Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 324 views

    G R - No - 157547

    Uploaded by

    Noel Christopher G. Belleza
    This case involves a civil action filed by Elvin Chan against the late Eduardo Simon to recover the principal amount of P336,000 for an unfunded check. Simon argued the civil case should be dismissed due to litis pendentia, as there was already a pending criminal case against him in Manila for the same check. The Court of Appeals ruled that (1) the pending criminal case in Manila barred the civil case in Pasay City due to litis pendentia, as the cases involved the same parties, rights, and facts; and (2) there is no independent civil action to recover the value of a bouncing check issued under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, as the criminal action

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G R - No - 157547

    Uploaded by

    Noel Christopher G. Belleza
    324 views1 page
    This case involves a civil action filed by Elvin Chan against the late Eduardo Simon to recover the principal amount of P336,000 for an unfunded check. Simon argued the civil case should be dismissed due to litis pendentia, as there was already a pending criminal case against him in Manila for the same check. The Court of Appeals ruled that (1) the pending criminal case in Manila barred the civil case in Pasay City due to litis pendentia, as the cases involved the same parties, rights, and facts; and (2) there is no independent civil action to recover the value of a bouncing check issued under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, as the criminal action

    Original Description:

    sw

    Original Title

    G.R.-No.-157547

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a civil action filed by Elvin Chan against the late Eduardo Simon to recover the principal amount of P336,000 for an unfunded check. Simon argued the civil case should be dismissed due to litis pendentia, as there was already a pending criminal case against him in Manila for the same check. The Court of Appeals ruled that (1) the pending criminal case in Manila barred the civil case in Pasay City due to litis pendentia, as the cases involved the same parties, rights, and facts; and (2) there is no independent civil action to recover the value of a bouncing check issued under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, as the criminal action

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    324 views1 page

    G R - No - 157547

    Uploaded by

    Noel Christopher G. Belleza
    This case involves a civil action filed by Elvin Chan against the late Eduardo Simon to recover the principal amount of P336,000 for an unfunded check. Simon argued the civil case should be dismissed due to litis pendentia, as there was already a pending criminal case against him in Manila for the same check. The Court of Appeals ruled that (1) the pending criminal case in Manila barred the civil case in Pasay City due to litis pendentia, as the cases involved the same parties, rights, and facts; and (2) there is no independent civil action to recover the value of a bouncing check issued under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, as the criminal action

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    157547
    HEIRS OF EDUARDO SIMON, Petitioners,
    vs.
    ELVIN* CHAN AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

    Facts:

    On July 11, 1997, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC)
    an information charging the late Eduardo Simon (Simon) with a violation of BP 22, docketed as Criminal Case No.
    275381 entitled People v. Eduardo Simon.

    More than three years later, or on August 3, 2000, respondent Elvin Chan commenced in the MeTC in Pasay City a
    civil action for the collection of the principal amount of P336,000.00, coupled with an application for a writ of
    preliminary attachment (docketed as Civil Case No. 915-00).

    On August 9, 2000, the MeTC in Pasay City issued a writ of preliminary attachment, which was implemented
    on August 17, 2000 through the sheriff attaching a Nissan vehicle of Simon.

    On August 17, 2000, Simon filed an urgent motion to dismiss with application to charge plaintiffs attachment bond
    for damages, on the ground of litis pendentia of the criminal case.

    Issues:

    1. Whether or not the pendency of the civil action in the MeTC in Manila (as the civil aspect in Criminal Case
    No. 275381) bar the filing of Civil Case No. 915-00 in the MeTC in PasayCity on the ground of litis
    pendentia
    2. Whether or not Chan institute a civil action to recover the amount of the unfunded check (Civil Case No.
    915-00)

    Ruling:

    1. Yes. For litis pendentia to be successfully invoked as a bar to an action, the concurrence of the following
    requisites is necessary, namely: (a) there must be identity of parties or at least such as represent the same
    interest in both actions; (b) there must be identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs
    being founded on the same facts; and, (c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment
    that may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in
    respect of the other. Absent the first two requisites, the possibility of the existence of the third becomes
    nil.
    2. There is no independent civil action to recover the value of a bouncing check issued in contravention of
    BP 22. This is clear from Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, effective December 1, 2000, which relevantly
    provides: “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.”

    You might also like