POLICARPIO GEGANTO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. QUINTIN KATALBAS, JESUS BAUTISTA AND CARLOS CHAVEZ, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This is an appeal taken by Policarpio Geganto from
an order of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental in Civil Case No. 5706 dismissing his complaint.

On May 6, 1959, Jesus Bautista, Chief of Police of Sagay, Occidental Negros, filed a criminal complaint for
homicide against appellant in the Justice of the Peace Court
of said municipality. When the case was forwarded to the
Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental after appellant
had waived his right to a preliminary investigation, the

Provincial Fiscal reinvestigated the case and, as a result,
he later moved for its dismissal on the ground that appellant did not appear to be the one guilty of the crime charged;
The Court granted the motion and appellant was released
from custody.

Thereafter,
appellant instituted the present action for damages for malicious
prosecution against appellees Quintin Katalbas, Jesus Bautista and
Carlos Chavez, Mayor, Chief of Police and Sergeant of Police of Sagay,
respectively, alleging that sard officers had induced him to
acknowledge his guilt of the crime he was charged with, by threatening
him that, if he did not, he would be accused of the graver crime of
murder, and had, likewise, induced one Wilfredo Mangubat to sign an
affidavit incriminating him and used it later to support the criminal
complaint for hemicide filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of
Sagay, but said witness disclosed during the reinvestigation that he
was only induced by appellees to sign the same.

Appellees moved for the dismissal of the complaint on
the ground that it stated no cause of action. The Court,
in its resolution of May 27, 1960, granted the motion and
dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal.

The issue involved in this appeal is, therefore, whether the facts
alleged in the complaint constitute a cause of action against
appellees. The least that may be said in this connection is that the
ground relied upon in the motion to dismiss does not appear to be
indubitable. The trial court, therefore, should have held its
resolution in abeyance until after trial on the merits instead of
dismissing the complaint. If the facts alleged in the complaint were
established with competent evidence, it would seem that appellant would
be entitled to relief against appellees not necessarily because the
latter were guilty of malicious prosecution but because the facts of
the case, in the opinion of the court, justify a judgment for attorneys
fees and expenses of litigation (Art. 2208, No. 11, New Civil Code). In
the present case appellant claims, among other things, to be entitled
as against appellees to the sum of P2.000.00 as attorneys fees—an
amount he claims to have spent to defend himself against the charge
filed against him.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside and the
present case is remanded to the lower court for further
proceedings.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Bengzon, C.J., concur in the result.