G. R. No. L-9109. July 24, 1957

On January 12,  19S2,  the plaintiff-appellant, a civilian employee  of the  Manila  Police Department,  filed  a series of  administrative  charges against  defendant-appellee  a major  and administrative officer  of  said Department. Nine of the twelve  charges   were found to be without basis, and  as to the other three charges no  complaint  was filed by the City  Mayor  (since  the submission of the recommendation  of the investigating  committee)  with the Municipal  Board.  On May 3, 1952,  while said charges were under investigation by  the proper committee, the appellee filed  a  suit in  the  Court of First Instance of Manila  (Civil Case No.  16439) against the  appellant for damages allegedly  arising from the series of administrative charges filed  against  him.  On  May  29,  1952, the appellant, without  filing  an answer, moved  to dismiss appellee’s complaint.  The court dismissed the same for being premature.  The  appellee appealed but  his appeal  was dismissed for failure  to pay  the docketing fee  and the printing deposit.   On November 4, 1954, almost two years after the dismissal of Civil Case  No. 16439, the  appellant filed the present complaint for damages, alleging as it basis the malicious and unfounded complaint against  him filed by the  appellee in  said  Civil Case  No. 16439.  On appellee’s motion, the lower court dismissed the complaint for lack of  cause  of action.  A  motion for  reconsideration having been  denied, the plaintiff has taken the instant appeal.

The appellant has assigned the following errors:

1. THE LOWER  COURT  ERRED  IN  HO I” JUNG  THAT  PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S FAILURE TO SET AS  A COUNTERCLAIM IN  CIVIL CASE NO. 16439, FLORENCIO CATINDIG VS. JAIME G. VILLANUEVA HIS PRESENT CLAIM  FOR FOR IMAGES AGAINST  THE  APPELLEE IS A  EAR  TO  HIS INSTANT  ACTION.
2. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE  FIRST  MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT  AND IN DISMISSING THIS CASE ALLEGEDLY FOR LACK  OF CAUSE OF  ACTION FOR THE REASON,  AS  IT  STATED, THAT  ‘CIVIL  OASE  NO.  16430,  FLORENCIO CATINDIG  VS.  JAIME  G.  VILLANUEVA,  FOR  DAMAGES, WHICH  WAS DISMISSED AND  UPON WHICH  THE  PRESENT  ACTION  IS  RASED,  IS NOT  ONE  OF THOSE  CASES  SPECIFIED IN THE CIVIL CODG WHERKIN MORAL DAMAGES  MAY BE RECOVERED.’
3. THE LOWER  COURT  LIKEWISE ERRED IN DENYING THE  SECOND MOTION FOR  RECONSIDERATION  FILED  RY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT  IN THIS CASE FOR  LACK OF MERITS AND  IN  HOLDING THAT IT IS AT A ‘LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE FILING OF CIVIL CASE NO. 16439 WOULD BE CONTRARY TO  MORALS, GOOD  CUSTOMS,  OR PUBLIC POLICY, ESPECIALLY  TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE CASE WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE OF A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION.’
4. THE LOWER COURT ERRED  IN  DISMISSING  THE  COMPLAINT FILED IN THIS CASE WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.”

We are  of  the opinion  that the  appealed order  is not erroneous.   The  present  complaint was filed  because of the previous suit filed by the appellee against the appellant (Civil  Case No.  16439).  The latter case was  dismissed not  for want  of  cause  of  action, but  because the  lower court  considered  that, inasmuch as  the determination of the  administrative case  was a  prejudicial  question,  no cause  of action yet existed.   The  court  thus said:

“II. The determination of the administrative case is a prejudicial question; that is, facts  charged  and  quoted  by plaintiff are so in separably connected with this administrative case so much  so that with the absence of any result of said  administrative case it  is PREMATURE to advance  the opinion  that  charges  there are unfounded,  as plaintiff  did.”

“Viewed  from  all. angles,  no cause of action will He  against defendant Jaime  Villanueva at  this stage of the  civil  case, and a cause of  action depends  upon the result of the administrative  case still pending: before an  administrative body.”

We  agree with the  appellee that the mere filing of a civil case is not in itself malicious  or  contrary to morals, good custom or public  policy.   It is true that articles  21, 2217 and 2219 of the  new Civil Code provide for  moral damages  in  case  of  undue prosecution;  but they should not be  so construed  as to encourage  or  sanction endless actions for damages  where, as  in  this case, a complaint is dismissed on a  mere technicality, not after trial on the merits,  and  without  pronouncement  as to  the  existence and legality of the alleged wrongful acts.

It should be remembered that the appellee was exonerated from the administrative  charges against him.  This fact sustains appellee’s contention that when he filed Civil Case No. 16439,  he  was not prompted by malice  or prejudice. The  same  fact should also   warrant  the  lower court’s refusal  to hold that the filing of Civil Case No. 16439 was contrary to morals, good custom or public policy.

Wherefore, the  appealed  order  dismissing  appellant’s complaint  is  hereby  affirmed.  So ordered,  with  costs against the appellant.

Bengzon,  Padilla,  Montemayor, Reyes,   A.,  Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,  J. B.  L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.