Lim vs.
Kou Co Ping Because of this, Lim filed an information for Estafa through
G.R. No. 175256               August 23, 2012
LILY LIM, Petitioner,
vs.
KOU CO PING a.k.a. CHARLIE CO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 179160
KOU CO PING a.k.a. CHARLIE CO, Petitioner,
vs.
LILY LIM, Respondent.
FACTS
FR Cement Corporation (FRCC) issued several withdrawal authorities for
the account of cement dealers and traders, Fil-Cement and Tigerbilt (FCCT).
FCCT then sold the withdrawal authorities covering 50,000 bags of cement
to respondent Co for the amount of P3.15 million or P63.00 per bag.
Co then sold the same withdrawal authorities to petitioner Lily Lim for the
alleged amount of P3.2 million or P64.00 per bag.
Lim, using the withdrawal authorities, withdrew 2,800 bags of cement from
FRCC. He then sold some of the withdrawal authorities covering 10,000
bags back to respondent Co. (Remaining: 37,200 bags)
Sometime within the same year, FRCC no longer allowed Lim to withdraw
the remaining 37,200 bags covered by the withdrawal authorities.
According to Co and the manager of FCCT, the plant implemented a price
increase and would only release the goods once Lim paid for the price
difference or agreed to receive a lesser quantity of cement. Lim objected
and maintained that the withdrawal authorities were not subject to price
fluctuations.
Misappropriation or Conversion before the RTC of Pasig City. The criminal
case was dismissed. The civil liability was subsequently dismissed as well
after the reception of the evidence.
Lim appealed the dismissal of the civil liability before the CA. While the
appeal before the CA was pending, she filed a complaint for specific
performance and damages before the RTC of Manila. The complaint
asserted two causes of action: breach of contract and abuse of rights.
In his defense, Co maintained that the two causes of action raise the same
issue, which was Co’s liability to Lim for her inability to withdraw the bags
of cement, and SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUNDS OF LIS PENDENS
AND FORUM SHOPPING.
ISSUE
Whether or not Lim committed forum shopping in filing the civil case for
specific performance and damages during the pendency of her appeal on
the civil aspect of Estafa.
RULING
Lim did not commit forum shopping in filing the civil case for specific
performance and damages during the pendency of her appeal on the civil
aspect of Estafa.
A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may give
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 a felony,”
as provided in Article 31 of the Civil Code (such as for breach of contract or
for tort). 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 Article 33 of the Civil Code (“in cases of defamation,
fraud and physical injuries”).
The filing of the collection case after the dismissal of the estafa cases
against the offender did not amount to forum-shopping. The essence of
forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for
the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a
favorable judgment. Although the cases filed by the offended party arose
from the same act or omission of the offender, they are, however, based
on different causes of action. The criminal cases for estafa are based on
culpa criminal while the civil action for collection is anchored on culpa
contractual.

Moreover, there can be no forum-shopping in the instant case because the

law expressly allows the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed
independently of the criminal action.