SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION

1.

2. Consing vs People

3. Lim vs Kou

Lim v. Kou Co PingGR No. 175256August 23, 2012Facts:

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 !,!!! bags of cement to respondent Cofor the amount of "#.1 million
or "$#.!! per bag.Co then sold the same withdrawal authorities to petitioner %il& %im for the alleged
amount of "#.' million or "$ .!! per bag.%im, using the withdrawal authorities, withdrew ', !! bags of
cement from FRCC. *e thensold some of the withdrawal authorities covering 1!,!!! bags bac+ to
respondent Co.

(Remaining: 37,200 bags)

ometime within the same &ear, FRCC no longer allowed %im to withdraw the remaining# ,'!! bags
covered b& the withdrawal authorities.  ccording to Co and the manager of FCCT, the plant
implemented a price increase and would onl& release the goods once %impaid for the price difference
or agreed to receive a lesser /uantit& of cement. %im ob0ectedand maintained that the withdrawal
authorities were not sub0ect to price fluctuations.ecause of this, %im filed an information for 2stafa
through 3isappropriation or Conversionbefore the RTC of "asig Cit&. The criminal case was dismissed.
The civil liabilit& wassubse/uentl& dismissed as well after the reception of the evidence.%im
appealed the dismissal of the civil liabilit& before the C . 4hile the appeal before the C was
pending, she filed a complaint for specific performance and damages before the RTC of 3anila. The
complaint asserted two causes of action5 breach of contract and abuse of rights.6n his defense, Co
maintained that the two causes of action raise the same issue, which wasCo7s liabilit& to %im for her
inabilit& to withdraw the bags of cement, and *89%: 2:6362: 8; T*2 <R89;:  8F %6 
"2;:2; ;: F8R93 *8""6;<.

ssu!:

4hether or not %im committed forum shopping in filing the civil case for specific performanceand
damages during the pendenc& of her appeal on the civil aspect of 2stafa.

"!#$:
%im did not commit forum shopping in filing the civil case for specific performance anddamages
during the pendenc& of her appeal on the civil aspect of 2stafa.  single act or omission that causes
damage to an offended part& ma& give rise to twoseparate civil liabilities on the part of the offender5

%1&

civil liabilit& e= delicto, that is, civilliabilit& arising from the criminal offense under  rti cle 1!! of the
Revised "enal Code,

and

%2&

independent civil liabilit&, that is, civil liabilit& that ma& be pursued independentl& of thecriminal
proceedings. The independent civil liabilit& ma& be based on >an obligation notarising from the act
or omission complained of as a felon&,> as provided in  rti cle #1 of theCivil Code (such as for breach
of contract or for tort).

t ma' a#so (! (as!$ on an act o) omission t*at ma' constitut! +!#on' (ut, n!v!)t*!#!ss, t)!at!$ in$!!n$!
nt#' +)om t*!c)imina# action (' s !ci+ic )ovision o+ A)tic#! 33 o+ t*! Civi# Co$! %-in cas!s o+ $!
+amation, +)au$ an$ *'sica# in u)i!s-&.

The filing of the collection case after the dismissal of the estafa cases against the offender didnot
amount to forum-shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suitsinvolving the
same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneousl& or successivel&, to secure a
favorable 0udgment.

A#t*oug* t*! cas!s +i#!$ (' /t*! o++!n$!$ a)t'  a)os! +)om t*! sam! act o) omission o+ /t*! o++!
n$!), t*!' a)!, *o!v!), (as!$on $i++!)!nt caus!s o+ action. *! c)imina# cas!s +o) !sta+a a)! (as!$ on
cu#a c)imina#*i#! t*! civi# action +o) co##!ction is anc*o)!$ on cu# a cont)actua#. o)!ov!),
t*!)!can (! no +o)um4s*oing in t*! instant cas! (!caus! t*! #a  ! )!ss#' a##o s t*!+i#ing o+ a
s!a)at! civi# action *ic* can )oc!!$ in$!!n$!nt#' o+ t*! c)imina# action.

