SPO2 ANTONIO SA CRUZ, JR. PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. SPOUSES ROY AND BELINDA SANTIAGO, AND ALCER CARPO, DEFENDANTS, SPOUSES ROY AND BELINDA SANTIAGO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
TOLENTINO, A.G., J.:
The complaint[2] for damages was an off-shoot from the dismissal[3] on July 17, 2007 for lack of probable cause of the administrative complaints,[4] for alleged physical injury and grave threats amounting to grave misconduct filed sometime in April, 2007 by defendant Alcer Carpo (Carpo) and defendants-appellants spouses Roy Santiago and Belinda Santiago (Sps. Santiago) against plaintiff-appellee SPO2 Antonio SA Cruz, Jr. (SPO2 Cruz, Jr.)
SPO2 Cruz, Jr. claimed that the acts of the Sps. Santiago and Carpo in filing the administrative complaints, which, at the outset are known to them to be fabricated, false, and manufactured, caused so much humiliation, embarrassment, and degradation upon him, both as a respected member of the community and of the police force. He averred that the filing of administrative complaints against him was clearly done in bad faith and has caused him to suffer loss or injury which should entitle him to compensation by way of actual, moral, nominal, and exemplary damages. Thus, he instituted a suit for damages anchored on Art. 19[5] of the New Civil Code against the Sps. Santiago and Carpo with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 39, and docketed as Civil Case No. 07-118136 which was raffled off to Branch 39.
The record shows that as per Sheriff’s Return dated November 22, 2007, summons together with the attached copy of the complaint and annexes was not served to defendant Alcer Carpo.[6]
In their answer with motion to dismiss,[7] the Sps. Santiago denied the material allegations of the complaint and claimed that the dismissal of the administrative complaints had not attained finality in view of the filing of a motion for reconsideration. They asseverated that the filing of administrative complaints with the Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management of the Philippine National Police was done in good faith with no malice on their part. It was made not to harass SPO2 Cruz, Jr. as it is contrary to human experience for an ordinary civilian to harass a police officer. They proffered that the complaint for damages filed by SPO2 Cruz, Jr. was without basis and has caused them to suffer mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feeling, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar traumatic experience, for which they prayed for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees by way of counterclaim.
In its Order[8] dated January 4, 2008, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss filed by defendants-appellants Sps. Santiago for lack of merit.
On the scheduled pre-trial conference on May 20, 2008, the RTC referred the case for mediation proceedings[9] but no settlement was agreed upon by the parties. The pre-trial conference was terminated on September 30, 2008[10] and thereafter, trial ensued.
On February 19, 2013, the RTC rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant-spouses Roy and Belinda Santiago to pay plaintiff, as follows, to wit:
1. Nominal damages in the amount of P 50,000.00;
2. Attorney’s fees in the amount of P 50,000.00; and
3. Cost of suit.The defendants’ counterclaim is hereby denied for lack of merit.
The instant case against defendant Alcer Carpo is hereby archived, considering that the court did not acquire jurisdiction on his person, the fact that the summons together with other documents relative thereto were not duly served upon him.
SO ORDERED.”[11]
Hence, this appeal and the defendants-appellants assigned as errors,[12] to wit:
-A-
THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT COMMITTED PALPABLE, REVERSIBLE AND SERIOUS ERROR WHEN IT RENDERED A FAVORABLE JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE NOTWITHSTANDING HIS FAILURE TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROOF BY PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.
-B-
THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY AND GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT DENIED THE COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
In their appeal brief,[13] the defendants-appellants claimed that the RTC erred in finding that they acted not in the manner consistent with justice and good faith. They argued that there is no adequate proof that they abused their rights nor they were motivated by malice or bad faith when they filed an administrative case against the plaintiff-appellee SPO2 Cruz, Jr.
In its assailed decision,[14] the RTC had this to say, thus:
“x x x x x x x x x
“Basically, the issue to be resolved by the Court is to determine whether or not herein plaintiff is entitled for (sic) the award of damages under the New Civil Code.
Drawn from the record, it appears that the filing of the instant case for Damages by herein plaintiff SPO2 Antonio SA Cruz, Jr. against herein defendants-spouses Roy and Belinda Santiago and other defendant Alcer Carpo arose out of and by reason of the administrative complaint filed by all defendants against the plaintiff before the Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management (DIDM), PNP, National Headquarters, Camp Crame. In a Memorandum, dated 17 July, 2007, it was recommended that the said administrative complaint for alleged Grave Threats and Physical Injury amounting to Grave Misconduct against herein plaintiff SPO2 Antonio SA Cruz, Jr. be dropped and closed for lack of probable cause. The said memorandum was approved by then Police Director Geary Barias on August 13, 2007 (See Exhibits “J” to “J-3”). Paragraph 6 of the said Memorandum read (sic) as follows:
“After perusal of the records, this Directorate finds that the complaints against respondent SPO2 SA Cruz, Jr. are substantially rebutted by sufficient evidence. The report entered in the blotter from Sta Ana Police Station, MPD particularly Entry No. 0520, dated April 19, 2007, that the incident transpired at the complainants residence is just a minor misunderstanding which was already mollified and that the statements of the respondent’s witnesses are sufficient to substantiate the respondent’s claim.”
