Article 19
malice
FAR EAST BACK v THERMISTCOLES PACILAN JR
FACTS
Pacilian opened an account
a. The existence of a legal right or duty
b. Which is exercised in bad faith
c. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another
Bank reserves the right to close an account if the
depositor frequently draws checks against insufficient
funds and/or uncollected deposits
The depositor is entitled, as a matter if right, to
overdraw in this deposit and the bank reserves the
right and any time to return checks of the depositor
which are drawn against insufficient funds or for any
other reason
Respondent overdrawn several times due to his
issuance of checks against sufficient funds.
There were several instances when the respondent
issues check deliberately using a signature different
from his specimen signature.
ISSUE
Whether or not closing PACILAN’s account constitutes
abuse of rights on the part of FAR EAST BANK
DECISION
Permission was granted in favor of FAR EAST BANK’
UYPITCHING v QUIMCO
FACTS
UYPITCHING filed a criminal complaint for qualified
theft and violation of the anti-fencing
a. Unlawful taking of motorcycle
b. Utterance of a defamatory remark
c. Filing of a baseless and malicious complaint
Atty. Uypitching had no personal knowledge that
respondent stole the motorcycle in question
The absence of probable cause necessarily signifies of
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Uypitching’s actions constitute
abuse of right
DECISSION
Petition is denied in favor of respondent.
FLORIENCIO SALADAGA V ATTY. ARTURO ASTORGA
FACTS
Both entered into a deed of sale with right to
repurchase; had two years which to repurchase the
property
Respondent failed to exercise his right of repurchase
within the period provided in the deed and no
renewal of the contract was made
Several years later, SALADAGA was informed the
property was mortgaged
Complainant instituted a criminal complaint for estafa
against respondent
Respondent was also guilty of deceit or fraud when he
represented in the “deed of sale with right to
repurchase”
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Astorga’s actions constiture
abuse of right
DICISSION
The court agrees with the recommendation of IBP
board of governors to suspend respondent from the
practice of law
Atty. Astorga is hereby found guilty of the following;
breach of the Lawyer’s Oath; unlawful, dishonest, and
deceitful conduct; and disrespect for the court ad
causing undue delay of these cases, for which he is
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two
years, reckoned from receipt of the decision, with
warning that a similar misconduct in the future shall
be dealt with more severely.
Coca-Cola v Bernardo

FACTS

Coca-Cola (Beverage Manufacturing) employs Jolly

Beverage Enterprise (Bernardo, Distributor) was
engaged for 13 years, the parties enjoyed a good and
harmonious business partnership.

After contract expired, Coke required Bernardo to

submit a list of their customers on the pretext that it
would formulate a policy defining its territorial
dealership.

Petitioner started to reach out to the persons whose

names on the list

Bernardo claimed that because of these schemes, they

lost not only their customers but also small stores.

Respondents failed a complaint for damages.

ISSUE

Whether or not Cokr bottlers violated articles 19, 20,

21, or 28.

Whether or not the award of damages and attorney’s

fees, for abuse of rights and unfair competition

DECISION

Petitioner is liable for damages for abuse of rights and

unfair competition under the civil code
ARTICLE 36
PASI vs Lichauco
Prejudicial Questions; The rationale for the principle
of prejudicial question is that although it does not
conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the
accused, it tests the sufficiency of the allegations in
the complaint or information in order to sustain the
further prosecution of the criminal case. Hence, the
need for its prior resolution before further
proceedings in the criminal action may be had.
FACTS
Memorandum of Understanding was entered into by a
consortium of private telecommunications carriers
and the Department of Transportation and
Communications represented by then Secretary Jesus
B. Garcia, Jr. relative to the launching, ownership,
operation and management of a Philippine satellite by
a Filipino-owned or controlled private consortium or
corporation.
The consortium of private telecommunications
carriers formed a corporation and adopted the
corporate name Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. (PASI).
By letter, PASI president Rodrigo A. Silverio requested
the then DOTC Secretary Amado S. Lagdameo, Jr. for
official government confirmation of the assignment of
Philippine orbital slots 161 E and 153 E to PASI for its
AGILA satellites.
In response to Silverio’s letter, Secretary Lagdameo
confirmed the government’s assignment of Philippine
orbital slots 161 E and 153 E to PASI for its AGILA
satellites.
Evaluation Report8 dated April 15, 1998, found the
existence of a prejudicial question after considering
that “the case filed with the RTC involves facts
intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based and that the guilt or the
innocence of the accused would necessarily be
determined in the resolution of the issues raised in
the civil case.” It thus concluded that the filing of the
complaint before the Ombudsman “is premature since
the issues involved herein are now subject of litigation
in the case filed with the RTC,” and accordingly
recommended its dismissal.
1) whether there exists a prejudicial question and, if in
the affirmative, 2) whether the dismissal of the
complaint on that account is in order.
PASI concedes that the issues in the civil case are
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
criminal case. It contends, however, that the
resolution of the issues in the civil case is not
determinative of the guilt or innocence of Lichauco, it
arguing that even if she is adjudged liable for
damages, it does not necessarily follow that she would
be convicted of the crime charged.
CRIMINAL CASE
Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which was earlier quoted has
the following elements:
1. The accused is a public officer discharging
administrative or official functions or private
persons charged in conspiracy with them;
2. The public officer committed the prohibited
act during the performance of his official duty
or in relation to his public position;
3. The public officer acted with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross,
inexcusable negligence; and
4. His action caused undue injury to the
Government or any private party, or gave any
party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or
preference to such parties.1
CIVIL CASE
The civil case against Lichauco on the other hand
involves three causes of action.
1. for injunction, seeks to enjoin the award of
orbital slot 153 E, the DOTC having previously
assigned the same to PASI;
2. for declaration of nullity of award, seeks to
nullify the award given to the undisclosed
bidder for being beyond Lichauco’s authority;
3. for damages arising from Lichauco’s
questioned acts
If the award to the undisclosed bidder of orbital slot
153 E is, in the civil case, declared valid for being
within Lichauco’s scope of authority to thus free her
from liability for damages, there would be no
prohibited act to speak of nor would there be basis for
undue injury claimed to have been suffered by
petitioner. The finding by the Ombudsman of the
existence of a prejudicial question is thus well-taken

ISSUE

DECISION

The Ombudsman is ORDERED to REINSTATE to its

docket for further proceedings, in line with the

foregoing ratiocination,

Ombudsman order set aside.