4.
128. Mariano C. Mendoza and Elvira Lim vsSpouses Leonora and Gabriel Gomez

Topic: Liability o a re!istered o"ner o a ve#icle$acts: %s a result o a ve#icular collision resultin!

rom t#e driver&sne!li!ence' respondents suered p#ysical in(uries and t#e )suzu truc* sustained
e+tensive dama!es. ,ence' t#is case or dama!es.-espondents ar!ued t#at alt#ou!# t#e re!istered o"ner
o t#e bus "asLim' t#e actual o"ner o t#e bus "as Cirilo Enriuez /Enriuez0' "#o#ad t#e bus attac#ed
"it# Mayamy Transportation Company /Mayamy Transport0 under t#e socalled *abit system.
-espondents t#enimpleaded bot# Lim and Enriuez. )ssue: #o is liable3 #o is deemed as
Mendoza&s /driver0 employer3 )sit Enriuez' t#e actual o"ner o t#e bus or Lim' t#e re!istered
o"ner o t#e bus3 -ulin!: T#e re!istered o"ner is deemed t#e employer o t#e ne!li!ent driver'and is
t#us vicariously liable under %rticle 2145' in relation to %rticle2186' o t#e Civil Code. T#e re!istered
o"ner o t#e motor ve#icle is t#eemployer o t#e ne!li!ent driver' and t#e actual employer is
consideredmerely as an a!ent o suc# o"ner. T#us' "#et#er t#ere is an employer7employee
relations#ip bet"een t#e re!istered o"ner and t#e driver isirrelevant in determinin! t#e liability o t#e
re!istered o"ner "#o t#ela" #olds primarily and directly responsible or any accident' in(ury ordeat#
caused by t#e operation o t#e ve#icle in t#e streets and #i!#"ays %s suc#' t#ere can be no ot#er
conclusion but to #old Lim vicariously liable "it# Mendoza. T#is does not mean' #o"ever' t#at Lim is
let "it#out any recoursea!ainst Enriuez and Mendoza. nder t#e civil la" principle o
un(ustenric#ment' t#e re!istered o"ner o t#e motor ve#icle #as a ri!#t to beindemniied by t#e actual
employer o t#e driver9 and under %rticle2181 o t#e Civil Code' "#oever pays or t#e dama!e caused
by #isdependents or employees may recover rom t#e latter "#at #e #as paidor delivered in
satisaction o t#e claim. Supplementary ;otes:<Generally' "#en an in(ury is caused by t#e ne!li!ence
o a servant oremployee' t#ere instantly arises a presumption o la" t#at t#ere "asne!li!ence on t#e
part o t#e master or employer eit#er in t#e selectiono t#e servant or employee /culpa in eli!iendo0
or in t#e supervisionover #im ater t#e selection /culpa vi!ilando0' or bot#. T#e presumption is (uris
tantum and not (uris et de (ure9 conseuently'it may be rebutted. %ccordin!ly' t#e !eneral rule is t#at
i t#e employers#o"s to t#e satisaction o t#e court t#at in t#e selection andsupervision o #is
employee #e #as e+ercised t#e care and dili!ence o a!ood at#er o a amily' t#e presumption is
overcome and #e is relievedo liability. ,o"ever' "it# t#e enactment o t#e motor ve#icle re!istration
la"' t#edeenses available under %rticle 2186 o t#e Civil Code t#at t#eemployee acts beyond t#e
scope o #is assi!ned tas* or t#at it e+ercisedt#e due dili!ence o a !ood at#er o a amily to prevent
dama!e = areno lon!er available to t#e re!istered o"ner o t#e motor ve#icle' because t#e motor
ve#icle re!istration la"' to a certain e+tent' modiied %rticle 2186. />asically' as lon! as you&re t#e re!
istered o"ner o t#e ve#icle' youalon! "it# t#e driver are liable

5. HEIRS OF EDUARDO SIMON v. ELVIN CHAN. G.R. No. 157547.

February 23, 2011
FACTS:

On July 11, 1997, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Manila (MeTC) an information charging the late Eduardo Simon (Simon) with a violation of BP 22,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 275381 entitled People v. Eduardo Simon. 

More than three years later, or on August 3, 2000, respondent Elvin Chan commenced in the MeTC
in Pasay City a civil action for the collection of the principal amount of P336,000.00, coupled with an
application for a writ of preliminary attachment (docketed as Civil Case No. 915-00).

On August 9, 2000, the MeTC in Pasay City issued a writ of preliminary attachment, which was
implemented on August 17, 2000 through the sheriff attaching a Nissan vehicle of Simon.

