Case Digest: Lim vs. Kou Co Ping, G.R. No. 175256, August 23, 2012
Rule 111 | Criminal Procedure
Facts:
(1) In February 1999, FR Cement Corporation (FRCC), issued several withdrawal authorities.* Each withdrawal authority contained a provision that it is valid for six months from its date of issuance, unless revoked by FRCC Marketing Department.
*withdrawal authorities state the number of bags that the dealer/trader paid for and can withdraw from the plant.
(2) Charlie Co sold withdrawal authorities covering 50,000 bags of cement to Lily Lim.
(3) Using the withdrawal authorities, Lim withdrew the cement bags from FRCC
on a staggered basis. She successfully withdrew 2,800 bags of cement, and sold
back some of the withdrawal authorities, covering 10,000 bags, to Co.
(4) In April 1999, within the six-month period, FRCC did not allow Lim to withdraw the remaining 37,200 bags covered by the withdrawal authorities.
(5) Lim clarified the matter, who explained that the plant implemented a price increase and would only release the goods once Lim pays for the price difference or agrees to receive a lesser quantity of cement. Lim objected and maintained that the withdrawal authorities she bought were not subject to price fluctuations.
(6) An Information for Estafa through Misappropriation or Conversion was filed against Co before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. In 2003, the RTC of Pasig City, rendered its Order acquitting Co of the estafa charge for insufficiency of evidence. The trial court denied* her Motion for Reconsideration.
*The first and second elements of the crime of estafa [with abuse of confidence under Article 315, paragraph 1(b)] for which the accused is being charged and prosecuted were not established by the prosecution’s evidence.
(7) On March 2005, Lim filed her notice of appeal on the civil aspect of the criminal case. On April 2005, Lim filed another complaint for specific performance and damages before the RTC of Manila. She asserted two causes of action: breach of contract and abuse of rights.
(8) Co maintained that the two actions raise the same issue, which is Co’s liability to Lim for her inability to withdraw the bags of cement, and should be dismissed on the ground of lis pendens (pending action) and forum shopping (filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment.).
(9) RTC Manila held that there was no forum shopping. The civil complaint before it is based on an obligation arising from contract and quasi-delict, whereas the civil liability involved in the appeal of the criminal case arose from a felony.
Assailed Decision:
CA: In filing said civil case, Lily Lim did not violate the rule against forum shopping as the elements of litis pendentia and forum shopping are not met in the two proceedings because they do not share the same cause of action.
Issue:
WoN Lily Lim commit forum shopping in filing the civil case for specific performance and damages during the pendency of her appeal on the civil aspect of the criminal case for estafa?
Contention:
Granting that the two civil liabilities are independent of each other, the two cases arising from them would have to be decided using the same evidence and going over the same set of facts. Thus, any judgment rendered in one of these cases will constitute res judicata on the other.
Held:
Granted.
A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender.―
(1) civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and
(2) independent civil liability, that is, civil liability that may be pursued independently of the criminal proceedings.
The civil liability arising from the offense or ex delicto is based on the acts or omissions that constitute the criminal offense; hence, its trial is inherently intertwined with the criminal action. For this reason, the civil liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted with the criminal offense.
The independent civil liability may be based on “an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony,” as provided in Article 31 of the Civil Code (such as for breach of contract or for tort). It may also be based on an act or omission that may constitute felony but, nevertheless, treated independently from the criminal action by specific provision of Article 33 of the Civil Code (“in cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries”). The independent civil liabilities are separate from the criminal action and may be pursued independently.
Because of the distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities, jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue the two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively, without offending the rules on forum shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata.
Moreover, there can be no forum-shopping in the instant case because the law expressly allows the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal action.
Although the cases filed by arose from the same act or omission of, they are, however, based on different causes of action.
The criminal cases for estafa are based on culpa criminal, and the first civil action is clearly a civil action ex delicto, having been instituted together with the criminal action. While the second civil action, is a civil action for collection anchored on culpa contractual, arising from a contractual obligation and for tortious conduct (abuse of rights under the Human Relations provisions of the Civil Code).
They present different causes of action, which, under the law, are considered “separate, distinct, and independent” from each other. Both cases can proceed to their final adjudication, subject to the prohibition on double recovery under Article 2177 of the Civil Code.
✨✨✨
Recit VersionFacts:In February 1999, FR Cement Corporation issued several withdrawal authorities, each valid for six months. Charlie Co sold 50,000 bags of cement withdrawal authorities to Lily Lim, who successfully withdrew 2,800 bags of cement and sold back some authorities for 10,000 bags to Co.
In April 1999, FRCC did not allow Lim to withdraw the remaining 37,200 bags, citing a price increase.Lim objected, but an estafa charge filed against Co was dismissed in 2003. In 2005, Lim appealed the civil aspect of the case and filed a separate complaint for breach of contract and abuse of rights.Co argued that the two actions were the same and should be dismissed for lis pendens and forum shopping.Issue:WoN Lily Lim commit forum shopping in filing the civil case for specific performance and damages during the pendency of her appeal on the civil aspect of the criminal case for estafa?Contention:Granting that the two civil liabilities are independent of each other, the two cases arising from them would have to be decided using the same evidence and going over the same set of facts. Thus, any judgment rendered in one of these cases will constitute res judicata on the other.Held:Granted.A single act or omission may give rise to two separate civil liabilities: (1) civil liability ex delicto, which arises from the criminal offense, and (2) independent civil liability that may be pursued independently of the criminal proceedings. The independent civil liability may be based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such as breach of contract or tort. Jurisprudence allows the offended party to pursue the two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively without violating rules on forum shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata. The law also expressly allows the filing of a separate civil action that can proceed independently of the criminal action.
Comments
Post a Comment