The friendship between Vic and Ricky started during their schooldays at Xavier School and La Salle University and extended later on in their business pursuits. Vic joined Ricky in the latter’s Air Conditioning business as its agent receiving commission and a fixed monthly salary. Being friends, the arrangement was done informally with no written contract governing them. But after two years a verbal tussle between the former classmates ended their ties. Ricky requested Vic to render an accounting of his business activities during the existence of their partnership as he suspected that he was doing something foolish, but instead Vic left in haste and did not report to the office anymore and had not returned ever since.
A month later when Vic went to his bank to get his own bank statement, a bank employee who knew that Vic and Ricky are closely associated, requested Vic to also give to Ricky the latter’s own bank statement. Vic thus received Ricky’s bank statement. This triggered the filing of an unjust vexation case by Ricky against Vic in the Prosecutor’s Office which eventually found probable cause and thus filed an information in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). In his complaint, Ricky alleged that Vic got his bank statement without his authorization so he could hold on to something which he could use against Ricky especially in connection with Vic’s own complaint for recovery of commission and certain properties.
After trial the MeTC acquitted Vic. The MeTC held that under the circumstances, the taking of the bank statement is not an unlawful act and therefore the presumption of criminal intent cannot arise from it. The Court said that annoyance or vexation is subjective and could only be manifested by some clear act on the part of the person vexed and there is no showing that Ricky was vexed except his own self serving statement.
By virtue of this ruling, Vic filed a complaint for damages against Ricky. He alleged that as a result of the indiscriminate filing of the suit in bad faith and malice, he suffered actual losses of P200,000, moral damage of P1,000,000 and attorney’s fees of P300,000. Could Vic recover damages?
No. To merit the award of damages in a case of malicious prosecution, the aggrieved party (Vic) must prove: (1) that he has been denounced or charged falsely of an offense by Ricky; (2) that Ricky knows that the charge was false or lacks probable cause; (3) that Ricky acted with malice; and of course, (4) that Vic suffered damages. The element of probable cause and malice must simultaneously exist; otherwise the presence of probable cause signifies, as a legal consequence, the absence of malice.
In this case, probable cause and malice are lacking. The claim for damages in the instant case is anchored on the supposed malevolence in filing the criminal case of unjust vexation and the fact of his acquittal. The basis of the acquittal however was for insufficiency of evidence and not on a finding that the facts narrated by Ricky did not exist. The filing of the unjust vexation was based on Ricky’s fear that Vic took the statement so he could hold on to something which he could use against Ricky. Given the manner by which Vic left, which was in haste, Ricky had ground to suspect Vic’s real purpose in securing his bank statement. This is further bolstered by the fact that Vic indeed filed a claim for recovery of the amounts of commission and of properties against Ricky.
It is a doctrine well entrenched in jurisprudence that the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. It is a sound principle of justice and public policy that persons shall have free resort to courts for redress of wrong and vindication of their rights. An award of damages arising from malicious prosecution is justified if and only if it is proved that there was misuse or abuse of judicial processes or the institution and pursuit of legal proceedings for the purpose of harassing, annoying, vexing or injuring an innocent person. In this case, Vic failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that Ricky acted in wanton and gross bad faith in instigating the criminal suit for unjust vexation (Martinez vs. Cokieng, G.R. 150192, February 17, 2005, 451 SCRA 696).