On August 17, 2000, Simon filed an urgent motion to dismiss with application to charge plaintiffs
attachment bond for damages

On August 29, 2000, Chan opposed Simons urgent motion to dismiss with application to charge
plaintiffs attachment bond for damages, 

On October 23, 2000, the MeTC in Pasay City granted Simon the urgent motion to dismiss with
application to charge plaintiffs attachment bond for damages. The MTC cites the grounds of litis
pendentia and that the case for sum of money is one based on fraud and hence falling under Article
33 of the Civil Code, still prior reservation is required

Chans motion for reconsideration was denied as well as his appeal with the RTC. On the CA, Chan's
appeal was granted. 

ISSUE: Whether or not Chan's civil action to recover the amount of the unfunded check (Civil Case
No. 915-00) was an independent civil action.

RULING:

NO. There is no independent civil action to recover the civil liability arising from the issuance of an
unfunded check prohibited and punished under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22).

This is clear from Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which relevantly provides: "The criminal action for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed." 

Supreme Court Circular 57-97 also provides that: "1. The criminal action for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized."

6.

7
8.

Dr. Encarnacion Lumantas v. Hanz Calapiz, G.R. No. 163753, 15 January 2014.

05

SEP

[BERSAMIN, J.]

FACTS:

In 1995, Spouses Hilario Calapiz, Jr. and Herlita Calapiz brought their 8-year-old son, Hanz Calapiz
(Hanz), to the Misamis Occidental Provincial Hospital, Oroquieta City, for an emergency
appendectomy. Hanz was attended to by the petitioner, who suggested to the parents that Hanz also
undergo circumcision at no added cost to spare him the pain. With the parents’ consent, the
petitioner performed the coronal type of circumcision on Hanz after his appendectomy. On the
following day, Hanz complained of pain in his penis, which exhibited blisters. His testicles were
swollen. The parents noticed that the child urinated abnormally after the petitioner forcibly removed
the catheter, but the petitioner dismissed the abnormality as normal. Hanz was discharged from the
hospital over his parents’ protestations, and was directed to continue taking antibiotics. After a few
days, Hanz was confined in a hospital because of the abscess formation between the base and the
shaft of his penis. Presuming that the ulceration was brought about by Hanz’s appendicitis, the
petitioner referred him to Dr. Henry Go, an urologist, who diagnosed the boy to have a damaged
urethra. Thus, Hanz underwent cystostomy, and thereafter was operated on three times to repair his
damaged urethra.

When his damaged urethra could not be fully repaired and reconstructed, Hanz’s parents brought a
criminal charge against the petitioner for reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries. In
his defense, the petitioner denied the charge. He contended that at the time of his examination of
Hanz, he had found an accumulation of pus at the vicinity of the appendix two to three inches from
the penis that had required immediate surgical operation; that after performing the appendectomy,
he had circumcised Hanz with his parents’ consent by using a congo instrument, thereby debunking
the parents’ claim that their child had been cauterized; that he had then cleared Hanz once his fever
had subsided; that he had found no complications when Hanz returned for his follow up check-up; and
that the abscess formation between the base and the shaft of the penis had been brought about by
Hanz’s burst appendicitis.
The RTC acquitted the petitioner of the crime charged for insufficiency of the evidence. It held that the
Prosecution’s evidence did not show the required standard of care to be observed by other members
of the medical profession under similar circumstances. Nonetheless, the RTC ruled that the petitioner
was liable for moral damages because there was a preponderance of evidence showing that Hanz had
received the injurious trauma from his circumcision by the petitioner. The Petitioner appealed his case
to the CA contending that he could not be held civilly liable because there was no proof of his
negligence. The CA affirmed the RTC, sustaining the award of moral damages.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA erred in affirming the petitioner’s civil liability despite his acquittal of the crime of
reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.

HELD:

NO.

It is axiomatic that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. xxx Our law
recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is an
acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This
instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of
any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no
delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be
instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation
contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on
reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been
satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance
of evidence only.

The petitioner’s contention that he could not be held civilly liable because there was no proof of his
negligence deserves scant consideration. The failure of the Prosecution to prove his criminal
negligence with moral certainty did not forbid a finding against him that there was preponderant
evidence of his negligence to hold him civilly liable. With the RTC and the CA both finding that Hanz
had sustained the injurious trauma from the hands of the petitioner on the occasion of or incidental
to the circumcision, and that the trauma could have been avoided, the Court must concur with their
uniform findings. In that regard, the Court need not analyze and weigh again the evidence considered
in the proceedings a quo. The Court, by virtue of its not being a trier of facts, should now accord the
highest respect to the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the CA in the absence of a clear
showing by the petitioner that such findings were tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or
palpable error.

