G.R. No. 133978 ; November 12, 2002
JOSE S. CANCIO, JR., represented by ROBERTO L. CANCIO, petitioner, vs. EMERENCIANA ISIP, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose S. Cancio, Jr., assisted by a private prosecutor, filed three cases for Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and three cases for Estafa against respondent Emerenciana Isip for issuing three checks without sufficient funds. The B.P. Blg. 22 cases were dismissed (one for being deposited after 90 days, two for failure to prosecute). The three Estafa cases (Criminal Case Nos. G-3611 to G-3613) were filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). On October 21, 1997, the prosecution moved to dismiss the estafa cases after failing to present its second witness, reserving the right to file a separate civil action. The RTC granted the dismissal “without prejudice to the refiling of the civil aspect.” On December 15, 1997, petitioner filed a civil case for collection of a sum of money to recover the value of the checks. Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing res judicata and forum-shopping. The RTC, on March 20, 1998, dismissed the complaint, holding that the dismissal of the criminal cases for failure to prosecute was an adjudication on the merits, barring the civil case, and that filing it constituted forum-shopping. The motion for reconsideration was denied on June 1, 1998.

ISSUE

1. Whether the dismissal of the estafa cases bars the institution of a civil action for collection of the value of the checks.
2. Whether the filing of said civil action violated the anti-forum-shopping rule.

RULING

1. No. The dismissal of the estafa cases does not bar the civil action for collection. The civil action filed by petitioner is an independent civil action based on culpa contractual (breach of contractual obligation), as determined from the allegations in the complaint that respondent issued checks in exchange for cash with assurance they would be honored. Under Article 31 of the Civil Code, such a civil action based on an obligation not arising from the act complained of as a felony may proceed independently of criminal proceedings regardless of the result. This independent civil action is separate and distinct from the civil liability ex delicto deemed instituted with the criminal action. The elements of res judicata are not present, particularly the identity of causes of action; the estafa cases were based on culpa criminal, while the collection case is based on culpa contractual.
2. No. The filing of the collection case did not constitute forum-shopping. Forum-shopping requires the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action. Here, although arising from the same act, the causes of action differ: the criminal cases for estafa are based on culpa criminal, and the civil action for collection is based on culpa contractual. Therefore, there is no identity of causes of action.