G.R. No. 179799. September 11, 2009.

* DECISION

ZENAIDA R. GREGORIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SANSIO NACHURA, J.:

PHILIPPINES, INC., and EMMA J. DATUIN, respondents.
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing
the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 31, 2007 and its
Resolution dated September 12, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 63602, entitled
Actions; Torts and Damages; Quasi-Delicts; Pleadings and Practice; Basic "Sansio Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Hon. Romulo SG. Villanueva, et al."
is the legal principle that the nature of an action is determined by the
material averments in the complaint and the character of the relief The case arose from the filing of an Affidavit of Complaint for violation of
sought.—A perusal of the allegations of Gregorio’s complaint for damages Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) by
readily shows that she filed a civil suit against Sansio and Datuin for filing respondent Emma J. Datuin (Datuin), as Officer-in-Charge of the Accounts
against her criminal charges for violation of B.P. Blg. 22; that respondents Receivables Department, and upon authority of petitioner Sansio
did not exercise diligent efforts to ascertain the true identity of the person Philippines, Inc. (Sansio), against petitioner Zenaida R. Gregorio (Gregorio)
who delivered to them insufficiently funded checks as payment for the and one Vito Belarmino, as proprietors of Alvi Marketing, allegedly for
various appliances purchased; and that respondents never gave her the delivering insufficiently funded bank checks as payment for the numerous
opportunity to controvert the charges against her, because they stated an appliances bought by Alvi Marketing from Sansio.
incorrect address in the criminal complaint. Gregorio claimed damages for
the embarrassment and humiliation she suffered when she was suddenly As the address stated in the complaint was incorrect, Gregorio was unable
arrested at her city residence in Quezon City while visiting her family. She to controvert the charges against her. Consequently, she was indicted for
was, at the time of her arrest, a respected Kagawad in Oas, Albay. three (3) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, docketed as Criminal Case Nos.
Gregorio anchored her civil complaint on Articles 26, 2176, and 2180 of 236544, 236545, and 236546, before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC),
the Civil Code. Noticeably, despite alleging either fault or negligence on Branch 3, Manila.
the part of Sansio and Datuin, Gregorio never imputed to them any bad
faith in her complaint. Basic is the legal principle that the nature of an
action is determined by the material averments in the complaint and the The MeTC issued a warrant for her arrest, and it was served upon her by
character of the relief sought. Undeniably, Gregorio’s civil complaint, read the armed operatives of the Public Assistance and Reaction Against Crime
in its entirety, is a complaint based on quasi-delict under Article 2176, in (PARAC) of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) on
relation to Article 26 of the Civil Code, rather than on malicious October 17, 1997, Friday, at around 9:30 a.m. in Quezon City while she
prosecution. was visiting her husband and their two (2) daughters at their city
residence. Gregorio was brought to the PARAC-DILG Office where she was
subjected to fingerprinting and mug shots, and was detained. She was
Same; Same; Same; Elements; Article 26 of the Civil Code grants a cause released in the afternoon of the same day when her husband posted a
of action for damages, prevention, and other relief in cases of breach, bond for her temporary liberty.
though not necessarily constituting a criminal offense, of the following
rights: (1) right to personal dignity; (2) right to personal security; (3) right
to family relations; (4) right to social intercourse; (5) right to privacy; and On December 5, 1997, Gregorio filed before the MeTC a Motion for
(6) right to peace of mind.—In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of Deferment of Arraignment and Reinvestigation, alleging that she could
the Civil Code, the plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: not have issued the bounced checks, since she did not even have a
(1) the damages suffered by him; (2) the fault or negligence of the checking account with the bank on which the checks were drawn, as
defendant or some other person to whose act he must respond; (3) the certified by the branch manager of the Philippine National Bank, Sorsogon
connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the Branch. She also alleged that her signature was patently and radically
damages incurred; and (4) that there must be no preexisting contractual different from the signatures appearing on the bounced checks.
relation between the parties. On the other hand, Article 26 of the Civil
Code grants a cause of action for damages, prevention, and other relief in The MeTC granted the Motion and a reinvestigation was conducted. In
cases of breach, though not necessarily constituting a criminal offense, of the course of the reinvestigation, Datuin submitted an Affidavit of
the following rights: (1) right to personal dignity; (2) right to personal Desistance dated August 18, 1998, stating, among others, that Gregorio
security; (3) right to family relations; (4) right to social intercourse; (5) was not one of the signatories of the bounced checks subject of
right to privacy; and (6) right to peace of mind. prosecution.

