G.R. No.

133978
November 12, 2002
FACTS
The accused, EmerenciaIsip, was charged with 3 counts of violation of B.P. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks
Law and 3 cases of Estafa. One of the B.P. 22 cases was dismissed due to it being deposited before 90 days from
the date written on the check. The other two cases of B.P. 22 were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Guagua,
Pampanga and were then dismissed due to the failure of the prosecution to prosecute the crime.
Meanwhile the three cases of Estafa were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga. After failing to present its
second witness, the prosecution dismissed the Estafa case. The prosecution reserved its right to file a separate civil
action from the said criminal cases. The court granted the reservation. The criminal case of Estafa was then
dismissed without prejudice to the civil action. On December 15, 1997, petitioner filed the instant case for the
collection of the sum of money, seeking to recover the amount of the check subject to the Estafa cases. Respondent
then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint contending that the petition is already barred by the doctrine of Res
Judicata.
ISSUE
Whether or not the respondents can file a separate civil action regardless of the dismissal of the criminal case of
estafa.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the civil action can prosper. The reservation for civil action was made by the
prosecution on time. According to Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure states that civil liability is
deemed instituted with the criminal case unless there is a reservation of the right to file a separate civil action.
In the case at bar, the complaint is clearly based on culpa contractual. The cause of action was the breach of the
respondents breach of the contractual obligation. Evidently, the petitioner was seeking to make good the value
written on the checks in exchange for cash. The case was not anchored the criminal aspect of estafa but on the civil
aspect of culpa contractual. As such, it is distinct and independent from the estafa case filed against the offender and
may proceed regardless of the result of the criminal proceedings.