Below are salient parts of our appeal brief, which the readers might find useful for research purposes.
III. I S S U E
The sole issue in this case is whether or not defendant should be held liable for DAMAGES to the plaintiff based on the evidence adduced by the latter and in the light of the countervailing evidence adduced by the former.
IV. D I S C U S S I O N
The main basis of plaintiff in asking for an award of damages is that impleaded her as a co-accused in Crim. Case No. x x x for estafa, were that Court acquitted her and her father, after the Fiscal joined her defense counsel's motion to dismiss the said case based on the alleged manifestation of Atty. X x x that there was no evidence that plaintiff was involved in the said criminal case.
The dispositive portion of the Decision in the said criminal case acquitted the two accused because "from the facts adduced there is no ESTAFA." The acquittal is based on REASONABLE DOUBT, and not on a judicial finding that the fact on which the crime was charged did not actually and truly exist.
The said Decision simply stated that "there is no estafa". It did not state that there is absolutely no liability at all on the part of Jose Siao and Teresa Siao. It did not state that when the Office of the City Prosecutor filed the Information, there was no probable cause to support its filing in court.
The Decision acknowledged that there was a pre-existing obligation between defendant Steve x x x (as obligee) and Jose xxx /Teresa xxx (as obligor). Because of such pre-existing obligation, that Court held that estafa was not the correct and proper charge. It did not say that Jose/Teresa were absolutely innocent and free from any and all civil liability for their commercial transactions with Steve x x x. It simply limited itself to the strict interpretation of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code on estafa.
Bad faith or inexcusable negligence have not been sufficiently established by plaintiff in this case against the defendant to justify the award of damages to the former.
The Office of the City Prosecutor found PROBABLE CAUSE in filing the Information for estafa against Jose and Teresa after the proper preliminary investigation provided by the Rules of Criminal Procedure and based on the evidence presented during such preliminary investigation.
The defendant did not formally and actively intervenein the prosecution of Crim. Case No. xxx. He instead filed a separate civil case with RTC 40 Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. xxx. This is allowed by the New Civil Code and the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The RTC 40 Manila, in Civil Case No. xxx, issued a Decision ordering Jose and Teresa to pay the claim of Steve xxx . This decision validated and confirmed the good faith of Steve xxx’s suits to protect his business and pecuniary rights and interests as a businessman and citizen.
The Court of Appeals rejected the plea of Jose and Teresa to annul the writ of preliminary attachment issued by RTC 40 Manila. It also rejected their motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff did not offer in evidence the Transcript of the hearing on August 26, 1994 in Crim. Case No. xxx which it had attached as Annex "A" of her complaint. This is a fatal error. The said TSN thus has no probative value at all in this case.
The said TSN allegedly shows that Atty. Xxx manifested before that court that Teresa had no involvement in said criminal case. But the said TSN does not support such allegation.
A reading of said TSN shows that "xxx Atty. made a manifestation off the record" and the Fiscal did not object thereto. The content of the alleged manifestation of Atty. Xxx is not shown by such TSN. Neither did Teresa prove it during her testimony in the instant civil case.
Instead, it was Atty. X x x who misquoted Atty. xxx as having allegedly made such manifestation -- which Atty. X x x had creditably denied in open court during his testimony before this Court. Atty. X x x testified that there was "a sort of conversation" with the Fiscal and that he did not manifest to the criminal court that there was no evidence that Teresa was involved in the case. Steve xxx also denied such allegation of plaintiff.
Further, the said TSN also shows that it was Atty. Xxx who moved for the dismissal of the criminal case based on his misquotation of the alleged manifestation of Atty. Xxx.
Plaintiff did not present the Fiscal as a corroborating witness to support her allegation that Atty. Xxx had stated before RTC 15 Manila that she had no involvement in said case.
Neither did the plaintiff present as corroborating witnesses any of the court personnel of RTC 15 Manila who could have heard the alleged manifestation of Atty. xxx.
