• GILBERT P. BAYORAN
The complaint for moral damages filed by former Bacolod City councilor Vladimir Gonzales against incumbent councilor Wilson Gamboa Jr. has been dismissed for lack of cause of action by Regional Trial Court Branch 79 Judge Ferdinand Elbert Jomilla in a ruling dated Feb. 3.
Gonzales sought P3-million moral damages against Gamboa, alleging that the defendant maliciously filed an administrative and criminal complaint against him before the Office of Ombudsman on July 3, 2024, which caused injury to his reputation, mental anguish, and wounded feelings.
The complaint stemmed from the allegation made by Gamboa that Gonzales, as a member of the City Council, was the majority owner of Home Invest Holdings Inc., which entered into a bulk water supply agreement transaction with Prime Water Infrastructure Corp.
Gamboa claimed such act is in violation of Section 7(a) of Republic Act (RA) 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Section 3(i) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Gamboa further asserted that Gonzales used his office to further his private business interests.
In his counter-affidavit filed before the Ombudsman, Gonzales claimed that Gamboa acted with malice and bad faith in filing the Ombudsman complaint, stressing that the defendant deliberately submitted an outdated 2021 amended articles of incorporation of Home Invest Holdings Inc. while withholding the updated 2022 general information sheet, in order to mislead the Ombudsman.
Gonzales further claimed that Gamboa made unsubstantiated accusations that the Prime Water transaction was entered into for his persona benefit.
According to the ruling, the former councilor relied on a joint resolution of the Ombudsman dated Sept. 23, 2025, dismissing the complaint against him for lack of probable cause for violation of Section 3(i) of RA 3019 as he also argued that the complaint against him was a malicious harassment suit filed for political purposes.
In the ruling, Jomilla said the mere filing of a complaint does not ipso facto give rise to a liability for damages as parties are presumed to have acted in good faith in availing of legal remedies.
“A cause of action for damages based on a malicious suit can arise only after the termination of the prior proceeding with finality, and in favor of the aggrieved party,” he added.
The judge noted when Gonzales filed the present complaint for moral damages on March 4, 2025, the Ombudsman case was still pending.
Therefore, the plaintiff could not claim that Gamboa had committed a wrongful act, which is an indispensable element of his complaint.
“Any alleged injury or reputation or mental anguish suffered by the plaintiff was, at that point, speculative and premature,” he added.
“Correlatively, the recovery of moral damages under Article 2219 of the Civil Code cannot rest on mere allegations of wounded feelings. Where damages are predicated on the filing of a complaint, liability attaches only upon clear proof of grave abuse of rights under Article 19, of the Civil Code,” Jomilla said.
He also noted the absent of proof that defendant acted with wanton disregard of plaintiff’s rights and without probable cause, adding also that the filing of Ombudsman complaint did not ipso facto give rise to a liability for moral damages.
“Wherefore, the complaint for moral damages is dismissed for lack of cause of action. No pronouncement as to costs,” the three-page decision said. | GB
