Title
Lim vs. Kou Co Ping
Case
G.R. No. 175256
Decision Date
Aug 23, 2012
Lily Lim pursued civil liabilities for breach of contract and estafa separately; SC ruled no forum shopping as causes of action were distinct.
civil complaint
specific performance
damages

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175256)

Factual Background

In February 1999, FR Cement Corporation issued withdrawal authorities permitting the holder to withdraw specified numbers of cement bags within six months. Fil‑Cement Center and Tigerbilt, through their administrative manager Gail Borja, sold withdrawal authorities representing 50,000 bags to Kou Co Ping a.k.a. Charlie Co for P3.15 million. On February 15, 1999, Co sold the same withdrawal authorities to Lily Lim for P64.00 per bag or P3.2 million in total. Lim used the authorities to withdraw cement on a staggered basis and withdrew 2,800 bags; she also sold some authorities back to Co covering 10,000 bags. Thereafter FR Cement refused to allow Lim to withdraw the remaining 37,200 bags, allegedly because the plant implemented a price increase and would only release goods upon payment of the difference or acceptance of a lesser quantity. Lim protested that the withdrawal authorities fixed her entitlement and sought redress when Co and Borja failed to resolve the matter or refund her money.

The Criminal Information and Civil Aspect Thereof

An Information for estafa through misappropriation or conversion was filed against Co before Branch 154, RTC of Pasig City, alleging that between February and April 1999 Co, with intent to defraud, received P2,380,800.00 from Lim as payment for 37,200 bags of cement and misappropriated the funds. Lim participated as private complainant and prayed for return of her money, foregone profits, interest, moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees. On November 19, 2003, the RTC granted the demurrer to evidence and acquitted Co for insufficiency of evidence, but it set the case for reception of evidence on civil liability. After trial on the civil aspect, the RTC rendered an order on December 1, 2004 relieving Co of civil liability to Lim. The trial court denied Lim’s motion for reconsideration on February 21, 2005. Lim filed a notice of appeal on the civil aspect on March 14, 2005, which the Court of Appeals docketed as CA‑G.R. CV No. 85138.

The Civil Complaint for Specific Performance and Damages

On April 19, 2005, Lim filed a civil complaint for specific performance and damages in the Manila RTC, docketed Civil Case No. 05‑112396, naming Co and others as defendants. The complaint alleged a contract of sale in which Lim paid P3.2 million for withdrawal authorities corresponding to 50,000 bags and that Co and the other defendants breached contractual obligations and committed abusive conduct when FR Cement Corporation refused to honor the withdrawal authorities or imposed price adjustments. Lim pleaded causes of action for breach of contract, abuse of rights and unjust enrichment, and claimed moral and exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. She prayed that the defendants either deliver the 37,200 bags or pay their current market value and be held solidarily liable for damages.

Procedural Motions and Appellate Responses

In response to the civil complaint, Co moved to dismiss the Manila civil case and also moved to dismiss Lim’s appeal from the civil aspect of the criminal case, alleging litis pendentia and forum shopping because, in his view, both actions concerned the same cause and sought the same relief. The Court of Appeals Second Division granted Co’s motion as to the appeal and dismissed Lim’s appeal in CA‑G.R. CV No. 85138 by Resolution dated October 20, 2005, concluding identity of parties, causes of action, and reliefs. The Manila RTC, however, denied Co’s motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 05‑112396 in an Order dated December 6, 2005, finding different causes of action. Co filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals Seventeenth Division, which denied his petition and remanded the civil complaint to the trial court by Decision dated April 10, 2007. Both CA dispositions were the subject of separate petitions for review to the Supreme Court, later consolidated.

Parties’ Contentions on Forum Shopping

Co contended that Lim engaged in forum shopping by pursuing the same relief in two fora and that the appeal from the civil aspect and the civil complaint raise the identical issue of his liability for the 37,200 bags; he argued that any differences in form do not alter identity of cause. Lim conceded that both proceedings arose from a single transaction but argued that a single act may give rise to two separate civil liabilities, namely civil liability ex delicto and independent civil liability ex contractu or for tort, and that Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Code permit separate civil actions to proceed independently; she relied on Article 2177 to avoid double recovery. Lim sought reinstatement of her appeal and denial of Co’s petitions.

Issue Presented

The sole issue framed for resolution was whether Lim committed forum shopping by filing a civil complaint for specific performance and damages while her appeal on the civil aspect of the estafa criminal case was pending before the Court of Appeals.

Governing Legal Principles

The Court reiterated that a single act or omission may give rise to two distinct civil liabilities: civil liability ex delicto under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and independent civil liability arising from obligations not based on the felony or specified by Article 33. The civil liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted with the criminal action and its separate civil proceedings are suspended under Rule 111 of the Rules of Court until final disposition of the criminal case; such civil liability is extinguished if the criminal court declares that the act or omission did not exist. By contrast, independent civil liabilities grounded on contract or tort may proceed independently under Article 31 and Article 33. Jurisprudence permits the offended party to pursue both kinds of civil liabilities simultaneously without committing forum shopping, provided that recovery is not duplicated, a principle reflected in Article 2177. The Court cited Cancio, Jr. v. Isip and Casupanan v. Laroya for these doctrines.

Application to the Present Case

The Court examined the allegations in the criminal action and the civil complaint. The Court found that the civil claim pursued with the criminal case was a civil action ex delicto, instituted with the estafa information and inherently linked to the criminal offense. The later Manila civil complaint, however, alleged breach of contract and abuse of rights and sought enforcement of contractual obligations under the sale and the withdrawal authorities. Those allegations

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms