G.R. No. 185559 August 2, 2017
JOSE G. TAN and ORENCIO C. LUZURIAGA, Petitioners, vs. ROMEO H. VALERIANO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Romeo Valeriano, a COA resident auditor and president of the Holy Name Society, delivered a welcome address at a multi-sectoral conference. Petitioners Jose Tan and Orencio Luzuriaga, municipal councilors, along with two other local officials, believed the address lambasted them and set a political tone for the event. Consequently, on January 5, 2001, they filed an administrative complaint for electioneering against Valeriano before the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC dismissed this initial complaint on January 30, 2001, due to a procedural defect—the complaint-affidavit was not under oath—but without prejudice to refiling. The petitioners refiled a sworn complaint in March 2001 but later withdrew it in June 2001. Simultaneously, in March 2001, they also filed a separate complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, which was dismissed for lack of evidence in June 2001.
Valeriano then filed a damages suit for malicious prosecution against the petitioners. The Regional Trial Court ruled in his favor, finding malice and bad faith in the successive filings. The Court of Appeals partially reversed, absolving the other two officials but affirming liability for petitioners Tan and Luzuriaga. The CA found their act of refiling the CSC complaint while a similar Ombudsman case was pending, and their failure to inform their counsel of the Ombudsman case, demonstrated an intent to injure Valeriano.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners acted with malice or bad faith in filing the administrative complaints against Valeriano, thereby making them liable for damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, reversing the CA and setting aside the award of damages. The Court emphasized that a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, and factual findings of lower courts are generally binding. However, it recognized an exception when the appellate court’s findings conflict with those of the trial court, as in this case where the CA exonerated two co-respondents but held petitioners liable based on identical evidence. The core legal logic is that for a suit for damages based on malicious prosecution to prosper, the plaintiff must prove that the prosecution was prompted by malice, defined as a sinister purpose to vex and humiliate a person, and that it was initiated without probable cause. The Court found these elements absent. The petitioners had probable cause to file the complaints, as Valeriano’s speech at a conference with a governance theme could reasonably be perceived as political activity potentially violating civil service rules for a COA auditor. The mere fact that the complaints were dismissed on procedural grounds or for insufficiency of evidence does not equate to malice. The act of filing multiple venues, while potentially burdensome, was a legitimate exercise of the right to seek redress, absent clear proof of a sinister motive to harass. The withdrawal of the CSC complaint and the dismissal by the Ombudsman do not, by themselves, establish bad faith. Therefore, petitioners’ actions were not malicious, and they cannot be held liable for damages.