ASG Law

Tag: Malicious Prosecution

  • Malicious Prosecution: Establishing Probable Cause and Legal Malice in Unfair Competition Cases

    The Supreme Court ruled that damages cannot be awarded for malicious prosecution if there is probable cause for filing a criminal case and no legal malice on the part of the filer. This decision emphasizes the importance of proving both the absence of probable cause and the presence of malice to successfully claim damages for malicious prosecution, safeguarding the right to litigate in good faith.

    “Spalding” Trademark Tussle: Can Filing an Unfair Competition Case Lead to Damages?

    This case revolves around a dispute over the “Spalding” trademark in the Philippines. Questor Corporation, a US-based company, owned the trademark and Pro Line Sports Center, Inc., was its exclusive distributor in the Philippines. They filed a criminal case for unfair competition against Monico Sehwani, president of Universal Athletics and Industrial Products, Inc., alleging the manufacture of fake “Spalding” balls. Sehwani was acquitted, leading him and Universal to file a civil case against Pro Line and Questor for malicious prosecution. The central question is whether Pro Line and Questor’s actions in pursuing the unfair competition case warranted damages for malicious prosecution.

    To establish a claim for malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs, Universal and Sehwani, needed to prove two critical elements: absence of probable cause and presence of legal malice. Probable cause exists when facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe that the accused is guilty of the crime. The Court noted that the Minister of Justice had previously found probable cause to file the unfair competition case against Sehwani, reversing the initial dismissal by the Provincial Fiscal. The Minister’s directive highlighted Universal’s intent to deceive the public by using the “Spalding” trademark despite knowing its prior registration. This determination of probable cause significantly weakened Universal and Sehwani’s claim.

    Furthermore, the Court emphasized that legal malice, defined as an inexcusable intent to injure, oppress, vex, annoy, or humiliate, was not demonstrated in this case. The Court reasoned that resorting to judicial processes is not, in itself, evidence of ill will. It cautioned that imposing damages based solely on the act of litigation would discourage parties from seeking legal remedies and encourage extra-legal methods. The Court stated,

    “A resort to judicial processes is not per se evidence of ill will upon which a claim for damages may be based. A contrary rule would discourage peaceful recourse to the courts of justice and induce resort to methods less than legal, and perhaps even violent.”

    This highlights the importance of differentiating between legitimate legal action and actions motivated by malice.

    The Court found that Pro Line, as the authorized agent of Questor, acted reasonably in protecting its principal’s trademark rights. The closure of Universal’s factory, resulting from the legal proceedings, was deemed an unavoidable consequence of exercising a lawful right. The principle of damnum absque injuria, meaning damage without injury, applies when damage results from the exercise of a legal right. The Court underscored that the expenses incurred by Universal in defending itself were a part of the “social burden of living in a society which seeks to attain social control through law.”

    While the Court acknowledged the unfair competition case was based on the Revised Penal Code, it emphasized the significance of fair business practices, noting that unfair, unjust, or deceitful practices are contrary to public policy and harmful to private interests. In the case, the Court found Sehwani’s explanation for manufacturing the “Spalding” balls, citing a pending trademark application, unconvincing, especially since the application was filed after the goods were confiscated. The Court also cited U. S. v. Manuel, stating that the test of unfair competition is whether goods have been intentionally given an appearance likely to deceive ordinary purchasers. The Minister of Justice observed that the manufacture of the “Spalding” balls was intended to deceive buyers, and the intended sale was thwarted only by the NBI’s seizure.

    Regarding the counterclaim by Pro Line and Questor for damages based on the illegal manufacture of “Spalding” balls, the Court affirmed its dismissal. The Court determined that it was barred by res judicata, because the petitioners did not institute a separate civil action or reserve their right to do so, the civil aspect for damages was deemed instituted in the criminal case, and the civil aspect was already determined. The court stated that,

    “Civil liability arising from the crime is deemed instituted and determined in the criminal proceedings where the offended party did not waive nor reserve his right to institute it separately.”

