Heirs of Simon v. Chan

I — Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: Bernardo v. PeoplePrevious case

Primary source ↗Next: Lee Pue Liong v. Chua Pue Chin LeeNext case→

Case DigestWeek 4 - Rule 111 - Prosecution of Civil Action

Heirs of Simon v. Chan

G.R. No. 157547 · February 23, 2011 · Third Division

I — Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions

Petitioner: Heirs of Eduardo SimonRespondent: Elvin Chan and the Court of Appeals

Core Doctrine

When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is, as a general rule, 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 action (Sec. 1(a), Rule 111). For violations of BP 22 specifically, this general rule is displaced by a special, stricter institution rule: "The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed" (Sec. 1(b), Rule 111, adopted from Supreme Court Circular 57-97, effective November 1, 1997). This special rule was deliberately adopted as policy, not accident: to declog court dockets flooded with BP 22 cases filed by creditors "using the courts as collectors," to expedite disposition, and to avoid the multiplicity, cost, and delay of separate criminal and civil suits over the same dishonored check. Consequently, a civil suit for the same dishonored check filed separately from (and without any valid reservation in) the BP 22 criminal case — even where the plaintiff also alleges fraud, which would otherwise support an Art. 33 independent civil action — is properly dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia, because Rule 111's general Art. 33 independent-action allowance does not extend to give a BP 22 complainant an escape hatch the special rule expressly forecloses.

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

I. Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_157547_2011.html

ℹ️ The clearest topic-sentence case in this batch

This Decision opens with the single sentence that defines its entire doctrinal contribution: "There is no independent civil action to recover the civil liability arising from the issuance of an unfunded check prohibited and punished under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22)." It is the direct doctrinal counterpoint to the general Art. 33 independent-civil-action rule for fraud (illustrated elsewhere in this Week 4 batch, e.g., Bordador v. Luz), and should be read together with Bernardo v. People and Chiok v. People (same batch) for the full range of BP 22/estafa institution nuances.

Facts

On December 26, 1996 Eduardo Simon made, drew and issued to Elvin Chan Landbank Check No. 0007280, payable to cash, for ₱336,000.00.
On July 11, 1997 the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed an Information in the MeTC of Manila (Crim. Case No. 275381) charging B.P. Blg. 22, the check having been dishonoured for "Account Closed" and gone unpaid despite notice.
On August 3, 2000 — more than three years later — Chan filed a separate civil action for the same ₱336,000.00 in the MeTC of Pasay City (Civil Case No. 915-00), with an application for preliminary attachment, alleging Simon had employed "fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation" in encashing the check. He had made no reservation in the criminal case.
On August 9 and 17, 2000 a writ of attachment issued and was implemented on Simon's Nissan vehicle.
On August 17, 2000 Simon moved to dismiss on litis pendentia.
Chan's opposition was that the absence of any allegation of damages in the Information and the absence of a private prosecutor amounted to an "effective implied reservation," and that his fraud-based claim fell under Article 33 and needed none.
On October 23, 2000 the Pasay MeTC granted the dismissal, finding identity of parties, identity of cause (the same check), and that a judgment in either would bar the other; it rejected the implied-waiver theory because a waiver or reservation must be clear and express, and held that even on Chan's own Article 33 characterisation, prior reservation was still required and none had been made before the prosecution began presenting evidence. Reconsideration was denied December 20, 2000.
On July 31, 2001 the RTC of Pasay City affirmed in toto.
On June 25, 2002 the Court of Appeals REVERSED, relying on DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Velez — an estafa case — to hold that a complaint alleging fraud is an Article 33 action needing no reservation. Reconsideration was denied March 14, 2003.
Simon died during the appeal and his heirs were substituted. On February 23, 2011 the Third Division, through Justice Bersamin, reversed the CA and reinstated the MeTC's dismissal.

Issue

Was Chan's separate civil action for the value of the dishonoured check properly instituted as an independent civil action under Article 33 — or is it barred by the special Section 1(b), Rule 111 rule that the civil action is deemed included in the B.P. 22 case with no reservation allowed?

Secondary issue. Whether the pendency of the civil aspect of the B.P. 22 case barred the separate suit by litis pendentia.

Ruling

NO INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION — the special rule controls. "[T]here is no independent civil action to recover the value of a bouncing check issued in contravention of BP 22." The rule comes from SC Circular 57-97, effective November 1, 1997, codified in Section 1(b), Rule 111: "The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed." Reliance on DMPI Employees — an estafa case — was "unwarranted," since "the procedures for the recovery of the civil liabilities arising from these two distinct crimes are different and non-interchangeable."

