Heirs of Eduardo Simon vs.

Elvin Chan and the Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 157547, February 23, 2011
Bersamin, J.

FACTS:

In this case, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed with the MeTC Manila an
information charging the late Eduardo Simon with a violation of B.P. 22. It was alleged that
Simon issued to Chan a Landbank check payable to cash in the amount if P336,000.00.
However, when presented, it was dishonored by the bank. More than 3 years later, Chan filed a
civil action for the collection of the amount of P336,000.00 with the MeTC in Pasay City, which
was granted. Consequently, the sheriff attached a Nissan vehicle of Simon. Because of this civil
action, a motion to dismiss the criminal case was filed by Simon. The MeTC in Pasay City
granted Simon’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint of Chan ruling that when a
complaint or criminal Information is filed, the offended party has the right to prove and claim for
them, unless a waiver or reservation is made or unless in the meantime, the offended party has
instituted a separate civil action. The decision was subsequently affirmed by the RTC. On
appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision holding that the subject civil case is
an independent civil action under Article 33 of the Civil Code. Thus, no reservation of the right
to file is necessary on the part of the private respondent.

ISSUE:

Whether Chan’s civil action to recover the amount of the check was an independent civil
action.

RULING:

No, the civil action was not an independent civil action.

Sec 1 (b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides that “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.” Thus, there is no independent
civil action to recover the value of a bouncing check issued in contravention of BP 22.

The said provision of the Rules of Court, even if not yet in effect when Chan
commenced the Civil Case in question, are nonetheless applicable. This is because the
retroactive application of procedural laws does not violate any right of a person who may feel
adversely affected for there is no vested right that may attach to, or arise from, procedural laws.

Therefore, the civil action filed by private respondent was not an independent civil
action. The civil action was accordingly dismissed.