Every person is entitled to the physical integrity of his body. Although we have long advocated the
view that any physical injury, like the loss or diminution of the use of any part of one’s body, is not
equatable to a pecuniary loss, and is not susceptible of exact monetary estimation, civil damages
should be assessed once that integrity has been violated. The assessment is but an imperfect
estimation of the true value of one’s body. The usual practice is to award moral damages for the
physical injuries sustained. In Hanz’s case, the undesirable outcome of the circumcision performed by
the petitioner forced the young child to endure several other procedures on his penis in order to
repair his damaged urethra. Surely, his physical and moral sufferings properly warranted the amount
of P50,000.00 awarded as moral damages.

Many years have gone by since Hanz suffered the injury. Interest of 6% per annum should then be
imposed on the award as a sincere means of adjusting the value of the award to a level that is not
only reasonable but just and commensurate. Unless we make the adjustment in the permissible
manner by prescribing legal interest on the award, his sufferings would be unduly compounded. For
that purpose, the reckoning of interest should be from the filing of the criminal information on April
17, 1997, the making of the judicial demand for the liability of the petitioner.

9.

10. People v. Paras

11/30/2015 0 Comments

Criminal Law. Death. Extinguishment of criminal liability.

People of the Philippines v. Democrito Paras

G.R. No. 192912, October 22, 2014

Leonardo-De Castro, J.:

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Democrito Paras was charged with rape against a 17 year old minor. The RTC and
the CA convicted the accused. Hence, he appealed to the SC.

Police Superintendent Roberto Rabo sent a letter to the Court stating that the accused-appellant had
died at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital on January 24, 2013. The Court received the letter only on
August 27, 2014.

ISSUE:

Is the Court’s Decision date June 4, 2014 still valid in line with the accused-appellant’s death?

HELD:

NO, the Court’s Decision date June 4, 2014 had been rendered ineffectual and therefore set aside.
Under Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the death of an accused
pending his appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil liability ex delicto. Thus, upon the death of
the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is
no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action instituted therein for the recovery of
civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal action.

In this case, when the accused-appellant died on January 24, 2013, his appeal to this Court was still
pending. The Decision dated June 4, 2014 was thereafter promulgated as the Court was not
immediately informed of the accused-appellant's death. The death of the accused-appellant herein,
thus, extinguished his criminal liability, as well as his civil liability directly arising from and based
solely on the crime committed.

Hence, the Court’s Decision is set aside.