Secondary issue. YES. All three requisites were present — identity of parties, identity of rights and reliefs on the same check, and a judgment in either would bar the other, else Chan would recover twice.

Wherefore, we grant the petition for review on certiorari, and, accordingly, we reverse and set aside the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on June 25, 2002. We reinstate the decision rendered on October 23, 2000 by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 45, in Pasay City.

Costs of suit to be paid by the respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

The rule exists for a docket reason, and the Court said so. Quoting Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp.: "ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual damages," so "the payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit gratis." Requiring the civil action to be filed and paid for jointly with the criminal case "significantly lower[s] the number of cases filed… for collection based on dishonored checks" and "expedite[s]… disposition."
DMPI Employees is estafa-specific and does not travel. An estafa complainant keeps a menu — reserve, file an Article 33 action, or ride the impliedly instituted civil aspect. A B.P. 22 complainant has no such menu: the special rule forecloses reservation and separate filing outright, "notwithstanding the allegations of fraud and deceit."
With no valid separate action possible, litis pendentia followed as a matter of course on the total identity of parties, cause and relief.
And the rule applied retroactively. "[P]rocedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage" and "no vested right may attach to, or arise from, procedural laws" — besides which Circular 57-97 had been in force since 1997, well before Chan's August 2000 filing.

Doctrine

There is no independent civil action for B.P. 22 liability. The criminal action is deemed to include the civil action, and no reservation to file separately is allowed (Section 1(b), Rule 111; SC Circular 57-97). Article 33 does not override the special rule even where the civil pleading alleges fraud or deceit — the two recovery procedures "are different and non-interchangeable." A separately filed suit on the same check, while the B.P. 22 case is pending, is dismissible for litis pendentia. And procedural rules apply retroactively to pending, undetermined actions, no vested right attaching to them.

Limits. The bar is specific to B.P. 22 and leaves untouched the general availability of independent civil actions under Articles 31–34 and 2176 for other offences — see Bordador v. Luz and Cojuangco, Jr. v. CA. And it bars only a separately filed suit outside the B.P. 22 case. Where one act of issuing a bad check supports both an estafa charge and a B.P. 22 charge, both civil aspects may proceed to their own adjudication — the point developed in Chiok v. People via Rodriguez v. Ponferrada — capped only by one recovery. Note too what "reservation" requires: it must be clear and express; neither a silent Information nor the absence of a private prosecutor makes an implied one. Suspension of a separate civil action is thus never even reached here — there is no separate action to suspend.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: DIRECT. The entire Decision is the Court's own extended exposition of how a criminal action (here, for BP 22) and its associated civil action are instituted, and of the special rule that forecloses a separately-filed, independent civil suit for the same dishonored check.
Eduardo Simon was criminally charged with violating BP 22 for issuing a dishonored ₱336,000.00 check to Elvin Chan in December 1996 (Information filed July 1997). More than three years later, without having reserved his right to do so, Chan filed a separate civil action for sum of money in a different court (MeTC Pasay City) to collect on the same check, additionally alleging fraud and applying for a writ of preliminary attachment.
Simon moved to dismiss the civil case on the ground of litis pendentia (identity of parties, cause of action, and reliefs with the pending BP 22 case). The Pasay MeTC granted the dismissal. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, relying on DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Velez — an estafa case — to hold that, since Chan's civil complaint alleged fraud, it qualified as an Art. 33 independent civil action requiring no reservation, and could therefore proceed separately.
The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the MeTC's dismissal, holding that DMPI Employees' Art. 33/estafa framework does not control BP 22 cases, which are governed instead by the special, mandatory-inclusion, no-reservation rule of Sec. 1(b), Rule 111 (and its predecessor, SC Circular 57-97) — a deliberate, docket-clearing policy exception carved out specifically for BP 22. Chan's separate civil suit was accordingly barred by litis pendentia.

