Professional Documents
Culture Documents
money, seeking to recover the amount of the checks subject of the estafa cases. On
February 18, 1998, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint contending
that petitioners action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Respondent further
[G.R. No. 133978. November 12, 2002] prayed that petitioner should be held in contempt of court for forum-shopping. [7]
On March 20, 1998, the trial court found in favor of respondent and dismissed
the complaint. The court held that the dismissal of the criminal cases against
respondent on the ground of lack of interest or failure to prosecute is an adjudication
JOSE S. CANCIO, JR., represented by ROBERTO L. on the merits which amounted to res judicata on the civil case for collection. It
CANCIO, petitioner, vs. EMERENCIANA ISIP, respondent. further held that the filing of said civil case amounted to forum-shopping.
On June 1, 1998, the trial court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.
DECISION [8]
Hence, the instant petition.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
The legal issues for resolution in the case at bar are: 1) whether the dismissal of
the estafa cases against respondent bars the institution of a civil action for collection
The instant petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raises pure of the value of the checks subject of the estafa cases; and 2) whether the filing of
questions of law involving the March 20, 1998 and June 1, 1998 Orders rendered
[1] [2] [3]
No. 22 and three cases of Estafa, against respondent for allegedly issuing the not arising from an act or omission complained of as felony [ e.g. culpa contractual or
following checks without sufficient funds, to wit: 1) Interbank Check No. 25001151 in obligations arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code, intentional torts
[10] [11]
the amount of P80,000.00; 2) Interbank Check No. 25001152 in the amount of P under Articles 32 and 34, and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil
[12] [13] [14]
80,000.00; and 3) Interbank Check No. 25001157 in the amount of P30,000.00. [4]
Code]; or (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent
and distinct from the criminal action [Article 33, Civil Code]. Either of these two
[15] [16]
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor dismissed Criminal Case No. 13356, for possible liabilities may be enforced against the offender subject, however, to the
Violation of B.P. No. 22 covering check no. 25001151 on the ground that the check caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot recover
was deposited with the drawee bank after 90 days from the date of the check. The damages twice for the same act or omission or under both causes. [17]
two other cases for Violation of B.P. No. 22 (Criminal Case No. 13359 and 13360)
were filed with and subsequently dismissed by the Municipal Trial Court of Guagua, The modes of enforcement of the foregoing civil liabilities are provided for in the
Pampanga, Branch 1, on the ground of failure to prosecute. [5]
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Though the assailed order of the trial court was
issued on March 20, 1998, the said Rules, which took effect on December 1, 2000,
Meanwhile, the three cases for Estafa were filed with the Regional Trial Court of must be given retroactive effect in the instant case considering that statutes
Pampanga, Branch 49, and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. G-3611 to G-3613. On regulating the procedure of the court are construed as applicable to actions pending
October 21, 1997, after failing to present its second witness, the prosecution moved and undetermined at the time of their passage. [18]
to dismiss the estafa cases against respondent. The prosecution likewise reserved its
right to file a separate civil action arising from the said criminal cases. On the same Section 1, Rule 111, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
date, the trial court granted the motions of the prosecution. Thus-
SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) When a criminal action
Upon motion of the prosecution for the dismissal of these cases without prejudice to is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
the refiling of the civil aspect thereof and there being no comment from the defense, charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party
let these cases be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of the civil aspect of the waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
cases. action prior to the criminal action.
SO ORDER[ED]. [6]
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made
before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances
affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
xxxxxxxxx 4. That when the said checks were presented to the drawee bank for
encashment, the same were all dishonored for reason of DRAWN AGAINST
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet INSUFFICIENT FUNDS (DAIF);
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 5. That several demands were made upon the defendant to make good
proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil the checks but she failed and refused and still fails and refuses without
and criminal actions. justifiable reason to pay plaintiff;
Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended in 1988 and under 6. That for failure of the defendant without any justifiable reason to pay
the present Rules, the civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted with the criminal plaintiff the value of the checks, the latter was forced to hire the services of
action, but the offended party is given the option to file a separate civil action before undersigned counsel and agreed to pay the amount of P30,000.00 as
the prosecution starts to present evidence. [19]
attorneys fees and P1,000.00 per appearance in court;
Anent the independent civil actions under Articles 31, 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
the Civil Code, the old rules considered them impliedly instituted with the civil 7. That for failure of the defendant without any justifiable reason to pay
liability ex-delicto in the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil plaintiff and forcing the plaintiff to litigate, the latter will incur litigation
action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to expenses in the amount of P20,000.00.
