THIRD
DIVISION
|
SILANGAN TEXTILE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,
TRADEWORLD SYNERGY, INCORPORATED, and CELLU INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED,
Petitioners,* - versus
- HON. AVELINO G. DEMETRIA, PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 166719 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR., CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Luzon
Spinning Mills, Incorporated (LSMI) filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of P9,999,845.00. The yarns were delivered at the office of STMC
as evidenced by delivery receipts.[2] In payment of the yarns, STMC issued 34
postdated checks in the total amount of P9,999,845.00. Among these postdated checks are the
following:
|
Check No. |
Date |
Amount |
|
0239973 |
|
|
|
0239990 |
|
316,125.00 |
|
0239991 |
|
229,110.00 |
|
0239992 |
|
288,771.00 |
|
0239994 |
|
200,025.00 |
|
0239995 |
|
287,748.00 |
|
0296801 |
|
207,970.00 |
|
0296802 |
|
206,127.00 |
|
0296803 |
|
316,577.00 |
|
TOTAL |
|
2,370,405.00[3] |
When presented for payment,
the foregoing postdated checks were dishonored for the reason, “Drawn Against
Insufficient Fund” (DAIF). LSMI demanded
from STMC the immediate payment of the obligation.[4] STMC failed and refused to heed the demand of
LSMI; hence, the latter filed the Complaint before the RTC.
In
accordance with the prayer of LSMI, and finding the same to be sufficient in
form and substance, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment against STMC’s properties.[5] In this connection, a notice of attachment on
the properties in the name of STMC covered by Transfer Certificates of Title No.
202686 and No. 202685 was issued.[6]
Apparently,
LSMI had already previously instituted before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
of
The
RTC held that:
For forum-shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transactions and same essential facts and circumstances. There must also be identical causes of action, subject matter and issues (PRC vs. CA, 292 SCRA 155). Forum-shopping also exists where the elements of litis pendencia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other (Alejandro vs. CA, 295 SCRA 536).
In the case at bar, the two (2) cases, one for violation of BP 22 and the other for collection of sum of money although concerning the same amount of money are distinct litigations, neither involving exactly the same parties nor identical issues.
The accused in the criminal cases for violation of BP 22 are the persons who signed the worthless checks while the defendants in the instant case are the corporations which have outstanding obligations to the plaintiff. Hence, there is no identity of parties in the aforesaid cases.
As to whether or not the requisites prescribed by law for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment have been complied with, record show (sic) that the contents of the affidavit required for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment were incorporated in the complaint, verified and certified as correct by Mr. Vicente Africa, Jr. Thus, there was substantial compliance of Section 3, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.[9]
The
Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Discharge Attachment and Admit Counter-bond[10] filed
by STMC were denied by the RTC in its Order dated
STMC
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via
a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court[12] which
was dismissed by the appellate court in a Decision[13]
dated
But it is also true that when the bounced check involved is issued by a corporation, B.P. Blg. 22 imposes the criminal liability only on the individual/s who signed the check, presumably in keeping with the principle that generally only natural persons may commit a crime. Thus:
“Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.”
We hold, at any rate, that with respect to the civil liability, the corporation concerned should bear the responsibility, the drawing of the bum check being a corporate act. And a corporation has a legal personality of its own different from that of its stockholders/officers who signed the check/s.
Accordingly, since the herein petitioners, as drawers of the checks in question, are not parties to the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, the private respondent was and is not prohibited from filing an independent civil action against them.
Moreover, the civil liability of the accused Silangan(s), the signatories of the checks in the criminal cases, is based on Article 20 of the Civil Code as declared in Banal vs. Tadeo, Jr.
On the other hand, the liability of petitioners corporations arose from contract. Under Article 31 of the Civil Code and also Section 1(a), Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the offended party has the right to institute a separate civil action when its nexus is liability not arising from the crime, like a liability arising from contract.
In fine, there is no violation of SC Administrative Circular No. 57-97, now Section 1(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The civil actions for the liability of the Silangans as the signatories to the subject checks are deemed included in the criminal actions filed against them. The separate action filed against the petitioners corporations for the recovery of the purchase price of the yarn sold to them did not detract from it as this is an entirely different suit.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, for being deficient both in form and in substance, the instant petition is DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioners.
STMC
filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereon which was denied by the Court of
Appeals in a Resolution dated
Hence,
the instant petition.
STMC
submits the following issues for our resolution:
I. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conclusion of public respondent Judge Demetria that the certification against forum-shopping is inapplicable in this case?
II. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conclusion of the public respondent Judge Demetria when it failed to apply Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure?
III. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conclusion of the public respondent Judge Demetria when it issued the writ of preliminary attachment in favor of the private respondent.
In its
first assigned error, STMC argues that LSMI through its Operation Manager, Mr.
Vicente Africa, failed to certify under oath that he had earlier filed criminal
cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against the Silangans
before the MTC. These cases are as
follows:
Case Number Name
of Accused
(a) 00-0295 to 00- 0299 and Anita Silangan and
00-305 Benito Silangan
(b) 00-0294, 0300-04 and Anita Silangan and
306-09 Jimmy Silangan
(c) 00-1246 Anita Silangan and
Benito Silangan
(d) 99-2145 to 99-2154 Anita Silangan and
99-2154 Benito Silangan
The
criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and the collection of
sum of money have the same issues, i.e.,
the recovery of the subject checks. The
subsequent filing of the civil case for sum of money constitutes forum shopping.
Forum
shopping exists when the elements of litis
pendentia are present, or when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. There is forum shopping when the following
elements concur: (1) identity of the
parties or, at least, of the parties who represent the same interest in both
actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the
latter is founded on the same set of facts; and (3) identity of the two
preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will
amount to res judicata in the action
under consideration or will constitute litis
pendentia.[15]
We grant
the petition.
The case of
Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing
Corporation v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corporation[16]
is instructive. In that case, Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation
(HIMC) instituted before the P1,622,467.14. ADEC issued several checks in favor of HIMC
as payment. The checks, however, were
dishonored by the drawee bank on the ground of insufficient funds/account
closed. Before the filing of the case
for recovery of sum of money before the RTC of Mandaluyong
City, HIMC had already filed separate criminal complaints for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 against
the officers of ADEC, Gil Santillan and Juanito
Pamatmat. They were docketed as I.S. No.
00-01-00304 and I.S. No. 01-00300, respectively, and were both pending before
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
In holding
that the civil case filed subsequent to the criminal cases was deemed
instituted in the criminal cases, this Court held:
It is clear from the records that the checks involved in I.S. No. 00-01-00304 and I.S. No. 00-01-00300 are the same checks cited by petitioner in Civil Case No. MC 01-1493. The Court will certainly not allow petitioner to recover a sum of money twice based on the same set of checks. Neither will the Court allow it to proceed with two actions based on the same set of checks to increase its chances of obtaining a favorable ruling. Such runs counter to the Court’s policy against forum shopping which is a deplorable practice of litigants in resorting to two different fora for the purpose of obtaining the same relief to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable judgment. It is a practice that ridicules the judicial process, plays havoc with the rules on orderly procedure, and is vexatious and unfair to the other parties of the case.[17]
In
dismissing Civil Case No. MC-01-1493, this Court applied and interpreted Supreme
Court Circular No. 57-97 effective
1. The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such action separately shall be allowed or recognized.
From
this Supreme Court Circular was adopted Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure which reads:
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
In
the Hyatt case, the Court further
negated the claim that there are no identity of parties and causes of action in
the criminal and civil complaints for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 where a criminal case against the corporate officers
is filed ahead of the civil case against the corporation. The parties in the civil case against the
corporation represent the same interest as the parties in the criminal case. As to the issue of identity or non-identity
of relief sought, this Court held that the criminal case and the civil case
seek to obtain the same relief. Thus:
With the implied
institution of the civil liability in the criminal actions before the
The
purpose of Section 1(b) of Rule 111 is explained by Justice Florenz D. Regalado, former chairman of the Committee tasked with the
revision of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
He clarified that the special rule on Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 cases was added because the dockets of the
courts were clogged with such litigations and creditors were using the courts
as collectors. While ordinarily no
filing fees are charged for actual damages in criminal cases, the rule on the
necessary inclusion of a civil action with the payment of filing fees based on
the face value of the check involved was laid down to prevent the practice of
creditors of using the threat of a criminal prosecution to collect on their
credit free of charge.[19]
Applying
the Hyatt case to the case before us,
the dismissal of Civil Case No. 00-0420 before the RTC is warranted. It is not denied that LSMI likewise filed
several criminal complaints against the officers of STMC before the MTC prior
to the filing of Civil Case No. 00-0420.
As provided in Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97, as re-echoed in Rule
111, Section 1(b), of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the civil action now
filed against STMC arising from its issuance of the bouncing checks is deemed
instituted in the criminal cases filed against its officers pending before the
MTC.
