December 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 180975 : December 09, 2009] DAMIAN G. MERCADO V. ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR.:
[G.R. No. 180975 : December 09, 2009]
DAMIAN G. MERCADO V. ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 09 December 2009:
G.R. No. 180975 (Damian G. Mercado v. Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr.).-
This case is about a civil suit for damages arising from a pending criminal action, allegedly malicious, that the plaintiff filed against his accuser.
On April 14, 2005 respondent Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. (Saludo) filed a complaint against petitioner Damian G. Mercado (Mercado) for violation of Batas Pambansa 22 (B.P. 22) before the City Prosecutor of Pasay City.[1] Saludo accused Mercado of issuing to him in payment of a loan the following three Philippine National Bank (PNB) checks that were drawn against what turned out to be a closed account:
In turn, on July 7, 2005 petitioner Mercado filed an action against respondent Saludo for "declaration of absolute nullity of commercial documents with damages" before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Maasin City, Southern Leyte. Mercado alleged that he lost in April 2001 several pre-signed blank checks; that on failing to find them, he reported his loss to the Maasin Police and placed a stop-payment instruction to his bank; that it surprised him that on January 11, 2005 respondent Saludo demanded of him payment of P10.5 million for three dishonored checks which, it turned out, were among those that he reported lost in April 2001; and that respondent Saludo had maliciously prosecuted him for violation of B.P. 22. Mercado asked the RTC to declare the checks void and to order Saludo to pay him actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fees totalling P6.5 million.
On July 8, 2005, the day following the filing of the civil action, petitioner Mercado filed his counter-affidavit in the B.P. 22 criminal action that respondent Saludo brought against him. Here, Mercado restated by way of defense the allegations of his complaint in Civil Case R-3432. Further, he sought the suspension of the preliminary investigation on the ground that the resolution of his pending civil action constitutes prejudicial question on his liability in the criminal case.
On September 13, 2005 the City Prosecutor dismissed respondent Saludo's B.P. 22 complaint. On petition for review, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed the city prosecutor's resolution and directed the latter to file the corresponding informations against petitioner Mercado. Upon the latter's motion for reconsideration, however, the DOJ reversed itself, prompting Saludo to come up to the Court of Appeals (CA) on a petition for certiorari.[2] The latter court reversed the DOJ ruling and directed the filing in court of the subject informations. This was done and the informations were docketed as Criminal Cases 06-309 to 311 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City.
Meanwhile, respondent Saludo, as defendant in Civil Case R-3432 of the RTC of Pasay City, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the case"[3] on the grounds of (1) the pendency of the criminal case for violation of B.P. 22; (2) the violation of the requirement of certification against forum shopping; and (3) the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action. Petitioner Mercado opposed the motion.
On June 1, 2006 the RTC issued an order[4] denying respondent Saludo's motion to dismiss the civil action against him. His motion for reconsideration having been similarly denied,[5] Saludo instituted a petition for special civil action of certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) of Cebu City in CA-G.R. CEB-SP 02263, assailing the RTC's denial of his motion to dismiss. On July 3, 2006 the CA issued an order, suspending the proceedings in Criminal Cases 06-309 to 311. On March 27, 2007, however, the CA rendered judgment, granting respondent Saludo's petition. The CA set aside the RTC's orders dated June 1 and September 12, 2006 and dismissed Civil Case R-3432, the action for declaration of nullity of the subject checks on the ground of litis pendentia.[6] Subsequently, on December 13, 2008 the CA denied Mercado's motion for reconsideration, thus, the present recourse to this Court.
The core issue in this case is whether or not petitioner Mercado's civil action for declaration of nullity of the checks and damages that he filed against respondent Saludo in Civil Case R-3432 may be dismissed on the ground of the pendency of the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 that Saludo earlier filed against Mercado in Criminal Cases 06-309 to 311.
Litis pendentia is a Latin term which literally means "a pending suit." As such, it refers to that situation in which another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious.[7] There is no reason for two cases involving the same issue or issues to proceed independently of each other and possibly spawn opposite outcomes, like one party winning in one case and the opposite party in the other. Such a situation is intolerable and will make a mockery of the court as a final arbiter of the legal dispute before it.
