Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4722)
Factual Background
Plaintiff alleged three causes of action arising from a sequence of events in 1949 and 1950. Plaintiff, as lessee of lots at Nos. 735–737 Santa Mesa, subleased part to the Standard Vacuum Oil Company which operated a Mobilgas station through the partnership Eustaquio & Co., organized by plaintiff and Primo Eustaquio. Plaintiff charged that defendant Jose Figueras sought, “out of spite,” to secure construction of a drainage along the boundary between Figueras’s lot and plaintiff’s lot. Plaintiff alleged that Figueras used his influence to obtain a City Fiscal opinion dated June 13, 1949 and a City Engineer letter dated June 22, 1949 advising plaintiff of a planned excavation, which excavation, plaintiff alleged, was not undertaken after his protest. Plaintiff further alleged that Figueras caused the temporary transfer and later reassignment of one Dr. Manuel Hernandez between bureaus, and that Figueras, with others, prepared coercive letters and an “agreement” (Exhibits E and F) which plaintiff signed “to please” Figueras. Plaintiff alleged that Figueras, with the connivance of Assistant City Fiscal Cornelio S. Ruperto and Director of Labor Felipe E. Jose, caused the institution of Criminal Case No. 11005 against plaintiff and Eustaquio for violation of the eight-hour law, which information was later dismissed for failure to make out a prima facie case; plaintiff further alleged that prosecutions against certain bodyguards of Figueras had been improperly dismissed. Plaintiff charged that these acts caused moral and mental suffering and business damage quantified in various sums and sought compensatory, exemplary, and other relief.
Trial Court Proceedings
Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting three causes of action and prayed for damages, exemplars and other relief. Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the facts alleged did not constitute a cause of action. The Court of First Instance of Manila granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without special pronouncement as to costs. Plaintiff appealed from that order to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
The principal issue was whether the complaint, as pleaded, stated any cause of action against the defendants. Subsidiary issues were whether the acts alleged—(a) efforts to secure a drainage, (b) influence over administrative transfers and a coerced “agreement,” (c) causing criminal information to be filed and prosecutions to be dismissed, and (d) public statements by Labor officials—constituted actionable torts or warranted recovery of moral and actual damages under the law as it stood at the time of the events.
The Parties’ Contentions
Plaintiff contended that defendants, acting through official and political influence, maliciously and wrongfully caused or instigated administrative acts and criminal prosecutions, prepared coercive documents, and publicized injurious statements, thereby causing mental suffering, damage to his business, and legal expenses. Plaintiff sought P15,000.00 plus other specified sums for moral and actual damages and asked the Court to direct prosecution for malicious prosecution and libel, and to recommend administrative suspension or dismissal of respondents. Defendants advanced a motion to dismiss asserting that the pleaded facts did not constitute any legally cognizable cause of action; they denied liability for the alleged consequences.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance dismissing the complaint. The Court held that the allegations, taken as true for purposes of the motion, failed to establish any cause of action. Costs of this instance were assessed against plaintiff-appellant. Mr. Justice CONCEPCION delivered the opinion; Paras, C.J., and Justices Pablo, Bengzon, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concurred. Mr. Justice Padilla, Mr. Justice Alex Reyes and Mr. Justice Marceliano Montemayor took no part.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court analyzed plaintiff’s averments by grouping the complained acts.
On the drainage allegation, the Court observed that defendant Figueras’s obtaining of a City Fiscal opinion and a City Engineer letter proposing an excavation, which excavation was not undertaken because of plaintiff’s protest, did not amount to a violation of plaintiff’s rights. The desire to secure an outlet for water from Figueras’s land was lawful and consistent with public health and sanitation. No allegation showed that any trespass or physical invasion actually occurred.
On the transfer and reassignment of Dr. Manuel Hernandez and the signing of Exhibits E and F, the Court noted that the authority of the Secretary of Justice to effect the assignment under Section 79(B) of the Revised Administrative Code was admitted. The Court held that any legal redress for a wrongful administrative transfer, if wrongful, belonged to the person directly affected, namely Dr. Hernandez, not to plaintiff. The Court reiterated the general rule that recovery for mental anguish is ordinarily restricted to mental pain arising from an injury or wrong to the person himself, and not for sympathy or distress caused by a wrong done to another. The Court cited the rule from authorities including Koontz v. Keller, 25 C.J.S., and 15 American Jurisprudence to support the limitation of recovery for mental suffering to the injured party. The Court further emphasized that Dr. Hernandez was not even a direct relative of plaintiff but a relation by affinity of a relative, underscoring the lack of proximity that might justify recovery.
