G.R. No. 199067; November 11, 2013
NISSAN GALLERY-ORTIGAS, Petitioner, vs. PURIFICACION F. FELIPE, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Nissan Gallery-Ortigas (Nissan) filed a criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) against respondent Purificacion F. Felipe. The complaint arose from Purificacion’s issuance of a postdated check for ₱1,020,000.00, which was dishonored due to “STOP PAYMENT.” The check was issued as payment for the obligation of her son, Frederick Felipe, who purchased a Nissan Terrano SUV from Nissan on a Cash-on-Delivery term but failed to pay upon delivery and took possession of the vehicle. After using the vehicle for over four months without payment and failing to comply with demand letters, Frederick, on November 25, 1997, asked his mother Purificacion to issue the subject check to settle his debt. The check was dishonored. A demand letter was served on Purificacion, but she refused to replace the check, stating she was not the purchaser. Nissan filed the criminal case. During preliminary investigation, Purificacion made a partial payment of ₱200,000.00. After trial, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) acquitted Purificacion of the BP 22 charge but held her civilly liable to Nissan for ₱675,000.00 with legal interest. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, exonerating Purificacion from civil liability, reasoning there was no privity of contract between her and Nissan, and her acquittal extinguished civil liability. Nissan elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Purificacion F. Felipe is civilly liable for the issuance of a worthless check despite her acquittal from the criminal charge of violating BP 22.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Purificacion is civilly liable. The Court held that in criminal actions for violation of BP 22, the corresponding civil action is deemed instituted, and no separate reservation is allowed. Acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically extinguish civil liability. Civil liability persists when: (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt (as civil liability requires only preponderance of evidence); (b) the court declares the accused’s liability is only civil; or (c) the civil liability does not arise from the crime of which the accused was acquitted. Here, Purificacion’s acquittal was due to the prosecution’s failure to prove she was properly notified of the dishonor—an element of the crime—not because the act of issuing the worthless check did not exist. Her civil liability arises from her act of issuing the check as an accommodation party under the Negotiable Instruments Law. As an accommodation party who signed the instrument as drawer without receiving value to lend her name to her son Frederick, she is liable on the instrument to a holder for value (Nissan) even if the holder knew she was merely an accommodation party. Thus, her civil obligation to pay the value of the check remains enforceable. The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision and reinstated the MeTC and RTC rulings holding her civilly liable.