SPOUSES BENITO LO BUN TIONG and CAROLINE SIOK CHING TENG, Petitioners, vs. VICENTE BALBOA, Respondent.

The spouses Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok
Ching Teng (petitioners) charge Vicente Balboa (respondent) with forum
shopping.

On February 24, 1997, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila (Branch 34), Civil Case No. 97-82225 for Collection of
Sum of Money against petitioners. The amount sought covers three
post-dated checks issued by petitioner Caroline Siok Ching Teng
(Caroline), as follows: Asia Trust Check No. BNDO57546 dated December
30, 1996 for P2,000,000.00; Asia Trust Check No. BNDO57547 dated
January 15, 1997 for P1,200,000.00; and Asia Trust Check No. BNDO57548
dated January 31, 1997 for P1,975,250.00 – or a total of P5,175,250.00.^[1]

On July 21, 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 (Branch 10), covering the said three checks.
These cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 277576 to 78.^[2]

On August 11, 1998, the RTC rendered its Decision in Civil Case No. 97-82225 finding petitioners liable, as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering the latter:

1. To play the plaintiff the sum of P5,175,250.00 plus 6% interest per annum until full payment;
2. To pay the plaintiff the sum of P100,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees.
3. To pay the cost of suit.

The counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.^[3]

Thereafter, in a Decision dated December 5, 2001 rendered in Criminal
Case Nos. 277576 to 78, the 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, to wit:

WHEREFORE, accused Caroline Siok Ching Teng is acquitted
of the charge for violation of BP Blg. 22 for failure of the
prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is
ordered civilly liable to the offended party for the amounts of the
checks subject of the three informations herein, i.e., P1,200,000.00,
P1,975,250.00 and P2,000,000.00.

SO ORDERED.^[4]

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 per Order dated April 12, 2002. Thus, Caroline appealed to the
RTC, which docketed the case as Criminal Case Nos. 02-204544-46.

In the meantime, petitioners brought to the Court of Appeals (CA) on
appeal the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 97-82225, docketed as CA-G.R.
CV No. 61457. In the assailed Decision dated November 20, 2002, the CA^[5] dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the RTC Decision in toto. The dispositive portion of the assailed CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and finding no
reversible error in the appealed Decision dated August 11, 1998 of
Branch 34 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No.
97-82225, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit, and said
Decision is affirmed in toto.

SO ORDERED.^[6]

Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the CA Decision, but this was denied per Resolution dated April 21, 2003.^[7]

On May 8, 2003, the RTC as an appellate court, rendered its Decision in
Criminal Case No. 02-204544-46, modifying the MTC Decision by deleting
the award of civil damages.^[8]

Now before the Court for resolution is the Amended Petition filed under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, questioning the CA Decision dated
November 20, 2002 and Resolution dated April 21, 2003, on the lone
ground that:

PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITHOUT
JURISDICTION AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ALLOWING PRIVATE
RESPONDENT TO RECOVER TWICE FOR THE SAME OBLIGATION ON ACCOUNT OF THE
SAID PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S DELIBERATE FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO INFORM THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT THAT THE CIVIL OBLIGATION BEING SUED UPON IS THE
SUBJECT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS WITH THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, AND
FOR WHICH THE CIVIL OBLIGATION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ADJUDGED.^[9]

Petitioners contend that the assailed CA Decision and Resolution should
be reconsidered and the RTC Decision dated August 11, 1998 dismissed as
respondent’s act of filing Civil Case No. 97-82225 and Criminal Cases
Nos. 277576 to 78 constitutes forum shopping.

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. It is usually resorted to
by a party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in
one forum, in an attempt to seek and possibly to get a favorable
opinion in another forum, other than by an appeal or a special civil
action for certiorari.^[10]

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.^[11]

In Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp.,^[12]
the Court ruled that 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. Thus, it ordered the dismissal
of the civil action so as to prevent double payment of the claim. The
Court stated:

x x x The prime purpose of the criminal action is to
punish the offender to deter him and others from committing the same or
similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform or rehabilitate
him or, in general, to maintain social order. The purpose, meanwhile,
of the civil action is for the restitution, reparation or
indemnification of the private offended party for the damage or injury
he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of the
accused. Hence, the relief sought in the civil aspect of I.S. No.
00-01-00304 and I.S. No. 00-01-00300 is the same as that sought in
Civil Case No. MC 01-1493, that is, the recovery of the amount of the
checks, which, according to petitioner, represents the amount to be
paid by respondent for its purchases. x x x

This was reiterated in Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corp. v. Demetria,^[13] where the civil case for the recovery of the amount covered by the bouncing checks was also ordered dismissed.

In Hyatt and Silangan, the Court applied Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 effective September 16, 1997, which provides:

1. 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.

This was later adopted as Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:

(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 No. 97-82225 was filed on February 24,
1997, and Criminal Cases Nos. 277576 to 78 on July 21, 1997, prior to
the adoption of Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 on September 16, 1997.
Thus, at the time of filing of Civil Case No. 97-82225 and Criminal
Cases Nos. 277576 to 78, 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.

Such civil action includes the recovery of indemnity under the Revised
Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the
accused.

x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Under the foregoing rule, an action for the recovery of civil liability
arising from an offense charged is necessarily included in the criminal
proceedings, unless (1) there is an express waiver of the civil action,
or (2) there is a reservation to institute a separate one, or (3) the
civil action was filed prior to the criminal complaint.^[14]
Since respondent instituted the civil action prior to the criminal
action, then Civil Case No. 97-82225 may proceed independently of
Criminal Cases Nos. 277576 to 78, 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. Thus, in the Hyatt case, the Court noted, viz.:

x x x This rule [Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure ]
was enacted to help declog court dockets which are filled with B.P. 22
cases as creditors actually use the courts as collectors. Because
ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual
damages, the payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to
collect his credit gratis and sometimes, upon being paid, the trial
court is not even informed thereof. 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.
Even then, the Rules encourage the consolidation of the civil and
criminal cases. We have previously observed that a separate civil
action for the purpose of recovering the amount of the dishonored
checks would only prove to be costly, burdensome and time-consuming for
both parties and would further delay the final disposition of the case.
This multiplicity of suits must be avoided. Where petitioners’ rights
may be fully adjudicated in the proceedings before the trial court,
resort to a separate action to recover civil liability is clearly
unwarranted. (Emphasis supplied)

Moreover, the RTC, in its Decision in Criminal Case Nos. 02-204544-46,
already deleted the award of civil damages. Records do not disclose
that appeal had been taken therefrom. There is, therefore, no double
recovery of the amounts covered by the checks or unjust enrichment on
the part of respondent.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated November 20, 2002 and Resolution dated April 21, 2003 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Corona, Nachura, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Records, pp. 3-9.

^[2] Rollo, p. 193.

^[3] Records, p. 262.

^[4] Rollo, p. 125.

^[5] Per Associate Justice Sergio L. Pestaño, with Acting Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia and Eloy R. Bello, Jr., concurring.

^[6] CA rollo, p. 132.

^[7] Id. at 162.

^[8] Rollo, p. 196.

^[9] Id. at 71-72.

^[10] R & E Transport, Inc. v. Latag, 467 Phil. 355, 371 (2004).

^[11] Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corporation v. Demetria, G.R. No. 166719, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA 160, 168.

^[12] G.R. No. 163597, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 454.

^[13] Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corporation v. Demetria, id.

^[14] Sanchez v. Far East Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 155309, November 15, 2005, 475 SCRA 97, 113.