Case Digest (G.R. No. 130177) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Lily Lim v. Kou Co Ping a.k.a. Charlie Co (G.R. No. 175256 & 179160, August 23, 2012), FR Cement Corporation in February 1999 issued withdrawal authorities valid for six months to traders Tigerbilt and Fil-Cement Center. These authorities covering 50,000 bags of cement were sold to Kou Co Ping (“Co”) for ₱3.15 million and reassigned by Co on February 15, 1999 to Lily Lim (“Lim”) at ₱64.00 per bag (total ₱3.2 million). Lim withdrew 2,800 bags but could not withdraw the remaining 37,200 bags when FRCC demanded a price adjustment. Lim filed a criminal Information for estafa against Co in RTC Pasig (Crim. Case No. 116377), claiming misappropriation of ₱2,380,800.00 and seeking civil indemnity. The RTC granted Co’s demurrer, acquitted him, and later found him civilly not liable in December 2004. Lim appealed the civil aspect to the Court of Appeals Second Division (CA-G.R. CV No. 85138). Meanwhile, on April 19, 2005, Lim filed a separate civil complaint for specific performance an Case Digest (G.R. No. 130177) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Antecedents of the transaction
- FR Cement Corporation (FRCC) issued withdrawal authorities valid for six months to dealers Fil-Cement Center and Tigerbilt. These authorities entitled the holder to withdraw a specified number of cement bags.
- Fil-Cement Center and Tigerbilt sold authorities covering 50,000 bags to Kou Co Ping (Co) for ₱3.15 M; on February 15, 1999, Co sold them to Lily Lim for ₱3.2 M (₱64.00/bag). Lim withdrew 2,800 bags and sold back authorities for 10,000 bags. Sometime in April 1999, FRCC refused to honor authorities covering the remaining 37,200 bags, citing a price increase. Co and the traders’ manager, Borja, asked Lim to pay the difference or accept fewer bags. Lim’s demands for compliance and refund failed.
- Criminal proceedings for estafa
- Lim filed an estafa information against Co, alleging he misappropriated ₱2,380,800 paid for 37,200 bags. She joined as private complainant and sought the return of money, profits, interest, moral/exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
- RTC Pasig (Branch 154) granted Co’s demurrer to evidence and acquitted him (Nov 19, 2003) for insufficient proof of estafa. The court then tried and dismissed civil liability (Dec 1, 2004). Lim’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Feb 21, 2005), and she appealed the civil aspect to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 85138).
- Civil action for specific performance and damages
- On April 19, 2005, Lim sued Co, Fil-Cement Center, Tigerbilt, FRCC, Southeast Asia Cement, and La Farge before Manila RTC (Civil Case No. 05-112396). She alleged breach of contract (failure to deliver 37,200 bags) and abuse of rights/unjust enrichment, praying for delivery of cement or its value, damages, moral/exemplary damages, and fees.
- Co moved to dismiss both Lim’s appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 85138 and the Manila RTC case, citing lis pendens and forum shopping. The Manila RTC denied the motion (Dec 6, 2005). On certiorari, the CA 17th Division denied relief, finding no forum shopping (Apr 10, 2007).
Issues:
- Whether Lim’s filing of a civil complaint for specific performance and damages during the pendency of her appeal on the civil aspect of the criminal estafa case constitutes forum shopping.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)