G.R. No. 81262 August 25, 1989
Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. and Herbert C. Hendry, petitioners, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Restituto M. Tobias, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Restituto M. Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay. In 1972, the company discovered fictitious purchases. Tobias claimed he reported these anomalies. The next day, petitioner Herbert Hendry, the Executive Vice-President, confronted Tobias as the primary suspect, imposed a forced leave, and later publicly called him a “crook” and “swindler.” Despite two police laboratory reports and a lie detector test clearing Tobias, and a private investigator’s report stating its findings were incomplete, petitioners suspended him and filed multiple criminal complaints for estafa and falsification. All complaints were dismissed by the fiscal and the Secretary of Justice. Tobias was terminated in January 1973. He later secured a compromise agreement on his illegal dismissal case.
Subsequently, while Tobias sought employment with RETELCO, petitioner Hendry, unsolicited, wrote a letter to RETELCO stating Tobias was dismissed for dishonesty. Tobias then filed a civil case for damages against petitioners. The Regional Trial Court ruled in his favor, awarding actual, moral, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are liable for damages to private respondent for their actions in relation to his dismissal and subsequent defamatory communication.

RULING

Yes, petitioners are liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic centers on the principle of abuse of right under Article 19 of the Civil Code, which mandates that every person must act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. While an employer may have the right to investigate and dismiss an employee, the manner of exercising that right is crucial.
Here, petitioners’ actions constituted an abuse of this right. Hendry’s public branding of Tobias as a criminal without conclusive evidence, the insistence on prosecution despite exculpatory police reports, and the malicious act of sending an unsolicited defamatory letter to a prospective employer were all done in bad faith. These acts exceeded the bounds of propriety and amounted to a legal wrong, distinct from the act of dismissal itself. The damage suffered by Tobias—including loss of employment opportunities and injury to his reputation and feelings—was a direct result of this abusive conduct.
Consequently, the award of moral damages was proper under Article 21 of the Civil Code, which allows recovery for acts contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. Exemplary damages were also justified, as petitioners acted in a wanton, oppressive, and malevolent manner. The principle of damnum absque injuria (damage without injury) invoked by petitioners does not apply because their actions constituted a legal injury, not a lawful exercise of a right. The amounts awarded were deemed reasonable compensation for the deliberate and malicious infliction of harm.