Tiong v. Balboa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Vicente Balboa filed a collection of money case against petitioners Spouses Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng for P5,175,250.00, representing the value of three post-dated checks issued by Caroline. Subsequently, criminal complaints for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 were filed against Caroline for the same three checks. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of respondent Balboa in the civil case. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) acquitted Caroline in the criminal cases but found her civilly liable for the check amounts. Caroline's motion for reconsideration was denied, and she appealed to the RTC. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision in the civil case, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. The RTC, acting as an appellate court, later modified the MTC decision by deleting the award of civil damages in the criminal cases. The Petition: The petitioners filed an Amended Petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. They argue that the CA acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion by allowing the respondent to recover twice for the same obligation. The petitioners contend that the respondent's act of filing both a civil case and criminal cases for the same checks constitutes forum shopping, as it involves the institution of multiple actions based on the same cause and seeking the same relief, potentially leading to double recovery.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a civil case for collection of sum of money and subsequent criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 based on the same checks constitutes forum shopping. Whether the respondent is allowed to recover twice for the same obligation.
Ruling
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.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that the institution of a civil action prior to the criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does not constitute forum shopping. At the time of the filing of the civil case (February 24, 1997) and the criminal cases (July 21, 1997), the governing rule was Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Court. This rule explicitly allowed for the institution of a civil action prior to the criminal action, and such civil action could proceed independently. The Court emphasized that the policy against forum shopping aims to prevent the filing of multiple actions based on the same cause of action where different courts are resorted to in the hope of securing a favorable judgment. However, in this case, the prior filing of the civil case was permitted under the prevailing rules. The Court also noted that even under the amended rules, a separate civil action is allowed when filed ahead of the criminal case, although consolidation is encouraged to avoid multiplicity of suits. The Court cited Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp. and Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corp. v. Demetria to illustrate the principle that while generally the civil aspect is deemed included in the criminal case for B.P. Blg. 22, an exception exists when the civil action is filed first. Therefore, the respondent's actions did not constitute forum shopping as defined by law and jurisprudence. On the issue of double recovery: The Court found no double recovery. It pointed out that while the RTC initially found petitioners liable in the civil case and the MTC found Caroline civilly liable in the criminal case, the RTC, in its appellate capacity in the criminal case (Criminal Case Nos. 02-204544-46), rendered a Decision dated May 8, 2003, which deleted the award of civil damages. The records did not indicate that this deletion was appealed. Consequently, there was no unjust enrichment or double payment of the amounts covered by the checks, as the civil liability awarded in the criminal case was ultimately removed.
Main Doctrine
The institution of a civil action prior to the criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does not constitute forum shopping, as the governing rule at the time allowed for separate institution of civil and criminal actions under such circumstances. Furthermore, the subsequent deletion of civil damages by the RTC in the criminal case prevents double recovery.