The following are the requisites of litis pendentia: (a) the parties in both actions are the same or, at least, represent the same interests; (b) the rights asserted and the reliefs desired are the same, such reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (c) the two cases are so similar that the judgment, rendered in one would, regardless of which party wins, amount to res judicata on the other. Where these requisites exist, the second case will often amount to forum shopping.[8]
Petitioner Mercado insists that litis pendentia cannot exist between the civil action for annulment of the subject checks and criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 since the judgment in one case will not necessarily have the effect of res judicata in the other. For instance, even if the civil action results in a finding by final judgment that the checks were not stolen and were issued for a valid consideration, such finding will not ensure the issuer's conviction for violation of B.P. 22. Some other element of the latter crime might prove absent in the case, like the giving of notice to make good the checks. According to Mercado, litis pendentia applies only when both pending actions are civil in nature.
Strictly speaking, petitioner Mercado makes a valid point but only to the extent that one case is purely criminal and the other is civil. But every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.[9] And, as a rule, when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action.[10] This is especially true in criminal actions for violation of B.P. 22. The criminal action shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall-be allowed.[11] Consequently, it is a certainty that a finding that the accused in a B.P. 22 case is not guilty of the offense constitutes res judicata to a civil action for the recovery of civil indemnity arising from the offense.
Petitioner Mercado also insists that the application of the principle of prejudicial question is more appropriate in this case. The question of whether or not Mercado issued the checks in due course is, according to him, best threshed out first in the civil action for annulment of the subject checks that he filed against respondent Saludo in Maasin City, Southern Leyte.
A prejudicial question is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.[12] A classic example of this is the question of whether or not the person accused with bigamy had a valid pre-existing marriage. If, after the accused filed a civil action for the declaration of nullity of his prior marriage, he is criminally charged with bigamy, the determination of the issue of the validity of the prior marriage is a prejudicial question to the resolution of the subsequently filed bigamy case.
But a prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the filing of the criminal action and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which such question is closely connected. The civil suit must be begun prior to the filing of the criminal suit[13] . Here, respondent Saludo filed the criminal case for violation of B.P. 22 before petitioner Mercado file his civil action for annulment of the checks. Consequently, Saludo cannot claim the benefit of a prejudicial question pending in the civil suit that he filed against Mercado. Besides, the suspension on the ground of existence of a prejudicial question cannot be allowed if, as in this case, it appears that the plaintiff filed the civil action as an afterthought to delay the ongoing criminal action.[14]
In settling the issues in the two cases, the CA correctly adopted the formula used by this Court in disposing of a similar problem in Allied Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals[15] The Court held in that case that, when confronted with an issue of litis pendentia, the following factors should be taken into determining which of the two cases to dismiss:
Here, respondent Saludo initiated the criminal action (April 14, 2005) ahead of petitioner Mercado's civil action (July 7, 2005). A reading of the complaint in the civil case shows that the causes of action and matters raised in it could very well be pleaded as defenses at the trial of the criminal case. This Court agrees with the CA's finding that Mercado's civil action was just an afterthought, a mere ploy to delay the progress of the criminal case filed against him, and a scheme to defeat it by laying the basis in a different venue for its dismissal or suspension based on a supposed prejudicial question.
Finally, the Court finds that petitioner Mercado's civil action for annulment of the checks is essentially a suit for damages against respondent Saludo for malicious prosecution. It is rooted in Mercado's allegation that Saludo was "lying to the teeth" in prosecuting the B.P. 22 case. It is thus clear that Mercado's claim for damages is founded solely on his allegations of malicious prosecution. But this Court has held that no case for malicious prosecution can prosper while the subject criminal case is still pending.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision dated March 27, 2007 and resolution dated December 13, 2007 of the Court of Appeals of Cebu City in CA-G.R. CEB-SP 02263.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales (designated additional member per S.O. No. 807 in lieu of Brion, J., on leave), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 9th day of December, 2009.
G.R. No. 180975 (Damian G. Mercado v. Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr.).-
This case is about a civil suit for damages arising from a pending criminal action, allegedly malicious, that the plaintiff filed against his accuser.
The Facts and the Case
On April 14, 2005 respondent Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. (Saludo) filed a complaint against petitioner Damian G. Mercado (Mercado) for violation of Batas Pambansa 22 (B.P. 22) before the City Prosecutor of Pasay City.[1] Saludo accused Mercado of issuing to him in payment of a loan the following three Philippine National Bank (PNB) checks that were drawn against what turned out to be a closed account:
(1) Check 0156076 dated April 15, 2004 for P5 million;
(2) Check 0156098 dated April 16, 2004 for P3 million; and
(3) Check 0009019 dated July 21, 2004 for P2.5 million.
