Case Digest: Lo Bun Tiong vs. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, January 28, 2008.
Rule 111 | Criminal Procedure
Facts:
(1) The spouses Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng (petitioners)
charge Vicente Balboa (respondent) with forum shopping.
(2) On February 1997, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a civil case for Collection of Sum of Money against petitioners. The amount sought covers three post-dated checks issued by petitioner Caroline Siok Ching Teng for a total of P5,175,250.00.
(3) On July 1997, separate criminal complaints for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. No. 22) were filed against Caroline before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Manila, covering the said three checks.
(4) RTC rendered its decision in civil case finding petitioners liable. Thereafter, MTC acquitted Caroline of the offenses charged for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The MTC, however, found Caroline civilly liable in favor of respondent for the amounts covered by these checks.
(5) 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. Thus, Caroline appealed to the RTC.
(6) In the meantime, petitioners brought to the Court of Appeals (CA) on appeal the RTC Decision in civil case, which the CA dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the RTC Decision in toto.
(7) The RTC as an appellate court, rendered its Decision in criminal cases, modifying the MTC Decision by deleting the award of civil damages.
Issue:
WoN the respondent’s act of filing civil case and criminal cases constitutes forum shopping.
Held:
Denied.
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
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.
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.
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. (Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 effective September 16, 1997)
As adopted in Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure:
“(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 was filed on February 1997, and criminal cases on July 1997, prior to the adoption of Supreme Court Circular on September 1997. Thus, at the time of filing of civil case and criminal cases, the governing rule is Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Court, to wit:
“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.
Since respondent instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action, then the civil case may proceed independently of the criminal cases, 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.
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.
✨✨✨
Recit Version
Facts:Petitioners Sps. Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng charge Respondent Vicente Balboa with forum shopping.
Vicente Balboa filed two (2) cases against Sps. Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng:
April 1997: CIVIL CASE for sum of money based on the three (3) post-dated checks issued by Caroline in the total amount of P5,175,250.00. The Regional Trial Court found the spouses liable and ordered them to pay the amount.
July 1997: CRIMINAL CASE for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Caroline covering the said three checks. The Municipal Trial Court acquitted Caroline but held her civilly liable. On appeal, the RTC modified the MTC Decision by deleting the award of civil damages.
Issue:WoN the respondent’s act of filing civil case and criminal cases constitutes forum shopping.
Held:Denied.It is worth noting that civil case was filed on February 1997, and criminal cases on July 1997, prior to the adoption of Supreme Court Circular on September 1997. Thus, at the time of filing of civil case and criminal cases, the governing rule is Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Court, to wit:“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.Since respondent instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action, then the civil case may proceed independently of the criminal cases, 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.
Comments
Post a Comment