Gregorio vs. CA

ZENAIDA R. GREGORIO, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, SANSIO PHILIPPINES, INC., and EMMA J. DATUIN, Respondents.

G.R. No. 179799
September 11, 2009

FACTS:

A complaint for violation of B.P. Blg.22 was filed against petitioner Zenaida R. Gregorio as proprietor of Alvi Marketing, allegedly for delivering insufficiently funded bank checks as payment for the numerous appliances bought by Alvi Marketing from Sansio. As the address in the complaint was wrong, she was indicted for 3 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for failure to controvert the charges against her. Gregorio filed a Motion for Deferment of Arraignment and Reinvestigation, alleging that she could not have issued the bounced checks, since she did not even have a checking account with the bank on which the checks were drawn. In the course of the reinvestigation, Datuin submitted an Affidavit of Desistance stating that Gregorio was not one of the signatories of the bounced checks subject of prosecution. Subsequently, the court ordered the B.P. Blg. 22 cases dismissed.

Gregorio filed a complaint for damages against Sansio Philippines, Inc. and Emma J. Datuin.

Gregorio in her complaint for damages stated that incalculable damage has been inflicted upon him due to the defendants reckless disregard of the fundamental legal precept that every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. Sansio and Datuin filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the complaint, being one for damages arising from malicious prosecution, failed to state a cause of action, as the ultimate facts constituting the elements thereof were not alleged in the complaint.

The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC and ordered the dismissal of Gregorio’s complaint for damages.

ISSUE:

Whether the complaint for damages filed by Gregorio is based on quasi-­delict or malicious prosecution.

HELD:

It is a complaint based on quasi-­delict under Article 2176, in relation to Article 26 of the Civil Code, rather than on malicious prosecution.

Quasi-­delict exist under Article 2176 when the plaintiff suffers damage due to the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person to whose act he must respond provided that there must be no pre-­existing 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.

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.

Therefore, Sansio and Datuin are liable for damages.