11.
HPS v. PLDT G.R. No. 170217; December 10, 2012 Facts: − This case involves a complaint for an issuance of
search warrant to  ! #orporation for $iolation of %rticle &0' of the Revise( !enal #o(e an( Theft of Telephone
ervices an( violationof !.D. )01 for unauthori*e( installation of telephone communication e+uipment. − The
witnesses testifie( that the abuha- #ar( use( for international out/oin/ calls  were bein/reflecte( onl- as
local calls an( upon verification the car( was re/istere( to !hilip ap whosea((ress is the ! oftware
#orporation. − %fter evi(ence was presente(, the trial court issue( two search warrants for violation of %rt.
&0'of the R!# an( !.D. )01, which were imme(iatel- carrie( out b- the police. − The  oint 3r(er (irects the !
hilippine National !olice4 pecial Tas5 6orce Group4$isa-as toretrieve possession an( custo(- of all sei*e( items
pen(in/ to !DT. − !hilip ap then file( a otion to +uash an( suppresses the sei*e( evi(ence on the basis
that the-(i( not have an- probable cause an( were serve( as /eneral warrants. − The same court
/rante( otion to +uash that (irecte( to return the sei*e( items at once to ! #orporation. − ! DT file( a
petition for certiorari un(er Rule 89 with the #ourt of %ppeals assailin/ the(ecision of the release of
e+uipment (espite the fact that the  oint 3r(er (ate(  a- 2&, 2001 wasnot -et final. − The court
/rante( sai( petition insofar as it release( the item sei*e(. − This case involves two consoli(ate( petitions for
certiorari un(er Rule )9 of the Rules of #ourtthat see5s to annul a rulin/ re/ar(in/ a  oint 3r(er b- the #ourt of
%ppeals on a- 2&, 2001. − The other petition see5s to nullif- the arch 28, 200) (ecision as well as
eptember 27, 2009Resolution. − The arch 28, 200) (ecision mo(ifie( the a- 2&, 2001 oint 3r(er (irectin/
the imme(iatereturn of the sei*e( items to  ! #orporation. CRIMINAL LAWIssue:  :3N !DT has le/al
personalit- to file the petition for certiorari without the consent or approvalof the olicitor General.
Held/Ratio:  es. nli5e an or(inar- criminal action, what is involve( in this case is a search
warrant procee(in/, which is not a criminal action but a special criminal procee(in/. <n or(inar- criminal
action,the participation an( conformit- of the #it- !rosecutor is re+uire(. The case  Malaloan v. Court
of  Appeals, warrants are consi(ere( b- the court as a process, issue( b- the court in its ancillar-
=uris(ictionan( not a criminal action to be entertaine( b- the court. :ith all these, we can sa- that ection 9,
Rule110 of the Rules on #riminal !roce(ure that re+uires the (irection an( control of a public prosecutor
(oesnot appl-. Issue: :3N !DT>s petition for certiorari shoul( have been (ismisse( since no motion
for reconsi(eration was file( b- !DT from assaile( =oint or(er. Held/Ratio:  No, an( with specific reasons. The
court consi(ers that there was proper filin/ of the petition because of the peculiar circumstances obtainin/ in
this case (espite the non4fulfillment of the re+uirementof the filin/ of a motion for reconsi(eration. The
/eneral rule is that a motion for reconsi(eration is acon(ition  sine qua non  before a petition for certiorari ma-
lie but such rule is not absolute as =urispru(ence show. 3ne of which is when petitioner was (eprive( of (ue
process an( there is e?treme  ur/enc- for relief, apparent in the !DT>s situation. This is when the trial court
e?pe(itiousl- release( theitems without waitin/ for !DT to file its memoran(um. Issue: :3N !DT
committe( forum shoppin/. Held/Ratio:  No.   There is forum shoppin/ when, between an action pen(in/
before the court an( another one, there e?ists 1 i(entit- of parties, or at least such parties as represent the
same interests in bothactions; 2 i(entit- of ri/hts asserte( an( relief pra-e( for, the relief bein/ foun(e( on the
same facts;an( & the i(entit- of the two prece(in/ particulars is such that an- =u(/ment ren(ere( in the other
actionwill, re/ar(less of which part- is successful, amount to res judicata in the action un(er consi(eration;
sai(re+uisites also constitutive of the re+uisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens . <n this case
forumshoppin/ cannot be consi(ere( because the appeal that !DT elevate( to the #% e?amines the vali(it-
of the trial court>s action on +uashin/ the search warrant while the other is a petition for certiorari is
anin+uir- whether trial court committe( /rave abuse when he or(ere( the release sei*e( items Issue: :3N two
2 search warrants were improperl- s+uashe(. Held/Ratio:  No. The court is impresse( with merit on the
ar/ument of !DT that stresses that probablecause is the re+uisite in hol(in/ a search warrant vali(. !robable
cause re+uires facts an( circumstancesthat woul( lea( a reasonable pru(ent man to believe that an offense has
been committe(. <n the case of   Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., the court hel( that the +uantum of
evi(ence nee(e( to establish probable an( proof be-on( reasonable (oubt is (ifferent@as the former is
concerne( with probabilit-, notabsolute or even moral certaint-. The pieces of evi(ence are more than
sufficient to support a fin(in/were in(ee( ma(e b- !DT>s witness usin/ abuha- car( an( the probable cause
necessar- to en/en(er a belief that  ! #orporation ha( probabl- committe( the crime of Theft. Issue: :3N the
sub=ect search warrants are in the nature of /eneral warrants. Held/Ratio:  No. % search warrant must
particularl- (escribe the place to be searche( an( persons or thin/s to be sei*e( otherwise it is consi(ere( to
be /eneral an( of no effect. <n certain cases, it is onl-re+uire( that it be specific as far as the circumstances
allow. The search warrants serve( were not /eneralwarrants as it sufficientl- i(entifie( ph-sicall- an( specificall-
the violations an( the offenses char/e(. Issue: :3N the release of items sei*e( b- virtue of the sub=ect search
warrants was proper. Held/Ratio:  No. #learl- in this case the release of the sei*e( items was
enforce( prematurel- an( withoutan- previous motion for e?ecution on recor( since it shoul( be (one upon the
e?piration of the perio( toappeal an( if no appeal has been (ul- perfecte(. <n this case, the  oint 3r(er
(ate( a- 2&, 2001 was not-et final an( e?ecutor- when it was implemente( an( a motion for e?ecution file( b-
the intereste( part-!  was clearl- lac5in/.