FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234179. December 5, 2022.]
JOSEPHINE B. ZABARTE, petitioner, vs.FRANLIZA "LIZETTE" BELARMINO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court's First Division issued a Resolution datedDecember 5, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234179 (Josephine B. Zabarte vs. Franliza "Lizette" Belarmino). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the February 28, 2017 Decision 2 and the August 25, 2017 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 135466. The CA reversed the December 26, 2013 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 141 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 13-831 and reinstated the December 18, 2012 Decision 5 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66 (MeTC) in Civil Case No. 103055, which dismissed the complaint for collection of sum of money filed by Josephine B. Zabarte (petitioner) against Franliza "Lizette" Belarmino (respondent) on the grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping.
Antecedents
As synthesized by the CA, the relevant facts are as follows:
In her Complaint filed before the [MeTC], herein respondent [now petitioner] Josephine B. Zabarte ("Zabarte," for brevity) alleged, among others, that she and petitioner [now respondent] Franliza "Lizette" Belarmino ("Belarmino") had known each other since their college days and became the best of friends. Sometime in May 2007, Belarmino obtained a loan from Zabarte in the total amount of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos. Per their agreement, said loan shall earn interest at the rate of six percent or Twelve Thousand (P12,000.00) Pesos per month and further, that said loan shall be due on 28 December 2007. Petitioner at first faithfully paid her loan obligation but failed to pay the same in full when it became due on 28 December 2007, hence, the parties agreed to extend the period of payment. However, petitioner defaulted in her monthly payments starting 28 August 2009. As of said date, petitioner's total obligation amounted to One Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven and 21/100 (P184,357.21) Pesos. Verbal and written demands were made by respondent upon petitioner to settle her loan obligation which, as of 11 March 2011, already totaled Three Hundred Ninety Four Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Two & 47/100 (P394,792.47) Pesos, inclusive of interests earned, but petitioner refused and failed to pay. Hence, respondent was constrained to engage the services of counsel to institute an action in court. DETACa
Petitioner, in her Answer[,] admitted that she obtained a loan from respondent, but claimed that said loan had already been paid, or discharged, or otherwise included in the ten (10) counts of bouncing checks cases filed against her by respondent before the Metropolitan Trial Courts in Makati City in the total amount of P1,904,448.62. Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of forum shopping, multiplicity of suits, splitting of cause of action, and litis pendentia.
During the scheduled continuation of pre-trial on 23 May 2012, petitioner and her counsel failed to appear, for which reason, upon motion, petitioner was declared as in default and respondent was allowed to present her evidence ex-parte.
Respondent presented Mumar G. Jaranilla, who affirmed and confirmed her Judicial Affidavit and identified and marked Zabarte's documentary evidence, consisting of: Exhibit "A" — Promissory Note dated 11 June 2007; Exhibit "B" — Journal; Exhibit "C" — demand letter dated 17 March 2011; Exhibit "D" — Affidavit of Service; Exhibit "E" — Special Power of Attorney and Exhibit "F" — Judicial Affidavit of Mumar G. Jaranilla. 6
Ruling of the MeTC
On December 18, 2012, the MeTC rendered a decision dismissing the collection suit. It held that the testimony of petitioner's lone witness, Mumar G. Jaranilla (Jaranilla), was hearsay because she had no personal knowledge of the loan transactions. The MeTC also found that petitioner had previously filed 10 criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) against respondent which were then pending before MeTC, Branch 65 in Makati City, the facts and circumstances of which were identical to the civil complaint. Consequently, the MeTC dismissed the civil action for collection of sum of money, holding that the filing of the criminal actions for violation of B.P. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the corresponding civil action/s. 7
Ruling of the RTC
On appeal, the RTC reversed the MeTC decision and held that the civil action deemed to be included under Section 1 (a), Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure pertains only to an action to recover civil liability arising from a crime or ex delicto. Other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code are not deemed instituted, and may be filed and prosecuted separately and independently. Since the subject complaint is based on a contract or promissory note, herein petitioner is not precluded from enforcing her claim based on contract under Art. 32 (sic) of the Civil Code. 8 The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the appeal to be of merit, the same is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the court a quo dated December 18, 2012 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, finding the appellee liable to the appellant the sum of Three Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Two Pesos and Forty-Seven Centavos (Php394,792.47) with interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the filing of the complaint on September 23, 2011 until judgment becomes final. Upon finality of the decision, the interest on the judgment award plus interests earned up to that date shall be 12% per annum until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 9
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the RTC in its Order dated April 23, 2014. 10 Dissatisfied, respondent filed a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court before the CA. 11
Ruling of the CA
On February 28, 2017, the CA promulgated the assailed decision reversing the RTC and reinstating the decision of the MeTC. The CA explained that Art. 31 of the Civil Code does not apply due to the express provisions of Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and Supreme Court Circular 57-97 12 which state that the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action. The filing of a civil action independent from a B.P. 22 case on the ground that the source of the obligation is a contract, would run counter to the very purpose of the rules — to help declog court dockets. As such, the civil action filed by petitioner to collect the outstanding balance on the promissory note, which covered the checks subject of the B.P. 22 cases, was already barred on the ground of litis pendentia. 13 ATICcS
Issues
In light of the denial by the CA of her motion for reconsideration, 14 petitioner filed the instant appeal by certiorari ascribing the following errors on the part of the CA:
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT HELD [THAT] THERE IS [LITIS PENDENTIA] AND THAT PETITIONER'S MONETARY CLAIMS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT CAN BE FULLY ADJUDICATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CRIMINAL ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF BP BLG. 22, HENCE, IN EFFECT SAYING THAT PETITIONER CANNOT RECOVER THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE LOAN TOGETHER WITH THE ACCRUED INTERESTS THEREON OTHERWISE NOT COVERED BY THE BOUNCED CHECKS.
