Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 88694 January 11, 1993ALBENSON ENTERPRISES CORP., JESSE AP, AN! BENJAMIN MEN!IONA, petitioners, vs.T"E COURT O# APPEALS AN! EUGENIO S. BALTAO, respondents.Puruganan, Chato, Chato & Tan for petitioners.Lino M. Patajo, Francisco Ma. Chanco, Ananiano Desierto and Segundo Mangohig for private respondent. BI!IN, J.:This petition assails the decision of respondent ourt of !ppeals in!"#R V No. $%&%' entitled ()u*enio S. +altao, plainti,"appellee vs. !lbenson )nterprises orporation, et al, defendants"appellants(, -hich .odi/ed the 0ud*.ent of the Re*ional Trial ourt of 1ue2on it3, +ranch 4VIII in ivil ase No. 1"%5&65 and ordered petitioner to pa3 private respondent, a.on* others, the su. of P755,555.55 as .oral da.a*es and attorne38s fees in the a.ount of P75,555.55.The facts are not disputed.In Septe.ber, October, and Nove.ber $&'5, petitioner !lbenson )nterprisesorporation 9!lbenson for short: delivered to #uaranteed Industries, Inc. 9#uaranteed for short: located at ;6in* orporation hec> No. $; of .erit. 9Roo, pp. ;'";&:.On appeal, respondent court .odi/ed the trial court8s decision as follo-sJ@H)R)AOR), the decision appealed fro. is MODIAI)D b3 reducin* the .oral da.a*es a-arded therein fro. P$,555,555.55 to P755,555.55 and the attorne38s fees fro. P$55,555.55 to P75,555.55, said decision bein* hereb3 aFr.ed in all its other aspects. @ith costs a*ainst appellants. 9Roo, pp. 75"7$:Dissatis/ed -ith the above rulin*, petitioners !lbenson )nterprises orp., Hesse Iap, and +en0a.in Mendiona /led the instant Petition, alle*in* that the appellate court erred inJ$. oncludin* that private respondent8s cause of action is not one based on .alicious prosecution but one for abuse of ri*hts under !rticle 6$ of the ivil ode not-ithstandin* the fact that the basis of a civil action for .alicious prosecution is !rticle 66$&in relation to !rticle 6$ or !rticle 6$=< of the ivil ode . . . .6. oncludin* that (hittin* at and in e,ect .ali*nin* 9private respondent: -ith an un0ust cri.inal case -as, -ithout .ore, a plain case of abuse of ri*hts b3 .isdirection( and (-as therefore,actionable b3 itself,( and -hich (beca.e inordinatel3 blatant and*rossl3 a**ravated -hen . . . 9private respondent: -as deprived of his basic ri*ht to notice and a fair hearin* in the so"called preli.inar3 investi*ation . . . . (;. oncludin* that petitioner8s (actuations in this case -ere coldl3 deliberate and calculated(, no evidence havin* been adduced to support such a s-eepin* state.ent.%. Holdin* the petitioner corporation, petitioner Iap and petitioner Mendiona 0ointl3 and severall3 liable -ithout suFcient basis in la- and in fact.7. !-ardin* respondents L7.$. P$;;,;75.55 as actual or co.pensator3 da.a*es, even in the absence of suFcient evidence to sho- that such -as actuall3 su,ered.7.6. P755,555.55 as .oral da.a*es considerin* that the evidence in this connection .erel3 involved private respondent8s alle*ed celebrated status as a business.an, there bein* no sho-in* that the act co.plained of adversel3 a,ected private respondent8s reputation or that it resulted to .aterialloss.7.;. P655,555.55 as eBe.plar3 da.a*es despite the fact that petitioners -ere dul3 advised b3 counsel of their le*al recourse.7.%. P75,555.55 as attorne38s fees, no evidence havin* been adduced to 0ustif3 such an a-ard 9Roo, pp. %"e *ood the a.ount of the chec>. ounselfor private respondent -rote bac> and denied, a.on* others, that private respondent ever transacted business -ith !lbenson )nterprises orporationK that he ever issued the chec> in Duestion. Private respondent8s counsel even -ent furtherJ he .ade a -arnin* to defendants to chec> the veracit3 of their clai.. It is pivotal to note at this 0uncture that in this sa.e letter, if indeed private respondent -anted to clear hi.self fro. the baseless accusation .ade a*ainst his person, he should have .ade .ention of the fact that there are three 9;: persons -ith the sa.e na.e, i.e.J )u*enio +altao, Sr., )u*enio S. +altao, Hr. 9private respondent:, and )u*enio +altao III 9private respondent8s son, -ho as it turned out later, -as the issuer of the chec>:. He,ho-ever, failed to do this. The last t-o +altaos -ere doin* business in the sa.e buildin* L +altao +uildin* L located at ;6 is respondent )u*enio S. +altao -hen their counsel -rote respondent to .a>e *ood the a.ount of the chec> and upon refusal, /led the co.plaint for violation of +P +l*. 