DELIA MANUEL vs. JUDGE DAVID ALFECHE, JR.

, in his capacity as then

Presiding Judge of RTC, Region Six, Branch 15, Roxas City, FELIPE
CELINO, DANNY FAJARDO and LEMUEL FERNANDEZ, respondents.
G.R. No. 115683 July 26, 1996
FACTS:
On January 9, 1992, the City Prosecutor of Roxas filed with the Regional Trial
Court an Information for libel against the writer and editors of the newspaper
"Panay News." Said paper has considerable circulation in Panay Island and
throughout Western Visayas. The Information alleged that the accused caused to
publish an article on the front page with the headline "LOCAL SHABU PEDDLER
NOW A MILLIONARE;" that accused conveyed in said article false imputations
and malicious insinuations against the said DELIA MANUEL, that she is the
alleged "SHABU QUEEN" in Western Visayas. The Information further alleged that
as a direct consequence of the publication of the said article, Manuel suffered
actual, moral and exemplary damages in the amount of TEN MILLION PESOS
(10,000,000.00).
After trial, the RTC judge rendered the assailed Decision finding three of the
accused guilty and acquitting a fourth. However, "(t)he civil indemnity by way of
moral damages (was) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction" on the ground that
petitioner did not pay the filing fees therefor.
Reconsideration having been denied, petitioner sought to overturn the above
dismissal via the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
The accused argued that since the questioned decision is a final judgment, the
appropriate remedy should have been ordinary appeal and not appeal by
certiorari. Having filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, the accused
contended that this petition before the Supreme Court was pre-mature.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not there was a need to pay the filing and docket fees by reason of
non-speciation of the amounts of damages
2. Whether or not the questioned decision is pre-mature
RULING:
1. Yes. When a civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action
in accordance with Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court because the
offended party has NOT waived the civil action, or reserved the right to institute
it separately, or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action the rule is
as follows:
i) when the "amount of damages, other than actual, is alleged in the
complaint or information" filed in court, then "the corresponding filing fees

shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for
trial;"
2. Yes. Since private respondents herein had already taken an appeal to the
Court of Appeals to question the trial court's judgment of conviction, the proper
remedy for petitioner is simply ordinary appeal to the said tribunal.
The award of moral and exemplary damages by the trial court is inextricably
linked to and necessarily dependent upon the factual finding of basis therefor,
viz., the existence of the crime libel. Inasmuch as the very same Decision herein
assailed is already pending review by the Court of Appeals, there is a distinct
possibility that the said court may, if the facts and the law warrant, reverse the
trial court and acquit the accused. In such event, the appellate court's action
would lead to absurdity and confusion in the ultimate disposition of the case.
Obviously, this possibility must be avoided at all cost. This is (at least partly) the
raison d'etre for the rule against forum-shopping. Clearly, then, petitioner ought
to have brought her challenge in the Court of Appeals.
Petition dismissed for utter lack of merit.