Case Digest: Cabaero vs. Cantos, G.R. No. 102942, April 18, 1997

  Rule 111 | Criminal Procedure 

Names	Amado F. Cabaero Carmen C. Perez
Principle	Institution of criminal and civil actions Counterclaim

Facts: 

(1) On October 18, 1990, an Information was filed against petitioners Amado F. Cabaero and Carmen C. Perez, charging them with estafa for allegedly defrauding private respondent Epifanio Ceralde of the sum of P1,550,000.00. Petitioners entered a plea of not guilty. Atty. Ambrosio Blanco entered his appearance as private prosecutor.

(2) Presiding Judge of the RTC of Manila, inhibited herself “out of delicadeza” from further hearing the case after “considering that the complainant is a relative by affinity of a nephew of her husband.” Thereafter, the case was presided over by respondent Judge Alfredo Cantos.

(3) Petitioners alleged in their Answer with Counter-claim* that the filing of said Information was unjustified and malicious, that they never personally benefited from the allegedly defrauded amount nor did they spend the same for a purpose other than that agreed.

* for moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees and litigation expenses

(4) The prosecution verbally moved that the answer with counterclaim be expunged from the records and/or be dismissed for two reasons: (1) the trial court had no jurisdiction over the answer with counterclaim for non-payment of the prescribed docket fees and (2) the “compulsory counterclaim against complainant is barred for failure to file it before arraignment.”

(5) Petitioners argued that a counterclaim should be permitted in a criminal action where the civil aspect is not reserved. As petitioners’ counterclaim was compulsory in nature, they were not required to pay docket fees therefor. In hiring a private prosecutor, Private Respondent Ceralde intended to prosecute his civil claim together with the criminal action. Hence, as a protective measure, petitioners filed their counterclaim in the same case.

(6) Judge Cantos granted the prosecution’s motion to expunge and denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. In justifying his Order, Judge Cantos ruled that “this is a criminal case wherein the civil liability of the acused is impliedly instituted therein.”

 

Issue:

WoN the accused-petitioners who were charged with estafa, file an answer with counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees and litigation expenses against the private complainant in the same criminal action?

Contention:

Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides that unless the offended party waived, reserved or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action, the civil action for recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action. They contend that it is not only a right but an “outright duty” of the accused to file an answer with counterclaim since failure to do so shall result in the counterclaim being forever barred.

Held:

The counterclaim of the accused is hereby set aside without prejudice.

The Court held that a counterclaim for malicious prosecution is compulsory in nature; thus, it should be filed in the criminal case upon the implied institution of the civil action.

 

A counterclaim is compulsory and is considered barred if not set up where the following

circumstances are present:

(1) that it arises out of, or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim;

(2) that it does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, and

(3) that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

The Court there emphasized that the civil action for malicious prosecution should have been filed as a compulsory counterclaim in the criminal action. The filing of a separate civil action for malicious prosecution would have resulted in the presentation of the same evidence involving similar issues in two proceedings: the civil action impliedly instituted with the criminal action, and the separate civil action for damages for malicious prosecution.

However, some reservations and concerns were voiced out by members of the Court during the deliberations on the present case, the real problem lies in the absence of clear-cut rules governing the prosecution of impliedly instituted civil actions and the necessary consequences and implications thereof. For this reason, the counter-claim of the accused cannot be tried together with the criminal case because, it will unnecessarily complicate and confuse the criminal proceedings. 

Thus, the trial court should confine itself to the criminal aspect and the possible civil liability of the accused arising out of the crime. The counter-claim (and cross-claim or third party complaint, if any) should be set aside or refused cognizance without prejudice to their filing in separate proceedings at the proper time.

Until there are definitive rules of procedure to govern the institution, prosecution and resolution of the civil aspect (and the consequences and implications thereof) impliedly instituted in a criminal case, trial courts should limit their jurisdiction to the civil liability of the accused arising from the criminal case.

✨✨✨

Recit Version

Facts:

Petitioners Amado Cabaero and Carmen Perez were charged with estafa for allegedly defrauding private respondent Epifanio Ceralde of the sum of P1,550,000.00. 

The presiding judge inhibited herself from hearing the case and it was later presided over by respondent Judge Alfredo Cantos. 

Petitioners filed an Answer with Counter-claim for moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. The prosecution moved to expunge the answer with counterclaim from the records and/or dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction and failure to file it before arraignment. 

Judge Cantos granted the motion to expunge and denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, ruling that the civil liability of the accused is impliedly instituted in the criminal case.

Issue:

WoN the accused-petitioners who were charged with estafa, file an answer with counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees and litigation expenses against the private complainant in the same criminal action?

Contention:

Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure implies that it is the duty of the accused to file an answer with a counterclaim in a criminal case where the civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waived, reserved or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action. Failure to file a counterclaim shall result in it being forever barred..

Held:

The counterclaim of the accused is hereby set aside without prejudice.

Civil action for damages for malicious prosecution should have been filed as a compulsory counterclaim in the criminal action. However, there are no clear-cut rules governing the prosecution of impliedly instituted civil actions, which can unnecessarily complicate and confuse the criminal proceedings. 

Therefore, trial courts should confine themselves to the criminal aspect and the possible civil liability of the accused arising out of the crime. 

Counterclaims, cross-claims, or third-party complaints should be set aside or refused cognizance without prejudice to their filing in separate proceedings at the proper time.