    Consequently, the final judgment in the criminal case, which acquitted Sehwani, barred the counterclaim for damages.

    FAQs

    What is the central legal issue in this case? The main issue is whether the respondents were entitled to recover damages for the alleged wrongful recourse to court proceedings by the petitioners, specifically relating to a criminal case for unfair competition.
    What must be proven to claim damages for malicious prosecution? To claim damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove both the absence of probable cause in initiating the original action and the presence of legal malice on the part of the defendant.
    What is probable cause in the context of malicious prosecution? Probable cause exists when there are facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the accused committed the crime for which they were prosecuted.
    What constitutes legal malice? Legal malice refers to an inexcusable intent to injure, oppress, vex, annoy, or humiliate another party through the initiation of legal proceedings.
    What is the principle of damnum absque injuria? Damnum absque injuria means damage without injury. It applies when damage results from a person’s exercise of their legal rights, and no legal remedy is available.
    Why was the counterclaim of Pro Line and Questor dismissed? The counterclaim was dismissed based on the principle of res judicata, because the petitioners did not institute a separate civil action or reserve their right to do so, the civil aspect for damages was deemed instituted in the criminal case, and the civil aspect was already determined.
    What was the significance of the Minister of Justice’s involvement in the case? The Minister of Justice’s finding of probable cause when he reversed the Provincial Fiscal’s initial dismissal was crucial because it supported the petitioners’ argument that they had a reasonable basis for filing the unfair competition case.
    How does this case affect the right to litigate? The ruling reinforces the importance of safeguarding the right to litigate in good faith, ensuring that parties are not unduly penalized for pursuing legitimate legal claims, even if unsuccessful.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the necessity of proving both the absence of probable cause and the presence of legal malice to succeed in a claim for malicious prosecution. The ruling protects the right to litigate in good faith and prevents the imposition of damages when actions are based on reasonable grounds and without malicious intent. This case provides a clear framework for understanding the elements of malicious prosecution and their application in unfair competition cases.

    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: Pro Line Sports Center, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118192, October 23, 1997

  • Counterclaims in Criminal Cases: When Can Accused Seek Damages?

    Can an Accused File a Counterclaim in a Criminal Case? Understanding the Limits

    n

    G.R. No. 102942, April 18, 1997

    n

    Imagine being accused of a crime you didn’t commit. Beyond the legal battle, you might feel wronged and want to seek damages against the person who filed the charges. But can you do that within the same criminal case? This is the question the Supreme Court addressed in Cabaero v. Cantos. The case explores whether an accused can file a counterclaim for damages against the complainant in the same criminal action where the civil aspect is impliedly instituted.

    n

    Amado Cabaero and Carmen Perez were charged with estafa for allegedly defrauding Epifanio Ceralde. They filed an answer with a counterclaim, seeking moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses, arguing that the charges were malicious. The trial court expunged the counterclaim, leading to this Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled on whether such a counterclaim is permissible, and under what circumstances.

    nn

    Legal Context: Implied Institution of Civil Action and Counterclaims

    n

    In the Philippines, when a criminal action is initiated, the civil action to recover civil liability arising from the crime is generally impliedly instituted in the same proceeding. This is outlined in Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. This means the offended party doesn’t need to file a separate civil case to claim damages; it’s automatically part of the criminal case.

    n

    However, the Rules of Court are silent on whether the accused can file a counterclaim against the complainant within the same criminal case. A counterclaim, in general, is a claim a defending party has against an opposing party. It can be either compulsory or permissive.

    n

      n

    • A compulsory counterclaim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party’s claim. It must be filed in the same action, or it’s barred in the future.

      • n

    • A permissive counterclaim doesn’t arise from the same transaction. It can be filed in the same action, but it’s not required.

