G.R. No. L-50473. January 21, 1985.
SPOUSES JOSE TAN KAPOE and CONCEPCION NGO KAN, petitioners, vs. SILVESTRE MASA, et al., and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an agrarian dispute. Respondent Silvestre Masa, petitioners’ tenant for ten years, sought to convert their share tenancy to a leasehold system. Petitioners rejected this and instead filed an ejectment case. Masa’s petition for conversion was eventually authorized and affirmed by the Supreme Court. During this dispute, petitioners initiated a series of six criminal complaints against Masa and his co-respondents (family members and co-workers) over several years. The charges included Grave Threats, Oral Defamation, violation of agrarian law, Usurpation of Real Rights, and Malicious Mischief.
All six criminal cases were eventually dismissed by the Municipal Court for lack of probable cause, acquittal, or dismissal. In one instance, several respondents were arrested and incarcerated for two days before posting bail. Subsequently, the respondents filed a civil case for damages based on malicious prosecution against the petitioners. The Court of First Instance of Laguna ruled in favor of the respondents, awarding moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to the respondents despite the petitioners’ arguments that: (1) moral damages require proof of specific suffering through testimonial evidence, which was absent; and (2) moral and exemplary damages cannot be merged into a single award.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the awards but modified the amounts, holding that the respondents were entitled to damages. The Court rejected the petitioners’ first argument, ruling that the factual basis for moral damages was satisfactorily established by the documentary evidence—the series of court orders dismissing all criminal complaints. The pattern of filing multiple unfounded cases, all of which failed, coupled with the respondents’ humiliation and incarceration, sufficiently proved the moral suffering, anxiety, and injury to their feelings. The causal connection between this suffering and the petitioners’ acts of malicious prosecution was clear, as the motive was evidently harassment and retaliation for the agrarian case.
On the second argument, the Court clarified that while the lower courts’ aggregate award was unconventional, the entitlement to moral damages having been established, exemplary damages were also properly awarded under the Civil Code to serve as a deterrent. Exemplary damages can be awarded even if not expressly pleaded. Furthermore, attorney’s fees are recoverable when exemplary damages are awarded and in cases of malicious prosecution. The Court found the awarded attorney’s fees reasonable. However, it deemed the total damages excessive and proportionally reduced them based on the number of cases filed against and the incarceration suffered by each respondent, also adding a fixed sum for exemplary damages.