In Andres Lao vs. Court of Appeals, et al., the Supreme Court addressed the critical elements of malicious prosecution, particularly focusing on when a case for malicious prosecution can be validly filed and the extent of a corporate officer’s liability. The Court clarified that a case for malicious prosecution must be filed after the termination of the allegedly malicious case and emphasized the importance of probable cause and malice in such actions. This decision provides crucial guidance on the timing and grounds for filing malicious prosecution cases, offering protection against baseless lawsuits and clarifying the responsibilities of corporate officers acting on behalf of their companies.

Cigarettes, Lawsuits, and Bitter Disputes: When is it Malicious Prosecution?

The cases stem from a contract between Andres Lao and The Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation, where Lao acted as a sales agent. Over time, discrepancies in Lao’s remittances led the Corporation to file a criminal case for estafa against him. Lao, in turn, filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against the Corporation and its vice-president, Esteban Co, even while the estafa case was still pending. This sequence of events raised critical questions about the timing of malicious prosecution claims and the liability of corporate officers acting on behalf of their companies. The Supreme Court needed to determine whether Lao’s claim was premature and to what extent Co could be held personally liable.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by defining malicious prosecution as an action for damages brought against someone who maliciously and without probable cause institutes a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding, which terminates in favor of the defendant. According to the Court, a complaint for malicious prosecution must allege specific elements to state a cause of action. These include that the defendant was the prosecutor or instigated the prosecution; the prosecution ended with the plaintiff’s acquittal; the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and the prosecutor was motivated by malice, meaning improper and sinister motives. These elements are crucial for a successful claim of malicious prosecution.

The Court emphasized the significance of the termination of the initial case before a malicious prosecution claim can be filed, citing Ocamp v. Buenaventura. In Ocamp, the Court held that a complaint for damages arising from an allegedly malicious administrative case was premature because the administrative case was still ongoing. The Court explained that allowing the civil case for damages to proceed could interfere with the administrative proceedings. Similarly, in Cabacungan v. Corrales, the Court sustained the dismissal of a damage suit based on an allegedly false and malicious complaint, as the initial complaint was still pending trial.

In Lao’s case, the Supreme Court found that the complaint for malicious prosecution was prematurely filed because the estafa case was still pending when Lao initiated his action. The Court rejected Lao’s argument that the elements of malicious prosecution are evidentiary and should be determined at the time the plaintiff presents evidence. The Supreme Court stated that the existence of a cause of action must be determined solely by the facts alleged in the complaint, and any attempt to prove extraneous circumstances is not permissible. The Court cited Surigao Mine Exploration Co., Inc. v. Harris, noting that a defect in the cause of action at the time the action commences cannot be cured by the accrual of a cause of action while the suit is pending. This highlighted the importance of a valid and subsisting cause of action at the outset of the case.

The Court also addressed Lao’s argument that his complaint was viable under Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code, which concern abuse of rights. Even if a party is injured by a court case and later absolved, they may file a case for damages based on either abuse of rights or malicious prosecution. However, the Court found that Lao’s complaint, whether based on abuse of rights or malicious prosecution, was founded on the mere filing of the estafa charge and was thus prematurely filed. Entertaining the malicious prosecution case while the estafa charge was still pending could lead to conflicting outcomes, undermining the integrity of the judicial process. Therefore, the complaint for damages should have been dismissed for lacking a cause of action.

Regarding the liability of Esteban Co, the corporate officer, the Supreme Court examined whether Co should be held solidarily liable with the Corporation for damages. Co argued that he was acting within the scope of his authority as the Corporation’s executive vice-president when he filed the affidavit-complaint against Lao. The Court noted that a corporate officer’s power to bind the corporation must come from statute, charter, by-laws, delegation of authority, or acts of the board of directors. Since no evidence indicated that Co acted beyond his responsibilities as vice-president, it was logical to conclude that the Corporation vested him with the authority to file the case.

Further, the Court pointed out that the Corporation did not challenge Co’s authority to file the estafa case, which implies that his actions were authorized. The failure to specially plead a lack of authority indicates consent and approval by the Corporation. Therefore, Co could not be held personally liable for acts performed in pursuance of an authority, and the decision holding him solidarily liable with the Corporation was reversed.