      • n

    n

    The critical question is whether a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, or similar damages, is permissible in a criminal case where the civil liability is impliedly instituted. This is complicated by the lack of explicit rules governing such situations.

    n

    Relevant Provision: Rule 111, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states, “When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.”

    nn

    Case Breakdown: The Story of Cabaero vs. Cantos

    n

    Here’s a step-by-step breakdown of the case:

    n

      n

    1. The Estafa Charge: Epifanio Ceralde filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Amado Cabaero and Carmen Perez, alleging they defrauded him of P1,550,000.00.

      2. n

    2. The Answer with Counterclaim: Cabaero and Perez filed an answer in court denying the allegations and included a counterclaim seeking damages for malicious prosecution.

      3. n

    3. Trial Court’s Decision: The trial court ordered the answer with counterclaim expunged from the records, stating that the civil liability was impliedly instituted in the criminal case.

      4. n

    4. Petition to the Supreme Court: Cabaero and Perez elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion.

      5. n

    n

    The Supreme Court acknowledged the complexities of the situation. While recognizing the principle established in Javier vs. Intermediate Appellate Court that a counterclaim for malicious prosecution could be compulsory, the Court also highlighted the lack of clear rules for handling such counterclaims in criminal cases.

    n

    “In ruling that an action for damages for malicious prosecution should have been filed as a compulsory counterclaim in the criminal action, the Court in Javier sought to avoid multiplicity of suits,” the Court stated.

    n

    However, the Court also recognized practical difficulties. “Allowing and hearing counterclaims (and possibly cross-claims and third-party complaints) in a criminal action will surely delay the said action. The primary issue in a criminal prosecution that is under the control of state prosecutors is the guilt of the accused and his civil liability arising from the same act or omission,” the Court noted.

    n

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court modified the trial court’s orders. The counterclaim was set aside without prejudice, meaning Cabaero and Perez could file a separate civil case for damages. The trial court was directed to proceed with the criminal case and the impliedly instituted civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the crime.

    nn

    Practical Implications: What Does This Mean for You?

    n

    This case clarifies that while the civil aspect of a criminal case is impliedly instituted, allowing counterclaims by the accused can complicate and delay the proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision provides a balanced approach:

    n

      n

    • Accused individuals who believe they are victims of malicious prosecution are not barred from seeking damages.

      • n

    • However, they must generally do so in a separate civil action, not within the criminal case itself.

      • n

    • This ensures that the criminal case focuses on the guilt or innocence of the accused, and the civil liability arising from the crime, without getting bogged down in counterclaims.

      • n

    nn

    Key Lessons

    n

      n

    • Separate Civil Action: If you believe you’ve been maliciously prosecuted, file a separate civil case for damages after the criminal case concludes.

      • n

    • Focus on Defense: In the criminal case, focus on your defense against the charges.

      • n

    • Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a lawyer to understand your rights and options in both the criminal and civil arenas.

      • n

    nn

    Frequently Asked Questions

    n

    Q: Can I automatically sue someone who files a case against me if I win?

    n

    A: Not automatically. You need to prove malicious prosecution, which requires showing the case was filed without probable cause and with malicious intent.

    nn

    Q: What is

  • Malicious Prosecution in the Philippines: Establishing Damages and Legal Recourse

    When Can You Sue for Malicious Prosecution? Understanding the Elements and Remedies

    G.R. No. 109205, April 18, 1997

    Imagine being falsely accused of a crime, facing legal battles, and having your reputation tarnished – all because someone acted with malice. This is the reality of malicious prosecution, a serious legal issue in the Philippines. The case of Rosario Lao and George Felipe, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals and Frank Deuna sheds light on what constitutes malicious prosecution and the damages one can recover.

    This case explores the boundaries of filing complaints and when doing so crosses the line into malicious prosecution, opening the door for a damage suit. It underscores the importance of verifying facts and acting in good faith when initiating legal action against another person.

    What Constitutes Malicious Prosecution?

    Malicious prosecution occurs when someone initiates a criminal or civil suit against another party without probable cause and with malicious intent. It’s not simply about losing a case; it’s about the abuse of the legal system to harass or harm someone.

