Title
Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 81262
Decision Date
Aug 25, 1989
Employee falsely accused of fraud, harassed, and maliciously prosecuted by employer, leading to wrongful termination and reputational damage; court awards damages for abuse of rights.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 81262)

Petitioner

Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation and Herbert C. Hendry, acting in management and supervisory capacities.

Respondent

Restituto M. Tobias, former employee alleging unlawful and abusive treatment culminating in illegal dismissal and various tortious acts.

Key Dates

• November 10–11, 1972: Tobias reports anomalies; receives forced leave and harassment.
• December 6 & 19, 1972: Two Manila police document-examination reports clear Tobias.
• December 12, 1972: Suspension memo issued; criminal charges prepared.
• January 17, 1973: Notice of termination effective December 13, 1972.
• 1973–1987: Multiple criminal complaints filed and dismissed; labor dismissal case litigated and compromised; civil damages action initiated.
• August 31, 1987: Court of Appeals affirms trial court’s award of damages.
• August 25, 1989: Supreme Court denies petition for review.

Applicable Law

• 1973 Philippine Constitution (operative at decision date).
• New Civil Code (1950), notably: Article 19 (abuse of rights), Article 20 (damage from violation of law), Article 21 (moral wrongs), Article 26 (violation of dignity), Article 2176 (quasi-delicts), Article 2219(10) (moral damages), Article 2231 (exemplary damages).
• Revised Penal Code Article 290 (unauthorized disclosure of correspondence).
• Jurisprudence on abusive dismissal, defamation, malicious prosecution, and damages (e.g., Quisaba v. Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer, PNB v. Court of Appeals, Hawpia v. CA).

Abuse of Rights in Dismissal

Under Civil Code Article 19, every right must be exercised with justice, honesty, and good faith. Although an employer may dismiss a suspecting employee, the Supreme Court held that petitioners employed a “high-handed” and abusive process—ordering Tobias to vacate his office, branding him “crook and swindler” before any final finding, and compelling lie-detector and handwriting tests despite exculpatory police reports. Such conduct transgressed the norms of Article 19 and invoked Article 21, entitling Tobias to indemnity for wrongful exercise of a legal right.

Violation of Personal Dignity

Petitioner Hendry’s repeated public imputations of dishonesty and the ethnic slur “You Filipinos cannot be trusted” violated Tobias’s personal dignity under Civil Code Article 26. The Court recognized that belittling and demeaning remarks, when disseminated by a superior, constitute an actionable tort separate from the dismissal itself.

Liability for Defamatory Communications

In October 1974, Hendry wrote unprompted to a prospective employer that Tobias had been dismissed for dishonesty. The Court treated this “poison letter” as a quasi-delict under Article 2176, since it was a wrongful, intentional act that directly prevented Tobias from obtaining employment, thereby causing actual damage.

Malicious Prosecution

Petitioners filed six criminal complaints (five for estafa through falsification of commercial documents, one for invasion of correspondence) despite two police reports and negative polygraph results. All complaints were dismissed for lack of evidence. The Court applied the el

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.