GR 158177; (January, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158177 ; January 28, 2008
SPOUSES BENITO LO BUN TIONG and CAROLINE SIOK CHING TENG, petitioners, vs. VICENTE BALBOA, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Vicente Balboa filed a civil case for collection of sum of money against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, seeking payment for three dishonored checks totaling P5,175,250.00. Subsequently, separate criminal complaints for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) were filed against petitioner Caroline Siok Ching Teng before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) involving the same checks. The RTC rendered a decision in the civil case holding petitioners liable for the amount. Meanwhile, the MTC, in the criminal cases, acquitted Caroline but found her civilly liable for the value of the checks.
Petitioners appealed the RTC civil decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed it. Simultaneously, Caroline appealed the MTC’s civil liability award to the RTC acting as an appellate court, which later deleted the civil damages. Petitioners then filed the present petition, arguing that respondent engaged in forum shopping by pursuing both civil and criminal actions for the same obligation, leading to a risk of double recovery.
ISSUE
Whether the filing of the civil action for collection and the criminal actions for B.P. 22 violations constitutes forum shopping warranting the dismissal of the civil case.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that no forum shopping existed. Forum shopping requires identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for, such that a judgment in one case would result in res judicata or litis pendentia in the other. While the civil and criminal cases involved the same checks and sought recovery of the same amounts, the Court emphasized that the civil liability arising from B.P. 22 is deemed instituted with the criminal action, unless expressly waived or reserved. Here, the civil case was filed before the criminal complaints; thus, the separate civil action was permissibly initiated ahead. The Rules encourage consolidation in such instances to avoid multiplicity of suits, but do not mandate dismissal of the prior civil action.
Crucially, any risk of double recovery was eliminated when the RTC, in its appellate capacity in the criminal cases, deleted the award of civil damages. Since no appeal was taken from that deletion, respondent could not recover twice. Therefore, respondent’s actions did not constitute forum shopping, as there was no intent to secure conflicting rulings or duplicate recoveries. The CA decision affirming the civil liability was upheld.