the criminal action. Under the present Rules, however, the independent civil actions
may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is prayed of this Court that after due
in the criminal action. The failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a notice and hearing a judgment be rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiff
waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil action based on these as follows:
articles of the Civil Code.[20]
2. That plaintiff is the owner/proprietor to CANCIOS MONEY EXCHANGE PLAINTIFF prays for other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.
with office address at Guagua, Pampanga;
x x x x x x x x x. [21]
complaint as constituting the cause of action. The purpose of an action or suit and
1. INTERBANK CHECK NO. 25001151 March 10, 1993 P80,000.00
the law to govern it is to be determined not by the claim of the party filing the action,
made in his argument or brief, but rather by the complaint itself, its allegations and
2. INTERBANK CHECK NO. 25001152 March 27, 1993 P80,000.00 prayer for relief. [23]
3. INTERBANK CHECK NO. 25001157 May 17, 1993 P30,000.00 Neither does it matter that the civil action reserved in the October 21, 1997
order of the trial court was the civil action ex delicto. To reiterate, an independent
civil action arising from contracts, as in the instant case, may be filed separately and
in exchange of cash with the assurance that the said checks will be honored prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. Under
for payment on their maturity dates, copy of the aforementioned checks are Article 31 of the Civil Code [w]hen the civil action is based on an obligation not
hereto attached and marked. arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, [ e.g. culpa contractual]
such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and CRISTINA B. CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. PHILLIP R. SALVADOR, Respondent.
regardless of the result of the latter. Thus, in Vitola, et al. v. Insular Bank of Asia and
America, the Court, applying Article 31 of the Civil Code, held that a civil case
[24]
DECISION
seeking to recover the value of the goods subject of a Letter of Credit-Trust Receipt
is a civil action ex contractu and not ex delicto. As such, it is distinct and independent
PERALTA, J.:
from the estafa case filed against the offender and may proceed regardless of the
result of the criminal proceedings.
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which assails the Decision1 dated
One of the elements of res judicata is identity of causes of action. In the[25]
February 11, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 30151 with
instant case, it must be stressed that the action filed by petitioner is an independent respect only to the civil aspect of the case as respondent Phillip R. Salvador
civil action, which remains separate and distinct from any criminal prosecution based had been acquitted of the crime of estafa.
on the same act. Not being deemed instituted in the criminal action based on culpa
[26]
criminal, a ruling on the culpability of the offender will have no bearing on said Respondent Phillip Salvador and his brother Ramon Salvador were charged
independent civil action based on an entirely different cause of action, i.e., culpa with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code in an
contractual. Information2 which reads: chanRoblesvirt ualLawlibrary
In the same vein, the filing of the collection case after the dismissal of the That during the period from March 2001 up to May 2002, in the City of Las
estafa cases against respondent did not amount to forum-shopping. The essence of Pias, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of
cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to gain and by
judgment. Although the cases filed by petitioner arose from the same act or omission means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously
of respondent, they are, however, based on different causes of action. The criminal with the commission of the fraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
cases for estafa are based on culpa criminal while the civil action for collection is feloniously defraud the complainant CRISTINA B. CASTILLO, in the amount of
anchored on culpa contractual. Moreover, there can be no forum-shopping in the US$100,000.00 in the following manner, to wit: Respondents convinced the
instant case because the law expressly allows the filing of a separate civil action complainant to invest into the remittance business in the name of accused
which can proceed independently of the criminal action. [27]
PHILLIP R. SALVADOR in Hongkong, representing to her that they will
personally take charge of the operations and marketing of the said business,
Clearly, therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners complaint for assuring her with huge profits because of the popularity of accused PHILLIP R.