    To successfully claim damages for malicious prosecution in the Philippines, the following elements must be proven:

    • The defendant initiated a prosecution against the plaintiff. This means the defendant actively took steps to file a criminal complaint or civil suit against the plaintiff.
    • The prosecution ended in acquittal or dismissal. The case against the plaintiff must have been resolved in their favor.
    • There was a lack of probable cause. The defendant did not have reasonable grounds to believe the plaintiff committed the crime or had a valid claim.
    • The prosecution was motivated by malice. The defendant acted with a sinister design to vex or humiliate the plaintiff.

    The Revised Penal Code does not specifically define malicious prosecution, but the concept is well-established in Philippine jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the mere act of filing a case does not automatically make one liable for malicious prosecution. There must be clear evidence of malice and lack of probable cause.

    Relevant legal provisions include:

    • Article 19 of the Civil Code: “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”
    • Article 20 of the Civil Code: “Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.”
    • Article 2176 of the Civil Code: “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict.”

    For example, if a store owner suspects someone of shoplifting but files a case without any real evidence (like security footage or witness testimony) and primarily based on a personal grudge, that could be considered malicious prosecution if the accused is acquitted.

    The Story of Lao vs. Deuna: A Case of Alleged Carnapping and Malice

    The case began with a traffic incident. George Felipe, Jr., driving a vehicle owned by Rosario Lao, allegedly hit Eduardo Antonio. Following this, Antonio, accompanied by Frank Deuna (a barangay councilman), reported the incident to the police. The police then took custody of Lao’s vehicle for safekeeping.

    However, Lao filed a complaint for carnapping against Deuna and Antonio, claiming they forcibly took her vehicle. The Department of Justice eventually dismissed the carnapping case due to lack of probable cause.

    Deuna then filed a civil case for damages against Lao and Felipe, alleging malicious prosecution. The trial court ruled in favor of Deuna, finding that Lao acted with malice in filing the carnapping case. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

    Here’s a breakdown of the procedural journey:

    1. Traffic incident: Felipe allegedly hits Antonio.
    2. Police take custody of Lao’s vehicle.
    3. Lao files carnapping charges against Deuna and Antonio.
    4. The Department of Justice dismisses the carnapping case.
    5. Deuna sues Lao and Felipe for malicious prosecution.
    6. The Regional Trial Court rules in favor of Deuna.
    7. The Court of Appeals affirms the trial court’s decision.
    8. The case reaches the Supreme Court, which affirms the Court of Appeals’ decision.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized the importance of proving malice and lack of probable cause in malicious prosecution cases. The Court highlighted Lao’s failure to verify the facts before filing the carnapping charges, stating:

    “Petitioner Rosario Lao knew that private respondent, with policemen, had taken the vehicle to the Sangandaan police station after the traffic incident. As pointed out by respondent appellate court, Rosario cannot validly claim that, prior to the filing of the complaint-affidavit for carnapping, she did not know the whereabouts of the vehicle.”

    The Court also cited the appellate court’s finding that Lao’s actions suggested a sinister motive:

    “the filing of the carnapping case against the plaintiff (Frank) was nothing more than a malicious, fabricated and baseless charge concocted to harass plaintiff and to scare and deter Eduardo Antonio from pushing through with his complaint for Attempted Murder against George Felipe, Jr., a cousin of Rosario Lao.”

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions, finding Lao and Felipe liable for damages due to malicious prosecution.

    How Does This Case Affect You? Practical Implications

    This case serves as a cautionary tale for anyone considering filing a criminal complaint or civil suit. It underscores the importance of conducting thorough due diligence and acting in good faith. Filing charges based on mere suspicion or with the intent to harass can have serious legal consequences.

    Key Lessons:

    • Verify Your Facts: Before filing any legal action, ensure you have thoroughly investigated the matter and have a reasonable basis for your claims.
    • Act in Good Faith: Avoid using the legal system as a tool for revenge or harassment.
    • Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a lawyer to assess the merits of your case and understand the potential risks and liabilities.

