Case Digest (G.R. No. 157547)
Facts:
Heirs of Eduardo Simon v. Elvin Chan and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157547, January 23, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.The underlying criminal information was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila on July 11, 1997 charging the late Eduardo Simon with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) (People v. Eduardo Simon, Crim. Case No. 275381) for issuing an unfunded Landbank check dated December 26, 1996 for P336,000.00 payable to cash. The information alleged that the check was dishonored for “Account Closed” and that despite notice, Simon failed to pay or arrange payment within five banking days.
On August 3, 2000, Elvin Chan filed a separate civil action for collection of P336,000.00 in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Pasay City (Civil Case No. 915-00) and secured a writ of preliminary attachment on August 9, 2000 (implemented August 17, 2000) attaching Simon’s Nissan vehicle. Simon moved to dismiss the civil complaint on the ground of litis pendentia, arguing the civil aspect was already included in the pending BP 22 criminal case filed earlier in the MeTC in Manila and that under the rules the civil claim arising from BP 22 is deemed included in the criminal action.
Chan opposed, contending his suit was an independent civil action based on fraud under Article 33 of the Civil Code and relying on Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court’s decision in DMPI Employees Credit Association v. Velez to support independent civil proceedings. The MeTC in Pasay City granted Simon’s motion and dismissed Chan’s civil complaint on October 23, 2000, dissolved the attachment, ordered Simon’s restoration of the vehicle, charged Chan’s bond for damages and awarded attorney’s fees. The MeTC denied Chan’s motion for reconsideration on December 20, 2000.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasay City affirmed the MeTC’s dismissal on July 31, 2001. Chan appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) by petition for review. On June 25, 2002 the CA reversed the RTC, ruling that the civil action could proceed independently under Rule 111 Sections 2–3 as construed in DMPI Employees Credit Association v. Velez and related authorities; the CA remanded the case for further proceedings. The CA denied reconsideration on March 14, 2003.
The petitioners (Heirs of Eduardo Simon) sought...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Elvin Chan’s civil action (Civil Case No. 915-00) an independent civil action recoverable separately from the BP 22 criminal prosecution against Eduardo Simon...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)