G.R. No. 166730. March 10, 2010.

SPOUSES FERNANDO TORRES and irma torres,

petitioners, vs. amparo medina and the EX-OFFICIO
SHERIFF of the RTC of Quezon City, respondents.

Remedial Law; Actions; Judgments; Res Judicata; Res

judicata literally means “a matter adjudged; a thing judicially
acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment.”—
Res judicata literally means “a matter adjudged; a thing judicially
acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment.” Res
judicata lays the rule that an existing final judgment or decree
rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, by a court
of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction,
is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all
other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of
concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the
first suit.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Elements of Res Judicata.—The
elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the
new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been
rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment
on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and
second action identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
action.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; One test of identity is the
“absence of inconsistency test” where it is determined whether the
judgment sought will be inconsistent with the prior judgment.—
This Court has previously employed various tests in determining
whether or not there is identity of causes of action as to warrant
the application of the principle of res judicata. One test of identity
is the “absence of inconsistency test” where it is determined
whether the judgment sought will be inconsistent with the prior
judgment. If no inconsistency is shown, the prior judgment shall
not constitute a bar to subsequent actions.

_______________
 * THIRD DIVISION.

101

VOL. 615, March 10, 2010 101

Torres vs. Medina

Same; Same; Same; Same; The doctrine of res judicata

actually embraces two different concepts: (1) bar by former
judgment and (2) conclusiveness of judgment.—It bears stressing
that the doctrine of res judicata actually embraces two different
concepts: (1) bar by former judgment and (b) conclusiveness of
judgment.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Conclusiveness of Judgment; In
order that a judgment in one action can be conclusive as to a
particular matter in another action between the same parties or
their privies, it is essential that the issue be identical.—It has been
held that in order that a judgment in one action can be conclusive
as to a particular matter in another action between the same
parties or their privies, it is essential that the issue be identical. If
a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and
the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular
point or question, a former judgment between the same parties or
their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that same
point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit.
Identity of cause of action is not required, but merely identity of
issues.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The filing of a Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 case is not the “collection suit” contemplated by law and
jurisprudence, which bars a mortgagee from later on electing to
foreclose the mortgaged property.—The argument of the Spouses
Torres is misplaced. The doctrine found in Bank of America, and
in related cases, finds no application to the case at bar, as the
filing of a B.P. Blg. 22 case is not the “collection suit”
contemplated by law and jurisprudence, which bars a mortgagee
from later on electing to foreclose the mortgaged property.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Teddy C. Macapagal for petitioners.
  Ongkiko, Kalaw, Manhit & Acorda Law Office for
respondents.

102
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Torres vs. Medina

PERALTA, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on certiorari,1
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside
the August 30, 2004 Decision2 and January 18, 2005
Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
75847.
The facts of the case:
On July 28, 1994, respondent Amparo Medina (Medina)
wrote a letter4 to the Office of the Sheriff, Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City, applying for the extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage of the property of petitioner
spouses Fernando and Irma Torres (Spouses Torres) which
was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-61056
(354973) and which is subject of a Deed of Mortgage5 dated
December 20, 1993.
On May 27, 1997, the Office of the Ex-Officio Sheriff
issued a Notice of Sheriff’s Sale6 and, on June 30, 1997,
sold at public auction the subject property to Medina being
the highest bidder thereof. A Certificate of Sale7 was
thereafter issued to Medina.
On September 21, 1999, the Spouses Torres filed a
Complaint8 before the RTC of Quezon City for the
declaration of nullity of the extrajudicial foreclosure of
mortgage conducted by the Ex-Officio Sheriff. The same
was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-99-38781.

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 8-25.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Lucenito N. Tagle, with Associate
Justices Eloy R. Bello, Jr. and Regalado E. Maambong, concurring; Rollo,
pp. 32-38.
3 Id., at pp. 40-41.
4 Records, pp. 32-34.
5 Id., at pp. 35-36.
6 Id., at p. 41.
7 Id., at p. 42.
8 Id., at pp. 3-7.

