CANCIO V.

ISIP
FACTS: Cancio filed cases of violation of BP22 and cases of estafa against Respondent. The
BP22 cases were dismissed on the ground of failure to prosecute. As to the estafa cases, the
prosecution moved to dismiss after failing to present its second witness. The prosecution
liewise reserved its right to file a separate civil action arising from the said criminal cases. The
TC granted.
Cancio then filed the instant case for collection of sum of mone!, seeing to recover the amount
of the checs su"#ect of the estafa cases. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
contending that petitioner$s action is "arred "! the doctrine of res #udicata. Respondent further
pra!ed that petitioner should "e held in contempt of court for forum%shopping. The TC found in
favor of the respondent.
ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the estafa cases against respondent "ars the institution of a civil
action for collection of the value of the checs su"#ect of the estafa cases& WON the filing of said
civil action violated the anti%forum%shopping rule.
HELD: NO. An act or omission causing damage to another ma! give rise to two separate civil
lia"ilities on the part of the offender, i.e., '() civil lia"ilit! e* delicto, under Art(++ of the RPC&
and '2) independent civil lia"ilities, such as those 'a) not arising from an act or omission
complained of as felon!& or '") where the in#ured part! is granted a right to file an action
independent and distinct from the criminal action. ,ither of these two possi"le lia"ilities ma! "e
enforced against the offender su"#ect, however, to the caveat under Article 2(-- of the Civil
Code that the offended part! cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission or
under "oth causes.
.nder the present Rules, the civil lia"ilit! e*%delicto is deemed instituted with the criminal action,
"ut the offended part! is given the option to file a separate civil action "efore the prosecution
starts to present evidence. Anent the independent civil actions, under the present Rules, the
independent civil actions ma! "e filed separatel! and prosecuted independentl! even without
an! reservation in the criminal action. The failure to mae a reservation in the criminal action is
not a waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil action.
/n the case at "ar, a reading of the complaint filed "! petitioner show that his cause of action is
"ased on culpa contractual, an independent civil action. Cancio$s cause of action is the
respondent$s "reach of the contractual o"ligation. The nature of a cause of action is determined
"! the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of action. The purpose of an
action or suit and the law to govern it is to "e determined not "! the claim of the part! filing the
action, made in his argument or "rief, "ut rather "! the complaint itself, its allegations and
pra!er for relief.
There is also no forum%shopping. The essence of forum%shopping is the filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneousl! or successivel!,
to secure a favora"le #udgment. Although the cases filed "! petitioner arose from the same act
or omission of respondent, the! are, however, "ased on different causes of action. The criminal
cases for estafa are "ased on culpa criminal while the civil action for collection is anchored on
culpa contractual. 0oreover, there can "e no forum%shopping in the instant case "ecause the
law e*pressl! allows the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed independentl! of the
criminal action.