Same; Malicious Prosecution; In an action to recover damages for Subsequently, the assistant city prosecutor filed a Motion to
malicious prosecution, it must be alleged and established that the Dismiss dated November 12, 1998 with respect to Criminal Case Nos.
defendant was impelled by legal malice or bad faith in deliberately 236544-46. The MeTC granted the motion and ordered the B.P. Blg. 22
initiating an action against the plaintiff, knowing that the charges were cases dismissed.
false and groundless, intending to vex and humiliate her.—Sansio and
Datuin are in error when they insist that Gregorio’s complaint is based on On August 18, 2000, Gregorio filed a complaint for damages against
malicious prosecution. In an action to recover damages for malicious Sansio and Datuin before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Ligao,
prosecution, it must be alleged and established that Sansio and Datuin Albay. The complaint, in part, reads —
were impelled by legal malice or bad faith in deliberately initiating an
action against Gregorio, knowing that the charges were false and
groundless, intending to vex and humiliate her. As previously mentioned, 4. That on or about December 15, 1995, defendant Emma J. Datuin
Gregorio did not allege this in her complaint. Moreover, the fact that she filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila an "Affidavit
prayed for moral damages did not change the nature of her action based of Complaint" wherein, among others, she alleged under oath that
on quasi-delict. She might have acted on the mistaken notion that she was as an Officer In-charge of the Accounts Receivables Department of
entitled to moral damages, considering that she suffered physical SANSIO PHILIPPINES, INC., she was duly authorized and empowered
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, by said company to file cases against debtors, customers and
wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation on account of her dealers of the company;
indictment and her sudden arrest.
xxxx (PARAC) of DILG suddenly swooped down on their residence,
arrested the plaintiff and brought her to the PARAC DILG Office in
5. That while acting under authority of her employer namely the Quezon City where she was fingerprinted and detained like an
defendant SANSIO PHILIPPINES, INC., defendant EMMA J. DATUIN ordinary criminal;
falsely stated in the "Affidavit of Complaint" (Annex "A"), among
others, that plaintiff Zenaida R. Gregorio issued and delivered to xxxx
their office the following checks, to wit:
11. That feeling distraught, helpless and hungry (not having eaten
a. PNB Check No. C-347108 dated November 30, 1992 in for a whole day) the plaintiff languished in her place of confinement
the amount of ₱9,564.00; until the late afternoon of October 17, 1997 when her husband was
able to post a bond for her temporary liberty and secure an order
b. PNB Check No. C-347109 dated November 30, 1992 in of release (Annex "J") from the court. It was providential that a city
the amount of ₱19,194.48; and judge was available in the late afternoon of October 17, 1997 which
was a Friday, otherwise plaintiff would have remained in
confinement for the entire weekend;
c. PNB Check No. C-347104 dated December 2, 1992 in the
amount of ₱10,000.00
12. That because of her desire to prove and establish her innocence
of the unjustified charges lodged against her by the defendants, the
and that the above-mentioned PNB Checks bounced when plaintiff was thus compelled to retain the services of counsel
deposited upon maturity; resulting in the filing of a Motion for Deferment of Arraignment and
Reinvestigation (Annex "K") which was granted by the court; the
6. That as a result of the filing of the "Affidavit of Complaint" (Annex filing of a Request for Reinvestigation with the prosecutor’s office
"A") wherein defendant Emma J. Datuin falsely charged the plaintiff (Annex "L"); and the submission of a Counter-Affidavit to the
with offenses of Estafa and/or violation of B.P. Blg. 22 on three (3) investigating prosecutor. All of these culminated in the filing by the
counts, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila issued a investigating prosecutor of a Motion to Dismiss (Annex "M") the
Resolution dated April 1, 1996 finding the existence of a probable three criminal cases as a consequence of which the Court issued an
