METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JOSE C. DE GUZMAN, AS JUDGE, RTC-QUEZON CITY, BRANCH XCIII AND CLODUALDO VICENTE, RESPONDENTS.

On April 14, 1981, private respondent Clodualdo Vicente, Jr. and
his spouse Esperanza Vicente obtained a loan from petitioner Metropolitan Bank
and Trust Company (Metrobank, for brevity) in the amount of One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000) and executed in evidence thereof a corresponding
promissory note payable in eight (8) equal quarterly installments of P12,500.00
each starting July 18, 1981 until May 14, 1983. To secure this loan, respondent
executed a Deed of Chattel Mortgage in favor of Metrobank covering a Michigan
payloader and a ten-wheeler dumptruck contractually stipulated to be located at
97 P. Tuazon St., Cubao, Quezon City. Since the Vicentes defaulted in the payment of all the installments due,
Metrobank attempted to foreclose said chattel mortgage but could not do so
because allegedly these collateral could not be found where they were supposed
to be. Thus, Metrobank filed on
December 10, 1983 a complaint against respondent for violation of Art. 319 of
the Revised Penal Code. After trial, respondent
judge rendered a judgment acquitting respondent Vicente due to insufficiency of
evidence and without any award on the civil liability of the petitioner.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals* the
non-awarding of the civil liability. In
a resolution promulgated October 3, 1986, the appeal was dismissed by the
respondent Court of Appeals for lack of merit. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the appealed decision
was denied in respondent court’s resolution dated January 7, 1987. Hence this petition.

Under Sec. 3, par. 6 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court,
extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil,
unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the
fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. The trial court found that respondent did
not remove the mortgaged properties to a province or city other than the one in
which they were located at the time of the execution of the mortgage without
the written consent of the
petitioner. Since the act complained of
is absent, there can be no civil liability on the part of the private
respondent. As respondent Court of
Appeals correctly ruled, “the trial court could not have made a
pronouncement on the civil liability of the private respondent based on the
crime allegedly committed.” (p. 23, Rollo)

But how about the unpaid loan? Could not private respondent have incurred civil liability? Yes, respondent may have indeed incurred a
civil liability, but this liability arises not from the criminal act complained
of but from the contract of loan executed between spouses Vicente and
petitioner Metrobank.

In the decisions of both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals, there is a clear showing that the private respondent is indeed civilly liable to
Metrobank. The records reveal that
Vicente admitted the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note upon
which Metrobank’s claim for damages was predicated.

Q Mr. Vicente, there was presented during the hearing of this case, a
promissory note in favor of the Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., dated April
14, 1981, in the amount of P100,000 which document was marked as exhibit by the prosecution as
Exhibit “A”, and I am showing you the original of the said document,
do you recall this document?

A Yes, sir.

Q    Now,
will you please tell this Honorable Court the circumstances which led to the
execution of this promissory note marked Exhibit “A”?

A    I am a client of
Metrobank, Araneta Branch, and I secured a chattel mortgage with Metrobank in
Araneta, and it was approved by the bank on April 14, 1981.

Q    You
stated that you secured a chattel mortgage, do we understand from you that you
applied for a loan from Metrobank?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    And
as security for the payment of the said obligation covered by the promissory
note, you executed a chattel mortgage?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    And
this chattel mortgage is this document which was previously marked as Exhibit
“B”?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    Now,
Mr. Vicente, the chattel mortgage mentions two (2) heavy equipment, which
are: One (1) Unit Isuzu Diesel Dump
Truck, 10 wheels, and One (1) Unit Michigan Payloader?

A     Yes, sir.

(tsn 20 August 1985, pp. 3-4)

His admission of the due execution and genuineness means that the
document was signed voluntarily and knowingly by the party whose signature
appears thereon. It follows therefore
that private respondent Vicente acknowledges his loan with petitioner
Metrobank.

Respondent Court of Appeals like the lower court recognized the
rights of the petitioner to enforce the obligation incurred by the private
respondent. It, however, added
“(T)he remedy of the petitioner, however, is to institute the proper civil
action” (p. 24, Rollo). We
disagree.

While it is true that petitioner Metrobank can no longer collect
private respondent’s civil liability on the basis of the criminal case filed,
it could nonetheless collect the said civil liability prayed for on the basis
of the non-payment of the loan contracted by respondent spouses from the
bank. There appear to be no sound reasons
to require a separate civil action to still be filed considering that the facts
to be proved in the civil case have already been established in the criminal
proceedings where the accused was acquitted. To require a separate civil action simply because the accused was
acquitted would mean needless clogging of court dockets and unnecessary
duplication of litigation with all its attendant loss of time, effort, and
money on the part of all concerned.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, this petition is hereby
GRANTED. Private respondent Clodualdo
Vicente, Jr. is hereby ordered to pay petitioner Metrobank the amount of one
hundred thousand pesos with legal interest from 1983. The resolutions dated October 3, 1986 and January 7, 1987, of
respondent Court of Appeals, are hereby SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Sarmiento, J., on leave.

* Penned by Justice Desiderio P.
Jurado and concurred in by Justices Oscar R. Victoriano and Ricardo J.
Francisco.