from Sansio.
As the address stated in the complaint was incorrect, Gregorio was unable to controvert the charges against her. Consequently, she was indicted for three (3) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 236544, 236545, and 236546, before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 3, Manila.
The MeTC issued a warrant5 for her arrest, and it was served upon her by the armed operatives of the Public Assistance and Reaction Against Crime (PARAC) of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) on October 17, 1997, Friday, at around 9:30 a.m. in Quezon City while she was visiting her husband and their two (2) daughters at their city residence. Gregorio was brought to the PARAC-DILG Office where she was subjected to fingerprinting and mug shots, and was detained. She was released in the afternoon of the same day when her husband posted a bond for her temporary liberty.
On December 5, 1997, Gregorio filed before the MeTC a Motion6 for Deferment of Arraignment and Reinvestigation, alleging that she could not have issued the bounced checks, since she did not even have a checking account with the bank on which the checks were drawn, as certified by the branch manager of the Philippine National Bank, Sorsogon Branch. She also alleged that her signature was patently and radically different from the signatures appearing on the bounced checks.
The MeTC granted the Motion and a reinvestigation was conducted. In the course of the reinvestigation, Datuin submitted an Affidavit of Desistance7 dated August 18, 1998, stating, among others, that Gregorio was not one of the signatories of the bounced checks subject of prosecution.
On October 10, 2000, the RTC issued an Order16 denying the Motion to Dismiss. Sansio and Datuin filed a Motion for Reconsideration17 of the October 10, 2000 Order, but the RTC denied the same in its Order18 dated January 5, 2001.
Sansio and Datuin went to the CA via a petition19 for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the presiding judge of the RTC in denying their motions to dismiss and for reconsideration.
Meanwhile, on March 20, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision in the civil case for damages instituted by Gregorio, directing Sansio and Datuin, jointly and solidarily, to pay Gregorio P200,000.00 as moral damages; P10,000.00 as nominal damages; P35,000.00 as litigation expenses; P30,000.00 as attorney's fees; and costs of the suit. The RTC expressly stated in its Decision that the complaint was one for damages based on quasi-delict and not on malicious prosecution.
Aggrieved by the March 20, 2003 Decision, Sansio and Datuin appealed to the CA, and the same is now pending resolution.
On January 31, 2007, the CA rendered a Decision on the certiorari case granting the petition and ordering the dismissal of the damage suit of Gregorio. The latter moved to reconsider the said Decision but the same was denied in the appellate court's Resolution dated September 12, 2007.
The core issue to be resolved, as culled from the factual circumstances of this case, is whether the complaint, a civil suit filed by Gregorio, is based on quasi-delict or malicious prosecution.
It is the position of Sansio and Datuin that the complaint for damages filed by Gregorio before the RTC was for malicious prosecution, but it failed to allege the elements thereof, such that it was aptly dismissed on appeal by the CA on the ground of lack of cause of action. In their comment, citing Albenson Enterprise Corporation v. Court of Appeals,20 they posit that Article 26 of the Civil Code, cited by Gregorio as one of the bases for her complaint, and Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the same Code, mentioned by the RTC as bases for sustaining the complaint, are the very same provisions upon which malicious prosecution is grounded. And in order to further buttress their position that Gregorio's complaint was indeed one for malicious prosecution, they even pointed out the fact that Gregorio prayed for moral damages, which may be awarded only in case of malicious prosecution or, if the case is for quasi-delict, only if physical injury results therefrom.
A perusal of the allegations of Gregorio's complaint for damages readily shows that she filed a civil suit against Sansio and Datuin for filing against her criminal charges for violation of B.P. Blg. 22; that respondents did not exercise diligent efforts to ascertain the true identity of the person who delivered to them insufficiently funded checks as payment for the various appliances purchased; and that respondents never gave her the opportunity to controvert the charges against her, because they stated an incorrect address in the criminal complaint. Gregorio claimed damages for the embarrassment and humiliation she suffered when she was suddenly arrested at her city residence in Quezon City while visiting her family. She was, at the time of her arrest, a respected Kagawad in Oas, Albay. Gregorio anchored her civil complaint on Articles 26,21 2176,22 and 218023 of the Civil Code. Noticeably, despite alleging either fault or negligence on the part of Sansio and Datuin, Gregorio never imputed to them any bad faith in her complaint.
Basic is the legal principle that the nature of an action is determined by the material averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.24 Undeniably, Gregorio's civil complaint, read in its entirety, is a complaint based on quasi-delict under Article 2176, in relation to Article 26 of the Civil Code, rather than on malicious prosecution.
A scrutiny of Gregorio's civil complaint reveals that the averments thereof, taken together, fulfill the elements of Article 2176, in relation to Article 26 of the Civil Code. It appears that Gregorio's rights to personal dignity, personal security, privacy, and peace of mind were infringed by Sansio and Datuin when they failed to exercise the requisite diligence in determining the identity of the person they should rightfully accuse of tendering insufficiently funded checks. This fault was compounded when they failed to ascertain the correct address of petitioner, thus depriving her of the opportunity to controvert the charges, because she was not given proper notice. Because she was not able to refute the charges against her, petitioner was falsely indicted for three (3) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Although she was never found at No. 76 PeÃ±aranda St., Legaspi City, the office address of Alvi Marketing as stated in the criminal complaint, Gregorio was conveniently arrested by armed operatives of the PARAC-DILG at her city residence at 78 K-2 St., Kamuning, Quezon City, while visiting her family. She suffered embarrassment and humiliation over her sudden arrest and detention and she had to spend time, effort, and money to clear her tarnished name and reputation, considering that she had held several honorable positions in different organizations and offices in the public service, particularly her being a Kagawad in Oas, Albay at the time of her arrest. There exists no contractual relation between Gregorio and Sansio. On the other hand, Gregorio is prosecuting Sansio, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, for its vicarious liability, as employer, arising from the act or omission of its employee Datuin.
These allegations, assuming them to be true, sufficiently constituted a cause of action against Sansio and Datuin. Thus, the RTC was correct when it denied respondents' motion to dismiss.
Sansio and Datuin are in error when they insist that Gregorio's complaint is based on malicious prosecution. In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, it must be alleged and established that Sansio and Datuin were impelled by legal malice or bad faith in deliberately initiating an action against Gregorio, knowing that the charges were false and groundless, intending to vex and humiliate her.27 As previously mentioned, Gregorio did not allege this in her complaint. Moreover, the fact that she prayed for moral damages did not change the nature of her action based on quasi-delict. She might have acted on the mistaken notion that she was entitled to moral damages, considering that she suffered physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation on account of her indictment and her sudden arrest.
Verily, Gregorio was only acting within her right when she instituted against Sansio and Datuin an action she perceived to be proper, given the factual antecedents of the case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 31, 2007 and the Resolution dated September 12, 2007 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs against respondents.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. (now Presiding Justice) and Lucenito N. Tagle, concurring; id. at 46-59.
20 G.R. No. 88694, January 11, 1993, 217 SCRA 16.
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
22 ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
23 ART. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
24 Hernudd v. Lofgren, G.R. No. 140337, September 27, 2007, 534 SCRA 205, 213-214; Barbosa v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 133564, July 10, 2007, 527 SCRA 99, 103; Benguet State University v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 169637, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 437, 444; Agoy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162927, March 6, 2007, 517 SCRA 535, 541.
25 Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. v. Tanjangco, G.R. No. 160795, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 154, 168.
26 Tolentino, A.M., Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. I. (1985).
27 Magbanua v. Junsay, G.R. No. 132659, February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 419, 435-437.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 ART. 2176
 ART. 2180
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.