In turn, on July 7, 2005 petitioner Mercado filed an action against respondent Saludo for "declaration of absolute nullity of commercial documents with damages" before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Maasin City, Southern Leyte. Mercado alleged that he lost in April 2001 several pre-signed blank checks; that on failing to find them, he reported his loss to the Maasin Police and placed a stop-payment instruction to his bank; that it surprised him that on January 11, 2005 respondent Saludo demanded of him payment of P10.5 million for three dishonored checks which, it turned out, were among those that he reported lost in April 2001; and that respondent Saludo had maliciously prosecuted him for violation of B.P. 22. Mercado asked the RTC to declare the checks void and to order Saludo to pay him actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fees totalling P6.5 million.
On July 8, 2005, the day following the filing of the civil action, petitioner Mercado filed his counter-affidavit in the B.P. 22 criminal action that respondent Saludo brought against him. Here, Mercado restated by way of defense the allegations of his complaint in Civil Case R-3432. Further, he sought the suspension of the preliminary investigation on the ground that the resolution of his pending civil action constitutes prejudicial question on his liability in the criminal case.
On September 13, 2005 the City Prosecutor dismissed respondent Saludo's B.P. 22 complaint. On petition for review, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed the city prosecutor's resolution and directed the latter to file the corresponding informations against petitioner Mercado. Upon the latter's motion for reconsideration, however, the DOJ reversed itself, prompting Saludo to come up to the Court of Appeals (CA) on a petition for certiorari.[2] The latter court reversed the DOJ ruling and directed the filing in court of the subject informations. This was done and the informations were docketed as Criminal Cases 06-309 to 311 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City.
Meanwhile, respondent Saludo, as defendant in Civil Case R-3432 of the RTC of Pasay City, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the case"[3] on the grounds of (1) the pendency of the criminal case for violation of B.P. 22; (2) the violation of the requirement of certification against forum shopping; and (3) the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action. Petitioner Mercado opposed the motion.
On June 1, 2006 the RTC issued an order[4] denying respondent Saludo's motion to dismiss the civil action against him. His motion for reconsideration having been similarly denied,[5] Saludo instituted a petition for special civil action of certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) of Cebu City in CA-G.R. CEB-SP 02263, assailing the RTC's denial of his motion to dismiss. On July 3, 2006 the CA issued an order, suspending the proceedings in Criminal Cases 06-309 to 311. On March 27, 2007, however, the CA rendered judgment, granting respondent Saludo's petition. The CA set aside the RTC's orders dated June 1 and September 12, 2006 and dismissed Civil Case R-3432, the action for declaration of nullity of the subject checks on the ground of litis pendentia.[6] Subsequently, on December 13, 2008 the CA denied Mercado's motion for reconsideration, thus, the present recourse to this Court.
The Issue Presented
The core issue in this case is whether or not petitioner Mercado's civil action for declaration of nullity of the checks and damages that he filed against respondent Saludo in Civil Case R-3432 may be dismissed on the ground of the pendency of the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 that Saludo earlier filed against Mercado in Criminal Cases 06-309 to 311.
The Ruling of the Court
Litis pendentia is a Latin term which literally means "a pending suit." As such, it refers to that situation in which another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious.[7] There is no reason for two cases involving the same issue or issues to proceed independently of each other and possibly spawn opposite outcomes, like one party winning in one case and the opposite party in the other. Such a situation is intolerable and will make a mockery of the court as a final arbiter of the legal dispute before it.
The following are the requisites of litis pendentia: (a) the parties in both actions are the same or, at least, represent the same interests; (b) the rights asserted and the reliefs desired are the same, such reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (c) the two cases are so similar that the judgment, rendered in one would, regardless of which party wins, amount to res judicata on the other. Where these requisites exist, the second case will often amount to forum shopping.[8]
Petitioner Mercado insists that litis pendentia cannot exist between the civil action for annulment of the subject checks and criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 since the judgment in one case will not necessarily have the effect of res judicata in the other. For instance, even if the civil action results in a finding by final judgment that the checks were not stolen and were issued for a valid consideration, such finding will not ensure the issuer's conviction for violation of B.P. 22. Some other element of the latter crime might prove absent in the case, like the giving of notice to make good the checks. According to Mercado, litis pendentia applies only when both pending actions are civil in nature.
Strictly speaking, petitioner Mercado makes a valid point but only to the extent that one case is purely criminal and the other is civil. But every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.[9] And, as a rule, when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action.[10] This is especially true in criminal actions for violation of B.P. 22. The criminal action shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall-be allowed.[11] Consequently, it is a certainty that a finding that the accused in a B.P. 22 case is not guilty of the offense constitutes res judicata to a civil action for the recovery of civil indemnity arising from the offense.