During the hearing of the instant case, plaintiff SPO2 Antonio SA Cruz, Jr. and defendants-spouses Roy and Belinda Santiago through counsel presented their respective witnesses as well as the documentary evidence in support thereof. After considering the evidence presented and offered by the parties in the course of the proceedings, this Court is inclined to rule in favor of the plaintiff the fact that the latter had partially proven his case by preponderance of evidence. Herein plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendants. Clearly, the allegations and arguments raised by the defendants-spouses Santiago are not meritorious. There are no clear and convincing evidence presented by them in rebutting the complaint. It is clear that there is an act or omission committed by the defendants in violation of the plaintiff’s right, hence, a cause of action arises resulting to the instant complaint.”
The RTC concluded that:
“In the instant case, the Court finds that the defendants-spouses acted not in a manner consistent with justice and good faith as required by Art. 19 of the Civil Code, which provides that: “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”[15]
WE ARE NOT PERSUADED.
The decision of the RTC in the plaintiff-appellee’s favor was anchored mainly on Article 19 of the Civil Code which, quoted anew below, reads:
“Art. 19.Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”
In the case of Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Pacilan, Jr.,[16] the Supreme Court made the following pronouncements:
“The elements of abuse of rights are the following: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Malice or bad faith is at the core of the said provision. The law always presumes good faith and any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to acts of another has the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill-motive. Good faith refers to the state of the mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence, dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of fraud Malice connotes ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive.”
In this case, we find that the plaintiff-appellee SPO2 Cruz, Jr. had thus failed to adduce clear and convincing proof that the filing of the administrative case against him was attended with malicious intent or bad faith on the part of the defendants-appellants as to cause injury to his good name and reputation as a member of the community and the police force. Moreover, it has not been shown that the filing of the administrative case was with the sole intention of prejudicing and injuring the plaintiff-appellee.
While the Sps. Santiago filed an administrative case against SPO2 Cruz., Jr., no concrete and satisfactory evidence was presented that the administrative case was clearly unfounded, baseless, and intended merely to harass SPO2 Cruz, Jr. As it is, the administrative case was recommended dropped and closed for lack of probable cause[17] only. Indeed, the Sps. Santiago were presumed to have acted in good faith, when they filed an administrative case against SPO2 Cruz, Jr. It must be noted that the filing of a case by the Sps. Santiago even though subsequently dismissed cannot be said to have disparaged the reputation of the plaintiff-appellee as a police officer. Moreover, whatever worries, anxieties and expenses SPO2 Cruz, Jr. may have suffered were only such as are usually caused to a party haled into court as a defendant in a litigation.[18]
In fine. the adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the actor to make payment of damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.[19] It has been ruled that one who exercises his rights does no injury. Qui jure suo utitur nullum damnum facit. If damage results from a person’s exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria.[20]
All told, there is no sufficient justification for the award of nominal damages and attorney’s fees.
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing considerations, the appeal is GRANTED. Accordingly, the decision dated February 19, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 39 in Civil Case No. 07-118136 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
Rosario and Barrios,[*] JJ., concur.
[*] Vice Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba, per Office No. 199-14-ABR dated May 9, 2014.
[1] Original Records, p. 393; Rollo, p. 66.
[2] Id., p. 1.
[3] Id., Exhibit “J”, with sub-markings, p. 40.
[4] Id., Exhibit “A” to “A-1”, pp. 7-8; Exhibits “B” and “C”, with sub-markings, pp. 11-15.
[5] Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
[6] Id., p. 44.
[7] Id., p. 51.
[8] Id., p. 68.
[9] Id., pp. 138-139.
[10] Id., pp. 158-165.
[11] Id., pp. 81-82.
[12] Rollo, p. 49.
[13] Id., 47.
[14] Supra, See Note 1.
[15] Id., pp. 78-80.
[16] G.R. No. 157314, July 29, 2005.
[17] Original Records, Exhibit “J”, p. 40.
[18] Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 159 SCRA 433.
[19] Rubio vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 50911, March 12, 1986, 141 SCRA 488.
[20] Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 53401, November 6, 1989.