Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Gregorio v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Gigi Lucille
    Gregorio filed a complaint for damages against Sansio Philippines and Emma Datuin for falsely accusing her of issuing bounced checks. Sansio and Datuin filed a motion to dismiss arguing the complaint alleged malicious prosecution, but failed to establish the elements. The RTC denied the motion but the CA reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled the complaint was based on quasi-delict, not malicious prosecution, as Gregorio's rights were infringed by Sansio and Datuin's negligence in identifying the correct person and providing the proper address, depriving her of the chance to defend herself. Sansio and Datuin were liable for damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gregorio v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Gigi Lucille
    29 views2 pages
    Gregorio filed a complaint for damages against Sansio Philippines and Emma Datuin for falsely accusing her of issuing bounced checks. Sansio and Datuin filed a motion to dismiss arguing the complaint alleged malicious prosecution, but failed to establish the elements. The RTC denied the motion but the CA reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled the complaint was based on quasi-delict, not malicious prosecution, as Gregorio's rights were infringed by Sansio and Datuin's negligence in identifying the correct person and providing the proper address, depriving her of the chance to defend herself. Sansio and Datuin were liable for damages.

    Original Description:

    Gregorio v. CA case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gregorio filed a complaint for damages against Sansio Philippines and Emma Datuin for falsely accusing her of issuing bounced checks. Sansio and Datuin filed a motion to dismiss arguing the complaint alleged malicious prosecution, but failed to establish the elements. The RTC denied the motion but the CA reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled the complaint was based on quasi-delict, not malicious prosecution, as Gregorio's rights were infringed by Sansio and Datuin's negligence in identifying the correct person and providing the proper address, depriving her of the chance to defend herself. Sansio and Datuin were liable for damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views2 pages

    Gregorio v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Gigi Lucille
    Gregorio filed a complaint for damages against Sansio Philippines and Emma Datuin for falsely accusing her of issuing bounced checks. Sansio and Datuin filed a motion to dismiss arguing the complaint alleged malicious prosecution, but failed to establish the elements. The RTC denied the motion but the CA reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled the complaint was based on quasi-delict, not malicious prosecution, as Gregorio's rights were infringed by Sansio and Datuin's negligence in identifying the correct person and providing the proper address, depriving her of the chance to defend herself. Sansio and Datuin were liable for damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    [PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS] Module 1 (#32)

    Topic: Human Relations (19-36, New Civil Code)


    Title: Gregorio v. CA G.R. No. 179799
    Ponente: NACHURA, J. Date September 11, 2009
    DOCTRIN
    E
    /RIGHTS
    APPLIED
    FACTS Zenaida R. Gregorio filed a complaint for damages against Sansio
    Philippines, Inc. and Emma J. Datuin.

    Complaint for violation of B.P. Blg.22 was filed against petitioner Gregorio
    as proprietor of Alvi Marketing, allegedly for delivering insufficiently
    funded bank checks as payment for the numerous appliances bought by
    Alvi Marketing from Sansio. As the address in the complaint was wrong,
    she was indicted for 3 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for failure to
    controvert the charges against her. Gregorio filed a Motion for Deferment
    of Arraignment and Reinvestigation, alleging that she could not have issued
    the bounced checks, since she did not even have a checking account with
    the bank on which the checks were drawn. In the course of the
    reinvestigation, Datuin submitted an Affidavit of Desistance stating that
    Gregorio was not one of the signatories of the bounced checks subject of
    prosecution. Subsequently, the court ordered the B.P. Blg. 22 cases
    dismissed.

    Gregorio in her complaint for damages stated that incalculable damage has
    been inflicted upon him due to the defendants reckless disregard of the
    fundamental legal precept that every person shall respect the dignity,
    personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons.
    Sansio and Datuin filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the complaint,
    being one for damages arising from malicious prosecution, failed to state a
    cause of action, as the ultimate facts constituting the elements thereof
    were not alleged in the complaint.

    The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss. The CA reversed the decision of the
    RTC and ordered the dismissal of Gregorio’s complaint for damages.
    ISSUE/S Whether or not the complaint for damages filed by Gregorio is based on
    quasi-delict or malicious prosecution.
    RULING It is a complaint based on quasi-delict under Article 2176, in relation to
    Article 26 of the Civil Code, rather than on malicious prosecution.

    Quasi-delict exist under Article 2176 when the plaintiff suffers damage due
    to the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person to whose
    act he must respond provided that there must be no pre-existing
    [PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS] Module 1 (#32)

    contractual relation between the parties. On the other hand, Article 26 of


    the Civil Code grants a cause of action for damages, prevention, and other
    relief in cases of breach, though not necessarily constituting a criminal
    offense, of the following rights: (1) right to personal dignity; (2) right to
    personal security; (3) right to family relations; (4) right to social
    intercourse; (5) right to privacy; and (6) right to peace of mind.

    Gregorio’s rights to personal dignity, personal security, privacy, and peace


    of mind were infringed by Sansio and Datuin when they failed to exercise
    the requisite diligence in determining the identity of the person they
    should rightfully accuse of tendering insufficiently funded checks. This fault
    was compounded when they failed to ascertain the correct address of
    petitioner, thus depriving her of the opportunity to controvert the charges,
    because she was not given proper notice.

    Therefore, Sansio and Datuin are liable for damages.

    You might also like