GR L 9109; (July, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9109 July 24, 1957.
Jaime G. Villanueva, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Florencio Catindig, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On January 12, 1952, plaintiff-appellant Jaime G. Villanueva, a civilian employee of the Manila Police Department, filed a series of administrative charges against defendant-appellee Florencio Catindig, a major and administrative officer of the same department. Nine of the twelve charges were found to be without basis, and for the other three, no complaint was filed by the City Mayor with the Municipal Board. On May 3, 1952, while these charges were under investigation, appellee Catindig filed a suit for damages (Civil Case No. 16439) against appellant Villanueva, arising from the administrative charges. Appellant moved to dismiss this complaint without filing an answer, and the court dismissed it for being premature. Appellee’s appeal from this dismissal was itself dismissed for failure to pay fees. On November 4, 1954, appellant Villanueva filed the present complaint for damages against appellee Catindig, alleging that the earlier civil suit (Case No. 16439) was malicious and unfounded. The lower court dismissed appellant’s complaint for lack of cause of action.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the appellant’s complaint for damages, based on the appellee’s previously filed and dismissed civil case, states a valid cause of action.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant’s complaint. The Court held that the mere filing of a civil case is not, in itself, malicious or contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. The previous civil case (No. 16439) was dismissed not for lack of merit or after a trial, but on a technicality—specifically, because it was premature, as the determination of the pending administrative case was a prejudicial question. The Court noted that the appellee was ultimately exonerated from the administrative charges, which supports the conclusion that the filing of the civil suit was not prompted by malice. The provisions on moral damages (Articles 21, 2217, and 2219 of the Civil Code) should not be construed to allow endless actions for damages where a complaint is dismissed on a mere technicality without a pronouncement on the merits of the alleged wrongful acts. Therefore, the appellant’s complaint failed to state a cause of action.