Case Digest (G.R. No. 133619)
Facts:
In Jose B. Tiongco v. Atty. Marciana Q. Deguma, et al., G.R. No. 133619, October 26, 1999, First Division, Davide, Jr., C.J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Atty. Jose B. Tiongco filed on July 29, 1991 a Complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 37 (Civil Case No. 19907) for damages alleging fraudulent conspiracy and public scandal, and seeking a preliminary mandatory injunction directing IMDC Major Carmelo M. Tiongco, Jr. and Atty. Marciana Q. Deguma to vacate a house on Lot 1404; he also prayed for damages. Respondents included Atty. Marciana Q. Deguma, IMDC Major Carmelo M. Tiongco, Jr., Atty. Napoleon G. Pagtanac, and Estrella Tiongco Yared. Defendants filed answers and counterclaims seeking moral, exemplary and actual damages in various amounts.After trial, the RTC promulgated a decision dated November 17, 1993 dismissing petitioner’s complaint but granting defendants’ counterclaims: awards of moral, exemplary and actual damages and attorneys’ fees were entered in favor of each private respondent. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals; Atty. Deguma also appealed as to the quantum awarded her. The Court of Appeals, in a July 24, 1997 decision, affirmed the trial court’s finding of malicious prosecution and the awards of moral and exemplary damages but deleted the awards of actual damages and attorneys’ fees for lack of support; it later denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and his petition for new trial (resolution dated March 27, 1998).
Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in the Supreme Court, assailing primarily (1) the affirmation of moral and exemplary damages as penalizing his right to litigate, invoking absolute privilege for pleadings, and argui...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s petition for a new trial timely filed, and did the Court of Appeals err in denying it?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the award of moral and exemplary damages to private respondents (and, relatedly, is petitioner protected by absolute privilege in his pleadings and may moral/exemplary damages be awarded in the ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)