Petitioner Mercado also insists that the application of the principle of prejudicial question is more appropriate in this case. The question of whether or not Mercado issued the checks in due course is, according to him, best threshed out first in the civil action for annulment of the subject checks that he filed against respondent Saludo in Maasin City, Southern Leyte.
A prejudicial question is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.[12] A classic example of this is the question of whether or not the person accused with bigamy had a valid pre-existing marriage. If, after the accused filed a civil action for the declaration of nullity of his prior marriage, he is criminally charged with bigamy, the determination of the issue of the validity of the prior marriage is a prejudicial question to the resolution of the subsequently filed bigamy case.
But a prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the filing of the criminal action and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which such question is closely connected. The civil suit must be begun prior to the filing of the criminal suit[13] . Here, respondent Saludo filed the criminal case for violation of B.P. 22 before petitioner Mercado file his civil action for annulment of the checks. Consequently, Saludo cannot claim the benefit of a prejudicial question pending in the civil suit that he filed against Mercado. Besides, the suspension on the ground of existence of a prejudicial question cannot be allowed if, as in this case, it appears that the plaintiff filed the civil action as an afterthought to delay the ongoing criminal action.[14]
In settling the issues in the two cases, the CA correctly adopted the formula used by this Court in disposing of a similar problem in Allied Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals[15] The Court held in that case that, when confronted with an issue of litis pendentia, the following factors should be taken into determining which of the two cases to dismiss:
1. The date of filing, with preference to retaining the first action that was filed;
2. The fact that the action sought to be dismissed had been filed merely to preempt a subsequent action or anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal; and
3. The action is the appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the parties.[16]
Here, respondent Saludo initiated the criminal action (April 14, 2005) ahead of petitioner Mercado's civil action (July 7, 2005). A reading of the complaint in the civil case shows that the causes of action and matters raised in it could very well be pleaded as defenses at the trial of the criminal case. This Court agrees with the CA's finding that Mercado's civil action was just an afterthought, a mere ploy to delay the progress of the criminal case filed against him, and a scheme to defeat it by laying the basis in a different venue for its dismissal or suspension based on a supposed prejudicial question.
Finally, the Court finds that petitioner Mercado's civil action for annulment of the checks is essentially a suit for damages against respondent Saludo for malicious prosecution. It is rooted in Mercado's allegation that Saludo was "lying to the teeth" in prosecuting the B.P. 22 case. It is thus clear that Mercado's claim for damages is founded solely on his allegations of malicious prosecution. But this Court has held that no case for malicious prosecution can prosper while the subject criminal case is still pending.
Malicious prosecution has been defined as an action for damages brought by one against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit or other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit or other proceeding in favor of the defendant therein. As thus defined, the fact of termination of the criminal prosecution, civil suit, or legal proceeding maliciously filed and without probable cause, should precede the complaint for malicious prosecution.[17] (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision dated March 27, 2007 and resolution dated December 13, 2007 of the Court of Appeals of Cebu City in CA-G.R. CEB-SP 02263.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales (designated additional member per S.O. No. 807 in lieu of Brion, J., on leave), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 9th day of December, 2009.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Docketed as I.S. 05-D-222S to 05-D-2230.
[2] Rollo, pp. 352-357. Docketed as CA-G.R. SP 97393, the petition was resolved via the appellate court's Decision dated March 27, 2008, which found that no prejudicial question existed as to warrant the suspension of Criminal Cases 06-309 to 311.
[3] Id. at 178-188,
[4] Id. at 209-210.
[5] Id. at 211-212.
[6] Id. at 66.
[7] Agilent Technologies Singapore (PTE) Ltd. v. Integrated Silicon Technology Philippines Corporation, 471 Phil. 582,596(2004).
[8] First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 322 Phil. 280, 306 (1996).
[9] REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 100.
[10] Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule III, Sec. l(a).
[11] Id., Sec. 1(b).
[12] Sabandal v. Tongco, 419 Phil. 13, 18(2001).
[13] Torres v, Garchitorena, 442 Phil. 765, 783 (2002).
[14] First Producers Holdings Corporation v. Co, 391 Phil. 441, 448 (2000).
[15] 328 Phil. 710(1996).
[16] Rollo, p. 58.
[17] Lao v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 583, 608 (2000).
