Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No, Lim did not commit forum shopping in filing the civil case for
specific performance and damages during the pendency of her
appeal on the civil aspect of Estafa.
The filing of the collection case after the dismissal of the estafa
cases against the offender did not amount to forum-shopping. The
essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the
same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, to secure a favorable judgment. Although the cases
filed by [the offended party] arose from the same act or
omission of [the offender], they are, however, based on different
causes of action. The criminal cases for estafa are based on
culpa criminal while the civil action for collection is anchored
on culpa contractual. Moreover, there can be no forumshopping in the instant case because the law expressly allows
the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed
independently of the criminal action.
ART. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for
damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be
brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of
the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
According to the book of Atty. Timoteo Aquino:
Footnotes:
- These are like warehouse receipts. The withdrawal authorities in the case
at bar state the number of bags that the dealer/trader paid for and can
withdraw from the plant. Each withdrawal authority contained a provision
that it is valid for six months from its date of issuance, unless revoked by
FRCC Marketing Department.
- In her civil complaint, Lim basically alleges that she entered into a sale
contract with Co under the following terms: that she bought 37,200 bags
of cement at the rate of P 64.00 per bag from Co; that, after full payment,
Co delivered to her the withdrawal authorities issued by FRCC
corresponding to these bags of cement; that these withdrawal authorities
will be honored by FRCC for six months from the dates written thereon.
Lim then maintains that the defendants breached their contractual
obligations to her under the sale contract and under the withdrawal
authorities; that Co and his co-defendants wanted her to pay more for
each bag of cement, contrary to their agreement to fix the price
at P 64.00 per bag and to the wording of the withdrawal authorities; that
FRCC did not honor the terms of the withdrawal authorities it issued; and
that Co did not comply with his obligation under the sale contract to
deliver the 37,200 bags of cement to Lim.