Case Summary (G.R. No. 175256)
Petitioners and Respondents
G.R. No. 175256: Lim challenges the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of her appeal on the civil aspect of a criminal estafa case for alleged forum shopping.
G.R. No. 179160: Co seeks annulment of the Manila RTC’s denial to dismiss Lim’s separate civil complaint for specific performance and damages.
Key Dates
1999: Withdrawal authorities issued; sale of authorities to Co and reassignment to Lim.
April–November 1999: Criminal estafa information filed; withdrawal of cement bags; alleged refusal by FRCC.
November 19, 2003: RTC acquits Co of estafa (demurrer granted) but retains civil aspect.
December 1, 2004: RTC relieves Co of civil liability in criminal case.
March 14, 2005: Lim appeals civil aspect of criminal case (CA-G.R. CV No. 85138).
April 19, 2005: Lim files independent civil suit for specific performance and damages (RTC No. 05-112396).
October 20, 2005: CA Second Division dismisses Lim’s appeal for forum shopping.
December 6, 2005: Manila RTC denies Co’s motion to dismiss civil suit.
April 10, 2007: CA Seventeenth Division denies Co’s certiorari petition, finds no forum shopping.
August 23, 2012: Supreme Court issues consolidated decision.
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution (judicial power, right to due process)
Revised Penal Code, Art. 100 (civil liability of person guilty of felony)
Civil Code, Arts. 31, 33 (independent civil actions for obligations not arising from felony; separate civil action for fraud)
Civil Code, Arts. 19–22 (abuse of rights, unjust enrichment)
Civil Code, Art. 2177 (no double recovery)
Rules of Court, Rule 111, Secs. 1–2 (suspension and extinction of civil liability ex delicto)
Factual Background
FR Cement Corp. issued six-month withdrawal authorities to dealers. Fil-Cement Center and Tigerbilt sold authorities covering 50,000 bags to Co for ₱3.15 million; Co sold to Lim for ₱3.2 million. Lim withdrew 2,800 bags and returned some authorities; FRCC refused withdrawal of the remaining 37,200 bags due to price increase. Lim demanded performance or refund, then filed legal actions.
Criminal Proceedings and Civil Aspect
Lim filed estafa information against Co for misappropriating ₱2,380,800 paid for 37,200 bags. The RTC granted Co’s demurrer to evidence, acquitted him of estafa (Nov. 19, 2003), but set civil aspect for trial. On Dec. 1, 2004, RTC held Co not civilly liable. Lim’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Feb. 21, 2005); she appealed civil aspect on March 14, 2005.
Independent Civil Action for Specific Performance
On April 19, 2005, Lim sued Co and other parties for specific performance and damages based on:
• Breach of contract (sale of withdrawal authorities and cement)
• Abuse of rights and unjust enrichment (tortious conduct)
She sought delivery of 37,200 bags or its value, moral/exemplary damages, attorney’s fees.
Motions to Dismiss and Appellate Rulings
Co filed motions to dismiss Lim’s appeal in the criminal civil aspect and her separate civil suit for lis pendens and forum shopping.
• CA Second Division (Oct. 20, 2005): Dismissed Lim’s appeal, finding identical parties, causes of action, and reliefs (forum shopping).
• Manila RTC (Dec. 6, 2005): Denied motion to dismiss civil suit, holding causes of action differ (contract/tort vs. felony).
• CA Seventeenth Division (Apr. 10, 2007): Denied Co’s petition for certiorari, affirming no forum shopping; remanded civil suit for trial.
Parties’ Arguments
Co: Lim pursued one cause of action under two modes (criminal civil aspect and independent civil suit) to obtain payment for 37,200 bags—constitutes forum shopping and litis pendentia.
Lim: A single act can give rise to two separate civil liabilities: ex delicto (civil liability from felony) and independent civil liability (contract/tort). Article 31 and 33 Civil Code allow concurrent actions; only double recovery is prohibited.
Issue
Whether Lim committed forum shopping by
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 175256)
Procedural Background
- Two petitions for review consolidated before the Supreme Court:
- G.R. No. 175256 filed by Lily Lim challenging CA‐Second Division’s dismissal of her appeal in the civil aspect of the estafa case.
- G.R. No. 179160 filed by Kou Co Ping (Charlie Co) challenging CA‐Seventeenth Division’s denial of his petition to dismiss Lim’s civil suit.
- Central question: Did Lim commit forum shopping by pursuing a civil complaint for specific performance and damages while appealing the civil aspect of a criminal estafa case?
Factual Antecedents
- February 1999: FR Cement Corporation issued withdrawal authorities valid for six months for 50,000 bags of cement originally allotted to Fil-Cement Center and Tigerbilt.
- Fil-Cement Center and Tigerbilt sold these authorities to Co for ₱3.15 million; Co sold them to Lim for ₱3.2 million.
- Lim withdrew 2,800 bags and sold back authorities covering 10,000 bags; attempted withdrawal of remaining 37,200 bags was refused in April 1999 due to a plant price increase.
- Lim demanded Co resolve the issue or refund her money; negotiations with Co and FRCC’s administrative manager, Borja, failed.
Criminal Case for Estafa
- Information charged Co with estafa through misappropriation/conversion of ₱2,380,800 entrusted for the 37,200 cement bags.
- Lim, as private complainant, sought return of ₱2,380,800, foregone profits, interest, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
- RTC Pasig Branch 154 (Nov 19, 2003): Acquitted Co of estafa for insufficiency of evidence; granted demurrer to evidence.
- Civil aspect of the criminal case: RTC (Dec 1, 2004) found Co not civilly liable; motion for reconsideration denied (Feb 21, 2005).
- Lim appealed the civil aspect on March 14, 2005; case docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 85138.
Civil Action for Specific Performance and Damages
- Filed April 19, 2005 in RTC Manila Branch