G.R. No. L-8252; January 31, 1958
JOSE C. ZULUETA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NICANOR NICOLAS in his capacity as Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The plaintiff-appellant, Jose C. Zulueta, filed a complaint for damages against the defendant-appellee, Provincial Fiscal Nicanor Nicolas of Rizal. The action sought to recover moral and pecuniary damages amounting to P10,000. The complaint alleged that on May 6, 1954, the defendant fiscal conducted an investigation regarding a libel complaint filed by the plaintiff against the provincial governor of Rizal and staff members of the Philippine Free Press. After the investigation, the fiscal rendered an opinion that no prima facie case existed, as the alleged libelous statements were made in good faith and in the public interest, and consequently absolved the respondents from the crime of libel. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

The sole issue for determination is whether the plaintiff’s complaint states a cause of action against the provincial fiscal for his refusal to file an information for libel after investigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that the complaint did not state a cause of action. The action was based on Article 27 of the New Civil Code, which allows a claim for damages against a public servant who refuses or neglects to perform an official duty without just cause. The Court ruled that a fiscal’s refusal to prosecute after an investigation, upon finding insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, does not constitute a refusal without just cause. The fiscal has a legal duty to prosecute only when evidence justifies it and a corresponding duty not to prosecute when convinced the evidence is insufficient. The fiscal, vested with authority and discretion to determine the sufficiency of evidence and control the prosecution, cannot be subjected to dictation by the offended party. The Court emphasized that a public prosecutor, as a quasi-judicial officer, is not personally liable for acts done within the scope of authority and in the line of official duty, unless it is shown that they acted willfully, maliciously, and with the express purpose of inflicting injury. A contrary rule would be dangerous, as it would threaten fiscals with civil suits whenever their discretionary opinion contradicts a complainant’s view. The plaintiff, if dissatisfied with the fiscal’s decision, had other legal remedies available.