GR 139680; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139680; April 12, 2000
WILLIAM R. BAYANI, petitioner, vs. PANAY ELECTRIC CO., INC., respondent.
FACTS
In March 1996, respondent Panay Electric Company (PECO) disconnected electrical services to petitioner William Bayani’s two pension houses, alleging theft of electricity. PECO filed criminal complaints under R.A. No. 7832, but the City Prosecutor dismissed them. PECO appealed to the Secretary of Justice. Meanwhile, in October 1996, Bayani filed a civil case (Civil Case No. 23276) for injunction and damages, later amended to include a prayer for a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction to stop PECO from making false imputations. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied PECO’s motion to dismiss and subsequently granted Bayani’s application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, ordering PECO to restore electric service upon posting of a bond.
PECO challenged the RTC orders via a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Secretary of Justice later upheld the dismissal of the criminal complaints. The CA granted PECO’s petition, setting aside the RTC orders and dismissing Bayani’s civil case. The CA found the civil action was essentially for malicious prosecution and was prematurely filed. Bayani’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) Whether Civil Case No. 23276 is based on malicious prosecution; and (2) Whether the filing of the civil case was premature.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the relief sought. A review of Bayani’s amended complaint shows its allegations centered on the criminal complaints instituted by PECO and sought damages and an injunction against PECO’s “false imputations.” Thus, the action was correctly characterized as one for malicious prosecution.
An action for malicious prosecution requires, among other elements, that the prior criminal proceeding has been terminated in favor of the accused. At the time Bayani filed his civil case, the criminal proceedings were not definitively terminated, as PECO’s appeal to the Secretary of Justice was still pending. Consequently, the civil action was prematurely instituted. The Court clarified that while Articles 19, 21, 29, and 35 of the Civil Code provide for independent civil actions, they do not apply here as the allegations were inextricably linked to the pending criminal accusations for theft of electricity. The RTC therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the injunctive orders and proceeding with the case. The dismissal, however, is without prejudice to refiling within the reglementary period.