Finally, as to the prayer of STMC for
the discharge of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment issued by the RTC, Rule 57 of
the Revised Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. – At the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the following cases:
(a) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of money or damages, other than moral and exemplary, on a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict against a party who is about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors.
x x x x
SEC. 2. Issuance and contents of order. – An order of attachment may be issued either ex parte or upon motion with notice and hearing by the court in which the action is pending, or by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, and must require the sheriff of the court to attach so much of the property in the Philippines of the party against whom it is issued, not exempt from execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand, unless such party makes deposit or gives a bond as hereinafter provided in an amount equal to that fixed in the order, which may be the amount sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand or the value of the property to be attached as stated by the applicant, exclusive of costs. Several writs may be issued at the same time to the sheriffs of the courts of different judicial regions.
SEC. 3. Affidavit and bond required. – An order of attachment shall be granted only when it appears by the affidavit of the applicant, or of some other person who personally knows the facts, that a sufficient cause of action exists, that the case is one of those mentioned in Section 1 hereof, that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action, and that the amount due to the applicant, or the value of the property the possession of which he is entitled to recover, is as much as the sum for which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims. The affidavit, and the bond required by the next succeeding section, must be duly filed with the court before the order issues.
Attachment
is an ancillary remedy. It is not sought
for its own sake but rather to enable the attaching party to realize upon
relief sought and expected to be granted in the main or principal action.[20] Being an ancillary or auxiliary remedy, it is
available during the pendency of the action which may
be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and
interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate effects,
of a final judgment in the case. They
are provisional because they constitute temporary measures availed of during
the pendency of the action and they are ancillary
because they are mere incidents in and are dependent upon the result of the
main action.[21]
A
writ of preliminary attachment is a species of provisional
remedy. As such, it is a collateral
proceeding, permitted only in connection with a regular action, and as one of
its incidents; one of which is provided for present need, or for the occasion;
that is, one adapted to meet a particular exigency.[22] On the basis of the preceding discussion and
the fact that we find the dismissal of Civil Case No. 00-00420 to be in order,
the writ of preliminary attachment issued by the trial court in the said case
must perforce be lifted.[23]
Wherefore, premises
considered, the petition is GRANTED.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 25 October 2004 and Resolution dated
24 January 2005 affirming the Resolution dated 9 April 2001 of the Regional
Trial Court of Lipa City, Branch 85, are hereby reversed and set
aside. Civil Case No. 00-0420
before the
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* The Complaint was filed against the above named petitioners but in the course of the proceedings before the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals only Silangan Textile and Manufacturing Corporation and Benito, Anita and Jimmy, all surnamed Silangan, in their capacity as stockholders and officers of Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corporation participated in the proceedings.
[1] Docketed as Civil Case No. 00-0420. Records, p. 2.
[2]
[3] Rollo, p. 281.
[4]
[5] Order dated 15 September 2000 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, Lipa City, states: x x x “discreet inquiries made upon the activities of the defendant corporation as well as upon those of the members of their respective Board of Directors, which board are composed of the same group of persons or members of the same family, disclosed that the latter are about to depart from the Philippines in order to evade outstanding liabilities not only to the plaintiff but also to other creditors”; that the board of directors are about to dispose of the properties of the said defendant corporations in order to evade outstanding liabilities not only to the plaintiff but also to other creditors; that plaintiff is ready and willing to file a bond in the amount the Honorable Court may require to answer for any damages defendant may suffer by reason of the attachment should plaintiff be ultimately found not entitled thereto, thus, the application for preliminary attachment.
Finding the plaintiff’s application to be sufficient in form and substance, the Court hereby grants the same.
WHEREFORE, let a writ of preliminary attachment be issued against defendants’ properties. (Records, p. 57.)
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 673634.
[13] Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez and Vicente Q. Roxas, concurring; rollo, pp. 8-20.
[14]
[15] PAL
Employees Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,
G.R. No. 161110,
[16] G.R. No. 163597,
[17]
[18]
[19] Rodriguez
v. Ponferrada, G.R. Nos. 155531-34,
[20] BAC
Manufacturing and Sales Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 200 SCRA 130, 139.
[21] Regalado, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, Vol. 1 (7th Ed.), p. 606.
[22] Feria Noche, CIVIL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED (2001 Ed.), p. 261.
[23] Golez v. Leonidas,
G.R. No.