cause against the plaintiff for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 Order dated June 1, 1999 (Annex "N") dismissing Criminal Cases No.
on three counts; 236544, No. 236545 and No. 236546, copy of which was received
by plaintiff only on July 7, 2000;
xxxx
13. That previous to the filing of the above-mentioned Motion to
7. That in the "MEMO OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION" attached Dismiss by the prosecutor and having been faced with the truth and
hereto as Annex "C," signed by defendant Emma J. Datuin she righteousness of plaintiff’s avowal of innocence which was
falsely indicated the address of plaintiff to be at No. 76 Peñaranda irrefutable, defendants had no recourse but to concede and
Street, Legaspi City when the truth of the matter is that the latter’s recognize the verity that they had wrongly accused an innocent
correct address is at Barangay Rizal, Oas, Albay; person, in itself a brazen travesty of justice, so much so that
defendant Emma J. Datuin had to execute an Affidavit of Desistance
(Annex "O") admitting that plaintiff is not a signatory to the three
8. That as a consequence of the aforegoing false and misleading bouncing checks in question, rationalizing, albeit lamely, that the
indication of address, plaintiff was therefore not duly notified of the filing of the cases against the plaintiff was by virtue of an honest
charges filed against her by defendant Emma J. Datuin; and more, mistake or inadvertence on her (Datuin’s) part;
she was not able to controvert them before the investigating
prosecutor, finally resulting in the filing in court of three (3)
informations accusing her of violating B.P. 22; 14. Be that as it may, incalculable damage has been inflicted on the
plaintiff on account of the defendants’ wanton, callous and reckless
disregard of the fundamental legal precept that "every person shall
xxxx respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons" (Art. 26, Civil Code of the Philippines);
9. That as pernicious result of the unwarranted and baseless
accusation by the defendants which culminated in the filing of three 15. That the plaintiff, being completely innocent of the charges
(3) informations in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 3 against her as adverted to in the preceding paragraphs, was socially
indicting the plaintiff on three counts of the offense of violating B.P. humiliated, embarrassed, suffered physical discomfort, mental
22, the said court issued a Warrant of Arrest on July 22, 1996 anguish, fright, and serious anxiety as a proximate result of her
ordering the arrest of the plaintiff; unjustified indictment, arrest and detention at the PARAC
headquarters – all of these ordeals having been exacerbated by the
xxxx fact that plaintiff is a woman who comes from a respected family in
Oas, Albay, being the wife of an executive of the Philippine National
Construction Corporation, the mother of two college students
10. That taking extra effort to expedite the apprehension of
studying in Manila, a pharmacist by profession, a businesswoman
plaintiff, defendants’ retained private prosecutor managed to
by occupation, and an incumbent Municipal Councilor (Kagawad) of
obtain the Warrant for the Arrest of said plaintiff from the Court as
Oas, Albay, at the time of her arrest and detention; and that she
evidenced by the copy of the letter of lawyer Alquin B. Manguerra
previously held the following positions:
of Chua and Associates Law Office (Annex "H") so much so that in
the morning of October 17, 1997, while plaintiff was visiting her
husband Jose Gregorio and their two daughters at their city (a). President, Philippine Pharmaceutical Association (Albay
residence at 78 K-2 Street, Kamuning, Quezon City, and without the Chapter);
slightest premonition that she was wanted by the law, armed
operatives of the Public Assistance and Reaction Against Crime
 (b). Chairman of the Board, Albay Pharmaceutical e. ₱35,000.00 as litigation expenses
Marketing Cooperative (ALPHAMAC);
19. That defendants herein are jointly and solidarily liable for the
(c). Charter Secretary, Kiwanis Club of Oas; payment of the above items of damages being co-tortfeasors.
Moreover, defendant SANSIO PHILIPPINES, INC. is vicariously liable
(d). Chairman, Polangui Ladies Multi-Purpose Cooperative, as the employer of defendant Emma J. Datuin who patently acted
Polangui, Albay; within the scope of her assigned tasks (Vide: Art. 2180, Civil Code of
the Philippines).

