Lily Lim v Kou Co Ping a.k.a Charlie Co Gr. No. 175256 and Gr. No.

179160 August 23, 2012 Principle: A single act or omission that cause damage to an offended party may gave rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender (1)civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and (2) independent civil liability, that is civil liability that may be pursued independently of the criminal proceedings. The independent civil liability may be based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as felony. It may also be based on an act or omission that may constitute felony but, nevertheless, treated independently from the criminal action by specific provision of the Article 33 of the Civil Code.

Facts: FR Cement Corporation issued several withdrawal authorities for the account of cement dealers and traders, Fil-Cement and Tigerbilt. Each withdrawal authority contained provision that it is valid for six months from its date of issuance, unless revoked by FRCC Marketing Department.Filcement and Tigerbilt sold their withdrawal authorities to Co. On February Co then sold these withdrwal authorities to Lim. Using the withdrawal authorities Lim withdrew cement bags from FRCC on a staggred basis. Sometime in April 1999, FRCC did not allow Lim to withdraw the remianign bags covered by the withdrwal authorities. Lim clarified the matter with Co and administrative manager of Fil-Cement, who explained that the plant implemented a price increase and would only release th goods once Lim pays the price diffrence or agrees to receive lesser quantity of cement.Lim filed case of Estafa through Misappropriation or Conversion against Co. The Regional Trial Court acquitted Co.After the trial on the civil aspect of the criminal case the court also found Co not civilly liable. Lim sought a reconsideration which the regional trial Court denied. On March 14, 2005 Lim filed her notice of appeal on the civil aspect of the criminal case. On April 19, 2005 Lim filed a complaint for specific performance and damages before the RTC.

Issue: Whether or not there is no forum shopping for a private complainant to pursue a civil complaint for specific performance and damages while appealing the judgement on the civil aspect of a criminal case for estafa?

Ruling: A single act or omission that cause damage to an offended party may gave rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender (1)civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and (2) independent civil liability, that is civil liability that may be pursued independently of the criminal proceedings. The independent civil liability may be based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as felony. It may also be based on an act or omission that may constitute felony but, nevertheless, treated independently from the criminal action by specific provision of the Article 33 of the Civil Code. Because of the distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities, jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or cummulatively, without offending the rules on forum shopping, litis pendentia or res judicata. The criminal cases of estafa are based on culpa criminal while the civil action for collection is anchored on culpa contractual. The first action is clearly a civil action ex delicto, it having been insituted together with criminal action. On the other hand, the second action, judging by the allegations contained in the complaint, is a civil action arising from contractual obligation and for tortious conduct. The Civil Case involves only the obligation arising from contratc and from tort, whereas the appeal in the stafa case involves only the civil obligations of Co arising from the offense charged.

Formulated Bar Question FRCC issued several withdrawal authorities for the account of cement dealers and traders, F and T. Each withdrawal authority contained provision that it is valid for six months from its date of issuance, unless revoked by FRCC. F and T sold their withdrawal authorities to C. On February C then sold these withdrwal authorities to L. Using the withdrawal authorities L withdrew cement bags from FRCC on a staggred basis. Sometime in April 1999, FRCC did not allow Lim to withdraw the remianign bags covered by the withdrwal authorities. L clarified the matter with C and F, who explained that the plant implemented a price increase and would only release th goods once L pays the price diffrence or agrees to receive lesser quantity of cement.L filed case of Estafa .The Regional Trial Court acquitted C. After the trial on the civil aspect of the criminal case the court also found C not civilly liable. L sought a reconsideration which the regional trial Court denied. On March 14, 2005 L filed her notice of appeal on the civil aspect of the criminal case. On April 19, 2005 L filed a complaint for specific performance and damages before the RTC.

Is there Forumshopping?Why Answer : No. There is no forum shopping because the criminal cases of estafa are based on culpa criminal while the civil action for collection is anchored on culpa contractual; because of the distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities, jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or cummulatively, without offending the rules on forum shopping, litis pendentia or res judicata.