Cabaero V Cantos

Facts: An information against petitioners charging them with estafa for allegedly
defrauding private respondent Epifanio Ceraldo of the sum of P1,550,000 was filed for
having advanced the purchase price of 6 parcels of lans located in Pangasinan which
Aqualand Ventures and Mangement Corporation, a joint business benture by Cabaero
and Ceralde purschased from MC Castro Construction. Petitioners entered a plea of not
guilty and petitioners filed an answer with a counterclaim alleging that the money
loaned from Solidbank mentioned in the Information was duly applied to the purchase
of 6 parcels of land and that the filing of said Information was unjustified and malicious.
Petitioners invoke that under Rule 111 Sec 1 of RoC, unless the offended party waiced,
reserved or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action, the civil action for
recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action. They claim 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 barred.

Issue: WON the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering that the answer with counterclaim of the
petitioners together with the pleadings be expunged from the records.

Ruling: Yes. A counterclaim is defined as any claim for money or other relief which a
defending party may have against an opposing party. Compulsory counterclaim is one
which at the time of suit arises out of, or is necessarily connected with, the same
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of plaintiff’s complaint. Claim for
malicious prosecution or “grossly unfounded suit” as a compulsory counterclaim has no
appropriate venue other than the same criminal case which is alleged to be a malicious
suit. Note that in a criminal case, the civil aspect is deemed instituted if not reserved or
litigated independently. In this case, Ceralde hired a private prosecutor hence this
signifies that he is prosecuting the civil aspect in the same criminal case. That is the
reason why Cabaero filed an Answer with Counterclaim otherwise his civil claims will
forever be barred.

Maccay V Nobela

Facts: Adelaida Potenciano went to the public market of Pasig, Metro Manila to look for
prospective buyer or mortgagee of a parcel of land belonging to Oscar Maccay. She was
introduced by a vendor, Lydia Reyes, to the spouses Prudencio and Serlina Nobela who
were engaged in lending money to market vendors on a daily basis.

Potenciano filed a complaint in the Eastern Police District against the spouses
Maccay for allegedly stealing her title to the land and some appliances in her business.
The spouses were subpoenaed by the Fiscal’s office. Mrs. Nobela found out that the real
estate agent they asked to register the deed of sale, dela Vega, forged the document
and made it a sale in favor of them. Petitioner Maccay filed the criminal complaint
against respondent spouses for Estafa through Falsification of Public Document before
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. After trial, the trial court found out that
it was the petitioners who swindled respondents.

Issue: WON the trial court may rule on the civil liability of complainant in a criminal case
where the civil action was not reserved or filed separately.

Ruling: No. A court trying a criminal case cannot award damages in favor of the accused.
The task of the trial court is limited to determining the guilt of the accused and if proper,
to determine his civil liability. A criminal case is not the proper proceedings to
determine the private complainant’s civil liability, if any.

The trial court erred in ordering complainant petitioner Maccay and prosecution witness
Potenciano, as part of the judgement in the criminal case, to reimburse the P300,000
and pay damages to the accused respondent spouses.