Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Co. v.
CA
Doctrine: The right to dismiss is different from the manner of dismissal.
The manner should not amount to an abuse of rights otherwise, an award
of damages under art. 19 is proper.
Tobias was a purchasing agent and admin assistant to the engineering
operations manager of Globe Mackay. Tobias reported fictitious
purchases and fraudulent transactions for which it lost several thousands
of pesos. Hendry, VP and GM of Globe Mackay told Tobias that he was
the no. 1 suspect and forced him to take a leave, not to communicate with
the office and open all his drawers and to leave his key. When he came
back, he was called a crook and a swindler and was forced to take a lie
detector case and to submit specimen signature of his handwriting and
signature.
Police investigators cleared Tobias of participation in the anomalies but
another investigator found him guilty but further investigation was still to
be conducted.
Tobias was suspended in preparation of criminal charges to be filed
against him. Lt. Tagle who examined his handwriting and signature found
that the documents were not Tobias’s and the lie detector also returned
negative results.
Tobias was effectively terminated.
ISSUE: wn Globe Mackay abused its rights and is therefore liable for
damages? YES.
In determining whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be
invoked, there is no rigid test which can be applied. While the Court has
not hesitated to apply Article 19 whether the legal and factual
circumstances called for its application the question of whether or not the
principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under
Article 20 or Article 21 or other applicable provision of law, depends on
the circumstances of each case. And in the instant case, the Court, after
examining the record and considering certain significant circumstances,
finds that all petitioners have indeed abused the right that they invoke,
causing damage to private respondent and for which the latter must now
be indemnified.
An employer who harbors suspicions that an employee has committed
dishonesty might be justified in taking the appropriate action such as
ordering an investigation and directing the employee to go on a leave.
Firmness and the resolve to uncover the truth would also be expected
from such employer. But the high-handed treatment accorded Tobias by
petitioners was certainly uncalled for. And this reprehensible attitude of
petitioners was to continue when private respondent returned to work on
November 20, 1972 after his one week forced leave. Upon reporting for
work, Tobias was confronted by Hendry who said. "Tobby, you are the
crook and swindler in this company."
Considering that the first report made by the police investigators was
submitted only on December 10, 1972 the statement made by petitioner
Hendry was baseless. The imputation of guilt without basis and the
pattern of harassment during the investigations of Tobias transgress the
standards of human conduct set forth in Article 19 of the Civil Code. The
Court has already ruled that the right of the employer to dismiss an
employee should not be confused with the manner in which the right is
exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal is done
abusively, then the employer is liable for damages to the employee
Under the circumstances of the instant case, the petitioners clearly failed
to exercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias, giving the
latter the right to recover damages under Article 19 in relation to Article 21
of the
Other tortious acts:
1. Told Tobias just to confess otherwise, a hundred more cases would be
filed against him in jail.
2. yelled at Tobias- You Filipinos cannot be trusted
3. wrote a letter to RETELCO stating that Tobias was dismissed by Globe
Mackay due to dishonesty.
- due to this, Tobias remained unemployed for a
period of time
- Globe Mackay in its defense, say that it was their
moral obligation to forewarn other people of the kind of person the plaintiff
was.
4. Filed 6 other criminal complaints against Tobias.
 -defense: cannot be punished for exercising a
legitimate right. But this cannot be exercised maliciously and in bad faith.

Remember that for malicious prosecution to be successfully invoked,

there must be proof of bad faith. The mere dismissal of the case does not
in itself furnish a ground for malicious prosecution. The lower court made
a finding that petitioners acted in bad faith.

 6 criminal cases were filed- 5 for estafa thru falsification of

commercial documents and 1 for violation of 290 of the RPC
“discovering secrets thru seizure of correspondence”. ALL OF
WHICH WERE DISMISSED DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE
 dismissal of the 4 were appealed to the Ministry of justice who
affirmed dismissal. As above adverted to, two of these cases
were refiled with the Judge Advocate General's Office of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines to railroad plaintiffs arrest and
detention in the military stockade, but this was frustrated by a
presidential decree transferring criminal cases involving civilians
to the civil courts.
 Cases were filed despite reports of Lt. Tagle, chief document
examiner of the Manila Police Dept., the negative results of the lie
detector tests, the police investigation which was still under follow
up and supplementary reports still to be submitted, Globe
Mackay hastily filed said case.
 Indeed, the haphazard way this case was investigated is evident.
Evident likewise is the flurry and haste in the filing of this case
against respondent Tobias," there can be no mistaking that
defendants would not but be motivated by malicious and unlawful
intent to harass, oppress, and cause damage to plaintiff