This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-10-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The lower court's ruling against the latter is premised on a finding of malice or bad faith, i.e., a finding of an abuse of right on Bayerphil's part in exercising inimical acts that prejudiced Calibre's business. However, we agree with the CA's conclusion that there is no adequate proof that Bayerphil was guilty of abusing its rights. "[G]ood faith is presumed and that the burden of proving bad faith rests upon a party alleging the same."[32] "In civil cases, the law requires that the party who alleges a fact and substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proving it."[33] This is where Calibre failed. | |||||
|
2007-02-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Finally, in an action to recover damages based on malicious prosecution, it must be established that the prosecution was impelled by legal malice. There is necessity of proof that the suit was so patently malicious as to warrant the award of damages under Articles 19 to 21,[48] of the Civil Code, or that the suit was grounded on malice or bad faith.[49] Moreover, it is a doctrine well-entrenched in jurisprudence that the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution, for the law would not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.[50] | |||||
|
2006-11-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Sec. 11, Art. III of the Constitution guarantees right of access to the courts. This right is coupled with the responsibility to show that a suit is impelled by a legitimate cause of action.[22] The exercise of such legal right with responsibility does no injury. However, when the institution and pursuit of a legal proceeding is without probable cause, the only purpose thereof being to harass, annoy, vex or injure an innocent person who is then compelled to defend himself in court, it amounts to malicious prosecution.[23] Denuncia falsa or malicious prosecution is misuse or abuse of judicial processes. The party who is injured by such abuse may, at the termination of the frivolous suit, file a civil action for damages based on the provisions of the Civil Code on human relations.[24] But to merit an award of damages, he must prove that: (a) the defendant was himself the prosecutor or at least instigated the prosecution; (b) the prosecution finally terminated in the acquittal of plaintiff; (c) in bringing the action the prosecutor acted without probable cause, and (d) the prosecutor was actuated by malice, i.e., by improper and sinister motives.[25] He must also prove the damages he has suffered.[26] | |||||
|
2005-09-20 |
|||||
| Concerning damages for alleged bad faith of respondent in requiring the execution of the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale, suffice it to say that allegations of bad faith, malice, and other related words without ultimate facts to support the same are mere conclusions of law.[35] From the records of the case, the Court finds no ultimate facts to buttress this conclusion of bad faith. As to damages for the alleged malicious filing of a criminal case of qualified theft, it is needless to stress that the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution cannot make one liable for damages, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.[36] | |||||