G.R. No. 175256 & G.R. No. 179160; August 23, 2012
LILY LIM, Petitioner, vs. KOU CO PING a.k.a. CHARLIE CO, Respondent. (G.R. No. 175256) / KOU CO PING a.k.a. CHARLIE CO, Petitioner, vs. LILY LIM, Respondent. (G.R. No. 179160)

FACTS

Lily Lim purchased cement withdrawal authorities from Kou Co Ping (Charlie Co). When the cement plant refused to honor the remaining authorities, Lim filed a criminal case for estafa against Co. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Co of the criminal charge and, after a separate hearing, also absolved him of civil liability. Lim filed a notice of appeal on the civil aspect of this criminal case. While this appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals (CA), Lim instituted a separate civil complaint for specific performance and damages against Co and other entities involved in the transaction before a different RTC branch.
Co moved to dismiss Lim’s appeal in the criminal case (CA-G.R. CV No. 85138) on grounds of forum shopping, arguing that the filing of the new civil case constituted litis pendentia. The CA Second Division granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. Conversely, when Co moved to dismiss the new civil case itself, the trial court denied it. Co challenged this denial via a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 93395). The CA Seventeenth Division ruled differently, finding no forum shopping and remanding the civil case for trial. These conflicting CA decisions led to the consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether Lily Lim committed forum shopping by filing a separate civil action for specific performance and damages while her appeal on the civil liability aspect of the criminal case for estafa was pending.

RULING

No, Lim did not commit forum shopping. The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between the civil liability arising from the criminal offense and an independent civil action. The civil liability ex delicto is based on the same act or omission complained of in the criminal case. An independent civil action, such as one for specific performance under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, is based on a different source of obligation—in this case, a contractual breach—and is separate and distinct from the criminal prosecution.
The Court held that the two proceedings involved different causes of action. The appealed civil aspect of the criminal case pertained to Co’s civil liability arising from the alleged crime of estafa. The separate civil complaint for specific performance was founded on the contract of sale of the withdrawal authorities and sought to enforce a contractual right. Since the causes of action and the reliefs sought (damages from a crime versus specific performance of a contract) were not identical, the elements of litis pendentia and forum shopping were not present. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA Seventeenth Division’s decision, allowing the independent civil action to proceed, and reversed the CA Second Division’s dismissal of the appeal, which was reinstated for adjudication on the merits.