II.
RESPONDENT IS CIVILLY LIABLE TO PETITIONER FOR HER ENTIRE LOAN OBLIGATIONS INCLUSIVE OF INTERESTS EARNED UNTIL FULL PAYMENT IS MADE. 15
According to petitioner, the B.P. 22 cases only incorporated the civil action for recovery of the value of three dishonored checks covering three interest payments in the total amount of P36,000.00. On the other hand, the civil action was for recovery of the principal loan obligation and other interest payments due thereon, in the aggregate amount of P394,792.47. Hence, the danger of double recovery would not arise. 16
Petitioner also insists that the cause of action for the collection of sum of money differs from the B.P. 22 cases. 17 The rule that the civil action is deemed instituted in a B.P. 22 case arises only if the bounced checks cover the entire loan obligation and not simply the face value of the checks. 18 Respondent would be unjustly enriched if the civil action will not be allowed to prosper because her civil obligation would be limited only to P36,000.00 which is the total face value of the three checks included in the criminal cases for B.P. 22. 19
In her Comment, 20 respondent narrows down the issue to whether petitioner may institute two separate actions: a civil case for collection of sum of money using the promissory note as evidence, and criminal actions under B.P. 22 using the bounced checks as evidence involving the same obligation as in the civil action. 21 Arguing in the negative, respondent opines that allowing the civil complaint to prosper would violate the rule on litis pendentia, or at least forum shopping because respondent would be able to prosecute two actions arising from the same obligation. 22 She claims that the CA had correctly reversed the RTC because allowing the civil action on the ground that the source of obligation is a contract, would run counter to the purpose of Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which is to unclog court dockets and to prevent the courts from being used as debt collectors. 23
Respondent also posits that petitioner has the burden of proving that the action for sum of money is not covered by the B.P. 22 cases for the total amount of P1,904,448.62. She contends that since the MeTC had found that the instant civil action is included in the B.P. 22 cases, then dismissal of the civil action is proper under the rule on forum shopping and litis pendentia, or multiplicity of suits. 24 Respondent also clarifies that the MeTC did not solely dismiss the complaint on the ground of litis pendentia, but mainly upon the finding that petitioner's lone witness had no personal knowledge of the transactions from which respondent's obligation arose. 25 TIADCc
Ruling of the Court
The petition lacks merit.
Petitioner insists that the collection suit arose from the principal amount of P200,000.00 that she loaned to respondent sometime in May 2007, and that the same was not the subject of the B.P. 22 cases. She further explains that the three checks amounting to P36,000.00, which pertained to the payment of interest on the said loan, were inadvertently included in the bouncing checks cases. 26
The Court is not persuaded.
The B.P. 22 criminal cases which petitioner filed against respondent, had already reached this Court via G.R. No. 242223, 27 wherein petitioner questioned the May 16, 2018 Decision 28 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 151128. In its Resolution 29 dated February 13, 2019, the Court denied petitioner's petition for review on certiorari and declared that the CA did not err in affirming the common findings of the lower courts that respondent's obligations had already been extinguished by payment. 30 The CA even emphasized that the total amount paid by respondent had actually exceeded the amount of the principal obligation. 31 The Court's Resolution in G.R. No. 242223 already attained finality on April 12, 2019. 32
It is noteworthy that the narration of facts of the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 151128 referred to a series of loan transactions from February to June 2007 which were covered by promissory notes and postdated checks issued by respondent. 33 For this reason, the Court finds it difficult to believe petitioner's argument that the B.P. 22 cases did not include the May 2007 loan and that the three bounced checks covering interest payments thereon were only included by mistake. The Court quotes with approval the following observation of the CA on this score as stated in its now assailed decision:
It must be stressed that the [MeTC] found the presence of litis pendentia based on its examination of the records and we find no cogent reason to deviate therefrom. In her comment, Zabarte claimed that only three checks, in the amount of Php12,000.00 each, or a total of P36,000.00, were included in the ten counts of B.P. Blg. 22 cases which involved the total amount of Php1,904,448.62. According to Zabarte, these checks represent the interest payment of P12,000.00 a month on the indebtedness of P200,000.00 and they can be deducted therefrom.
