You are on page 1of 2

Gregorio Fule vs. Court of Appeals arrived at the residence of Atty.

Belarmino complaining that the jewelry given


G.R. No. 112212 to him was fake. He then used a tester to prove the alleged fakery.
March 2, 1998 Petitioner then accused Dichoso and Mendoza of deceiving him which they,
however, denied. They countered that petitioner could not have been fooled
Facts: because he had vast experience regarding jewelry.

Petitioner Gregorio Fule, a banker by profession and a jeweler at the Petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of San
same time, acquired a 10-hectare property in Tanay, Rizal which used to be Pablo City against private respondents praying, among other things, that the
under the name of Fr. Antonio Jacobe. The latter had mortgaged it earlier to contract of sale over the Tanay property be declared null and void on the
the Rural Bank of Alaminos (the Bank), Laguna, Inc. to secure a loan, but the ground of fraud and deceit. The lower court issued a temporary restraining
mortgage was later foreclosed and the property offered for public auction. order directing the Register of Deeds of Rizal to refrain from acting on the
pertinent documents involved in the transaction. However, the same court
In July 1984, petitioner, as corporate secretary of the bank, asked lifted its previous order and denied the prayer for a writ of preliminary
Remelia Dichoso and Oliva Mendoza to look for a buyer who might be injunction.
interested in the Tanay property. The two private respondent Dr. Ninevetch
Cruz. It so happened that at the time, petitioner had shown interest in buying After trial, the lower court rendered its decision in favor of private-
a pair of emerald-cut diamond earrings owned by Dr. Cruz which he had seen respondent. In awarding damages to the defendants, the lower court found
in January of the same year when his mother examined and appraised them that the plaintiff acted in bad, awarding Cruz P300k as moral damages and
as genuine. P100k as exemplary damages; Atty. Belarmino P250k as moral damages and
P150k as exemplary damages; and granting both P25k each as attorney’s
Dr. Cruz, however, declined petitioner’s offer to buy the jewelry. fees and litigation expenses. A petition with the Court of Appeals yielded the
Subsequently, however, negotiations for the barter of the jewelry and the same result, hence this petition.
Tanay property ensued. In an effort to cut through any legal impediment,
petitioner executed a deed of redemption on behalf of Fr. Jacobe , the latter Issue:
purportedly sold the property to the petitioner.
Whether or not the appellate court erred in awarding damages.
In the afternoon of October 23, 1984, petitioner met Atty.
Belarmino(private-petitioner’s lawyer) at the latter’s residence to prepare the Ruling:
documents of sale. As pre-arranged, petitioner left Atty. Belarmino’s residence
with Dichoso and Mendoza and headed for the bank. Dr. Cruz also arrived No. In the instant case, the TC awarded damages analogous to
shortly thereafter. The cashier returned to the bank and arrived there at 5:48 malicious prosecution under Article 2219(8) of the NCC for the following
p.m., ahead of Dr. Cruz and Dichoso who arrived at 5:55 p.m. Dr. Cruz and reasons:
the cashier then opened the safety deposit box, the former retrieving a
transparent plastic or cellophane bag with the jewelry inside and handing over (1) The malice with which petitioner filed the case is apparent.
the same to petitioner. The latter took the jewelry from the bag, went near the As an experienced jeweler who thoroughly examined the earrings
electric light at the bank’s lobby, held the jewelry against the light and himself and went so far as to sketch them earlier, it is illogical that he
examined it for ten to fifteen minutes. After a while, Dr. Cruz asked, “Okay na would fail to exert extra effort to check its genuineness at the precise
ba iyan?” Petitioner expressed his satisfaction by nodding his head. moment of the exchange. His acts thus failed to accord with what an
ordinary prudent man would have done in the same situation.
Later, at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day, petitioner
(2) As an experienced businessman and banker, he was
shrewd enough to bloat the property’s price from 25k to 75k only a few
days after he had purchased it for a far lower cost, the value of which
still fell short of the diamond earrings’ price.

(3) Also, it took him 2 hours of unexplained delay before


complaining the earrings were counterfeit—a period in which anything
could have happened while petitioner was in possession of the jewelry.
Given this, it would appear that the cause of action in the instant case
was contrived by the petitioner himself in hopes of obtaining a
favorable outcome in his complaint to take the real jewelry, return a
fake, and get back the property. This is plain and simple, unjust
enrichment. All that considered, the damages prayed for were
reasonably proportionate to the sufferings they underwent.

(4) Petitioner filed a malicious and unfounded case all the while
dragging down private respondents, whose reputations had been
soiled by petitioner’s coming to court with unclean hands. Because of
the falsity, malice and baseless nature of the complaint, defendants
were compelled to litigate and are thus also entitled to the awarding of
attorney’s fees under Article 2208.

You might also like