G.R. No. 157547 - Heirs of Simon vs. Chan

On July 11, 1997, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed Criminal Case No. 275381 for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Eduardo Simon, alleging that in December 1996 he willfully issued Landbank Check No. 0007280 dated December 26, 1996 for ₱336,000 knowing there were insufficient funds; the check was dishonored for “Account Closed” and, despite notice, Simon failed to pay within five banking days.
The information expressly included the civil liability arising from the offense.

On August 3, 2000, Elvin Chan filed Civil Case No. 915-00 in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Pasay City for collection of ₱336,000 with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment, attaching Simon’s Nissan vehicle on August 17, 2000.
Chan’s complaint alleged fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, demand letters, and attorney’s fees of ₱50,000 plus ₱2,000 per appearance.

On August 17, 2000, Simon filed an urgent motion to dismiss and to charge Chan’s attachment bond for damages, invoking litis pendentia due to the pending BP 22 criminal case and asserting the civil liability was already included therein.
On October 23, 2000, the MeTC in Pasay City granted the motion, dismissing the complaint for litis pendentia, dissolving the attachment, charging Chan’s bond for ₱336,000, and awarding Simon ₱5,000 attorney’s fees; Chan’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 20, 2000.
On July 31, 2001, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasay City affirmed the MeTC decision.
Chan appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) on September 26, 2001. On June 25, 2002, the CA reversed, holding that, under Rule 111, Section 3 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure (effective December 1, 2000) and DMPI Employees Credit Association v. Velez, the civil action based on fraud (Art. 33, Civil Code) could proceed independently without reservation; Chan’s motion for reconsideration was denied on March 14, 2003.
Simon filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether Chan’s separate civil action to recover ₱336,000 for the dishonored check was an “independent civil action” permissible under Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and Articles 32–34 of the Civil Code, or whether it was barred by litis pendentia because the civil liability was already included in the BP 22 criminal case.