(e). Vicarial Regent, Daughters of Mary Immaculate

International, District IX; Sansio and Datuin filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the
complaint, being one for damages arising from malicious prosecution,
failed to state a cause of action, as the ultimate facts constituting the
(f). Chapter President and Municipal Coordinator, Albay elements thereof were not alleged in the complaint. Gregorio
Women Volunteers Association, Inc., Legaspi City; opposed the Motion. Sansio and Datuin filed their Reply to the
Opposition. Gregorio, in turn, filed her Rejoinder.
(g). Regent, Daughters of Mary Immaculate International
Virgo Clemens Circle, Oas, Albay; On October 10, 2000, the RTC issued an Order denying the Motion to
Dismiss. Sansio and Datuin filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
(h). Secretary, Girl Scout of the Philippines District October 10, 2000 Order, but the RTC denied the same in its Order dated
Association; and January 5, 2001.

(i). Director, Albay Electric Cooperative (ALECO), Sansio and Datuin went to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of
not to mention the undue aspersion cast upon her social, the presiding judge of the RTC in denying their motions to dismiss and for
professional and business reputation because of defendants’ reconsideration.
tortious act of accusing her of Estafa and/or issuing bouncing checks
– even without a scintilla of evidence; Meanwhile, on March 20, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision in the civil
case for damages instituted by Gregorio, directing Sansio and Datuin,
16. That to compound the aforegoing travails and sufferings of the jointly and solidarily, to pay Gregorio ₱200,000.00 as moral damages;
plaintiff she had to devote and spend much of her time, money and ₱10,000.00 as nominal damages; ₱35,000.00 as litigation expenses;
efforts trying to clear her tarnished name and reputation, including ₱30,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and costs of the suit. The RTC expressly
traveling to and from Manila to confer with her lawyer, attend the stated in its Decision that the complaint was one for damages based on
hearings at the prosecutor’s office and at the Metropolitan Trial quasi-delict and not on malicious prosecution.
Court;
Aggrieved by the March 20, 2003 Decision, Sansio and Datuin appealed to
17. By and large, defendants’ fault or, at the very least, their the CA, and the same is now pending resolution.
reckless imprudence or negligence, in filing the three (3) criminal
cases against the plaintiff unequivocally caused damage to the On January 31, 2007, the CA rendered a Decision on the certiorari case
latter and because of defendants’ baseless and unjustified granting the petition and ordering the dismissal of the damage suit of
accusations, plaintiff was constrained to retain the services of a Gregorio. The latter moved to reconsider the said Decision but the same
lawyer to represent her at the Metropolitan Trial Court and at the was denied in the appellate court’s Resolution dated September 12, 2007.
Office of the City Prosecutor at Manila in order to establish her
innocence and cause the dismissal of the three (3) criminal cases Hence, this petition.
filed against her, reason for which she spent ₱20,000.00; and in
order to institute this instant action for the redress of her
grievances, plaintiff have to pay the sum of ₱50,000.00 as The core issue to be resolved, as culled from the factual circumstances of
attorney’s fees and incur litigation expenses in the amount of this case, is whether the complaint, a civil suit filed by Gregorio, is based
₱35,000.00; on quasi-delict or malicious prosecution.

18. That by reason of all the aforegoing and pursuant to the It is the position of Sansio and Datuin that the complaint for damages filed
provision of law that "whoever by act or omission causes damage by Gregorio before the RTC was for malicious prosecution, but it failed to
to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the allege the elements thereof, such that it was aptly dismissed on appeal by
damage done," (Article 2176, Civil Code of the Philippines), the the CA on the ground of lack of cause of action. In their comment, citing
plaintiff is entitled to and hereby claims the following items of Albenson Enterprise Corporation v. Court of Appeals, they posit that
damages: Article 26 of the Civil Code, cited by Gregorio as one of the bases for her
complaint, and Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the same Code, mentioned by
the RTC as bases for sustaining the complaint, are the very same
a. ₱3,000,000.00 as moral damages provisions upon which malicious prosecution is grounded. And in order to
further buttress their position that Gregorio’s complaint was indeed one
b. ₱50,000.00 as actual damages for malicious prosecution, they even pointed out the fact that Gregorio
prayed for moral damages, which may be awarded only in case of
c. ₱50,000.00 as nominal damages malicious prosecution or, if the case is for quasi-delict, only if physical
injury results therefrom.

