DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. vs. Velez

A certificate of non-forum shopping was not required of initiatory pleadings filed in trial courts before April 1, 1994, and an independent civil action for damages under Article 33 of the Civil Code may proceed independently of the criminal action even without a reservation of the right to institute it separately.

Petitioner DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. (DMPI-ECCI) is a credit cooperative, and respondent Eriberta Villegas entrusted a sum of money to Carmen Mandawe, an employee of the cooperative, for deposit with its teller. The dispute engages the temporal reach of the certificate of non-forum shopping requirement under Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91, effective January 1, 1992, and Administrative Circular No. 04-94, effective April 1, 1994, as well as the rules governing independent civil actions under the Civil Code and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

On February 18, 1994, the prosecuting attorney filed with the Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental, Branch 37, an information for estafa against Carmen Mandawe for her alleged failure to account to respondent Eriberta Villegas the amount of P608,532.46. Villegas had entrusted this amount to Mandawe, an employee of petitioner DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. (DMPI-ECCI), for deposit with the teller of petitioner.

Subsequently, on March 29, 1994, Villegas filed with the Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental, Branch 20, a complaint against Mandawe and DMPI-ECCI for a sum of money and damages with preliminary attachment, arising out of the same transaction. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. CV-94-214.

In time, petitioner sought the dismissal of the civil case on two grounds: first, that there was a pending criminal case in RTC Branch 37 arising from the same facts; and second, that the complaint failed to contain a certification against forum shopping as required by Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91.

On December 12, 1996, the trial court issued an order dismissing Civil Case No. CV-94-214. On January 21, 1997, Villegas filed a motion for reconsideration of the order. On February 21, 1997, the trial court issued an order granting the motion for reconsideration, thereby recalling the dismissal of the case.

Petitioner thereafter filed the present special civil action for certiorari, seeking the annulment of the February 21, 1997 order on the ground that it had been issued with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the earlier dismissal.

• Forum Shopping Certification: Petitioner sought the dismissal of Civil Case No. CV-94-214 on the ground that the complaint failed to contain a certification against forum shopping as required by Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91.
• Pendency of the Criminal Case: Petitioner sought the dismissal of the civil case on the ground that there was a pending criminal case in RTC Branch 37 arising from the same facts as the civil complaint.

• Forum Shopping Certification: Whether the plaintiff's failure to attach a certification against forum shopping in the complaint is a ground to dismiss the case.
• Independence of the Civil Action: Whether the civil case could proceed independently of the criminal case for estafa without having reserved the filing of the civil action.

• Forum Shopping Certification: No. At the time the complaint was filed on March 29, 1994, Circular No. 28-91 required the certificate only for petitions filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, and Administrative Circular No. 04-94 had not yet taken effect.
• Independence of the Civil Action: Yes. The civil action for damages on account of fraud under Article 33 of the Civil Code is an independent civil action that may proceed independently even without a reservation as to its filing.

• Forum Shopping Certification: Circular No. 28-91 of the Supreme Court requires a certificate of non-forum shopping to be attached to petitions filed before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. This circular was revised on February 8, 1994 by Administrative Circular No. 04-94, which extended the requirement to all initiatory pleadings filed in all courts and quasi-judicial agencies other than the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Because the complaint was filed on March 29, 1994 — three days before April 1, 1994, the date of effectivity of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 — Villegas' failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping did not violate Circular No. 28-91, since at the time of filing the requirement applied only to petitions filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Administrative Circular No. 04-94 was likewise inapplicable for the same reason.
• Independence of the Civil Action: As a general rule, an offense causes two classes of injuries: the social injury produced by the criminal act, which is repaired through the imposition of the corresponding penalty, and the personal injury caused to the victim, which is compensated through indemnity of a civil nature. Thus, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable, and civil liability includes restitution, reparation for damage caused, and indemnification of consequential damages. The offended party may prove the civil liability of the accused arising from the offense in the criminal case, since the civil action is either deemed instituted with the criminal action or is separately instituted. Under Rule 111, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective December 1, 2000, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged 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 action; and under Rule 111, Section 2, 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. With respect to civil actions for recovery of civil liability under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or omission, however, the rule has been changed: only the civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted with the criminal action, and there is no more need for a reservation of the right to file the independent civil actions under those articles. Rule 111, Section 3 provides that in such cases the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party, shall proceed independently of the criminal action, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence, provided that the offended party may not recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. The changes in the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure pertaining to independent civil actions, effective December 1, 2000, are applicable to the case, because procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and there are no vested rights in the rules of procedure. Accordingly, Civil Case No. CV-94-214, an independent civil action for damages on account of the fraud committed against Villegas under Article 33 of the Civil Code, may proceed independently even if there was no reservation as to its filing.

