G.R. No. 168746 - Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. vs. Apurillo

Plaintiff: Jose C. Zulueta, who alleged damages resulting from the fiscal’s actions.
Defendant: Nicanor Nicolas, acting in his capacity as the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal.
Nature of Action: A civil action for damages based on Article 27 of the new Civil Code, claiming material and moral losses allegedly caused by the official’s failure to prosecute a libel case.

On May 6, 1954, the defendant fiscal conducted an investigation into a complaint of libel filed by the plaintiff against the provincial governor of Rizal and the staff members of the Philippine Free Press.
Following the investigation, the fiscal rendered an opinion that no prima facie case existed against the accused, emphasizing that the alleged libelous statements were made in good faith and served the public interest.
Thereafter, the fiscal absolved the governor and the Free Press personnel from the libel charge.
The plaintiff subsequently instituted his action on May 19, 1954, seeking recovery of P10,000 for moral and pecuniary damages.

The trial court (Court of First Instance of Manila) dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground of lack of a cause of action.
The appeal was brought before the appellate court, challenging the dismissal of the complaint.
The case was reviewed in light of the fiscal’s discretion in handling criminal cases where there is no sufficient evidence to justify prosecution, a matter at the heart of the dispute.

The plaintiff based his cause of action on Article 27 of the new Civil Code, which provides that any person suffering material or moral loss due to a public servant’s refusal or neglect to perform his official duty may file an action for damages.
The contention arose over whether the fiscal’s decision not to prosecute, based on his determination after careful investigation, constituted neglect or an improper exercise of discretion.

Whether the plaintiff’s complaint constitutes a valid cause of action under Article 27 of the Civil Code.

Whether the fiscal’s decision not to prosecute—based on the absence of sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case—amounts to a refusal or neglect to perform an official duty.
Whether a discretionary decision by a public prosecutor, made in good faith and within the scope of his authority, can give rise to civil liability for damages.
Whether holding the fiscal liable for his discretionary judgment in prosecuting libel cases would set a dangerous precedent that could undermine the proper exercise of his duties.