Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Casupanan v. Laroya (e-SCRA)
Casupanan v. Laroya (e-SCRA)
*
G.R. No. 145391. August 26, 2002.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
29
30
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c2c4674078d6e372b000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/17
9/28/21, 7:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388
31
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a petition
1
for review on certiorari to set aside the
Resolution dated December 28, 19992 dismissing the
petition for certiorari and the Resolution dated August 24,
2000 denying the motion for reconsideration, both issued
by the Regional Trial Court of Capas, Tarlac, Branch 66, in
Special Civil Action No. 17-C (99).
The Facts
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c2c4674078d6e372b000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/17
9/28/21, 7:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388
32
The Issue
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c2c4674078d6e372b000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/17
9/28/21, 7:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388
_______________
4 Petition for Review on Certiorari dated October 27, 2000, pp. 1 & 2;
Rollo, pp. 9 & 10.
33
_______________
5 Records of Special Civil Action No. 17 C-’99, Order of March 26, 1999,
pp. 12-14.
34
Forum-Shopping
The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
either simultaneously
8
or successively, to secure a favorable
judgment. Forum-shopping is present when in the two or
more cases pending, there9 is identity of parties, rights of
action and reliefs sought. However, there is no forum-
shopping in the instant case because the law and the rules
expressly allow the filing of a separate civil action which
can proceed independently of the criminal action.
Laroya filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence
resulting in damage to property based on the Revised Penal
Code while Casupanan and Capitulo filed the civil action
for damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
Although these two actions arose
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c2c4674078d6e372b000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/17
9/28/21, 7:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388
35
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c2c4674078d6e372b000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/17
9/28/21, 7:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c2c4674078d6e372b000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/17
9/28/21, 7:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388
37
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c2c4674078d6e372b000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/17
9/28/21, 7:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388
_______________
10 Neplum, Inc. vs. Evelyn V. Orbeso, G.R. No. 141986, prom. July 11,
2002, at pp. 11-12, 384 SCRA 466.
38
_______________
39
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.
x x x.” (Emphasis supplied)
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c2c4674078d6e372b000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/17
9/28/21, 7:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388
_______________
41
Conclusion
Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent
civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code
is not deemed instituted with the criminal action but may
be filed separately by the offended party even without
reservation. The commencement of the criminal action does
not suspend the prosecution of the independent civil action
under these articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in
Section 2 of the present Rule 111 refers only to the civil
action arising from the crime, if such civil action is reserved
or filed before the commencement of the criminal action.
Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for
the same act or omission. The first a criminal case where
the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c2c4674078d6e372b000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/17
9/28/21, 7:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388
More than half a century has passed since the Civil Code
introduced the concept of a civil action separate and
independent from the criminal action although arising from
the same act or omission. The Court, however, has yet to
encounter a case of conflicting and irreconcilable decisions
of trial courts, one hearing the criminal
_______________
43
case and the other the civil action for quasi-delict. The fear
of conflicting and irreconcilable decisions may be more
apparent than real. In any event, there are sufficient
remedies under the Rules of
Court to deal with such remote possibilities.
One final point. The Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure took effect on December 1, 2000 while the MCTC
issued the order of dismissal on December 28, 1999 or
before the amendment of the rules. The Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure must be given retroactive effect
considering the well-settled rule that—
——o0o——
_______________
14 People vs. Arrojado, 350 SCRA 679 (2001) citing Ocampo vs. Court of
Appeals, 180 SCRA 27 (1989), Alday vs. Camilon, 120 SCRA 521 (1983) &
People vs. Sumilang, 77 Phil. 764 (1946).
44
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c2c4674078d6e372b000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/17