Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 195843 (Edna Binua v. Maritrude Pagalilauan).  � For consideration is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner from the Court's Resolution dated 13 February 2012 denying her Petition.

Both petitioner and Maribel Canicula (Canicula) had earlier been charged in two different courts with estafa and Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) when the check in the amount of P200,000 issued by Canicula in favor of respondent, allegedly upon petitioner's request, bounced because it was drawn against a "closed account." The RTC in the estafa case acquitted petitioner and Canicula, but ordered the latter to pay respondent the amount of P200,000.^[1] Subsequently, the MTCC in the B.P. 22 case convicted Canicula, but found petitioner civilly liable to respondent for the same amount of P200,000.^[2]

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal of the MTCC judgment, which was not given due course for having been filed out of time.^[3]  She elevated the MTCC ruling to the RTC, which denied her appeal.^[4]

Before this Court, petitioner questioned the MTCC's application of the Rules on Summary Procedure to her case, although she never raised this issue during the pendency of the case with the MTCC.

After her Petition was denied by this Court for failure to show any reversible error in the assailed RTC judgment, petitioner now belatedly invokes equity in her Motion for Reconsideration and argues that the finality of the assailed judgment will cause respondent to recover twice for the same act or omission.

We deny the motion.

It is true that the law abhors double recovery. Under Article 2177 of the Civil Code, "the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant."

In particular, we have held that in the case of estafa and B.P. 22, "the recovery of the single civil liability arising from the single act of issuing a bouncing check in either criminal case bars the recovery of the same civil liability in the other criminal action. While the law allows two simultaneous civil remedies for the offended party, it authorizes recovery in only one. In short, while two crimes arise from a single set of facts, only one civil liability attaches to it."^[5] 

However, it must be stressed that what is proscribed is the actual  double recovery for the same act or omission.^[6]

Hence, in the present case, the proscription would attach only after respondent is shown to have already  actually recovered the P200,000 civil liability awarded to her in either the estafa or B.P. 22 case. Only then may double recovery be raised as a defense in execution proceedings for the other case.

Since respondent has not been shown, or much less alleged, to have actually recovered civil liability in either case, there is yet no basis for the claim of double recovery.cralaw

WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 38-41.

^[2] Id. at 42-48. 

^[3] Id. at 58. 

^[4] Id. at 24-28. 

^[5] Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, G.R. Nos. 155531-34, 29 July 2005, 465 SCR A 338. 

^[6] Padua v. Robles, G.R. No. L-40486, 29 August 1975, 66 SCRA 485.