There being no legal and factual basis for plaintiff's claim for damages, this case ought to be dismissed, for lack of merit, and that defendant's counterclaim for attorney's fees of P50,000 be granted.
It should be noted that the constitutional right of a citizen to assert his rights and protect his interests before the proper judicial and quasi-judicial fora or tribunals should not be penalized, unless there is a very clear showing of abuse of right under Arts. 19-22 of the New Civil Code -- which is not the case here.
A citizen is entitled to the constitutional right of access to the courts to seek redress of grievance, to due process of law, and to equal protection of the law.
Besides, the Rules of Evidence provide for the presumption of good faith and of regularity in human behavior as the general rule. The burden of proof to overthrow such presumption, in this case, rests on the shoulders of the plaintiff. Unfortunately, she has failed to perform that duty.
As previously stated, plaintiff in her testimony admitted that it was upon the urging of RTC 15 Manila and the parties in the criminal case that it was agreed to drop her from the criminal case.
If that were so, then such an arrangement may be said, arguendo, to have partaken of the nature of a de facto compromise agreement between the parties in said criminal case.
It is therefore unfair and unjust for the plaintiff, in the instant civil case, to grab and exploit that de facto mutual arrangement, so to speak, as a basis and foundation for her subsequent damage suit against the defendant.
It is not a good and sound public policy or jurisprudential norm to allow parties to a suit, civil or criminal, to agree to a compromise, de facto or de jure, and then, later on, to award one of them by allowing him/her to file a new and independent retaliatory or exploitative suit for damages against the other party with whom he/she had previously entered into a de facto compromise for his/her own good or benefit.
ESTOPPEL and equity jurisdiction operate against such an unjust and unfair posture of the plaintiff.
In the fairly recent case of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. CA, et. al., GR No. 128690, January 21, 1999, the Supreme Court held:
x x x. (T)he policy (is) that NO PREMIUM SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE. (Damages and attorney's fees) are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. x x x. Even when a claim is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney's fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party's insistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause (at page 21).
x x x.
x x x . The award (of moral damages) is not meant to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant x x x. Trial courts must then guard against the award of exorbitant damages; they should exercise balanced, restrained and measured objectivity to avoid suspicion that it was due to passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the trial court (at page 22).
x x x. Verily, then, malice or bad faith is the at the core of Articles 19, 20 an 21. Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. Such must be substantiated by evidence (at page 23).
x x x. There is no adequate proof that ABS-CBN was inspired by malice or bad faith. It was honestly convinced of the merits of its cause after it had undergone serious negotiations culminating in its formal submission of a draft contract. SETTLED IS THE RULE THAT THE ADVERSE RESULT OF AN ACTION DOES NOT PER SE MAKE THE ACTION WRONGFUL AND SUBJECT THE ACTOR TO DAMAGES, FOR THE LAW COULD NOT HAVE MEANT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY ON THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE. IF DAMAGES RESULT FROM A PERSON'S EXERCISE OF A RIGHT, IT IS DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA. (at page 24).
x x x.
To stress the doctrine pronounced in the aforementioned ABS-CBN case: SETTLED IS THE RULE THAT THE ADVERSE RESULT OF AN ACTION DOES NOT PER SE MAKE THE ACTION WRONGFUL AND SUBJECT THE ACTOR TO DAMAGES, FOR THE LAW COULD NOT HAVE MEANT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY ON THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE. IF DAMAGES RESULT FROM A PERSON'S EXERCISE OF A RIGHT, IT IS DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA. (at page 24 of the ABS-CBN case, supra).
V. CONCLUSION.
In conclusion, defendant-appellee submits that the claim for damages by plaintiff based on bad faith or malice or tort against the defendant is baseless, unfounded, and has not been proved by preponderance of evidence, hence, it must be dismissed, for lack of merit.
In the interest of justice, defendant-appellee further submits that his counterclaim for attorney's fees of P50,000 should be granted, the complaint having been proved to be grossly unfounded and it having constrained him to litigate and to hire a counsel for defend his rights and interests.
X x x.