The Supreme Court also reviewed the accounting issues in Civil Case No. 4452, where Lao sought an accounting and damages. The trial court had directed a court-supervised accounting to ascertain Lao’s accountability, and a three-person audit committee was formed. The audit committee found that Lao had made an overpayment of P556,444.20. The Supreme Court noted that trial by commissioners is allowed when an issue of fact requires examining a long account or when taking an account is necessary for the court’s information. The trial court can either adopt, modify, or reject the commissioners’ report.

Since both parties did not object to the audit committee’s report, they were deemed to have accepted its findings. The Court found no reason to deviate from the audit committee’s conclusions. The committee correctly excluded shipments not supported by delivery receipts but included shipments reported in Lao’s sales reports. Under Article 1497 of the Civil Code, delivery occurs when the thing sold is placed in the control or possession of the vendee. A bill of lading and a factory consignment invoice are not sufficient evidence of actual delivery; a delivery receipt is necessary.

Regarding the award of damages in Civil Case No. 4452, the Court addressed the petitioner’s claim that moral damages were not specifically prayed for. The Court found that moral damages were, in fact, specifically requested in the complaint. Civil Case Nos. 4452 and 5528 were based on different causes of action. The moral damages in Civil Case No. 4452 were based on the Corporation’s bad faith in unilaterally rescinding Lao’s sales agency, while the damages in Civil Case No. 5528 were based on the malice in filing the estafa case.

The Court also reviewed the award of P150,000.00 for actual damages for loss of earnings. Actual damages must be duly substantiated, but the trial court correctly found that Lao was entitled to damages because the Corporation replaced him before his contract expired. However, the Supreme Court reduced the amount to P30,000.00, representing the annual net income Lao failed to realize due to his unjust termination. Since the contract was yearly, the damages were limited to the income lost in 1969. The Court found the award of exemplary damages unjustified and unwarranted, as there was no proof that the Corporation acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. Consequently, the award for attorney’s fees was also deleted.

FAQs

What is malicious prosecution?	Malicious prosecution is an action for damages brought against someone who maliciously and without probable cause initiates a legal proceeding that ends in favor of the defendant. It requires proof that the prosecutor acted without reasonable grounds and with improper motives.
When can a case for malicious prosecution be filed?	A case for malicious prosecution can only be filed after the termination of the allegedly malicious prosecution, suit, or legal proceeding. The termination must be in favor of the person claiming malicious prosecution.
What are the elements of malicious prosecution?	The elements include the defendant being the prosecutor or instigator, the prosecution ending in the plaintiff’s acquittal, the prosecutor acting without probable cause, and the prosecutor being motivated by malice. All these elements must be proven.
What is the significance of probable cause in a malicious prosecution case?	Probable cause is crucial because it means the prosecutor had reasonable grounds to believe a case could be made. If probable cause exists, a claim for malicious prosecution is unlikely to succeed, even if the accused is acquitted.
Can a corporate officer be held liable for malicious prosecution?	A corporate officer can be held liable if they acted outside the scope of their authority or with malice. If they acted in good faith and within their corporate duties, the corporation is typically liable.
What is the role of Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code in malicious prosecution cases?	Articles 20 and 21 address abuse of rights and provide a basis for damages even if a case is not strictly malicious prosecution. However, the premature filing of a complaint based on the mere filing of a case is still problematic.
What evidence is needed to prove actual delivery of goods in sales contracts?	Actual delivery of goods requires a delivery receipt as proof that the goods were placed in the control or possession of the vendee. Bills of lading and factory consignment invoices alone are insufficient.
How are damages determined in cases of unjust termination of contracts?	Damages are determined by the actual pecuniary loss suffered. This typically includes the net income the terminated party failed to realize due to the unjust termination, limited to the duration of the existing contract.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Andres Lao vs. Court of Appeals, et al., provides essential guidelines for understanding malicious prosecution, premature filing of cases, and corporate liability. By clarifying the elements and timing of malicious prosecution claims, the Court protects individuals and corporations from baseless lawsuits. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and acting with just cause in initiating legal actions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ANDRES LAO, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 47013, February 17, 2000