Globe Mackay Cable v Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 778

Cortes, J.:

Facts:
Private respondent Restituto M. Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay Cable
and Radio Corporation (GLOBE MACKAY) in a dual capacity as a purchasing agent and
administrative assistant to the engineering operations manager. In 1972, GLOBE MACKAY
discovered fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions for which it lost several
thousands of pesos.
10 November 1972, Tobias discovered the anomalies and reported them to his immediate
superiors including petitioner Hendry. The next day, he was ordered to take a one week forced
leave, not to communicate with the office, to leave his table drawers open, and to leave the office
keys being the prime suspect in the said anomalies. On his return, he was called a “crook” and a
“swindler” by Hendry, ordering him to take a lie detector test and laboratory examinations by the
police investigators to determine his complicity in the anomalies but later on resulted into
negative. 12 December 1972, a private investigator reported Tobias guilty but for further
investigation. 2 days after, the latter was issued a memorandum suspending Tobias from work
preparatory to the filing of criminal charges against him, which returned a negative report after
investigation.
Notwithstanding the police reports exculpating Tobias from the anomalies and the fact
that the report of the private investigator, was, by its own terms, not yet complete, petitioners
filed with the City Fiscal of Manila a complaint for estafa through falsification of commercial
documents, later amended to just estafa. Subsequently five other criminal complaints were filed
against Tobias, all of the six criminal complaints were dismissed by the fiscal. Petitioners
appealed to the Secretary of Justice but affirmed their dismissal.
In the meantime, Tobias filed a complaint for illegal dismissal that took effect on 13
December 1972. LA dismissed the complaint. NLRC reversed the decision on appeal, which then
reinstated LA’s decision by the Secretary of Labor. Tobias appealed with the Office of the
President. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioners and private respondent Tobias entered
into a compromise agreement regarding the latter's complaint for illegal dismissal.
Tobias filed a civil case with the RTC Manila for damages anchored on alleged unlawful,
malicious, oppressive, and abusive acts of petitioners in its letter to RETELCO where Tobias
sought employment. RTC ruled in favor of Tobias. CA affirmed the RTC. Meanwhile, Tobias’
appeal as to amount of damages has been denied. He filed for petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:
WON the petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent?

Ruling:
Yes. Petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent. Article 19 of the Civil Code
provides that, “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.”
The principle of abuse of rights sets certain standards which must be observed not only in
the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. When a right is exercised
in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in
damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held
responsible. The Civil Code further provides in Article 20, “every person who contrary to law,
willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.” And
in Article 21, “any person who willfully 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.”
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 be indemnified. Hence, the
SC denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the CA that the petitioners are liable for
damages to private respondent.