On the alleged malicious prosecution arising from the filing and dismissal of Criminal Case No. 11005, the Court observed that the conduct asserted would fall under the crime formerly known as false accusation or complaint as defined in Article 326 of the Penal Code of Spain. However, the Court recalled its prior decisions (U.S. v. Rubal; U.S. v. Barrera) construing Article 326 to require that an action for malicious prosecution may not proceed unless the court which dismissed the principal case expressly ordered the prosecution of the complainant under Article 326; no such directive appeared in the record of the dismissal of Case No. 11005. The Court further noted authorities, including People v. Rivera, holding that Article 326 did not appear in the Revised Penal Code and that a conviction for malicious prosecution under the former provision could not be simply invoked after repeal. The Court also invoked Article 2219 of the Civil Code of the Philippines to observe that moral damages in cases of crime or tort are recoverable only when resulting in physical injuries; the acts alleged produced no physical injury to plaintiff.
The Court addressed plaintiff’s attempted reliance upon civil-code remedies for malicious prosecution by noting the nonretroactivity provisions of the Civil Code, Arts. 4 and 2257, which precluded application of new civil sanctions to acts committed before the Code’s effective date. Because the acts complained of occurred in 1949, before the Civil Code became effective, plaintiff could not take refuge in its provisions that might ot
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-4722)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- EMILIO STREBEL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT appealed from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing his complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- JOSE FIGUERAS, ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR, FELIPE E. JOSE, DIRECTOR OF LABOR, and CORNELIO S. RUPERTO, ASSISTANT CITY FISCAL OF MANILA, were the defendants-appellees who moved to dismiss.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and entered no special pronouncement as to costs.
- The appeal was resolved by the Supreme Court in a decision authored by Justice Concepcion with several justices concurring.
- Mr. Justice Padilla, Mr. Justice Alex Reyes, and Mr. Justice Marceliano Montemayor took no part in the decision.
Key Factual Allegations
- EMILIO STREBEL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT alleged that he leased a lot at Nos. 735-737 Santa Mesa, subleased part to the Standard Vacuum Oil Company, and that a Mobilgas station was thereafter operated by Eustaquio & Co., a partnership of plaintiff and Primo Eustaquio.
- Plaintiff alleged that JOSE FIGUERAS attempted to construct a drainage across the boundary between his lot and plaintiff's lot, procured an opinion dated June 13, 1949, from the City Fiscal favoring the drainage, and induced the City Engineer to notify plaintiff by letter dated June 22, 1949, of a proposed excavation.
- Plaintiff alleged that the proposed excavation was not undertaken after his protest, and that the drainage scheme was motivated by spite and an intention to acquire the property.
- Plaintiff alleged that JOSE FIGUERAS used his influence to secure the temporary reassignment of Dr. Manuel Hernandez from the Bureau of Prisons to the Bureau of Immigration and that defendants prepared or induced preparation of Exhibit E and Exhibit F, documents characterized by plaintiff as coercive and derogatory.
- Plaintiff alleged that, with the cooperation or connivance of CORNELIO S. RUPERTO and FELIPE E. JOSE, criminal Case No. 11005 for alleged violation of the eight-hour law was instituted against plaintiff and Primo Eustaquio and was later dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case.
- Plaintiff alleged that two criminal cases against Figueras' alleged bodyguards and cohorts were dismissed through connivance of defendants despite being filed after investigation.
- Plaintiff alleged damages of P15,000.00 for business injury and P1,500.00 for attorney's fees in respect of the first cause of action.
- Plaintiff alleged in a separate cause of action that a press item (Exhibit L) quoting FELIPE E. JOSE and CORNELIO S. RUPERTO besmirched his name and caused P5,000.00 in damage.
- Plaintiff alleged in a third cause of action that JOSE FIGUERAS aided in the filing of Municipal Court Criminal Case No. B-53033-A for unjust vexation against plaintiff and others and that the case was dismissed on March 18, 1950, causing P10,000.00 in moral damages and P500.00 in actual damages.
- Plaintiff prayed for compensatory, exemplary, and moral damages and for orders directing criminal prosecution, recommendation for suspension or dismissal from office, and other equitable relief.
Issues Presented
- Whether the allegations in the complaint stated a cause of action against the defendants.
- Whether the acts alleged constituted malicious prosecution actionable under Article 326 of the Penal Code of Spain.
- Whether plaintiff could recover moral damages under Article 2219 of the Civil Code of the Philippines for acts occurring before the Code took effect.
- Whether the temporary reassignment of Dr. Manuel Hernandez gave plaintiff a cause of action for mental suffering.
- Whether the published statement quoted in Exhibit L constituted actionable defamation or was privileged or nonactionable commentary on court proceedings.
- Whether plaintiff had standing to assert injuries allegedly suffered by third persons and to seek exemplary and punitive remedies against public officials.