66.Private respondent, ho-ever, did nothin* to clarif3 the case of .ista>en identit3 at /rst hand. Instead, private respondent -aited in a.bush and thereafter pounced on the hapless petitioners at a ti.e he thou*ht -as propitious b3 /lin* an action for da.a*es. The ourt -ill not countenance this devious sche.e.The cri.inal co.plaint /led a*ainst private respondent after the latter refused to .a>e *ood the a.ount of the bouncin* chec> despite de.and -as a sincere atte.pt on the part of petitioners to /nd the best possible .eans b3 -hich the3 could collect the su. of .one3 due the.. ! person -ho has not been paid an obli*ation o-ed to hi. -ill naturall3 see> -a3s to co.pel the debtor to pa3 hi.. It -as nor.al for petitioners to /nd .eans to .a>e the issuer of the chec> pa3 the a.ount thereof. In the absence of a -ron*ful act or o.ission or of fraud or bad faith, .oral da.a*es cannot be a-arded and that the adverse result of an action does not per se .a>e the action -ron*ful and sub0ect the actor to the pa3.ent of da.a*es, for the la- could not have .eant to i.pose a penalt3 on the ri*ht to liti*ate 9Rubio vs. ourt of !ppeals, $%$ SR! %'' M$&' -as issued b3 one )u*enio +altao. Neither had private respondent conve3ed to petitioner that there are t-o )u*enio +altaos conductin* business in the sa.e buildin* L he and his son )u*enio +altao III. onsiderin* that #uaranteed, -hich received the *oods in pa3.ent of -hich the bouncin* chec> -as issued is o-ned b3 respondent, petitioner acted in *ood faith and probable cause in /lin* the co.plaint before the provincial /scal.To constitute .alicious prosecution, there .ust be proof that the prosecution-as pro.pted b3 a sinister desi*n to veB and hu.iliate a person, and that it -as initiated deliberatel3 b3 the defendant >no-in* that his char*es -ere false and *roundless. oncededl3, the .ere act of sub.ittin* a case to the authorities for prosecution does not .a>e one liable for .alicious prosecution. 9Manila #as orporation vs. ourt of !ppeals, $55 SR! no-in* that his char*es -ere false and *roundless. oncededl3, the .ere act of sub.ittin* a case to the authorities for prosecution does not .a>e one liable for .alicious prosecution. Proof and .otive that the institution of the action -as pro.pted b3 a sinister desi*n to veB and hu.iliate a person .ust be clearl3 and preponderantl3 established to entitle the victi.s to da.a*es 9&"id.:.In the case at bar, there is no proof of a sinister desi*n on the part of petitioners to veB or hu.iliate private respondent b3 institutin* the cri.inal case a*ainst hi.. @hile petitioners .a3 have been ne*li*ent to so.e eBtent in deter.inin* the liabilit3 of private respondent for the dishonored chec>, the sa.e is not so *ross or rec>less as to a.ount to bad faith -arrantin* an a-ard of da.a*es.The root of the controvers3 in this case is founded on a case of .ista>en identit3. It is possible that -ith a .ore assiduous investi*ation, petitioners -ould have eventuall3 discovered that private respondent )u*enio S. +altao is not the ()u*enio +altao( responsible for the dishonored chec>. Ho-ever, the record sho-s that petitioners did eBert considerable e,ort in order to deter.ine the liabilit3 of private respondent. Their investi*ation pointed to private respondent as the ()u*enio +altao( -ho issued and si*ned the dishonored chec> as the president of the debtor"corporation #uaranteed )nterprises. Their error in proceedin* a*ainst the -ron* individual -as obviousl3 in the nature of an innocent .ista>e, and cannot be characteri2ed as havin* been co..itted in bad faith. This error could have been discovered if respondent had sub.itted his counter"aFdavit before investi*atin* /scal Su.a-a3 and -as i..ediatel3 recti/ed b3 Provincial Aiscal Mauro astro upon discover3 thereof, i.e., durin* the reinvesti*ation resultin* in the dis.issal of the co.plaint.Aurther.ore, the adverse result of an action does not per se .a>e the act -ron*ful and sub0ect the actor to the pa3.ent of .oral da.a*es. The la- could not have .eant to i.pose a penalt3 on the ri*ht to liti*ate, such ri*ht is so precious that .oral da.a*es .a3 not be char*ed on those -ho .a3 even eBercise it erroneousl3. !nd an adverse decision does not ipso facto 0ustif3 the a-ard of attorne38s fees to the -innin* part3 9#arcia vs. #on2ales, $'; SR! =6 M$&&5N:.Thus, an a-ard of da.a*es and attorne38s fees is un-arranted -here the action -as /led in *ood faith. If da.a*e results fro. a person8s eBercisin* his le*al ri*hts, it is da%nu% a"s'ue injuria 9Ilocos Norte )lectric o.pan3 vs. ourt of !ppeals, $=& SR! 7 M$&'&N:.o.in* no- to the clai. of private respondent for actual or co.pensator3 da.a*es, the records sho- that the sa.e -as based solel3 on his alle*ations -ithout proof to substantiate the sa.e. He did not present proof of the cost of the .edical treat.ent -hich he clai.ed to have under*one as a result of the nervous brea>do-n he su,ered, nor did he present proof of the actual loss to his business caused b3 the un0ust liti*ation a*ainst hi.. In deter.inin* actual da.a*es, the court cannot rel3 on speculation, con0ectures or *uess-or> as to the a.ount. @ithout the actual proof of loss, the a-ard of actual da.a*es beco.es erroneous 9#uilatco vs. it3 of Da*upan, $=$ SR! ;'6 M$&'&N:.!ctual and co.pensator3 da.a*es are those recoverable because of pecuniar3 loss L in business, trade, propert3, profession, 0ob or occupation L and the sa.e .ust be proved, other-ise, if the proof is Gi.s3 and unsubstantiated, no da.a*es -ill be *iven 9Rubio vs. ourt of !ppeals, $%$ SR! %'' M$&'less, or oppressive .anner, neither .a3 eBe.plar3 da.a*es be a-arded 9Dee Hua ?ion* )lectrical )Duip.ent orporation vs. Re3es, $%7 SR! %'' M$&'