Case Digest (G.R. No. 129282)
Facts:
DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Hon. Alejandro M. Velez and Eriberta Villegas, G.R. No. 129282, November 29, 2001, First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner is DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. (DMPI‑ECCI). Respondents are Hon. Alejandro M. Velez, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental, Branch 20, and Eriberta Villegas, plaintiff in Civil Case No. CV‑94‑214. The controversy concerns the trial court's February 21, 1997 order granting Villegas' motion for reconsideration and recalling an earlier dismissal of her civil case.
Chronology: On February 18, 1994 the provincial prosecuting attorney filed an information for estafa in RTC, Misamis Oriental, Branch 37, against Carmen Mandawe for alleged failure to account to Villegas of P608,532.46. Villegas had entrusted that amount to Mandawe, who was an employee of DMPI‑ECCI, for deposit with petitioner’s teller. On March 29, 1994 Villegas filed a separate civil complaint in RTC, Misamis Oriental, Branch 20, naming Mandawe and DMPI‑ECCI and seeking recovery of money, damages, and a preliminary attachment arising from the same transaction.
Petitioner sought dismissal of Civil Case No. CV‑94‑214 on two grounds: (1) a pending criminal case in RTC Branch 37 arose from the same facts, and (2) the complaint lacked a certification against forum shopping allegedly required by Supreme Court Circular No. 28‑91. On December 12, 1996 the trial court issued an order dismissing Civil Case No. CV‑94‑214. Villegas moved for reconsideration on January 21, 1997; on February 21, 1997 the trial court granted that motion and recalled the dismissal.
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Supre...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the plaintiff’s failure to attach a certification against forum shopping in the complaint a ground to dismiss Civil Case No. CV‑94‑214?
- Could the independent civil action for damages proceed despite a pending criminal case for estafa when the offended party did not reserve the right to file the ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)