Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
SPOUSES BENITO LO BUN TIONG and CAROLINE SIOK CHING TENG,
Petitioners, - versus - VICENTE BALBOA,
Respondent. |
G.R. No. 158177 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. Chairperson AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: January 28, 2008 |
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
The spouses Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng (petitioners) charge Vicente Balboa (respondent) with forum shopping.
On P2,000,000.00; Asia Trust Check No. BNDO57547 dated P1,200,000.00; and Asia Trust Check No. BNDO57548 dated P1,975,250.00 – or a total of P5,175,250.00.[1]
On
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering the latter:
1. To play the plaintiff the sum of P5,175,250.00 plus 6% interest per annum until full payment;
2. To pay the
plaintiff the sum of P100,000.00 as and for
attorney's fees.
3. To pay the cost of suit.
The counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[3]
Thereafter, in a
Decision dated
WHEREFORE, accused Caroline Siok
Ching Teng is acquitted of
the charge for violation of BP Blg. 22 for failure of
the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is ordered civilly liable to the
offended party for the amounts of the checks subject of the three informations herein, i.e., P1,200,000.00,
P1,975,250.00 and P2,000,000.00.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Petitioner sought
partial reconsideration of the MTC Decision praying for the deletion of the
award of civil indemnity, but it was denied by the MTC per Order dated
In the meantime,
petitioners brought to the Court of Appeals (CA) on appeal the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 97-82225, docketed as
CA-G.R. CV No. 61457. In the assailed
Decision dated
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and finding no reversible error in the appealed Decision dated August 11, 1998 of Branch 34 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 97-82225, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit, and said Decision is affirmed in toto.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration
of the CA Decision, but this was denied per Resolution dated
On
Now before the Court for resolution is
the Amended Petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, questioning the
CA Decision dated November 20, 2002 and Resolution dated April 21, 2003, on the
lone ground that:
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION
AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ALLOWING PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO RECOVER
TWICE FOR THE SAME OBLIGATION ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAID PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S
DELIBERATE FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO INFORM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT THAT THE
CIVIL OBLIGATION BEING SUED UPON IS THE SUBJECT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS WITH THE
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, AND FOR WHICH THE CIVIL OBLIGATION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
ADJUDGED.[9]
Petitioners
contend that the assailed CA Decision and Resolution should be reconsidered and
the RTC Decision dated
Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the supposition that one or the other court would render a favorable disposition. It is usually resorted to by a party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek and possibly to get a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by an appeal or a special civil action for certiorari.[10]
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.[11]
In Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp.,[12] the Court ruled that there is identity of parties and causes of action between a civil case for the recovery of sum of money as a result of the issuance of bouncing checks, and a criminal case for the prosecution of a B.P. No. 22 violation. Thus, it ordered the dismissal of the civil action so as to prevent double payment of the claim. The Court stated:
x x x The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform or rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order. The purpose, meanwhile, of the civil action is for the restitution, reparation or indemnification of the private offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of the accused. Hence, the relief sought in the civil aspect of I.S. No. 00-01-00304 and I.S. No. 00-01-00300 is the same as that sought in Civil Case No. MC 01-1493, that is, the recovery of the amount of the checks, which, according to petitioner, represents the amount to be paid by respondent for its purchases. x x x
This was reiterated in Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corp. v. Demetria,[13] where the civil case for the recovery of the amount covered by the bouncing checks was also ordered dismissed.
In Hyatt and
Silangan, the Court applied 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.
This was later adopted as Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
(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.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay the filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Where
the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof
has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal
action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed
in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
The
foregoing, however, are not applicable to the present case. It is worth noting that Civil Case No. 97-82225 was filed on
SEC. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. – When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Such civil action includes the recovery of indemnity under the
Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Under the foregoing rule, an
action for the recovery of civil liability
arising from an offense charged is necessarily included in the criminal
proceedings, unless (1) there is an express waiver of the civil
action, or (2) there is a reservation to institute a
separate one, or (3) the civil action was filed prior to the
criminal complaint.[14] Since respondent instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action,
then Civil Case No.
97-82225 may
proceed independently of Criminal Cases Nos. 277576 to 78, and there is no forum
shopping to speak of.
Even under the amended rules, a separate proceeding for the recovery of civil liability in cases of violations of B.P. No. 22 is allowed when the civil case is filed ahead of the criminal case. Thus, in the Hyatt case, the Court noted, viz.:
x x x This rule [Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure ] was enacted to help declog court dockets which are filled with B.P. 22 cases as creditors actually use the courts as collectors. Because ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual damages, the payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit gratis and sometimes, upon being paid, the trial court is not even informed thereof. The inclusion of the civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower the number of cases filed before the courts for collection based on dishonored checks. It is also expected to expedite the disposition of these cases. Instead of instituting two separate cases, one for criminal and another for civil, only a single suit shall be filed and tried. It should be stressed that the policy laid down by the Rules is to discourage the separate filing of the civil action. The Rules even prohibit the reservation of a separate civil action, which means that one can no longer file a separate civil case after the criminal complaint is filed in court. The only instance when separate proceedings are allowed is when the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal case. Even then, the Rules encourage the consolidation of the civil and criminal cases. We have previously observed that a separate civil action for the purpose of recovering the amount of the dishonored checks would only prove to be costly, burdensome and time-consuming for both parties and would further delay the final disposition of the case. This multiplicity of suits must be avoided. Where petitioners’ rights may be fully adjudicated in the proceedings before the trial court, resort to a separate action to recover civil liability is clearly unwarranted. (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, the RTC, in its Decision in
Criminal Case Nos. 02-204544-46, already deleted the award of civil
damages. Records do not disclose that
appeal had been taken therefrom. There is, therefore, no double recovery of
the amounts covered by the checks or unjust enrichment on the part of
respondent.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED
for lack of merit. The Decision dated
Costs against
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been 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
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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 had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
* In lieu of Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, per
Special Order No. 484 dated
[1] Records, pp. 3-9.
[2] Rollo, p. 193.
[3] Records, p. 262.
[4] Rollo, p. 125.
[5] Per Associate Justice Sergio L. Pestaño, with Acting Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia and Eloy R. Bello, Jr., concurring.
[6] CA rollo, p. 132.
[7]
[8] Rollo, p. 196.
[9]
[10] R & E Transport, Inc. v. Latag, 467 Phil. 355, 371 (2004).
[11] Silangan
Textile Manufacturing Corporation v. Demetria,
G.R. No. 166719,
[12] G.R. No. 163597,
[13] Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corporation v. Demetria, id.
[14] Sanchez v. Far East Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 155309, November 15, 2005, 475 SCRA 97, 113.