• Temporal scope of the certificate of non-forum shopping requirement — Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91, effective January 1, 1992, required a certificate of non-forum shopping to be attached only to petitions filed before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Administrative Circular No. 04-94, issued February 8, 1994, extended the requirement to all initiatory pleadings filed in all courts and quasi-judicial agencies other than the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, but took effect only on April 1, 1994. A complaint filed on March 29, 1994 could not therefore be dismissed for failure to attach the certificate, since the requirement did not yet cover initiatory pleadings in trial courts at the time of filing.
• Independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code — Under Rule 111, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, only the civil liability arising from the offense charged 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 action. Civil actions for the recovery of civil liability under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or omission are not covered by this rule. No reservation of the right to file them is required; they may be prosecuted separately even without a reservation, shall proceed independently of the criminal action, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence, provided the offended party may not recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.
• Retroactive application of procedural rules — Procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, there being no vested rights in the rules of procedure. The changes in the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure pertaining to independent civil actions, effective December 1, 2000, were accordingly applied to a civil case that was already pending when the rules took effect.

• "Respondent Villegas' failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping in her complaint did not violate Circular No. 28-91, because at the time of filing, the requirement applied only to petitions filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals." — This is the ratio decidendi on the first issue, fixing the temporal reach of the certificate of non-forum shopping requirement and explaining why the complaint was not dismissible on that ground.
• "There is no more need for a reservation of the right to file the independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines." — This states the controlling rule on independent civil actions, distinguishing them from the civil liability arising from the offense charged that is deemed instituted with the criminal action.
• "Procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. There are no vested rights in the rules of procedure." — This is the canonical formulation of the retroactivity of procedural rules, invoked to justify applying the December 1, 2000 amendments to the pending civil case.
• "Thus, Civil Case No. CV-94-214, an independent civil action for damages on account of the fraud committed against respondent Villegas under Article 33 of the Civil Code, may proceed independently even if there was no reservation as to its filing." — This is the application of the independent civil action doctrine to the facts, characterizing the complaint as one grounded on Article 33 of the Civil Code.

• Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Flores, 350 Phil. 889, 896–897 (1998) — Cited as the controlling authority for the rule that Circular No. 28-91 originally applied only to petitions filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, and for the effectivity of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 on April 1, 1994.
• Gabionza vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 192, 196 (1994) — Cited in Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Flores for the scope of the certificate of non-forum shopping requirement.
• Cadalin vs. POEA Administrator, 238 SCRA 721, 770 (1994) — Cited in Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Flores for the same proposition on the scope of the forum shopping certification requirement.
• Ramos vs. Gonong, 72 SCRA 559 (1976) — Cited for the rule that an offense causes two classes of injuries: the social injury repaired by the penalty and the personal injury compensated by civil indemnity.
• Pfizer Inc. vs. Galan, G.R. No. 143389, May 25, 2001 — Cited for the rule that procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.

• Article 100, Revised Penal Code — Provides that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Cited as the law governing the recovery of civil liability arising from the commission of an offense.
• Article 104, Revised Penal Code — Provides that civil liability includes restitution, reparation for damage caused, and indemnification of consequential damages. Cited to describe the scope of the civil liability arising from the offense.
• Rule 111, Section 1, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged 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 action. Applied to distinguish the civil liability deemed instituted from the independent civil actions.
• Rule 111, Section 2, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that 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. Cited as the general rule from which independent civil actions are excepted.
• Rule 111, Section 3, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that in the cases covered by Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party, shall proceed independently of the criminal action, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence, and that the offended party may not recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. Applied to allow Civil Case No. CV-94-214 to proceed independently.
• Article 33, Civil Code — The provision under which the civil action for damages on account of the fraud committed against Villegas was characterized as an independent civil action that may proceed without a reservation.
• Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 — Required a certificate of non-forum shopping to be attached to petitions filed before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Held inapplicable to the complaint filed on March 29, 1994.
• Administrative Circular No. 04-94 — Revised Circular No. 28-91 on February 8, 1994 by extending the certificate of non-forum shopping requirement to all initiatory pleadings filed in all courts and quasi-judicial agencies other than the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Held inapplicable because it took effect on April 1, 1994, three days after the complaint was filed.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.