You are on page 1of 2

Cheng v.

Sy (2009) o RTC dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the civil action for
collection of the amount was already instituted in the BP 22
Petition: Review on Certiorari cases, based on Section 1, par. (b) of Rule 111 of the Revised
Petitioner: Anita Cheng Rules of Court
Respondent: Spouses William Sy and Tessie Sy Petitioner filed MR but was denied.
Ponencia: Nachura, J.
ISSUE:
DOCTRINE: 1. WON Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Under the present revised Rules, the criminal action for violation of BP Blg. 22 Procedure and Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 on the Rules
includes the corresponding civil action to recover the amount of the checks. and Guidelines in the filing and prosecution of criminal cases
This policy is intended to discourage the separate filing of the civil action. The under BP Blg. 22 are applicable to the present case.
only instance when separate proceedings are allowed is when the civil action is a. Context: The basis of dismissal the cases for bouncing checks
filed ahead of the criminal case. against the respondents was the failure of the prosecution to
identify both the accused.
But for reasons of substantial justice and equity, (as in the case at bar) as the
complement of the legal jurisdiction that seeks to dispense justice where courts
of law, through the inflexibility of their rules and want of power to adapt their RULING + RATIO:
judgments to the special circumstances of cases, are incompetent to do so, the 1. Petitioner:
rule is not absolute. a. Since the BP Blg. 22 cases were filed on January 20, 1999 and
the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure promulgated
FACTS: on December 1, 2000 then it should not apply, as it must be
Respondent Spouses Sy issued to Petitioner Anita 2 Philippine Bank of given only prospective application.
Commerce Checks for P300,000 each, in payment of their loan. i. SC: Rules of procedure apply even to cases already
o The two checks were dishonoured for having been drawn pending at the time of their promulgation. The fact that
against a closed account. procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants
Petitioner Cheng filed two estafa cases before the RTC, Br. 7 of rights does not preclude their retroactive application to
Manila against respondent spouses. pending actions. The reason for this is that, as a
Based on the same facts, petitioner, on January 20, 1999, filed 2 cases general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise
for violation of BP 22 before the MeTC Branch 25, Manila. from, procedural laws.
On March 16, 2004 the cases for estafa were dismissed for failure of b. Her case falls within the exceptions to the general rule that the
the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime. civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal case. (SEE
o The Order dismissing the first case (Criminal Case No. NOTES for enumeration)
98-969952) contained no declaration as to the civil liability of c. Petitioner also points out that she was not assisted by any
Tessie Sy. private prosecutor in the BP Blg. 22 proceedings.
o On the other hand, the Order for the second case (Criminal Case 2. SC:
No. 98-969953) contained a statement, Hence, if there is a. General Rule: Upon the filing of the estafa and BP Blg. 22 cases,
any liability of the accused, the same is purely civil, not the corresponding civil action to collect the amount and
criminal in nature. damages is deemed instituted with the criminal case.
Later, MeTC also dismissed on demurrer the BP 22 cases on account i. Exceptions (not present in the case at bar)
of failure of petitioner to identify the accused respondents in open 1. where the petitioner has made any waiver
court. 2. Petitioner has made express reservation to
o The Order did not make any pronouncement as to the civil litigate separately
liability. 3. Petitioner has instituted a prior civil case
On April 26, 2005, Petitioner lodged before the RTC Br. 18 of Manila, a b. In Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, the possible single civil liability
Complaint for collection of a sum of Money (CIVIL CASE) based on the arising from the act of issuing a bouncing check can be the
same amount. subject of both civil actions deemed instituted with the estafa
case and the prosecution for violation of BP Blg. 22, ii. If the loan be proven true, the inability of petitioner to
simultaneously available to the complaining party, without recover the loaned amount would be tantamount to
traversing the prohibition against forum shopping. unjust enrichment of respondents, as they may now
c. Fast facts: conveniently evade payment of their obligation merely
i. Petitioner filed 2 cases for estafa: Both- failure to prove on account of a technicality applied against petitioner.
elements of crime beyond reasonable doubt
st
1. 1 case-dismissed DISPOSITION:
nd
2. 2 case-dismissed but with statement that: if Civil Case No. 05-112452 entitled Anita Cheng v. Spouses William Sy and
there is any liability of the accused, the Tessie Sy is hereby ordered REINSTATED.
same is purely civil, not criminal in
nature. produced legal effect of a NOTES
reservation to lititgate separately the civil
action. (1) additional evidence as to the identities of the accused is necessary for the
ii. Petitioner filed 2 cases for BP 22 resolution of the civil aspect of the case;
1. Both dismissed without reference to civil
liability of respondent spouses. (2) a separate complaint would be just as efficacious as or even more
iii. The civil action could have been litigated separately on expedient than a timely remand to the trial court where the criminal action was
account of the dismissal of the estafa cases on decided for further hearings on the civil aspect of the case;
reasonable doubt, BUT the petitioner was deemed to
have also elected that such civil action be prosecuted (3) the trial court failed to make any pronouncement as to the civil liability of the
together with the BP Blg. 22 cases accused amounting to a reservation of the right to have the civil liability litigated
1. With the dismissal of the BP Blg. 22 cases for in a separate action;
failure to establish the identity of the accused,
did such dismissal have the same legal (4) the trial court did not declare that the facts from which the civil liability might
effect as the dismissed estafa cases. arise did not exist;
3. SC:
a. Under the present revised Rules, the criminal action for violation (5) the civil complaint is based on an obligation ex-contractu and not ex-delicto
of BP Blg. 22 includes the corresponding civil action to recover pursuant to Article 31[11] of the Civil Code; and
the amount of the checks. This policy is intended to discourage
the separate filing of the civil action. (6) the claim for civil liability for damages may be had under Article 29[12] of the
b. The only instance when separate proceedings are allowed is Civil Code.
when the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal case.
i. Even then, the Rules encourages the consolidation of Clients are bound by the mistakes, negligence and omission of their
the civil and criminal cases. counsel, except:
c. However in applying the foregoing rule, Petitioner would be left (1) where the counsels mistake is so great and serious that the client is
without a remedy to recover from respondents prejudiced and denied his day in court, or
the P600,000.00 allegedly loaned from her. (2) where the counsel is guilty of gross negligence resulting in the clients
d. In light of this, the Court considered petitioners contention that deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law.
she was not assisted by a private prosecutor during the BP
Blg. 22 proceedings (court ruled as gross mistake on the part
of the prosecutor)
i. The civil action for collection may thus proceed
requiring only a preponderance of evidence on the part
of petitioner because she was denied her day in court
to prosecute the respondents for their obligation to pay
their loan.

You might also like