GR 232677; (June, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 232677 , June 08, 2020
Menandro A. Sosmeña, Petitioner, vs. Benigno M. Bonafe, Jimmy A. Escobar, Joel M. Gomez, and Hector B. Pangilinan, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Menandro Sosmeña was the managing director of Expo Logistics Philippines, Inc. Respondents Benigno Bonafe, Jimmy Escobar, Joel Gomez, and Hector Pangilinan were his employees. A falling out occurred after petitioner discovered that Benigno was spying on him for a foreign business partner. Benigno, Jimmy, and Joel resigned from the company in late 2001. On February 4, 2002, petitioner filed criminal complaints for malicious mischief and theft against the respondents with the Pasay City Prosecutor’s Office, alleging they conspired to cut cable wires of air conditioning units and stole cash and materials. On May 10, 2002, the Assistant City Prosecutor dismissed all complaints for insufficiency of evidence, concluding they were motivated by petitioner’s grudge against the respondents. The respondents then filed a civil case for damages against petitioner for malicious prosecution, claiming they suffered anguish, mental torture, and public ridicule, and incurred attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondents, awarding moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s finding that petitioner is liable for malicious prosecution.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that all elements of malicious prosecution were present: (1) petitioner instituted the criminal proceedings; (2) the proceedings ended in the respondents’ favor with the dismissal by the prosecutor; (3) petitioner acted with malice and without probable cause, as evidenced by the prosecutor’s finding that the charges were motivated by a grudge, the three-month delay in filing the complaints, and inconsistencies in petitioner’s evidence; and (4) the respondents suffered damages. The filing was a violation of Article 19 of the Civil Code. The award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees was sustained.