DENNIS L. LAO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE FLORENTINO FLOR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 89 OF MORONG, RIZAL, BENJAMIN L. ESPIRITU, MANUEL QUERUBIN AND CHAN TON…

For being a witness in an
unsuccessful estafa case which his employer filed against a debtor who had defaulted in
paying his just obligation, the
petitioner was sued, together with his employer, for damages for malicious prosecution. The issue in this case is whether the
damages awarded to the defaulting
debtor may be satisfied by execution against the employee’s property since his
employer’s business has already folded up.

Petitioner Dennis Lao was
an employee of the New St. Joseph Lumber & Hardware Supply, hereinafter called St. Joseph Lumber,
owned by the private respondent, Chan Tong. In January 1981, St. Joseph Lumber filed a collection suit against a
customer, the private respondent, Benjamin Espiritu, for unpaid purchases of
construction materials from St. Joseph Lumber.

In November 1981, upon the advice of its lawyer, St. Joseph
Lumber filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Espiritu, based on the
same transaction. Since the petitioner
was the employee who transacted business with Espiritu, he was directed by his
employer, the firm’s owner, Chan Tong, to sign the affidavit or complaint
prepared by the firm’s lawyer, Attorney Manuel Querubin.

Finding probable cause after conducting a preliminary
investigation of the charge, the investigating fiscal filed an information for
estafa in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City against Espiritu. The case was however later dismissed because
the court believed that Espiritu’s liability was only civil, not criminal.

On April 12, 1984, Espiritu filed a complaint for malicious
prosecution against the petitioner and St. Joseph Lumber, praying that the defendants
be ordered to pay him P500,000 as moral damages, P10,000 as actual damages, and P100,000 as attorney’s fees.

In his answer to the complaint, the petitioner alleged that he
acted only as agent or employee of St. Joseph Lumber when he executed the affidavit
which his employer submitted to the investigating fiscal who conducted the
preliminary investigation of his employer’s estafa charge against Espiritu.

The pre-trial of the case was set on October 30, 1984. Since the defendants and their counsel failed
to appear in court, they were declared in default.

On November 11, 1984, the defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order of default.

On November 13, 1984, the motion was granted, and the order of
default was set aside.

On January 16, 1985, the defendants, including herein petitioner
Lao, and their counsel, again failed to attend the pre-trial despite due notice
to the latter who, however, failed to notify Lao. They were once more declared in default. The private respondent was allowed to
present his evidence ex parte.

On January 22, 1985, a decision was rendered by the trial court
in favor of Espiritu ordering the defendants Lao and St. Joseph Lumber to pay
jointly and severally to Espiritu the sums of P100,000 as moral damages, P5,000
as attorney’s fees, and costs.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the decision was
denied by the trial court.

On February 25, 1985, Lao filed a motion for new trial on the ground of accident and
insufficiency of evidence, but it was denied by the trial court.

He appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 06796,
“Benjamin L. Espiritu, plaintiff-appellee vs. Dennis Lao and New St.
Joseph Lumber and Hardware Supply, defendants-appellants”). The appellate court dismissed his appeal on
May 21, 1987. He filed this special
civil action of certiorari and prohibition to partially annul the
appellate court’s decision and to enjoin the execution of said decision against
him. The petitioner avers that the
Court of Appeals erred:

1.  in not holding that he (petitioner Lao) has a
valid defense to the action for malicious prosecution in Civil Case No. 84-M;

2.  in not holding that he was deprived of a day
in court due to the gross ignorance, negligence and dereliction of duty of the
lawyer whom his employer hired as his and the company’s counsel, but who failed
to protect his interest and even acted in a manner inimical to him; and

3.  in
not partially annulling the decision of the trial court dated January 22, 1985
insofar as he is concerned.

The petition is meritorious.

Lao had a valid defense to the action for malicious prosecution
(Civil Case No. 84-M) because it was his employer, St. Joseph Lumber, not
himself, that was the complainant in the estafa case against Espiritu. It was Chan Tong, the owner of the St.
Joseph Lumber, who, upon advice of his counsel, filed the criminal complaint
against Espiritu. Lao was only a
witness in the case. He had no personal
interest in the prosecution of Espiritu for he was not the party defrauded by Espiritu. He executed the affidavit which was used as
basis of the criminal charge against Espiritu because he was the salesman who
sold the construction materials to Espiritu. He was only an agent of St. Joseph Lumber, hence, not personally liable
to the party with whom he contracted (Art. 1897, Civil Code, Philippine
Products Co. vs. Primateria Societe Anonyme, 22 Phil. 698).

“To maintain an action for damages based on malicious
prosecution, three elements must be present: First, the fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the
defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that the action was finally
terminated with an acquittal; second, that in bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without probable cause; and third, the prosecutor was actuated
or impelled by legal malice” (Ferrer vs. Vergara, 52 O.G. 291).

Lao was only a witness, not the prosecutor in the estafa
case. The prosecutor was his employer,
Chan Tong or the St. Joseph Lumber.

There was probable cause for the charge of estafa against
Espiritu, as found and certified by the investigating fiscal himself.

Lao was not motivated by malice in making the affidavit upon
which the fiscal based the filing of the information against Espiritu. He executed it as an employee, a salesman of
the St. Joseph Lumber from whom Espiritu made his purchases of construction
materials and who, therefore, had personal knowledge of the transaction. Although the prosecution of Espiritu for
estafa did not prosper, the unsuccessful prosecution may not be labelled as
malicious. “Sound principles of
justice and public policy dictate that persons shall have free resort to the
courts for redress of wrongs and vindication of their rights without later
having to stand trial for instituting prosecutions in good faith” (Buenaventura vs. Sto. Domingo, 103 Phil.
239).

There is merit in petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of
his day in court in the damage suit filed by Espiritu, due to the gross
ignorance, negligence, and dereliction of duty of Attorney Manuel Querubin whom
his employer had hired to act as counsel for him and the St. Joseph
Lumber. However, Attorney Querubin
neglected to defend Lao. He
concentrated on the defense of the company and completely forgot his duty to
defend Lao as well. He never informed
Lao about the pre-trial conferences. In
fact, he (Attorney Querubin) neglected to attend other pre-trial conferences
set by the court.

When adverse judgment was entered by the court against Lao and
the lumber company, Attorney Querubin did not file a motion for reconsideration
of the decision. He allowed it to
become final, because anyway Espiritu would not be able to satisfy his judgment
against Chan Tong who had informed his lawyer that the St. Joseph Lumber was
insolvent, had gone out of business, and did not have any leviable assets. As a result, Espiritu levied on the
petitioner’s car to satisfy the judgment in his favor since the company itself
had no more assets that he could seize.

In  view of the foregoing
circumstances, the judgment against Lao was a nullity and should be set
aside. Its execution against the
petitioner cannot be allowed to proceed.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered partially setting
aside the decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 21, 1987, insofar as it
declared the petitioner, Dennis Lao, solidarily liable with St. Joseph Lumber
to pay the damages awarded to the private respondent Benjamin Espiritu. Said petitioner is hereby absolved from any
liability to the private respondent arising from the unsuccessful prosecution
of Criminal Case No. Q-20086 for estafa against said private respondent. Costs against the private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, and
Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Gancayco, J., on leave.