GR 138291; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138291 ; March 7, 2000
HECTOR C. VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK (UCPB), DUMAGUETE BRANCH, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent UCPB, after an audit, discovered fraud and irregularities in a coconut production loan granted to Hermenegildo Villanueva, petitioner Hector Villanueva’s father. The bank concluded that the petitioner, his father, the branch manager, and another individual conspired to defraud the bank. Consequently, UCPB, through counsel, filed multiple criminal complaints with the City Fiscal of Dumaguete. After a preliminary investigation, the Fiscal found probable cause and filed three criminal informations against the individuals, including the petitioner, for violations of the General Banking Act and Estafa.
The consolidated criminal cases proceeded to trial. On June 29, 1991, the Regional Trial Court acquitted petitioner Hector Villanueva in all cases on the ground of reasonable doubt. Following his acquittal, the petitioner filed a civil case for damages against UCPB, alleging malicious prosecution. He claimed the bank’s criminal complaints were filed with malice, damaging his reputation. The trial court ruled in his favor, awarding damages. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint for damages.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent bank is liable for damages based on malicious prosecution arising from the criminal cases filed against the petitioner.
RULING
No, the bank is not liable for malicious prosecution. For such a suit to prosper, the plaintiff must prove two essential elements: first, that the prosecutor acted without probable cause, and second, that he was actuated by legal malice or a sinister design to injure, vex, annoy, or humiliate the accused. An acquittal in the criminal case, by itself, does not automatically establish the absence of probable cause for filing the complaint.
Here, the bank had sufficient basis to initiate the criminal action. Its internal audit uncovered anomalies, and it conducted a further investigation before filing the complaints. The finding of probable cause by the City Fiscal after a preliminary investigation is prima facie evidence of the existence of probable cause, which the petitioner failed to rebut. The bank’s act of filing the complaint was a legitimate exercise of its right to seek judicial redress for a perceived wrong. There was no proof of legal malice or an improper motive; the bank’s objective was to recover its losses, not to injure the petitioner. Resort to courts should not be penalized when done in good faith. Therefore, the essential elements for malicious prosecution were not satisfied.