collection of the value of the checks issued by respondent. Being an independent civil SALVADOR, knowing very well that the said manifestations/representations
action which is separate and distinct from any criminal prosecution and which require and fraudulent manifestations were false and were intended only to exact
no prior reservation for its institution, the doctrine of res judicata and forum-shopping money from the Complainant, and by reason of the said false representations
will not operate to bar the same. made by both accused, the Complainant gave and entrusted to the accused the
amount of US$100,000.00 as seed money to start the operations of the
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition is business and the said accused, once in the possession of the said amount of
GRANTED. The March 20, 1998 and June 1, 1998 Orders of the Regional Trial Court money, misappropriated, misapplied and/or converted the same to their own
of Pampanga, Branch 49, in Civil Case No. G-3272 are REVERSED and SET personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the Complainant in
ASIDE. The instant case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. the aforementioned amount of US$100,000.00.
Upon their arraignment, respondent and his brother Ramon pleaded not
guilty4 to the offense charged.
promoted their prospective business. In both trips, petitioner paid for all the
travel expenses and even gave respondent US$10,000.00 as pocket money Petitioner admitted being blinded by her love for respondent which made her
for the Hong Kong trip and another US$10,000.00 for the Bangkok trip. 12 Her follow all the advice given by him and his brother Ramon, i.e., to save money
accountant introduced her to a certain Roy Singun who is into the freight and for her and respondents future because after the annulment, they would get
money remittance business.13 In August 2001, respondent initiated a trip to married and to give the capital for the remittance business in cash so as not to
Palau, to observe Singuns business thereat to which petitioner jeopardize her annulment case.31 She did not ask for a receipt for the
acceded.14 Petitioner paid for the travel expenses and even gave respondent US$100,000.00 she gave to respondent as it was for the operational expenses
US$20,000.00.15 In October 2001, she and respondent had a training at of a business which will be for their future, as all they needed to do was to get
Western Union at First World Center in Makati City.16 cralawred married.32 She further testified that after the US$100,000.00 was not
returned, she still deposited the amount of P500,000.00 in respondents UCPB
As petitioner had deeply fallen in love with respondent and since she trusted bank account33 and also to Ramons bank accounts.34 And while respondent
him very much as he even acted as a father to her children when her was in the United States in August
annulment was ongoing, she agreed to embark on the remittance business. In
December 2001, she, accompanied by her mother, Zenaida G. Bondoc 2003, she still gave him US$2,000.00 as evidenced by a Prudential Telegraphic
(Zenaida), and Ramon, went to Hong Kong and had the Phillip Salvador Freight Transfer Application35dated August 27, 2003.
and Remittance International Limited registered on December 27, 2001. 17 A
Memorandum of Articles of Incorporation and a Certificate of Incorporation Petitioners mother, Zenaida, corroborated her daughters testimony that she
were issued.18 They also rented an office space in Tsimshatsui, Kowloon, Hong was with her and Ramon when they went to Hong Kong in December 2001 to
Kong which they registered as their office address as a requirement for register the freight and remittance business. 36 She heard Charlie Chau, her
opening a business in Hong Kong, thus, a Notification of Situation of Registered daughter's friend, that a part of his office building will be used for the said
Office was also issued.19 She agreed with respondent and Ramon that any remittance business.37 Enrico Tan, also corroborated her sister's claim that she
profit derived from the business would be equally divided among them and that handed the money to respondent in his presence.38 cralawred
admitted that he loved petitioner and her children very much as there was a
time when petitioners finances were short, he gave her P600,000.00 for the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision of Branch 202 of the
enrollment of her children in very expensive schools.56 It is also not true that RTC of Las Pias City, dated April 21, 2006, is hereby REVERSED AND SET
he and Ramon initiated the Hong Kong and Bangkok trips. 57 cralawred
ASIDE and accused appellant PHILLIP R. SALVADOR is ACQUITTED of the
crime of Estafa.72 chanrobleslaw
Ramon testified that it was his brother respondent who introduced petitioner to
him.58 He learned of petitioners plan of a remittance business in July 2001 and Petitioner files the instant petition on the civil aspect of the case alleging
even told her that they should study it first.59 He was introduced to Roy that:chanRoblesvirt ualLawlibrary
Singun who operates a remittance business in Pasay and who suggested that
their group observe his remittance business in Palau. After their Palau trip, THE TRIAL COURT WAS CORRECT IN CONVICTING THE RESPONDENT SO THAT
petitioner decided to put up a similar business in Hong Kong and it was him EVEN IF THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED TO ACQUIT HIM IT SHOULD HAVE
who suggested to use respondents name because of name recall. 60 It was AT LEAST RETAINED THE AWARD OF DAMAGES TO THE PETITIONER. 73
decided that he would manage the operation in Manila and respondent would
chanrobleslaw
be in charge of promotion and marketing in Hong Kong, while petitioner would We find no merit in the petition.
