G.R. No. L-122 - Lu Chu Sing vs. Lu Tiong Gui

In April 1945, Lu Tian Chiong entered the service of the defendant as a cook.
On May 29, 1945, the defendant’s residence at 1160-F Magdalena Street, Trozo, Manila, was robbed.

The defendant is alleged to have imputed Lu Tian Chiong’s complicity in the robbery.
He subsequently filed a criminal charge in the City Fiscal’s Office against Lu Tian Chiong.
As a consequence, Lu Tian Chiong was arrested, detained for five days, and released only after posting a cash bond of P2,000.
The charge was later dropped by the city fiscal for lack of evidence.

The plaintiffs contend that the false imputation was intentionally malicious to soil their reputations.
The act allegedly damaged Lu Tian Chiong’s prospects, causing rejections from Chinese establishments in Manila, categorizing him as a person of bad character.
It also purportedly ruined and destroyed the respectable business reputation and credit of Lu Chu Sing, compounded by his previous standing in the Chinese community.
The plaintiffs claimed overall damages amounting to not less than P20,000 for Lu Chu Sing and incurred P1,000 in attorney’s fees defending the charge.

Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the criminal charge was maliciously filed and had the effect of defaming and damaging their reputations.
Their prayer included an award of P21,000 (damages plus attorney’s fees) and costs of the suit.
The action was brought on the theory of malicious prosecution rather than defamation or libel.
The case was initially dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Manila on the ground that the facts alleged did not constitute a cause of action.

What is the legal nature of the obligation the plaintiffs seek to enforce—is it based on malicious prosecution (unlawful act) or on libel/defamation?
How does the claim fit within the civil liabilities arising from unforgivable acts under the Revised Penal Code?

Whether the alleged false imputation against Lu Tian Chiong should be treated as a case of malicious prosecution or as a libel (defamation) case.
Whether, in the event of it being libel, the communication (written or oral) retains its privileged status in fiscal proceedings.

Can the plaintiffs recover actual, compensatory, or even punitive damages for the injury to their reputations under the Revised Penal Code?
Is the father, Lu Chu Sing, entitled to recover damages for a wrongful act that allegedly affected his business reputation, despite the separate legal personality of the son?

Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged the specifics of the defamatory act (written versus oral) and clearly stated the quantum of damage suffered, especially by Lu Tian Chiong.
If not, should the plaintiffs be allowed to amend the complaint rather than have it dismissed outright?