d. ₱70,000.00 as attorney’s fees

We disagree.
A perusal of the allegations of Gregorio’s complaint for damages readily malicious prosecution, it must be alleged and established that Sansio and
shows that she filed a civil suit against Sansio and Datuin for filing against Datuin were impelled by legal malice or bad faith in deliberately initiating
her criminal charges for violation of B.P. Blg. 22; that respondents did not an action against Gregorio, knowing that the charges were false and
exercise diligent efforts to ascertain the true identity of the person who groundless, intending to vex and humiliate her. As previously mentioned,
delivered to them insufficiently funded checks as payment for the various Gregorio did not allege this in her complaint. Moreover, the fact that she
appliances purchased; and that respondents never gave her the prayed for moral damages did not change the nature of her action based
opportunity to controvert the charges against her, because they stated an on quasi-delict. She might have acted on the mistaken notion that she was
incorrect address in the criminal complaint. Gregorio claimed damages for entitled to moral damages, considering that she suffered physical
the embarrassment and humiliation she suffered when she was suddenly suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
arrested at her city residence in Quezon City while visiting her family. She wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation on account of her
was, at the time of her arrest, a respected Kagawad in Oas, Albay. indictment and her sudden arrest.
Gregorio anchored her civil complaint on Articles 26, 2176, and 2180 of
the Civil Code. Noticeably, despite alleging either fault or negligence on Verily, Gregorio was only acting within her right when she instituted
the part of Sansio and Datuin, Gregorio never imputed to them any bad against Sansio and Datuin an action she perceived to be proper, given the
faith in her complaint. factual antecedents of the case.

Basic is the legal principle that the nature of an action is determined by WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 31,
the material averments in the complaint and the character of the relief 2007 and the Resolution dated September 12, 2007 are REVERSED and
sought. Undeniably, Gregorio’s civil complaint, read in its entirety, is a SET ASIDE. Costs against respondents. SO ORDERED.
complaint based on quasi-delict under Article 2176, in relation to Article
26 of the Civil Code, rather than on malicious prosecution.

In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff
has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages suffered
by him; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person
to whose act he must respond; (3) the connection of cause and effect
between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred; and (4) that
there must be no preexisting contractual relation between the parties.

On the other hand, Article 26 of the Civil Code grants a cause of action for
damages, prevention, and other relief in cases of breach, though not
necessarily constituting a criminal offense, of the following rights: (1) right
to personal dignity; (2) right to personal security; (3) right to family
relations; (4) right to social intercourse; (5) right to privacy; and (6) right
to peace of mind.

A scrutiny of Gregorio’s civil complaint reveals that the averments

thereof, taken together, fulfill the elements of Article 2176, in relation to
Article 26 of the Civil Code. It appears that Gregorio’s rights to personal
dignity, personal security, privacy, and peace of mind were infringed by
Sansio and Datuin when they failed to exercise the requisite diligence in
determining the identity of the person they should rightfully accuse of
tendering insufficiently funded checks. This fault was compounded when
they failed to ascertain the correct address of petitioner, thus depriving
her of the opportunity to controvert the charges, because she was not
given proper notice. Because she was not able to refute the charges
against her, petitioner was falsely indicted for three (3) counts of violation
of B.P. Blg. 22. Although she was never found at No. 76 Peñaranda St.,
Legaspi City, the office address of Alvi Marketing as stated in the criminal
complaint, Gregorio was conveniently arrested by armed operatives of
the PARAC-DILG at her city residence at 78 K-2 St., Kamuning, Quezon City,
while visiting her family. She suffered embarrassment and humiliation
over her sudden arrest and detention and she had to spend time, effort,
and money to clear her tarnished name and reputation, considering that
she had held several honorable positions in different organizations and
offices in the public service, particularly her being a Kagawad in Oas, Albay
at the time of her arrest. There exists no contractual relation between
Gregorio and Sansio. On the other hand, Gregorio is prosecuting Sansio,
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, for its vicarious liability, as employer,
arising from the act or omission of its employee Datuin.

These allegations, assuming them to be true, sufficiently constituted a

cause of action against Sansio and Datuin. Thus, the RTC was correct when
it denied respondents’ motion to dismiss.

Sansio and Datuin are in error when they insist that Gregorio’s complaint
is based on malicious prosecution. In an action to recover damages for