Yasoña Vs de Ramos
Yasoña Vs de Ramos
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 156339
October 6, 2004
ground that she was deceived by them when she asked for their
assistance in 1971 concerning her mortgaged property. In her
complaint, Aurea alleged that Rodencio asked her to sign a blank
paper on the pretext that it would be used in the redemption of the
mortgaged property. Aurea signed the blank paper without further
inquiry because she trusted her nephew, Rodencio. Thereafter, they
heard nothing from Rodencio and this prompted Nimpha Yasoa
Bondoc to confront Rodencio but she was told that the title was still
with the Register of Deeds. However, when Nimpha inquired from the
Register of Deeds, she was shocked to find out that the lot had been
divided into two, pursuant to a deed of sale apparently executed by
Aurea in favor of Jovencio. Aurea averred that she never sold any
portion of her property to Jovencio and never executed a deed of
sale. Aurea was thus forced to seek the advice of Judge Enrique
Almario, another relative, who suggested filing a complaint for estafa.
On February 21, 1994, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Rodrigo B.
Zayenis dismissed the criminal complaint for estafa for lack of
evidence. On account of this dismissal, Jovencio and Rodencio filed
a complaint for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution with
the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Branch 91, 2 which was
docketed as Civil Case No. SC-3230. They alleged that the filing of
the estafa complaint against them was done with malice and it
caused irreparable injury to their reputation, as Aurea knew fully well
that she had already sold half of the property to Jovencio.
On October 5, 2000, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of
Jovencio and Rodencio. The dispositive portion stated:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding that plaintiffs have
established their case by preponderance of evidence, judgment is
hereby rendered in their favor and against the defendants ordering
the latter to pay the former as follows:
A) P150,000.00 by way of moral damages;
B) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages;
C) P10,000.00 as attorneys fees incurred in defending themselves
from the criminal complaint for estafa;
for the criminal case. Here, the complaint for estafa was dismissed
outright as the prosecutor did not find any probable cause against
respondents. A suit for malicious prosecution will prosper where legal
prosecution is carried out without probable cause.
In sum, we find no reversible error on the part of the appellate court in
dismissing the petition and in effect affirming the trial courts decision
holding petitioners liable for damages for the malicious prosecution of
respondents.
WHEREFORE, the decision declaring petitioners liable for malicious
prosecution is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio Morales*, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
*
on leave