Albenson Enterprised Corp. et. al. vs. The CA & Eugenio S.

Baltao
GR No. 88694
11 January 1993

Facts:
In Sept to Nov. 1980, Albenson delivered steel plates to Guaranteed Industies. Albenson was given
a check (Pacific Banking Corp) amounting to P2,575.00 as drawn against the account of E.L. Woodworks.
Check was dishonored for the reason “Account Closed”. Albenson later discovered with the help of SEC,
Ministry of Trade & Industry and Pacific Banking Corp. that the president of Guaranteed was one “Eugenio
S. Baltao”. Albenson addressed Baltao through extrajudicial demand to replace or make good the
dishonored check. Baltao denied that the signature appearing thereon is his.
On 14 Feb 1983, Albenson filed with the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal against Baltao for violation of BP
22. However, Baltao has namesake, his son “Eugenio Baltao III” who manages E.L. Woodworks. On 5 Sept
1983, Fiscal Ricardo Sumaway filed information against Baltao for violation of BP 22. Baltao claiming of
the complaint against him alleging he had not been given opportunity to be heard in the preliminary
investigation. On 30 Jan 1984, Prov. Fiscal Mauro M. Castro found that the signature is check is not of
Baltao.
Baltao filed before QC RTC, a complaint for damages against Albenson et. al. RTC rendered
decision in favor of Baltao. On appeal, CA modified the decision of RTC in awarding damages in favor of
Baltao. Hence, petition to review the decision of CA. And that the CA erred in ruling that: an unjust criminal
case is a plain case of abuse of rights by misdirection. While Baltao anchored his complaint for damages
on Arts. 19, 20 & 21. Albenson contend that the absence of malice on their part absolves them from for
malicious prosecution.

Issue: Whether Albenson acted with malice and abuses its right under Art. 19 in relation to Arts. 20 & 21

Held:
No. The RTC & CA mistakenly lumped the Arts. 19, 20 & 21 altogether. [Thus, when Albenson
insisted and persisted in filing criminal charges against Baltao, it ran afoul of legal provisions of Arts. 19,
20 & 21. And that Albenson’s right is limited by certain constraints].
Certainly, Albenson could not be said to have violated the principle of abuse of right. What
prompted Albenson to file BP 22 against Baltao was due on honest believe that it was Baltao who issued
bounced check to them. If Baltao wanted to clear himself, he should have mentioned the fact that there
are 3 persons w/ the same name, Baltao Sr., Jr & III which he failed to do so. Neither did Baltao Jr. conveyed
that there are 2 Eugenio Baltaos conducting business in the same building. Instead, Baltao Jr. waited in
ambush and thereafter pounced in the hapless Albenson at a time it thought was propitious by filing an
action for damages. The Court will not countenance this devious scheme.
Albenson complaint against Baltao Jr. was a sincere attempt on the part of the former to find the
best possible means by which they could collect the sum of money due to them. In the absence of a
wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded and that the adverse
result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of
damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. (Rubio v. CA)
Baltao Jr. argues that liability under Arts. 19 to 21 is likewise includes liability for damages for
malicious prosecution under Art. 2219 (8), however, the requirement of 3 elements for malicious
prosecution is untenable since the 2nd and 3rd element were not shown to exist.
In the case at bar, there is no proof of a sinister design on the part of Albenson to vex or humiliate
Baltao Jr. by instituting criminal case against the latter. The error in proceeding against the wrong
individual was obviously in the nature of an innocent mistake.