Facts

December 26, 1996 (check date): Eduardo Simon made, drew, and issued to Elvin Chan Landbank Check No. 0007280, payable to cash, in the amount of ₱336,000.00.
July 11, 1997: The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed an Information in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila charging Simon with violation of BP 22, docketed as Criminal Case No. 275381, alleging the check was dishonored for "Account Closed" and that Simon failed to pay despite notice of dishonor.
August 3, 2000 (more than three years later): Chan commenced a separate civil action for collection of the ₱336,000.00 principal, with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment, in the MeTC of Pasay City (Civil Case No. 915-00), alleging Simon employed "fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation" in encashing the check and misrepresenting that he had an existing, funded account.
August 9 and 17, 2000: The Pasay MeTC issued, and the sheriff implemented, a writ of preliminary attachment on Simon's Nissan vehicle.
August 17, 2000: Simon filed an urgent motion to dismiss the civil case on the ground of litis pendentia, given the pending BP 22 criminal case over the identical check, invoking Sec. 1(e), Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
August 29, 2000: Chan opposed, arguing (among other things) that the absence of any allegation or proof of damages in the BP 22 Information, and the absence of a private prosecutor during the presentation of prosecution evidence, constituted an "effective implied reservation" of his right to file a separate civil action, and that in any event his fraud-based claim fell under Art. 33, Civil Code, entitled to proceed independently even without express reservation.
October 23, 2000: The Pasay MeTC granted Simon's motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia — finding identity of parties (Chan and Simon), identity of the cause of action (recovery of the value of the same Landbank check), and that any judgment in one case would bar the other; rejected Chan's implied-waiver theory as unsupported, since the Rules require any waiver or reservation to be clear and express; further held that, even accepting Chan's fraud/Art. 33 characterization, prior reservation was still required by the Rules, and none had been made before the prosecution started presenting evidence.
Chan's motion for reconsideration was denied on December 20, 2000, the MeTC additionally distinguishing Tactaquin v. Palileo (cited by Chan) on the ground that, unlike here, the plaintiff in that case had expressly reserved his right to file a separate civil action.
July 31, 2001: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City affirmed the MeTC's dismissal in toto.
Chan appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) by petition for review, challenging the propriety of the litis pendentia dismissal.
June 25, 2002: The CA promulgated its decision, reversing the RTC, holding — relying on DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Velez — that Chan's civil complaint, being based on fraud under Article 33, Civil Code, could proceed independently and required no reservation; the CA further held the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure's changes regarding independent civil actions could be applied retroactively to Chan's August 2000 filing, since procedural rules may be given retroactive effect.
March 14, 2003: The CA denied Simon's motion for reconsideration.
Simon appealed to the Supreme Court; during the pendency of the appeal, Simon died, and his heirs were substituted as petitioners.
February 23, 2011: The Supreme Court (Bersamin, J., Third Division) rendered the Decision under digest, reversing the CA and reinstating the MeTC's original dismissal.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioners (Heirs of Eduardo Simon).

Argued the CA erroneously premised its decision on the assessment that Chan's civil case was an independent civil action under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176, Civil Code, when in truth this was a simple collection suit for the value of a dishonored check, governed by BP 22's special institution rule rather than the general independent-civil-action framework.
Argued the CA's reliance on DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Velez — an estafa case — was misplaced and "stretched the meaning and intent of the ruling," and was contrary to Sections 1 and 2, Rule 111.

B. Respondent (Elvin Chan).

Countered that his cause of action, being based on fraud, was properly an independent civil action under Article 33, Civil Code, which by its own terms proceeds independently of any criminal prosecution and requires only a preponderance of evidence, regardless of reservation.
Argued that the appearance (or non-appearance) of a private prosecutor in the criminal case, and the absence of any damages allegation in the BP 22 Information, did not preclude the filing of his separate civil action.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Was respondent Elvin Chan's separate civil action for collection of the value of the dishonored check (Civil Case No. 915-00) properly instituted as an independent civil action under Article 33, Civil Code — or was it barred by the special BP 22 institution rule (Sec. 1(b), Rule 111) mandating that the civil action be deemed included in, and prosecuted together with, the criminal action, with no separate reservation allowed?

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether the pendency of the civil aspect of Criminal Case No. 275381 (the BP 22 case) barred, on the ground of litis pendentia, the filing of the separately-instituted Civil Case No. 915-00.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE — NO independent civil action; the special BP 22 rule controls. "[T]here is no independent civil action to recover the value of a bouncing check issued in contravention of BP 22." The Court traced the rule to SC Circular 57-97 (effective November 1, 1997) and its codification in Sec. 1(b), Rule 111 (2000 Rules): "The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed." The CA's reliance on DMPI Employees (an estafa case, where Art. 33's independent-action rule properly applies) was "unwarranted," because "the procedures for the recovery of the civil liabilities arising from these two distinct crimes are different and non-interchangeable" — in BP 22 prosecutions, "the Court has adopted a policy to prohibit the reservation or institution of a separate civil action to claim the civil liability arising from the issuance of the bouncing check," regardless of allegations of fraud or deceit.
SECONDARY ISSUE — YES, barred by litis pendentia. All three requisites were present: identity of parties (Chan and Simon in both actions); identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for (recovery of the value of the same Landbank check, founded on the same facts); and a judgment in either case would necessarily bar the other by res judicata — otherwise Chan would recover twice on the same claim. The Pasay MeTC "properly dismissed" the civil case.