    For businesses, this means implementing clear procedures for investigating potential wrongdoing before initiating legal action against employees or customers. For individuals, it means carefully considering the potential consequences before filing charges against someone, even if you believe they have wronged you.

    Imagine a scenario where a company accuses a former employee of stealing trade secrets without conducting a proper investigation. If the employee is later acquitted and can prove the company acted with malice, the company could be liable for damages due to malicious prosecution.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What kind of damages can I recover in a malicious prosecution case?

    A: You can typically recover moral damages (for mental anguish, emotional distress, and damage to reputation), exemplary damages (to serve as a warning to others), and attorney’s fees.

    Q: What is the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion?

    A: Probable cause is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion. Probable cause requires a reasonable belief, based on facts, that a crime has been committed. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard that allows law enforcement to briefly detain someone for investigation.

    Q: Can I be sued for malicious prosecution if I lose a case?

    A: Not necessarily. Losing a case alone is not enough. You must have acted with malice and without probable cause when initiating the suit.

    Q: What if I relied on the advice of a lawyer before filing a case?

    A: Relying on the advice of a lawyer can be a defense against malicious prosecution, but it’s not a guarantee. You must have fully disclosed all relevant facts to your lawyer, and your lawyer’s advice must have been reasonable.

    Q: How long do I have to file a malicious prosecution case?

    A: The statute of limitations for malicious prosecution cases in the Philippines is generally one year from the date the underlying case was terminated in your favor.

    Q: Is it malicious prosecution if the charges were dropped?

    A: Not necessarily. While the termination of the case in your favor is a requirement for a malicious prosecution suit, you must also prove that the charges were filed with malice and without probable cause.

    Q: Can a corporation be held liable for malicious prosecution?

    A: Yes, a corporation can be held liable for the malicious acts of its employees or agents if those acts were authorized or ratified by the corporation.

    ASG Law specializes in civil litigation and damage suits. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Malicious Prosecution in the Philippines: Understanding Probable Cause and Legal Malice

    Understanding the Elements of Malicious Prosecution in Philippine Law

    G.R. No. 107019, March 20, 1997

    Imagine being wrongly accused of a crime, facing public scrutiny, and incurring significant legal expenses, only to be found innocent. While the relief of acquittal is undeniable, the damage to your reputation and emotional well-being can be lasting. This scenario underscores the importance of understanding the legal concept of malicious prosecution and the safeguards in place to protect individuals from baseless accusations.

    This case, Franklin M. Drilon, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., delves into the intricacies of malicious prosecution, specifically focusing on the essential elements that must be proven to successfully claim damages for such an action. The Supreme Court clarifies the burden of proof on the plaintiff and the significance of probable cause and legal malice.

    Legal Context: The Foundation of Malicious Prosecution

    Malicious prosecution is a legal action for damages brought by an individual against whom criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings were initiated maliciously and without probable cause. It’s crucial to understand that simply filing a case that is ultimately unsuccessful does not automatically constitute malicious prosecution.

    The basis for a civil action for damages for malicious prosecution is found in the provisions of the New Civil Code on Human Relations and on damages, particularly Articles 19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 2217, and 2219 (8). These articles emphasize the importance of acting with justice, giving everyone his due, and observing honesty and good faith. A violation of these principles, coupled with malice and lack of probable cause, can give rise to a claim for damages.

    Key provisions related to malicious prosecution include:

    • Article 19: “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”
    • Article 20: “Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.”
    • Article 21: “Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”

    The Supreme Court has consistently held that to constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, and that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. The mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not automatically make one liable for malicious prosecution.

    Example: Imagine a disgruntled neighbor repeatedly filing false complaints against you with the local authorities, knowing that these complaints are baseless, solely to harass you. If these complaints are dismissed, you may have grounds to file a case for malicious prosecution.