be in charge of all the business finances.61 He admitted that he went to Hong
Kong with petitioner and her mother to register said business and also to buy To begin with, in Manantan v. CA,74 we discussed the consequences of an
goods for petitioners boutique.62 He said that it was also impossible for Chau acquittal on the civil liability of the accused as follows:
to offer a part of his office building for the remittance business because there
chanRoblesvirt ualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, accused PHILLIP SALVADOR is found GUILTY beyond reasonable A reading of the CA decision would show that respondent was acquitted
doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of four (4) Said the CA:
years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prisyon (sic) correctional
chanRoblesvirt ualLawlibrary
in May 2002, the CA found that: (1) petitioner failed to show how she was
able to raise the money in such a short period of time and even gave Petitioner insists that she did not ask for any acknowledgment receipt from
conflicting versions on the source of the same; (2) petitioner failed to require respondent, because the latter told her not to have traces that she was giving
respondent to sign a receipt so she could have a record of the transaction and money to him as it might jeopardize her then ongoing annulment proceedings.
offered no plausible reason why the money was allegedly hand-carried to Hong However, petitioner's testimony would belie such claim of respondent being
Kong; (3) petitioners claim of trust as reason for not requiring respondent to cautious of the annulment proceedings. She declared that when she and her
sign a receipt was inconsistent with the way she conducted her previous husband separated, respondent stood as a father to her children. 93 Respondent
transactions with him; and (4) petitioners behavior after the alleged fraud attended school programs of her children,94and fetched them from school
perpetrated against her was inconsistent with the actuation of someone who whenever the driver was not around.95 In fact, at the time the annulment case
had been swindled. was already pending, petitioner registered the freight and remittance business
under respondents name and the local branch office of the business would be
We find no reversible error committed by the CA in its findings. in petitioner's condominium unit in Makati. 96 Also, when petitioner went with
her mother and Ramon to Hong Kong to register the business, it was
Petitioner failed to prove on how she raised the money allegedly given to respondent who took care of her children. She intimated that it was
respondent. She testified that from December 2001 to May 2002, she was respondent who was insistent in going to their house.
raising the amount of US$100,000.00 as the capital for the actual operation of
the Phillip Salvador Freight and Remittance International Limited in Hong Worthy to mention is that petitioner deposited the amount of P500,000.00 to
Kong,80 and that she was able to raise the same in May 2002.81 She respondent's account with United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) in July
2003.97 Also, when respondent was in New York in August 2003, petitioner
did so by selling82 or pawning83 her pieces of diamond jewelry. However, there sent him the amount of US$2,000.00 by telegraphic transfer. 98 Petitioner's act
was no documentary evidence showing those transactions within the period of depositing money to respondent's account contradicted her claim that there
should be no traces that she was giving money to respondent during the
pendency of the annulment case.
Petitioner conceded that she could have either bought a manager's check in US
dollars from the bank or send the money by bank transfer, but she did not do
so on the claim that there might be traces of the transaction.99 However, the
alleged US$100,000.00 was supposed to be given to respondent because of
the freight and remittance business; thus, there is nothing wrong to have a
record of the same, specially since respondent had to account for the valid
expenses he incurred with the money.100 cralawred
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. The Decision dated February
11, 2010, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 30151, is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.