We are not persuaded. Even if true, this will not alter the fact that said checks were issued to secure an obligation, i.e., the payment of interest at P12,000.00 a month, until the maturity and full payment of the principal amount of P200,000.00. This may be fully adjudicated in the proceedings for the criminal actions for violation of BP Blg. 22, in accordance with the intent of paragraph (b), Section 1 of Rule 111, and Supreme Court Circular 57-97. 34 (Emphasis supplied)
The Court also rejects petitioner's argument that a civil action based on a contractual obligation is not deemed instituted in the B.P. 22 cases. We need not belabor on this issue as it is clear from Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure that the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. The reason behind this rule has been sufficiently explained in Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp.: 35
The foregoing rule was adopted from Circular No. 57-97 of this Court. It specifically states that the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. It also requires the complainant to pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved. Generally, no filing fees are required for criminal cases, but because of the inclusion of the civil action in complaints for violation of B.P. 22, the Rules require the payment of docket fees upon the filing of the complaint. This rule was enacted to help declog court dockets which are filled with B.P. 22 cases as creditors actually use the courts as collectors. Because ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual damages, the payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit gratis and sometimes, upon being paid, the trial court is not even informed thereof. The inclusion of the civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower the number of cases filed before the courts for collection based on dishonored checks. It is also expected to expedite the disposition of these cases. Instead of instituting two separate cases, one for criminal and another for civil, only a single suit shall be filed and tried. It should be stressed that the policy laid down by the Rules is to discourage the separate filing of the civil action. The Rules even prohibit the reservation of a separate civil action, which means that one can no longer file a separate civil case after the criminal complaint is filed in court. The only instance when separate proceedings are allowed is when the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal case. Even then, the Rules encourage the consolidation of the civil and criminal cases. We have previously observed that a separate civil action for the purpose of recovering the amount of the dishonored checks would only prove to be costly, burdensome and time-consuming for both parties and would further delay the final disposition of the case. This multiplicity of suits must be avoided. Where petitioners' rights may be fully adjudicated in the proceedings before the trial court, resort to a separate action to recover civil liability is clearly unwarranted. In view of this special rule governing actions for violation of B.P. 22, Article 31 of the Civil Code cited by the trial court will not apply to the case at bar. 36 (Citations omitted)
Finally, the MeTC correctly dismissed the civil action for collection of sum of money anchored on the ground that petitioner's lone witness had no sufficient knowledge of the alleged loan transactions. Petitioner cannot solely rely on the promissory note which supported her complaint without adducing any rebuttal evidence to establish her claims that the loan has not yet been paid, and that the recovery of the same was not covered by the criminal cases she had filed against respondent for violation of B.P. 22.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the February 28, 2017 Decision and the August 25, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 135466.
SO ORDERED." Hernando, J., on wellness leave. Rosario, J., no part due to prior participation in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals; Kho, Jr., J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated July 6, 2022.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo (G.R. No. 234179), pp. 18-46.
2. Id. at 48-55; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
3. Id. at 47.
4. Id. at 56-60; penned by Judge Maryann E. Corpus-Mañalac.
5. Id. at 84-88; penned by Presiding Judge Josefino A. Subia.
6. Id. at 48-49.
7. Id. at 86-87.
8. Id. at 58-59.
9. Id. at 60.
10. Id. at 20.
11. Id. at 26.
12. Rules and Guidelines in the Filing and Prosecution of Criminal Cases under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 dated September 16, 1997.
13. Id. at 52-55.
14. Id. at 47.
15. Id. at 27.
16. Id. at 28-30.
17. Id. at 30-34.
18. Id. at 35.
19. Id. at 35-37.
20. Id. at 71-83.
21. Id. at 72.
22. Id. at 74-75.
23. Id. at 80.
24. Id. at 75.
25. Id. at 73-74.
26. Id. at 29.
27. Entitled "Josephine B. Zabarte, petitioner v. Franliza "Lizette" Belarmino, respondent."
28. Rollo (G.R. No. 242223), pp. 49-70; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla.
29. Id. at 86.
30. Id. at 67-68.
31. Id. at 69.
32. Id. at 90.
33. Id. at 50.
34. Rollo (G.R. No. 234179), p. 54.
35. 503 Phil. 411 (2005).
36. Id. at 417-418.