Title
Zulueta vs. Nicolas
Case
G.R. No. L-8252
Decision Date
Jan 31, 1958
Plaintiff sued fiscal for refusing to prosecute libel case, alleging neglect of duty. Court ruled fiscal acted within discretion, no valid cause of action.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 165125)

Complaint Background

The essence of Zulueta's claim rests on the investigation conducted by the defendant fiscal on May 6, 1954, regarding his libel allegations. After reviewing the evidence, Nicolas opined that there was no prima facie case, asserting that the statements in question were made in good faith for public interest and subsequently absolved the governor and Free Press staff of the libel charge. The plaintiff sought moral and pecuniary damages amounting to P10,000, arguing that the fiscal's decision constituted a refusal to perform his official duty without just cause.

Basis for the Action

Zulueta's complaint is founded upon Article 27 of the Civil Code, which permits an individual suffering material or moral loss due to a public servant's unjust refusal or neglect to perform their official duty to seek damages. However, the court found that the fiscal's determination of a lack of sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case did not represent such refusal or neglect.

Duty and Discretion of the Fiscal

The court emphasized the fiscal's dual obligation: to prosecute when evidence warrants it and to refrain from prosecution when such evidence is insufficient. It clarified that the fiscal is not compelled to adhere to the opinion of the complainant regarding the existence of a prima facie case. The fiscal holds the discretion and authority to assess evidence and determine the appropriateness of prosecutions, and given that Nicolas found no grounds for the libel charge, he acted within the bounds of his official duty.

Legal Precedent and Implications

The ruling referenced prior case law emphasizing that a public prosecutor, as a quasi-judicial officer, is generally shielded from personal liability for harms arising from actions taken within the scope of their official responsibilities. The trial judge's reasoning supports the notion that imposing civil liability on prosecutors for their discretionary decisions would inhibit their ability to perform their du

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.