View full case

SIMON v. CHAN

FACTS:

On July 11, 1997, the late Eduardo Simon was charged with a violation of BP 22 for issuing an unfunded check to Elvin Chan. Three years later, Chan filed a civil action to collect the principal amount of the check and applied for a writ of preliminary attachment. Simon filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the civil action should be dismissed because there is no independent civil action for the issuance of an unfunded check under BP 22.

The MeTC in Pasay City granted Simon's motion to dismiss, stating that there is another pending criminal case involving the same parties and cause of action. The court found that the requisites for "litis pendentia" as a ground for dismissal were satisfied. Chan's argument of an implied reservation of his right to pursue a separate civil action was rejected.

In a separate case, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant for issuing bouncing checks. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia, as there was a pending criminal case for violation of BP 22 based on the same acts. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, stating that the right to institute a separate civil action should have been made before the prosecution started presenting its evidence.

The plaintiff appealed to the CA, which overturned the RTC's decision and ruled that the civil action for recovery of civil liability can be either deemed instituted with the criminal action or separately instituted. The offended party may prove the civil liability of the accused in the criminal case.

Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, but they were denied. The plaintiff then filed a petition for review with the SC to reverse the CA's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Chan's civil action to recover the amount of the unfunded check (Civil Case No. 915-00) was an independent civil action.

RULING:

  1. Chan's separate civil action to recover the amount of the check involved in the prosecution for the violation of BP 22 could not be independently maintained under both Supreme Court Circular 57-97 and Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Article 20 of the New Civil Code: Defines civil liability for willfully or negligently causing damage to another.

  • Rule 111 of the Rules of Court: Provides guidelines for the institution of criminal and civil actions, specifically prohibiting the separate filing of civil actions in BP 22 cases.

  • BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law): Contains provisions on civil liabilities arising from the issuance of bouncing checks.

  • Supreme Court Circular 57-97: Establishes that criminal actions for violation of BP 22 include corresponding civil actions, prohibiting separate civil suits and requiring payment of filing fees.

  • Doctrine of Litis Pendentia: Prevents duplicative litigation by barring proceedings involving the same parties and matters already under litigation.