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

Wherefore, we grant the petition for review on certiorari, and, accordingly, we reverse and set aside the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on June 25, 2002. We reinstate the decision rendered on October 23, 2000 by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 45, in Pasay City.

Costs of suit to be paid by the respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Step 1 — The Court identified the special, docket-clearing rationale behind BP 22's mandatory-inclusion rule. Quoting Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp.: the rule exists because "ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual damages," so "the payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit gratis," and courts had become clogged with BP 22 cases filed essentially as a collection tool; requiring the civil action to be filed and paid for jointly with the criminal case, with no separate reservation, "significantly lower[s] the number of cases filed... for collection based on dishonored checks" and "expedite[s]... disposition."
Step 2 — The Court distinguished the estafa-specific DMPI Employees precedent as inapposite. While estafa complainants retain the choice to reserve, institute an independent Art. 33 action, or proceed with the implied civil aspect, BP 22 complainants do not have that same menu of options — the special rule forecloses reservation and independent filing outright, "notwithstanding the allegations of fraud and deceit."
Step 3 — Having established that no valid separate civil action could exist, the Court found all three elements of litis pendentia squarely met, given the total identity of parties, cause of action (the same check), and reliefs sought between the civil aspect of the BP 22 case and the separately-filed civil suit.
Step 4 — The Court gave retroactive effect to the procedural rule (Circular 57-97/Sec. 1(b), Rule 111) even though Chan filed his civil suit in August 2000, before the 2000 Rules' effectivity, because "procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage" and "no vested right may attach to, or arise from, procedural laws" — noting, further, that Circular 57-97 was already in effect (since November 1, 1997) well before Chan's August 2000 filing in any event.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

1. There is no independent civil action to recover civil liability arising from a BP 22 violation — the Topic-defining holding of this case.
2. The BP 22 criminal action is deemed to include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file it separately is allowed (Sec. 1(b), Rule 111; SC Circular 57-97).
3. The general Art. 33 independent-civil-action rule for fraud does not override this special BP 22 rule, even where the BP 22 complainant's civil pleading also alleges fraud or deceit — the procedures for estafa-based and BP 22-based civil recovery "are different and non-interchangeable."
4. Where a civil suit for the same dishonored check is filed separately, without valid reservation, while a BP 22 case over that check is pending, the separate suit is properly dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia.
5. Procedural rules, including Rule 111's institution provisions, may be applied retroactively to pending, undetermined actions, since no vested right attaches to rules of procedure.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

This rule is specific to BP 22; it does not affect the general availability of independent civil actions under Arts. 31-34 and 2176, Civil Code, for other offenses (e.g., estafa, as illustrated by DMPI Employees itself, and by Bordador v. Luz and other Group III cases in this Week 4 batch).
The Court notes an important nuance (via its citation of Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, discussed more fully in the companion case Chiok v. People, this same batch): where a single act of issuing a bad check gives rise to both an estafa charge and a BP 22 charge, both civil actions (the BP 22's automatically-included civil aspect, and the estafa's own civil aspect) may proceed to their own final adjudication — the "no independent civil action" rule bars only a separately and independently filed suit outside the BP 22 case itself, not the estafa case's own, separately-instituted civil liability.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: DIRECT. This Decision is, in substance, an extended doctrinal treatise on how the civil aspect of a BP 22 prosecution is instituted, why it displaces the general independent-civil-action rule, and what remedy (dismissal for litis pendentia) follows when a complainant disregards that special institution rule — squarely and centrally on this Topic.

Separate Opinions

None. Brion (Acting Chairperson), Abad, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concurred per the signature block; no separate concurring or dissenting opinion is indicated.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Implementing Rules

Section 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court

Institution of criminal and civil actions

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action)

(a) 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 unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or information, the filing fees thereof shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such damages.

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages.

No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. (1a)

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.

Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions. (cir. 57-97)

LawPhil posts the text as amended effective 1 December 2000. Later amendments — notably to the bail and preliminary-investigation rules — are not reflected here, so check the date of the decision against the date of the amendment.

