You are on page 1of 2

ManilaGasCorporationvsCourtofAppeals(1980)

FACTS:

ManilaGasCorporationisauthorizedtoconductandoperatethebusinessofservicing
andsupplyinggasintheCityofManilaanditssuburbs.RespondentOngsipappliedforgas
service connection for his kitchen and 48door apartment with petitioner Manila Gas
Corporation.Asaresult,two20galloncapacitywaterstorageheaterswereinstalledandtwo
heavydutygasburners.Theinstallationsandconnectionswerealldonesolelybypetitioner's
employees.

InMayandJunenogasconsumptionwasregisteredinthemeter,promptingpetitionerto
issuea'meterorder'withinstructions tochangethegasmeterinrespondent'sresidence.At
around 1 o'clock in the afternoon, petitioner's employee went to Ongsip's place. Without
notifying or informing respondent, they changed the gas meter and installed new tube
connections.Atthetimetheworkwasbeingundertaken,privaterespondentwastakinganap.

Ongsipinquiredwhytheyweretakingpicturesofthepremisesbuttheemployeesimply
gavehimacallingcardwithinstructionstogotohis(Coronel's)office.There,hewasinformed
abouttheexistenceofabypassvalveor"jumper"inthegasconnectionandthatunlesshegave
CoronelP3,000.00,hewouldbedeported.Herefused.BytheendofAugust,areadingwasmade
onthenewmeterandexpectedly,itregisteredasuddenincreaseingasconsumption.

A complaint for qualified theft was filed by petitioner against respondent Ongsip.
Pendinginvestigation,petitionerdisconnectedrespondent'sgasserviceforallegedfailuretopay
his gas consumptions. The complaint was dismissed by the city fiscal. Ongsip later filed a
complaintformoralandexemplarydamagesagainstpetitionerbasedontwocausesofaction,
firstly:themalicious,oppressiveandmalevolentfilingofthecriminalcomplaint;and,secondly:
theillegalclosureofrespondentOngsip'sgasserviceconnectionwithoutcourtorderandwithout
noticeofwarning.

ISSUE:1)Whetherornotthefilingofcriminalcomplaintwasnotactuatedbymaliceon
thepartofpetitioner
2)WhetherornottheclosureofOngsip'sgasservicewasmadeafterduenoticeto
payhisbackaccounts

HELD:

1)Toconstitute malicious prosecution, theremustbeproofthat theprosecutionwas


promptedbyasiniterdesigntovexandhumiliateapersonthatitwasinitiateddeliberatelyby
thedefendantknowingthathischargeswerefalseandgroundless.Concededly,themereactof
submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious
prosecution. Intheinstantcase,however,thereisreasontobelievethattherewasmalicious
intent inthefiling ofthe complaint forqualified theft. This intentistraceable tothat early
afternoonofAugust17,1966,whenpetitioner'semployees,uponbeingordered,cametoprivate
respondent'sresidenceandchangedthedefectivegasmeterandtubeconnectionswithoutnotice.
Inotherwords,respondentOngsiphadnoopportunitytoobservetheworks.Nonetheless,if
indeedhehadinstalledanillegalbypasstubeorjumper,hecouldhaveeasilyaskedforits
immediate removal soon after his houseboy told him what petitioner's employees did. As
establishedbythefacts,hehadnotevenattemptedtorefuseentrancetopetitioner'semployees
headedbyMarianoCoronelnortoquestiontheirauthorityupontheirreturnlaterthatsame
afternoonwithaphotographer.Littledidherealizethatthepicturesofthepremisesthatwere
beingtakenwouldbeusedasevidenceagainsthim.

Evidently,ManilaGasCorporation,infailingtorecoveritslostrevenuecausedbythe
gasmeter'sincorrectrecording,soughttovindicateitsfinanciallossbyfilingthecomplaintfor
qualifiedtheftagainstrespondentOngsipknowingittobefalse.

1) On the second cause of action which is based on the illegal disconnection of


respondentOngsip'sgasserviceconstitutingbreachofcontract,petitioner'sactindisconnecting
respondentOngsip'sgasservicewithoutpriornoticeconstitutesbreachofcontractamountingto
anindependenttort.Theprematurityoftheactionisindicativeofanintenttocauseadditional
mentalandmoralsufferingtoprivaterespondent.ThisisaclearviolationofArticle21ofthe
CivilCodewhichprovidesthat"anypersonwhowilfullycauseslossorinjurytoanotherina
mannerthatiscontrarytomorals,goodcustomsorpublicpolicyshallcompensatethelatterfor
damages."Moreover,theawardofmoraldamagesissanctionedbyArticle2220whichprovides
that"willfulinjurytopropertymaybealegalgroundforawardingmoraldamagesifthecourt
shouldfindthat,underthecircumstances,suchdamagesarejustlydue.Thesameruleappliesto
breachesofcontractwherethedefendantactedfraudulentlyorinbadfaith".

WHEREFORE,PETITIONERMANILAGASCORPORATIONISHEREBYDIRECTEDTO
PAY
(1)RESPONDENTISIDROM.ONGSIPP25,000.00ASMORALDAMAGESANDP5,000.00
AS EXEMPLARY DAMAGES FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, P15,000.00 AS
MORALDAMAGES AND P5,000.00AS EXEMPLARYDAMAGES FORTHESECOND
CAUSEOFACTION,ANDP10,000.00ASATTORNEY'SFEES;AND
(2)THECOSTS.

You might also like