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 COURTO# 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, plaintiff"appellee vs. !lbenson )nterprises orporation, et al, defendants"appellants(, ,hich -odifiedthe .ud*-ent of the Re*ional Trial ourt of /ue0on it1, +ranch 2VIII in ivil ase No. /"%3&43 and orderedpetitioner to pa1 private respondent, a-on* others, the su- of P533,333.33 as -oral da-a*es and attorne16sfees in the a-ount of P53,333.33.The facts are not disputed.In Septe-ber, October, and Nove-ber $&'3, petitioner !lbenson )nterprises orporation 7!lbenson for short8delivered to #uaranteed Industries, Inc. 7#uaranteed for short8 located at 94:; V. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa,Manila, the -ild steelplates ,hich the latter ordered. !s part pa1-ent thereof, !lbenson ,as *iven Pacific+anood,orH)R)?OR), .ud*-ent is hereb1 rendered in favor of plaintiff and a*ainst defendants orderin* the latter topa1 plaintiff .ointl1 and severall1F$. actual or co-pensator1 da-a*es of P$99,953.33G4. -oral da-a*es of P$,333,333.33 7$ -illion pesos8G9. e@e-plar1 da-a*es of P433,333.33G%. attorne16s fees of P$33,333.33G5 costs.Defendants6 counterclai- a*ainst plaintiff and clai- for da-a*es a*ainst Mercantile Insurance o. on the bondfor the issuance of the ,rit of attach-ent at the instance of plaintiff are hereb1 dis-issed for lac< of -erit.7Roo, pp. 9'"9&8.On appeal, respondent court -odified the trial court6s decision as follo,sF>H)R)?OR),thedecisionappealedfro-isMODI?I)Db1reducin* the-oral da-a*esa,arded thereinfro- P$,333,333.33 to P533,333.33 and the attorne16s fees fro- P$33,333.33 to P53,333.33, said decisionbein* hereb1 affir-ed in all its other aspects. >ith costs a*ainst appellants. 7Roo, pp. 53"5$8Dissatisfied ,ith the above rulin*, petitioners !lbenson )nterprises orp., Desse Eap, and +en.a-in Mendionafiled the instant Petition, alle*in* that the appellate court erred inF$. oncludin* that private respondent6s cause of action is not one based on -alicious prosecution but one forabuse of ri*hts under !rticle 4$ of the ivil ode not,ithstandin* the fact that the basis of a civil action for-alicious prosecution is !rticle 44$& in relation to !rticle 4$ or !rticle 4$;: of the ivil ode . . . .4. oncludin* that (hittin* at and in effect -ali*nin* 7private respondent8 ,ith an un.ust cri-inalcase ,as,,ithout -ore, a plain case of abuse of ri*hts b1 -isdirection( and (,as therefore, actionable b1 itself,( and,hich (beca-e inordinatel1 blatant and *rossl1 a**ravated ,hen . . . 7private respondent8 ,as deprived of hisbasic ri*ht to notice and a fair hearin* in the so"called preli-inar1 investi*ation . . . . (9. oncludin*that petitioner6s(actuationsinthiscase,erecoldl1deliberateandcalculated(, noevidencehavin* been adduced to support such a s,eepin* state-ent.%. Holdin* the petitioner corporation, petitioner Eap and petitioner Mendiona .ointl1 and severall1 liable ,ithoutsufficient basis in la, and in fact.5. !,ardin* respondents H5.$. P$99,953.33 as actual or co-pensator1 da-a*es, even in the absence of sufficient evidence to sho, thatsuch ,as actuall1 suffered.5.4. P533,333.33 as -oral da-a*es considerin* that the evidence in this connection -erel1 involved privaterespondent6s alle*ed celebrated status as a business-an, there bein* no sho,in* that the act co-plained ofadversel1 affected private respondent6s reputation or that it resulted to -aterial loss.5.9. P433,333.33 as e@e-plar1 da-a*es despite the fact that petitioners ,ere dul1 advised b1 counsel of theirle*al recourse.5.%. P53,333.33 as attorne16s fees, no evidence havin* been adduced to .ustif1 such an a,ard 7Roo, pp. %":8.Petitioners contend that the civil case filed in the lo,er court ,as one for -alicious prosecution. itin* the caseofMadera vs. Lope!7$34 SR! ;33 I$&'$J8, the1 assert that the absence of -alice on their part absolvesthe-fro-an1 liabilit1 for -alicious prosecution. Privaterespondent, ontheother hand, anchoredhisco-plaint for Da-a*es on !rticles $&, 43, and 4$ $$ of the ivil ode.!rticle$&, hen a ri*ht ise@ercised in a -anner ,hich does not confor- ,ith the nor-s enshrined in !rticle $& and results in da-a*e toanother, a le*al ,ron* is thereb1 co--itted for ,hich the ,ron*doer -ust be held responsible. !lthou*h thereBuire-ents of each provision is different, these three 798 articles are all related to each other. !s the e-inentivilist Senator !rturo Tolentino puts itF (>ith this article 7!rticle 4$8, co-bined ,ith articles $& and 43, thescope ofour la, on civil,ron*shas been ver1 *reatl1 broadenedGithas beco-e-uch -ore supple andadaptable than the !n*lo"!-erican la, on torts. It is no, difficult to conceive of an1 -alevolent e@ercise of ari*ht ,hich could not be chec