Why it is cited here

The mandatory-inclusion rule for B.P. 22, and the reason behind it.

"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" — and for B.P. Blg. 22, "the criminal action shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed."

The rationale is administrative, and the Court says so plainly. Quoting Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp.: the rule exists because "ordinarily no filing fees are charged" in criminal cases, so allowing a separate civil suit invited claimants to split actions and avoid fees while clogging two dockets.

So the joinder is not a doctrinal statement about the nature of the liability. It is a docket-clearing measure, and it is worth knowing that because it explains the rule's edges.

Special Law

Section 1, B.P. Blg. 22

Checks without sufficient funds

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)

Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.

Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.

B.P. Blg. 22 fixes no prescriptive period of its own, so Act No. 3326 supplies it — four years, the offense being punishable by imprisonment of more than one month but less than two years. See People v. Pangilinan. Note also A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC and the earlier Administrative Circulars 12-2000 and 13-2001, which express a preference for fine over imprisonment; they do not amend the penalty clause below.

Why it is cited here

The offense the rule attaches to.

"Any person who makes or draws and issues any check … knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds … which check is subsequently dishonored."

B.P. 22 prosecutions are volume litigation — a single dispute often produces many checks and many informations — which is exactly the setting in which splitting civil and criminal actions caused the docket problem.

Note the consequence for the complainant: he cannot keep his collection claim out of the criminal case, and he pays filing fees on the civil aspect based on the amount of the check.

That fee obligation is the counterpart to the rule, and forgetting it is a common way for the civil aspect to fail even though it was automatically included.

Implementing Rules

Section 2, Rule 111, Rules of Court

When separate civil action is suspended

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action)

After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.

If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly.

During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period of prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled. (n)

The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. (2a)

Why it is cited here

What happens to the included civil action if the prosecution fails.

"The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding … that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist."

Because the civil action is inside the criminal case and cannot be reserved out, the complainant is bound to whatever the criminal court does with it — which makes this section's default protective and important.

An acquittal on the notice-of-dishonor ground leaves the obligation standing, so the court should still award the amount of the check.

The complete picture for B.P. 22: civil action mandatorily included, fees payable, and the debt generally surviving acquittal.

Related notes:

Bernardo v. People — companion BP 22 case applying the same Sec. 1(b) mandatory-inclusion rule to explain why a deceased BP 22 accused's civil liability continues to be litigated in the same (not a separate) proceeding.
Chiok v. People — clarifies that the "no independent civil action" rule for BP 22 does not prevent a separately-filed estafa case's own civil aspect (over the same check) from proceeding to its own adjudication — the bar is on independent, separately-instituted suits duplicating the BP 22 case itself, not on the estafa track.
Bordador v. Luz — illustrates the general Art. 33 independent-civil-action rule (fraud/estafa-type claims) that this case holds does NOT extend to BP 22.
Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — institution of criminal and civil actions.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 — Bouncing Checks Law.

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_157547_2011.html

Cited laws & provisions

Section 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

Institution of criminal and civil actions

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action)

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages.

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Why it is cited here

The mandatory-inclusion rule for B.P. 22, and the reason behind it.

So the joinder is not a doctrinal statement about the nature of the liability. It is a docket-clearing measure, and it is worth knowing that because it explains the rule's edges.

Full entry below ↓

Section 1, B.P. Blg. 22

Special Law

Checks without sufficient funds

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)

Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.

Why it is cited here

The offense the rule attaches to.

"Any person who makes or draws and issues any check … knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds … which check is subsequently dishonored."

Note the consequence for the complainant: he cannot keep his collection claim out of the criminal case, and he pays filing fees on the civil aspect based on the amount of the check.

That fee obligation is the counterpart to the rule, and forgetting it is a common way for the civil aspect to fail even though it was automatically included.

Full entry below ↓

Section 2, Rule 111, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

When separate civil action is suspended

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action)

After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.

Why it is cited here

What happens to the included civil action if the prosecution fails.

An acquittal on the notice-of-dishonor ground leaves the obligation standing, so the court should still award the amount of the check.

The complete picture for B.P. 22: civil action mandatorily included, fees payable, and the debt generally surviving acquittal.

