This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-12-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[33] this Court held:Settled in our jurisprudence is the rule that moral damages cannot be recovered from a person who has filed a complaint against another in good faith, or without malice or bad faith (Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 159 SCRA 433 [1988]; R & B Surety and Insurance v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 129 SCRA 736 [1984]). If damage results from the filing of the complaint, it is damnum absque injuria (Ilocos Norte Electrical Company v. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 5 [1989]).[34] In the present case, the Court agrees with the RTC and the CA that petitioners failed to establish that respondents were moved by bad faith or malice in impleading Patricia and Benjamin. Hence, Patricia and Benjamin are not entitled to damages. | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Thus, the element of malice and the absence of probable cause must be proved.[131] There must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, and that it was initiated deliberately knowing that the charge was false and baseless to entitle the victims to damages.[132] The two elements must simultaneously exist; otherwise, the presence of probable cause signifies, as a legal consequence, the absence of malice.[133] In the instant case, it is evident that respondent DLPC was not motivated by malicious intent or by a sinister design to unduly harass petitioner, but only by a well-founded anxiety to protect its rights. Respondent DLPC cannot therefore be faulted in availing of the remedies provided for by law. | |||||
|
2004-10-06 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Malicious prosecution, both in criminal and civil cases, requires the elements of (1) malice and (2) absence of probable cause.[7] These two elements are present in the present controversy. Petitioners were completely aware that Jovencio was the rightful owner of the lot covered by TCT No. 73251, clearly signifying that they were impelled by malice and avarice in bringing the unfounded action. That there was no probable cause at all for the filing of the estafa case against respondents led to the dismissal of the charges filed by petitioners with the Provincial Prosecutor's Office in Siniloan, Laguna. | |||||