Zulueta vs.

Nicolas
January 31, 1958, G.R. No. 8252
Reyes, A., J.

Facts:

Plaintiff instituted the action against the defendant provincial fiscal of Rizal to recover
moral pecuniary damages in the sum of P10,000. The complaint in substance alleges
the defendant fiscal conducted an investigation of a complaint for libel filed by herein
plaintiff against the provincial governor of Rizal and the staff members of the Philippine
Free Press; that after said investigation the fiscal "rendered an opinion" that there was
no prima facie case; that the alleged libelous statements were made in good faith and
for the sole purpose of serving the best interest of the public; and that in consequence
the fiscal absolved the said governor and the Free Press staff from the crime of libel.

Issue:

Whether or not plaintiff's complaint states a cause of action.

Held:

No. The present action is based on article 27 of the new Civil Code, which provides that
"any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee
refuses or neglects without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for
damages and other relief against the latter." But this article "contemplates a refusal or
neglect without just cause by a public servant or employee to perform his official duty."
Refusal of the fiscal to prosecute when after the investigation he finds no sufficient
evidence to establish a prima facie case is not a refusal, without just cause, to perform
an official duty. The fiscal is not bound to accept the opinion of the complainant in a
criminal case as to whether or not a prima facie case exists. Vested with authority and
discretion to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the filing of
corresponding the information and having control of the prosecution of a criminal case,
the fiscal cannot be subjected to dictation from the offended party. Having legal cause to
refrain from filing an information against the person whom the herein plaintiff wants him
to charge with libel, the defendant fiscal cannot be said to have refused or neglected
without just cause to perform his official duty.
 Ledesma vs. CA et al.
April 15, 1988, G.R. No. L-54598
Gutierrez, Jr., J.

Facts:

An organization named Student Leadership Club was formed by some students of the
West Visayas College. They elected the late Violets Delmo as the treasurer. In that
capacity, Delmo extended loans from the funds of the club to some of the students of
the school. The petitioner claims that the said act of extending loans was against school
rules and regulations. Thus, the petitioner, as President of the School, sent a letter to
Delmo informing her that she was being dropped from the membership of the club and
that she would not be a candidate for any award or citation from the school. Delmo
asked for a reconsideration of the decision but the petitioner denied it. Delmo, thus,
appealed to the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Public Schools which absolved
Delmo and allowed her to graduate with honors. However, petitioner refused to follow
the decision of the Director hence allowing Delmo’s graduation without honors. To delay
the matter further, the petitioner subsequently wrote the Director for a reconsideration of
the latter’s decision because he believed that Delmo should not be allowed to graduate
with honors. The Director denied the petitioner's request. Thereafter, the petitioner
finally instructed the Registrar of the school to enter into the scholastic records of Delmo
the honor, "Magna Cum Laude." Later, Delmo, then a minor, was joined by her parents
in flag action for damages against the petitioner. During the pendency of the action,
however, Delmo passed away, and thus, an Amended and Supplemental Complaint was
filed by her parents as her sole and only heirs. The trial court after hearing rendered
judgment against the petitioner and in favor of the spouses Delmo. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the decision.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent CA erred in affirming the trial court's finding that
petitioner is liable for damages under Article 27 of the New Civil Code.

Held:

No. It cannot be disputed that Violeta Delmo went through a painful ordeal which was
brought about by the petitioner's neglect of duty and callousness. Thus, moral damages
are but proper. The Solicitor-General tries to cover-up the petitioner's deliberate
omission to inform Miss Delmo by stating that it was not the duty of the petitioner to
furnish her a copy of the Director's decision. Granting this to be true, it was nevertheless
the petitioner's duty to enforce the said decision. He could have done so considering
that he received the decision and even though he sent it back with the records of the
case, he undoubtedly read the whole of it which consisted of only three pages.
Moreover, the petitioner should have had the decency to meet with Mr. Delmo, the girl's
father, and inform the latter, at the very least of the decision. This, the petitioner likewise
failed to do, and not without the attendant bad faith which the appellate court correctly
pointed out in its decision.