Full entry below ↓

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

I. Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_157547_2011.html

ℹ️ The clearest topic-sentence case in this batch

Facts

On December 26, 1996 Eduardo Simon made, drew and issued to Elvin Chan Landbank Check No. 0007280, payable to cash, for ₱336,000.00.
On July 11, 1997 the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed an Information in the MeTC of Manila (Crim. Case No. 275381) charging B.P. Blg. 22, the check having been dishonoured for "Account Closed" and gone unpaid despite notice.
On August 3, 2000 — more than three years later — Chan filed a separate civil action for the same ₱336,000.00 in the MeTC of Pasay City (Civil Case No. 915-00), with an application for preliminary attachment, alleging Simon had employed "fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation" in encashing the check. He had made no reservation in the criminal case.
On August 9 and 17, 2000 a writ of attachment issued and was implemented on Simon's Nissan vehicle.
On August 17, 2000 Simon moved to dismiss on litis pendentia.
Chan's opposition was that the absence of any allegation of damages in the Information and the absence of a private prosecutor amounted to an "effective implied reservation," and that his fraud-based claim fell under Article 33 and needed none.
On October 23, 2000 the Pasay MeTC granted the dismissal, finding identity of parties, identity of cause (the same check), and that a judgment in either would bar the other; it rejected the implied-waiver theory because a waiver or reservation must be clear and express, and held that even on Chan's own Article 33 characterisation, prior reservation was still required and none had been made before the prosecution began presenting evidence. Reconsideration was denied December 20, 2000.
On July 31, 2001 the RTC of Pasay City affirmed in toto.
On June 25, 2002 the Court of Appeals REVERSED, relying on DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Velez — an estafa case — to hold that a complaint alleging fraud is an Article 33 action needing no reservation. Reconsideration was denied March 14, 2003.
Simon died during the appeal and his heirs were substituted. On February 23, 2011 the Third Division, through Justice Bersamin, reversed the CA and reinstated the MeTC's dismissal.

Issue

Secondary issue. Whether the pendency of the civil aspect of the B.P. 22 case barred the separate suit by litis pendentia.

Ruling

Wherefore, we grant the petition for review on certiorari, and, accordingly, we reverse and set aside the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on June 25, 2002. We reinstate the decision rendered on October 23, 2000 by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 45, in Pasay City.

Costs of suit to be paid by the respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

The rule exists for a docket reason, and the Court said so. Quoting Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp.: "ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual damages," so "the payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit gratis." Requiring the civil action to be filed and paid for jointly with the criminal case "significantly lower[s] the number of cases filed… for collection based on dishonored checks" and "expedite[s]… disposition."
DMPI Employees is estafa-specific and does not travel. An estafa complainant keeps a menu — reserve, file an Article 33 action, or ride the impliedly instituted civil aspect. A B.P. 22 complainant has no such menu: the special rule forecloses reservation and separate filing outright, "notwithstanding the allegations of fraud and deceit."
With no valid separate action possible, litis pendentia followed as a matter of course on the total identity of parties, cause and relief.
And the rule applied retroactively. "[P]rocedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage" and "no vested right may attach to, or arise from, procedural laws" — besides which Circular 57-97 had been in force since 1997, well before Chan's August 2000 filing.

Doctrine

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: DIRECT. The entire Decision is the Court's own extended exposition of how a criminal action (here, for BP 22) and its associated civil action are instituted, and of the special rule that forecloses a separately-filed, independent civil suit for the same dishonored check.
Eduardo Simon was criminally charged with violating BP 22 for issuing a dishonored ₱336,000.00 check to Elvin Chan in December 1996 (Information filed July 1997). More than three years later, without having reserved his right to do so, Chan filed a separate civil action for sum of money in a different court (MeTC Pasay City) to collect on the same check, additionally alleging fraud and applying for a writ of preliminary attachment.
Simon moved to dismiss the civil case on the ground of litis pendentia (identity of parties, cause of action, and reliefs with the pending BP 22 case). The Pasay MeTC granted the dismissal. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, relying on DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Velez — an estafa case — to hold that, since Chan's civil complaint alleged fraud, it qualified as an Art. 33 independent civil action requiring no reservation, and could therefore proceed separately.
The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the MeTC's dismissal, holding that DMPI Employees' Art. 33/estafa framework does not control BP 22 cases, which are governed instead by the special, mandatory-inclusion, no-reservation rule of Sec. 1(b), Rule 111 (and its predecessor, SC Circular 57-97) — a deliberate, docket-clearing policy exception carved out specifically for BP 22. Chan's separate civil suit was accordingly barred by litis pendentia.

