ALBENSON vs. CA

ALBENSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS:

Albenson Ent. delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed Industries Inc. A Pacific Banking Corporation Check was paid and drawn against the account of EL Woodworks. Check was later dishonored for the reason “Account Closed.” Company traced source of check and later disc discov over ered ed that that the the sign signat atur ure e belo belong nged ed to one one Euge Eugeni nio o Balt Baltao ao.. Albe Albens nson on made made an extrajudical demand upon Baltao but latter denied that he issued the check or that the signature was his. Company filed a complaint against Baltao for violation of BP 22. It was later later discover discovered ed that private private responde respondent nt had son: Eugene Eugene Baltao Baltao III, who manages manages the business establishment, establishment, EL Woodworks. No effort from the father to inform Albenson of such information. Rather the father filed complaint for damages against Albenson. ISSUE:

Whether there is indeed cause for the damages against Albenson Enterprise. RULING:

Based on Art 19, 20, 21 of the civil code, petitioners didn’t have the intent to cause damage to the respondent or enrich themselves but just to collect what was due to them.  There was no abuse of right on the part of Albenson on accusing Baltao of BP 22. Albenson Corp. honestly believed that it was private respondent who issued check based on ff inquiries: SEC records showed that president to Guaranteed Guaranteed was Eugene Baltao Bank said signature belonged to EB EB did not do his part in clarifying that there were in fact 3 Ebs, Jr., Sr. and the III. 













 There was no malicious prosecution on the part of Albenson: there must be proof that: the prosec prosecuti ution on was was prompt prompted ed by a sin sinis ister ter design design to vex and humili humiliate ate a person and that damages was initiated deliberately by defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless 







Elements of abuse of right under Article 19: 1. there is a legal right or duty 2. exer exerci cise sed d in bad bad fait faith h 3. for the the sole intent intent of prejudi prejudicing cing or injuring injuring anothe anotherr Elements under Article 21: contra bonus mores: 1. there there is is an an act act which which is lega legall 2. but which which is contrary contrary to morals, morals, good good custom, custom, public public order or or public public policy 3. it is is done done with with intent intent to inju injure re A person who has not been paid an obligation owed to him will naturally seek ways to compel the debtor to pay him. It was normal for petitioners to find means to make the issuer of the check pay the amount thereof. 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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. C.V. No. 14948 dated May 13, 1989, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs against respondent Baltao.