G.R. No. L-4722 December 29, 1954
EMILIO STREBEL, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE FIGUERAS, Acting Secretary of Labor, FELIPE E. JOSE, Director of Labor and CORNELIO S. RUPERTO, Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff Emilio Strebel appealed from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing his complaint against defendants Jose Figueras, Felipe E. Jose, and Cornelio S. Ruperto for failure to state a cause of action. The complaint alleged three causes of action based on several acts: (1) Defendant Figueras, using his official influence, caused the City Fiscal to issue an opinion and the City Engineer to send a letter (Exhibit B) proposing to construct a drainage through plaintiff’s leased property, which was not undertaken after plaintiff’s protest; (2) Figueras induced the Secretary of Justice to temporarily transfer Dr. Manuel Hernandez (plaintiff’s stepdaughter’s husband) from the Bureau of Immigration to the Bureau of Prisons, and later caused the preparation of letters (Exhibits E and F) for signatures to settle family differences, after which Hernandez was returned to his former assignment; (3) Figueras, with the cooperation of defendant Ruperto and connivance with defendant Jose, caused the filing of Criminal Case No. 11005 against plaintiff for violating labor laws, which was later dismissed for lack of prima facie evidence; (4) Ruperto, in connivance with Figueras, secured the dismissal of two criminal cases against Figueras’s associates. The complaint also included a second cause of action regarding a newspaper article quoting Ruperto, and a third cause of action regarding another criminal case for unjust vexation filed against plaintiff, which was dismissed. Plaintiff sought damages for moral suffering, business losses, and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the facts alleged in the complaint constitute a valid cause of action against the defendants.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The allegations failed to establish a cause of action: (1) Regarding the drainage, the plan was abandoned without any violation of plaintiff’s property rights, and seeking an outlet for water was not wrongful; (2) The transfer of Dr. Hernandez, even if instigated by Figueras, was within the Secretary of Justice’s authority, and any right of action would belong to Hernandez, not plaintiff; damages for mental suffering are generally not recoverable for distress caused by wrongs against a third person; (3) The criminal case for labor law violations did not result in conviction, and malicious prosecution requires proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design and terminated in favor of the accused, which was not sufficiently alleged; moreover, defendants Jose and Ruperto were not shown to have participated in filing the information; (4) The allegations about the dismissal of criminal cases against Figueras’s associates did not show how plaintiff was damaged. The second cause of action based on a newspaper article did not connect Figueras to the statement and did not establish liability against Ruperto. The third cause of action for unjust vexation was substantially identical to part of the first and failed for similar reasons, with no allegation of participation by defendants Jose and Ruperto. The order of dismissal was affirmed.