GR 150192; (February, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150192 ; February 17, 2005
LEHNER V. MARTIRES, petitioner, vs. RICARDO COKIENG and ZENNIE T. COKIENG, representatives of the late REGINO COKIENG, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lehner Martires and respondent Ricardo Cokieng were former classmates and business associates. Their relationship soured, leading to Martires’s resignation from the Cokiengs’ company, Phil-Air Conditioning Center. This animosity resulted in the filing of two criminal complaints against Martires. First, Regino Cokieng filed an estafa complaint, which was not pursued after the PNP advised filing in the proper court. Subsequently, Ricardo Cokieng filed a complaint for Unjust Vexation before the Makati MeTC, alleging Martires unlawfully took his bank statement. The MeTC acquitted Martires, finding the act of taking the statement not unlawful and the evidence of vexation insufficient.
Following his acquittal, Martires filed a civil case for Damages based on Malicious Prosecution against the Cokiengs. He claimed the criminal suits were filed in bad faith to harass him, causing actual expenses for legal defense and moral suffering. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Martires, awarding damages. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, prompting Martires to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents are liable for damages arising from malicious prosecution for instigating the criminal complaints against the petitioner.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that the respondents are not liable for damages. For a claim of malicious prosecution to succeed, the plaintiff must prove that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to harass and was initiated despite the absence of probable cause. The Court emphasized that the existence of probable cause in the criminal complaint negates the presence of malice.
Here, the Information for Unjust Vexation was filed by a public prosecutor after finding probable cause, which demonstrates that the suit was not baseless. The subsequent acquittal of Martires, based on the insufficiency of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, does not automatically equate to a finding of malice or lack of probable cause in the filing. The petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the respondents acted with gross bad faith or a malicious intent to vex or injure. The Court ruled that the right to litigate must be exercised in good faith, and absent proof of abuse of judicial process, no penalty in the form of damages can be imposed. The filing of the complaints, under the circumstances, was a legitimate exercise of the respondents’ right to seek legal redress.