The Civil Aspect

155531-34 – Rodriguez v Ponferrada

Panganiban J

Victim filed cases against accused for violation of BP 22 and estafa. ROC does not allow a reservation for separate civil
action for BP 22, thus all civil actions are deemed instituted upon filing of criminal complaint. Accused opposes the
reservation for civil action on the estafa case on the theory that doctrine of election of remedies should apply. Court ruled
that election of remedies applies only when the actions are inconsistent with each other, which makes the election of one
a bar to the other, based on the principle of estoppel where a party to an action is not allowed to take inconsistent
positions. The court held that there was no inconsistency to speak of since BP 22 and estafa are different institutions and
are non-identical offenses.

DOCTRINE
Election of remedies reqts:
-Multiplicity of remedies in one action
-Identity of facts where remedies/positions are hinged
-Such positions are inconsistent with each other
-Final judgment on the merits
-Election of one is a bar to the other

BP 22 and Estafa are distinct crimes. Offenses under each of them are distinct. A civil action on one does not bar civil
action on another. No double collection in this case.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Mary Ann Rodriguez – Charged with estafa and violation of BP 22 for issuing a bouncing check
Nocom – Victim
Judge Thelma Ponferrada – RTC Judge
FACTS
1. Mary Ann Rodriguez, accused, was charged separately with Estafa w/ the RTC and violation of BP 22 with the MTC
2. The victim, in both cases, filed for Formal Entry of Appearance for her private prosecutor.
3. The accused through counsel opposed this Formal Entry of Appearance in the RTC (estafa case) based on the theory
that the attached civil liability arising from the issuance of dishonored checks in the estafa case was the same subject
matter of the BP 22 case.
4. The RTC granted the Formal Entry of Appearance anyway, allowing victim’s private prosecutor to intervene in the
estafa case. The accused filed for Motion for reconsideration but was denied.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. Is the civil action under BP 22 a bar on the civil action for Estafa?
Court: No.
What the accused was actually trying to do was raise the doctrine of election of remedies which in essence
contemplates an event where a party to an action has two (or more) coexisting remedial rights arising from the same
facts. Such rights preclude one another only when they are inconsistent with each other. This is an application of the
principle of estoppel upon a theory that a party cannot, in the assertion of its right, occupy inconsistent positions which
form the basis of remedies.
Electing one remedy is a bar to another. Such election is done ordinarily only upon the court’s decision on the merits
or when detriment to one of the parties supervenes.

In the present case, the time was not yet ripe for election of remedies assuming that there should be, since election
of remedies only happen upon judgment on the merits.

As for the tenability of the election of remedies argument, the institution of civil action under the estafa cases and the
inclusion of civil action under the bp 22 cases aren’t inconsistent with each other. The code does not state that the
civil action for bp 22 precludes civil action for estafa cases. They are distinct crimes. The offenses are not identical so
legal jeopardy in one does not bar legal jeopardy in the other.

The reason why filing a separate civil action for BP 22 is not allowed is to prevent creditors from utilizing courts of law
as collectors through litigation. Such practice, if continued, would severely clog the courts hence it had to be stopped.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
1
RTC decision upheld. Both civil actions will prosper.
OTHER NOTES
The crux of the theory of the accused hinges on the interpretation of provisions of rules 110 and 11 of ROC.
SECTION 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. -- Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action
pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.

SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. -- (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 therefor shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such 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.

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 the 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.
What the accused basically argued was that since the civil action for BP 22 vis a vis the issuance of dishonoured checks was deemed
instituted already since no separate civil action for it was allowed, it being filed first before the rtc case for estafa, the civil action for estafa
should be deemed barred already by it (civil action for bp 22).

DIGESTER: SD