Facts:

Petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corp. (AEC) delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed
Industries
Inc. As part of payment, the petitioner was given Pacific Banking a check no. 136361
amounting
P2,575.00 drawn against the account of E.L. Woodsworks. When presented the
payment, the
check was dishonored. The petitioner traced the origin of the check and inquired to
SEC. Upon
checking the records, Petitioners later found out that the president of
Guaranteed was one
Eugenio S. Baltao. It was also verified upon Pacific Banking that the
signature belong to
Eugenio Baltao. Petitioner made extrajudicial demand to Eugenio Baltao for the
replacement of
the bounce check. However, Eugenio Baltao denied issuing the check and claimed
defunct entity
and made no business to AEC. Petitioners filed a case against Baltao for violating BP
Blg 22 to
Provincial Fiscal of Rizal. It appears however that Eugenio Baltao has a namesake, his
son
Eugenio Baltao III who supervises E.L. Woodworks on the ground floor of Baltao
Building same
to Guaranteed's address. Assistant Fiscal Sumaway filed the information against
Eugenio Baltao
for violation of BP Blg. 22. Eugenio Baltao filed for reinvestigation claiming that he had
no
knowledge about the complaint filed against him. Fiscal Mauro Castro then,
reversed the
findings of Sumaway. Baltao filed a complaint before RTC of Quezon City for the
damages
against the petitioners. Lower court granted compensatory damages for Baltao.
Dissatisfied with
the decision of the lower court, petitioners filed an instant petition contending that the
civil case
made against them was malicious prosecution. Petitioners asserted that the absence of
malice
absolves them from liability for malicious prosecution. Meanwhile, Baltao anchored his
damages
on Article 19, 20, 21 of the Civil Code.
Issue: Whether or not, Eugenio S. Baltao can claim and recovered damages based on
the Articles
of 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code?
Ruling: NO, the court ruled that the petitioners did not violate the principle of abused
rights to
Baltao. Petitioners filed a complaint against Baltao because they failed to collect the
payment of
P2,575 for mild steel plates delivered. Second, when petitioners made extrajudicial
demand to
Baltao, he did not make any clarifications with regards to the check and
instead, denied
allegations. Thereafter, he acted to file for damages against the petitioner. Third, the
criminal
case against Baltao was the petitioner’s way of collecting the supposed payment.
Petitioners
then, acted in good faith when they filed before provincial fiscal about the bounced
check that
supposed to be a payment of delivered goods to Guaranteed. In the
case of malicious
prosecution, although it is allowed in the new civil code a civil case action for damages
for
malicious prosecution. Elements of an abuse of right: (1) there is legal
right of duty; (2)
exercised in bad faith and; (3) intent of injure must be present in the case. In this case,
2 and 3
are not present and the probable cause here is the legal consequences, absence of
malice. The
fact that petitioners filed a case against Baltao was not a mere humiliation against him
but trying
to protect their rights. There is no plot going to humiliate Baltao for filing a case against
him.
Although at hand, petitioners failed to determine the accountability of Baltao over
bounced
check. Awarding of damages is unwarranted because the case filed was acted in good
faith. It
was an innocent mistake therefore it will not be acted in bad faith. Furthermore, no proof
o
Topic: Art 19-21 Abuse of Right Doctrine

Albenson vs. CA 217 SCRA 16 (Art 20).

FACTS:

Petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corporation delivered to Guaranteed Industries the mild

steel plates which the latter ordered. As for payment, Albenson was given a check with
a certain amount on it however, the check was dishonored. Later on, it was discovered
that the president of Guaranteed was registered to “Eugenio S. Baltao.” Albenson,
made a demand upon respondent to replace the dishonored check. However,
respondent, denied that he issued the check and contended that Guaranteed was no
longer operative. Albenson filed a complaint against Eugenio S. Baltao for violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. It was then discovered that the said private respondent has
a namesake which is his son Eugenio Baltao III, who manages the E.L. Woodworks.
Later on, Assistant Fiscal Sumaway filed an information against Eugenio S. Baltao for
Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 wherein he claimed that he had given the
respondent an opportunity to submit his evidence, but the latter failed to do so.
However, the respondent claimed ignorance on the complaint against him and that he
never had any dealings with Albenson, so the said check was not issued by him.

Issue

Whether or not the private respondent’s cause of action is one based on malicious
prosecution and not one for abuse of rights under Article 21 of the Civil Code?

Ruling

No, there was no malicious prosecution on the part of the petitioners. Pursuant to 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. In the case at bar, it is well-settled that one cannot be held liable for
maliciously instituting a prosecution where one has acted with probable cause.
Consequently, in the absence of proof of fraud and bad faith committed by petitioners,
they cannot be held liable for damages. No damages can be awarded in the instant
case, whether based on the principle of abuse of rights, or for malicious prosecution.