G.R. No. 166719 March 12, 2007
Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corporation, Tradeworld Synergy, Incorporated, and Cellu Industries, Incorporated, Petitioners, vs. Hon. Avelino G. Demetria, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Lipa City, Branch 85, and Luzon Spinning Mills, Incorporated, Respondents.

FACTS

Luzon Spinning Mills, Inc. (LSMI) filed a civil complaint for collection of sum of money against petitioner Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corporation (STMC) before the RTC. LSMI alleged that STMC, through its officers, ordered yarn and issued 34 postdated checks as payment, nine of which were subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds. The RTC granted LSMI’s application and issued a writ of preliminary attachment against STMC’s properties.
STMC moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging forum shopping. It argued that LSMI had already filed criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) against the individual corporate officers (the Silangans) who signed the dishonored checks before the Municipal Trial Court. STMC contended that the civil case should be deemed included in the criminal action, making the separate civil suit improper. The RTC denied the motion, ruling no forum shopping existed as the cases involved different parties and causes of action.

ISSUE

Whether the filing of the separate civil action for collection against the corporation constitutes forum shopping, given the pending criminal cases for B.P. 22 against its individual officers.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the separate civil action is proper and does not constitute forum shopping. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct personalities and liabilities involved. In B.P. 22 cases, criminal liability attaches only to the natural person who actually signed the dishonored check. The pending criminal cases were filed against the individual Silangans, not against the corporate petitioner STMC. Therefore, there is no identity of parties between the criminal and civil cases.
Furthermore, the causes of action are different. The civil liability in the criminal cases against the officers is based on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, arising from the crime. In contrast, the civil case against the corporation is based on contract (the sale of yarn), a liability not arising from the offense. Under Article 31 of the Civil Code and the Rules of Court, an independent civil action for such contractual liability can proceed separately. The civil liability of the signatories in the criminal cases is deemed instituted therein, but this does not bar a separate action to enforce the corporation’s distinct contractual obligation. Thus, no forum shopping exists as the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are absent.