    Case Breakdown: Drilon vs. Court of Appeals

    The case of Drilon vs. Court of Appeals arose from a complaint filed by Homobono Adaza against Franklin Drilon (then Secretary of Justice) and other prosecutors for allegedly filing a charge of rebellion with murder and frustrated murder against him, knowing that such a crime did not exist. Adaza claimed that this constituted malicious prosecution and sought damages.

    Here’s a breakdown of the case’s procedural journey:

    • Initial Complaint: General Renato de Villa requested the Department of Justice to investigate Adaza for alleged involvement in a coup d’etat.
    • Preliminary Investigation: The Special Composite Team of Prosecutors found probable cause and filed an information charging Adaza with rebellion with murder and frustrated murder.
    • Adaza’s Complaint: Adaza filed a complaint for damages, alleging malicious prosecution.
    • Motion to Dismiss: The prosecutors filed a Motion to Dismiss Adaza’s complaint, arguing that it did not state a valid cause of action.
    • Lower Court Ruling: The Regional Trial Court denied the Motion to Dismiss.
    • Appeal to the Court of Appeals: The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.
    • Supreme Court Review: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and ordered the dismissal of Adaza’s complaint.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the critical elements of malicious prosecution, stating:

    “[I]n order for a malicious prosecution suit to prosper, the plaintiff must prove three (3) elements: (1) the fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor and that the action finally terminated with an acquittal; (2) that in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (3) that the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice, that is by improper or sinister motive.”

    The Court found that Adaza’s complaint failed to allege these essential elements. Specifically, the complaint did not state that the criminal case against Adaza had been terminated with an acquittal, nor did it sufficiently allege that the prosecutors acted without probable cause or with legal malice.

    The Court further stated:

    “Lack of cause of action, as a ground for a motion to dismiss under Section 1 (g), Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Court, must appear on the face of the complaint itself, meaning that it must be determined from the allegations of the complaint and from none other.”

    Practical Implications: Protecting Yourself from Baseless Lawsuits

    This case highlights the importance of thoroughly understanding the elements of malicious prosecution before filing such a claim. It also underscores the significance of probable cause and the presumption of good faith accorded to public officials.

    Key Lessons:

    • Know the Elements: Before filing a malicious prosecution suit, ensure you can prove all three elements: termination of the prior case in your favor, lack of probable cause, and legal malice.
    • Pleadings Matter: Your complaint must clearly allege all the essential facts that constitute malicious prosecution. Conclusory statements are not enough.
    • Presumption of Good Faith: Public officials are presumed to act in good faith. You must present evidence to overcome this presumption.

    Hypothetical Example: A business owner is sued for breach of contract. The case goes to trial, and the business owner wins. If the business owner believes the lawsuit was filed without any reasonable basis and with the intent to damage their reputation, they might consider a malicious prosecution claim. However, they must carefully assess whether they can prove the other party acted with malice and without probable cause.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is probable cause?

    A: Probable cause exists when there are facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the accused has committed the crime for which they are being prosecuted.

    Q: What is legal malice?

    A: Legal malice refers to an improper or sinister motive in initiating the prosecution, such as ill will, spite, or a desire to harass the accused.

    Q: What happens if one of the elements of malicious prosecution is missing?

    A: If any of the three elements (termination in favor of the accused, lack of probable cause, and legal malice) are missing, the malicious prosecution suit will fail.

    Q: Can I sue for malicious prosecution if the case against me is still pending?

    A: No. One of the essential elements is that the prior case must have been terminated in your favor.

    Q: What kind of damages can I recover in a malicious prosecution suit?

    A: You may be able to recover damages for injury to your reputation, emotional distress, legal expenses, and other losses caused by the malicious prosecution.

    Q: Is it easy to win a malicious prosecution case?

    A: No, it is not. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and it can be difficult to prove lack of probable cause and legal malice.

    ASG Law specializes in civil litigation and damage suits. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.