7/1/2023 0 Comments Malicious mischief 3![]() The relationship between petitioner and Jimmy and Joel also got strained. Not long after, petitioner discovered that he was being surveilled by Benigno. Benigno agreed and accepted Abdul's proposal. Abdul approached Benigno and asked him to spy for him against petitioner. Abdul thought that petitioner had been erecting tent pavilion halls in local markets without reporting the transactions to him. Meantime, petitioner's foreign business partner, a certain Abdul Majid Sattar ("Abdul"), became suspicious of petitioner. They developed a camaraderie that made them close to each other. ![]() Respondents lived in the same area and were almost always together at work. Respondents Jimmy Escobar ("Jimmy") and Joel Gomez ("Joel") were hired as petitioner's assistants and respondent Hector Pangilinan ("Hector") was the lead carpenter, all at Expo Logistics. His services were required for installing and maintaining air conditioning units for the pavilion hall tents provided by Expo Logistics and Plettac. Respondent Benigno Bonafe ("Benigno") was engaged by petitioner as Air Conditioning Assistant sometime in January 2001. ("Plettac"), a Singaporean company engaged in providing pavilion hall tents for holding exhibitions and other events in the Philippines. It is the local partner of Plettac Roeder Asia Pte Ltd. ("Expo Logistics"), a freight forwarding company doing business in the Philippines. Petitioner is the managing director of Expo Logistics Philippines, Inc. The facts established after trial are as follows: Respondents sued 2 petitioner for malicious prosecution seeking the payment of damages. 02-104536 ordering petitioner Menandro Sosmeña to pay respondents Benigno Bonafe, Jimmy Escobar, Joel Gomez and Hector Pangilinan P200,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 as attorney's fees, for malicious prosecution. ![]() Sosmeña," affirming the Decision dated Apof the Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Manila, in Civil Case No. This Petition for Review assails the Decision 1 dated Jof the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |