Garcia v. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

 Garcia v. Ferro Chemicals, Inc., 

G.R. No. 172505, 

October 1, 2014

DOCTRINE:

Private complainants in criminal cases are not precluded from filing a motion for

reconsideration and subsequently an appeal on the civil aspect of a decision acquitting

the accused. An exception to the rule that only the Solicitor General can bring actions in

criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court is "when the

private offended party questions the civil aspect of a decision of a lower court."

The extinction of the penal action does not necessarily carry with it the extinction of the

civil action, whether the latter is instituted with or separately from the criminal action.

However, if the state pursues an appeal on the criminal aspect of a decision of the trial

court acquitting the accused and private complainant/s failed to reserve the right to

institute a separate civil action, the civil liability ex delicto that is inherently attached to

the offense is likewise appealed. Private complainant cannot anymore pursue a

separate appeal from that of the state without violating the doctrine of non-forum

shopping.

FACTS: On July 15, 1988, Antonio Garcia, (Garcia) as seller, and Ferro Chemicals,

Inc., (FCI) through Ramon Garcia, as buyer, entered into a deed of absolute sale and

purchase of shares of stock.

In 1989, the class "A" shares in Alabang Country Club, Inc. and proprietary membership

in the Manila Polo Club, Inc. which are covered in the deed of absolute sale and

purchase of stock, were sold at public auction to Philippine Investment System

Organization (PISO).

An information based on the complaint of FCI was filed against Garcia before the

Regional Trial Court (RTC), charging him with estafa, for allegedly misrepresenting to

FCI that the shares subject of the contracts was free from all liens and encumbrances.

The RTC acquitted Garcia for insufficiency of evidence. It held that the element of false

pretense, fraudulent act or means which constitute the very cause or the only motive

which induced the private complainant to enter into the questioned deed of sale is

wanting.

On August 1997, FCI appealed to the Court of Appeals as to the civil aspect of the

case. The notice of appeal filed was entitled "Notice of Appeal Ex Gratia Abudantia Ad

Cautelam (Of The Civil Aspect of the Case)."

On October 1997, the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office and FCI also filed a petition for

certiorari assailing the RTC’s decision and order acquitting Antonio Garcia. They argued

that the trial court "acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

jurisdiction when it rendered the judgment of acquittal based on affidavits not at all

introduced in evidence by either of the parties thereby depriving the people of their

substantive right to due process of law." The verification/certification against forum

shopping, signed by Ramon Garcia as president of FCI, disclosed that the notice of

appeal was filed "with respect to the civil aspect of the case." The court dismissed the

petition for certiorari filed and entry of judgment was made.

However, the Court of Appeals, granted the appeal. The CA found that Garcia failed to

disclose the PISO’s lien over the club shares. Thus, Garcia filed a petition for review on

certiorari assailing the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE: Whether the act of Ferro Chemicals, Inc. in filing the notice of appeal before the

Court of Appeals and the petition for certiorari assailing the same trial court decision

amounted to forum shopping.

HELD: Yes, FCI committed forum shopping. All of the elements for forum shopping are

present. There is identity as to the parties. The FCI also filed an appeal before the Court

of Appeals and a petition for certiorari before this court assailing the same trial court

decision. Even if its notice of appeal to the CA was entitled "Notice of Appeal Ex Gratia

Abudantia Ad Cautelam (Of the Civil Aspect of the Case), there is identity of the rights

asserted and reliefs prayed for in both actions. The civil liability asserted by FCI before

the Court of Appeals arose from the criminal act. It is in the nature of civil liability ex

delicto. However, FCI did not reserve the right to institute the civil action for the recovery

of civil liability ex delicto or institute a separate civil action prior to the filing of the

criminal case. Thus, it is an adjunct of the criminal aspect of the case.

When the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto is instituted with the

criminal action, whether by choice of private complainant or as required by the law, the

case will be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. The

civil action cannot proceed independently of the criminal case. This includes

subsequent proceedings on the criminal action such as an appeal. FCI joined the public

prosecutor in filing the petition for certiorari before this court.

However, private complainants in criminal cases are not precluded from filing a motion

for reconsideration and subsequently an appeal on the civil aspect of a decision

acquitting the accused. An exception to the rule that only the Solicitor General can bring

actions in criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeals or this court is "when the

private offended party questions the civil aspect of a decision of a lower court.”

In a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of the private

complainant or the offended party is limited to the civil liability arising there from. Hence,

if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, a

reconsideration of the order of dismissal or acquittal may be undertaken, whenever

legally feasible, insofar as the criminal aspect thereof is concerned and may be made

only by the public prosecutor; or in the case of an appeal, by the State only, through the

OSG. The private complainant or offended party may not undertake such motion for

reconsideration or appeal on the criminal aspect of the case. However, the offended

party or private complainant may file a motion for reconsideration of such dismissal or

acquittal or appeal therefrom but only insofar as the civil aspect thereof is concerned. In

so doing, the private complainant or offended party need not secure the conformity of

the public prosecutor. If the court denies his motion for reconsideration, the private

complainant or offended party may appeal or file a petition for certiorari or mandamus, if

grave abuse amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction is shown and the aggrieved

party has no right of appeal or given an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

This is in consonance with the doctrine that:

The extinction of the penal action does not necessarily carry with it the extinction of the

civil action, whether the latter is instituted with or separately from the criminal action.

The offended party may still claim civil liability ex delicto if there is a finding in the final

judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the liability may arise

exists. Jurisprudence has enumerated three instances when, notwithstanding the

accused’s acquittal, the offended party may still claim civil liability ex delicto: 

(a) if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required;

(b) if the court declared that the liability of the accused is only civil; and 

(c) if the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the

accused is acquitted.

However, if the state pursues an appeal on the criminal aspect of a decision of the trial

court acquitting the accused and private complainant/s failed to reserve the right to

institute a separate civil action, the civil liability ex delicto that is inherently attached to

the offense is likewise appealed. The appeal of the civil liability ex delicto is impliedly

instituted with the petition for certiorari assailing the acquittal of the accused. Private

complainant cannot anymore pursue a separate appeal from that of the state without

violating the doctrine of non-forum shopping.

On the other hand, the conclusion is different if private complainant reserved the right to

institute the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto before the Regional

Trial Court or institute a separate civil action prior to the filing of the criminal case in

accordance with Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. In these situations, the filing of an

appeal as to the civil aspect of the case cannot be considered as forum shopping. This

is not the situation here.