G.R. Nos. 240187-88. March 28, 2022
MARTIN R. BUENAFLOR, PETITIONER, VS. FEDERATED DISTRIBUTORS, INC. AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

In 2006, respondent Federated Distributors, Inc. (FDI) purchased assorted pork products from petitioner Martin R. Buenaflor and made an advance payment of P5,831,000.00. Some products were returned for non-conformity, and Buenaflor failed to deliver the remainder of the order. He subsequently promised to return the balance of FDI’s advance payment, amounting to P4,444,829.97, and issued 12 post-dated checks, each for P100,000.00 (totaling P1,200,000.00). All checks were dishonored upon presentment for being drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF) or due to a closed account.
FDI filed a criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22) against Buenaflor, resulting in two sets of cases: Criminal Case Nos. 08-0820-24 and 09-0045-51. During trial, Buenaflor filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which was denied. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) acquitted Buenaflor of the criminal charges, finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew of the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuing the checks. However, the MeTC found him civilly liable for the face value of the checks (P1,200,000.00), plus 12% interest per annum, filing fees (P23,250.00), and attorney’s fees (P10,000.00). The MeTC noted that a separate civil case for the same obligation had been filed by FDI but proceeded to award civil damages in the criminal case.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the acquittal but deleted the award of P1,200,000.00 and the 12% interest, citing the principle against unjust enrichment, as the obligation was already the subject of a separate civil case. FDI appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reinstated the civil award but modified the interest rate to 6% per annum from the finality of its decision. The CA held that the civil action was deemed instituted with the criminal complaint under Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, and that FDI’s manifestation during trial that it would not pursue the civil aspect was irrelevant, as reservation of a separate civil action is prohibited in B.P. Blg. 22 cases. Buenaflor’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioner Martin R. Buenaflor civilly liable for the value of the dishonored checks despite the pendency of a separate civil action for the same obligation and FDI’s manifestation during trial that it would not pursue the civil aspect in the criminal cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision with modification. The Court held that in criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal complaint. Here, FDI did not waive the civil action, reserve the right to file it separately, or institute it prior to the criminal complaint; instead, it filed the civil case after the criminal complaints. Thus, under Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, the civil action was properly deemed instituted with the criminal cases, and the MeTC had jurisdiction to award civil liability.
The Court further ruled that the pendency of a separate civil case does not bar the award of civil liability in the criminal case, as the civil liability arising from the offense is distinct from the civil liability arising from other sources (e.g., contract). The civil liability in the criminal case is based on the delict (violation of B.P. Blg. 22), while the separate civil case is based on breach of contract. Therefore, there is no double recovery or violation of the rule against unjust enrichment.
Regarding interest, the Court modified the CA’s award, ruling that the applicable rate is 6% per annum from the date of extrajudicial demand (the date the checks were dishonored) until finality of judgment, and 6% per annum from finality until full payment, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799.
The Court also upheld the awards for attorney’s fees (P10,000.00) and costs of suit (P23,250.00) as proper.