Facts

December 26, 1996 (check date): Eduardo Simon made, drew, and issued to Elvin Chan Landbank Check No. 0007280, payable to cash, in the amount of ₱336,000.00.
July 11, 1997: The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed an Information in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila charging Simon with violation of BP 22, docketed as Criminal Case No. 275381, alleging the check was dishonored for "Account Closed" and that Simon failed to pay despite notice of dishonor.
August 3, 2000 (more than three years later): Chan commenced a separate civil action for collection of the ₱336,000.00 principal, with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment, in the MeTC of Pasay City (Civil Case No. 915-00), alleging Simon employed "fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation" in encashing the check and misrepresenting that he had an existing, funded account.
August 9 and 17, 2000: The Pasay MeTC issued, and the sheriff implemented, a writ of preliminary attachment on Simon's Nissan vehicle.
August 17, 2000: Simon filed an urgent motion to dismiss the civil case on the ground of litis pendentia, given the pending BP 22 criminal case over the identical check, invoking Sec. 1(e), Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
August 29, 2000: Chan opposed, arguing (among other things) that the absence of any allegation or proof of damages in the BP 22 Information, and the absence of a private prosecutor during the presentation of prosecution evidence, constituted an "effective implied reservation" of his right to file a separate civil action, and that in any event his fraud-based claim fell under Art. 33, Civil Code, entitled to proceed independently even without express reservation.
October 23, 2000: The Pasay MeTC granted Simon's motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia — finding identity of parties (Chan and Simon), identity of the cause of action (recovery of the value of the same Landbank check), and that any judgment in one case would bar the other; rejected Chan's implied-waiver theory as unsupported, since the Rules require any waiver or reservation to be clear and express; further held that, even accepting Chan's fraud/Art. 33 characterization, prior reservation was still required by the Rules, and none had been made before the prosecution started presenting evidence.
Chan's motion for reconsideration was denied on December 20, 2000, the MeTC additionally distinguishing Tactaquin v. Palileo (cited by Chan) on the ground that, unlike here, the plaintiff in that case had expressly reserved his right to file a separate civil action.
July 31, 2001: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City affirmed the MeTC's dismissal in toto.
Chan appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) by petition for review, challenging the propriety of the litis pendentia dismissal.
June 25, 2002: The CA promulgated its decision, reversing the RTC, holding — relying on DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Velez — that Chan's civil complaint, being based on fraud under Article 33, Civil Code, could proceed independently and required no reservation; the CA further held the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure's changes regarding independent civil actions could be applied retroactively to Chan's August 2000 filing, since procedural rules may be given retroactive effect.
March 14, 2003: The CA denied Simon's motion for reconsideration.
Simon appealed to the Supreme Court; during the pendency of the appeal, Simon died, and his heirs were substituted as petitioners.
February 23, 2011: The Supreme Court (Bersamin, J., Third Division) rendered the Decision under digest, reversing the CA and reinstating the MeTC's original dismissal.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioners (Heirs of Eduardo Simon).

Argued the CA erroneously premised its decision on the assessment that Chan's civil case was an independent civil action under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176, Civil Code, when in truth this was a simple collection suit for the value of a dishonored check, governed by BP 22's special institution rule rather than the general independent-civil-action framework.
Argued the CA's reliance on DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Velez — an estafa case — was misplaced and "stretched the meaning and intent of the ruling," and was contrary to Sections 1 and 2, Rule 111.

B. Respondent (Elvin Chan).

Countered that his cause of action, being based on fraud, was properly an independent civil action under Article 33, Civil Code, which by its own terms proceeds independently of any criminal prosecution and requires only a preponderance of evidence, regardless of reservation.
Argued that the appearance (or non-appearance) of a private prosecutor in the criminal case, and the absence of any damages allegation in the BP 22 Information, did not preclude the filing of his separate civil action.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Was respondent Elvin Chan's separate civil action for collection of the value of the dishonored check (Civil Case No. 915-00) properly instituted as an independent civil action under Article 33, Civil Code — or was it barred by the special BP 22 institution rule (Sec. 1(b), Rule 111) mandating that the civil action be deemed included in, and prosecuted together with, the criminal action, with no separate reservation allowed?

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether the pendency of the civil aspect of Criminal Case No. 275381 (the BP 22 case) barred, on the ground of litis pendentia, the filing of the separately-instituted Civil Case No. 915-00.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE — NO independent civil action; the special BP 22 rule controls. "[T]here is no independent civil action to recover the value of a bouncing check issued in contravention of BP 22." The Court traced the rule to SC Circular 57-97 (effective November 1, 1997) and its codification in Sec. 1(b), Rule 111 (2000 Rules): "The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed." The CA's reliance on DMPI Employees (an estafa case, where Art. 33's independent-action rule properly applies) was "unwarranted," because "the procedures for the recovery of the civil liabilities arising from these two distinct crimes are different and non-interchangeable" — in BP 22 prosecutions, "the Court has adopted a policy to prohibit the reservation or institution of a separate civil action to claim the civil liability arising from the issuance of the bouncing check," regardless of allegations of fraud or deceit.
SECONDARY ISSUE — YES, barred by litis pendentia. All three requisites were present: identity of parties (Chan and Simon in both actions); identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for (recovery of the value of the same Landbank check, founded on the same facts); and a judgment in either case would necessarily bar the other by res judicata — otherwise Chan would recover twice on the same claim. The Pasay MeTC "properly dismissed" the civil case.

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

Wherefore, we grant the petition for review on certiorari, and, accordingly, we reverse and set aside the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on June 25, 2002. We reinstate the decision rendered on October 23, 2000 by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 45, in Pasay City.

Costs of suit to be paid by the respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Step 1 — The Court identified the special, docket-clearing rationale behind BP 22's mandatory-inclusion rule. Quoting Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp.: the rule exists because "ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual damages," so "the payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit gratis," and courts had become clogged with BP 22 cases filed essentially as a collection tool; requiring the civil action to be filed and paid for jointly with the criminal case, with no separate reservation, "significantly lower[s] the number of cases filed... for collection based on dishonored checks" and "expedite[s]... disposition."
Step 2 — The Court distinguished the estafa-specific DMPI Employees precedent as inapposite. While estafa complainants retain the choice to reserve, institute an independent Art. 33 action, or proceed with the implied civil aspect, BP 22 complainants do not have that same menu of options — the special rule forecloses reservation and independent filing outright, "notwithstanding the allegations of fraud and deceit."
Step 3 — Having established that no valid separate civil action could exist, the Court found all three elements of litis pendentia squarely met, given the total identity of parties, cause of action (the same check), and reliefs sought between the civil aspect of the BP 22 case and the separately-filed civil suit.
Step 4 — The Court gave retroactive effect to the procedural rule (Circular 57-97/Sec. 1(b), Rule 111) even though Chan filed his civil suit in August 2000, before the 2000 Rules' effectivity, because "procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage" and "no vested right may attach to, or arise from, procedural laws" — noting, further, that Circular 57-97 was already in effect (since November 1, 1997) well before Chan's August 2000 filing in any event.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

1. There is no independent civil action to recover civil liability arising from a BP 22 violation — the Topic-defining holding of this case.
2. The BP 22 criminal action is deemed to include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file it separately is allowed (Sec. 1(b), Rule 111; SC Circular 57-97).
3. The general Art. 33 independent-civil-action rule for fraud does not override this special BP 22 rule, even where the BP 22 complainant's civil pleading also alleges fraud or deceit — the procedures for estafa-based and BP 22-based civil recovery "are different and non-interchangeable."
4. Where a civil suit for the same dishonored check is filed separately, without valid reservation, while a BP 22 case over that check is pending, the separate suit is properly dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia.
5. Procedural rules, including Rule 111's institution provisions, may be applied retroactively to pending, undetermined actions, since no vested right attaches to rules of procedure.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

This rule is specific to BP 22; it does not affect the general availability of independent civil actions under Arts. 31-34 and 2176, Civil Code, for other offenses (e.g., estafa, as illustrated by DMPI Employees itself, and by Bordador v. Luz and other Group III cases in this Week 4 batch).
The Court notes an important nuance (via its citation of Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, discussed more fully in the companion case Chiok v. People, this same batch): where a single act of issuing a bad check gives rise to both an estafa charge and a BP 22 charge, both civil actions (the BP 22's automatically-included civil aspect, and the estafa's own civil aspect) may proceed to their own final adjudication — the "no independent civil action" rule bars only a separately and independently filed suit outside the BP 22 case itself, not the estafa case's own, separately-instituted civil liability.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: DIRECT. This Decision is, in substance, an extended doctrinal treatise on how the civil aspect of a BP 22 prosecution is instituted, why it displaces the general independent-civil-action rule, and what remedy (dismissal for litis pendentia) follows when a complainant disregards that special institution rule — squarely and centrally on this Topic.

Separate Opinions

None. Brion (Acting Chairperson), Abad, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concurred per the signature block; no separate concurring or dissenting opinion is indicated.