103

VOL. 615, March 10, 2010 103

Torres vs. Medina
 In their Complaint, the Spouses Torres raised the
following causes of action, to wit:

a) the December 20, 1993 Deed of Real Estate Mortgage does not
contain a period or term; hence, performance of the obligation has
not yet become due as there is a need for judicial determination of
the period or term;
b) the June 28, 1994 Statement of Account is not the loan
contemplated by law; therefore, it cannot serve as basis to
foreclose extrajudicially the mortgage;
c) the credit transaction is either void or unenforceable due to
breach of Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 3765, otherwise known
as “The Truth in Lending Act”;
d) Since appellee sued appellants for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22, there could arise a situation of double recovery of damages
which is proscribed by law. If the extrajudicial foreclosure will be
allowed and if appellants will be made to pay the amount of the
checks subject of the criminal suit under B.P. Blg. 22, it would
result in the unjust enrichment of appellee.9

On July 20, 2000, Medina filed a Motion to Dismiss10

raising the grounds of res judicata and forum shopping.
Medina argued that the Spouses Torres had filed an earlier
Complaint11 praying for the annulment of the real estate
mortgage involving the same property and which was
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-18962 before the RTC of
Quezon City, Branch 216. Medina contended that said
complaint was already dismissed as evidenced by the RTC’s
Decision12 dated March 7, 1997.
On December 27, 2001, the RTC issued an Order13
granting Medina’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The
RTC ruled

_______________

9 Rollo, p. 33.
10 Records, pp. 63-73.
11 Id., at pp. 74-80.
12 Id., at pp. 81-85.
13 Id., at pp. 172-176.

104

104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Torres vs. Medina

that res judicata was present and that the Spouses Torres
were guilty of forum shopping, to wit:
 “Thus, it is plain from the foregoing that the present action is
identical to the case filed by plaintiffs against the defendant
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 216,
hence, res judicata lies. The decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City, Branch 216, dated March 7, 1997, has become
final; the aforesaid court which rendered said decision had
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; the decision
was on the merits; and there is an identity of parties, subject
matter and causes of action between the present action and the
case before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 216.
The Court also notes that while the plaintiffs here
alleged separate causes of action in the instant complaint,
they are actually using the very same grounds they have
brought before Branch 216 of this Court to support their
claim to annul the foreclosure proceedings. The validity of
the real estate mortgage is again being assailed to ask for
the annulment of the foreclosure proceedings conducted
over the mortgaged property. It must be remembered that
the validity of the real estate mortgage has been sustained
by the decision in Civil Case No. 94-18962 which decision
has already attained finality. The test of identity of causes of
action lies not in the form of an action but on whether the same
evidence would support and establish the former and present
causes of action. Plaintiffs cannot avoid the application of res
judicata by simply varying the form of their action or by adopting
a different method in presenting it.”14

The Spouses Torres appealed to the CA, which, in

similar fashion, ruled that res judicata had already set in,
the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Order dated December 27, 2001 is hereby

AFFIRMED and the appeal is DISMISSED. Costs against
appellants.

_______________

14 Id., at pp. 175-176. (Emphasis supplied.)

105

VOL. 615, March 10, 2010 105

Torres vs. Medina

      SO ORDERED.”15

The Spouses Torres then filed a Motion for

Reconsideration16 dated August 30, 2004, which was,
however, denied by the CA in the Resolution17 dated
January 18, 2005.
Hence, herein petition, with the Spouses Torres raising
the following assignment of errors, to wit:

A. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT

IGNORED THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION IN CIVIL CASE NO.
Q-99-38781 AROSE MUCH LATER THAN THE CAUSE OF
ACTION IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-94-18962. HENCE, FORUM
SHOPPING AND RES JUDICATA DO NOT APPLY.
A-1. ASSUMING WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT RES
JUDICATA EXISTS IN THIS CASE, THE SAME WILL
NOT BE HONORED IF ITS APPLICATION WOULD
CONSTITUTE A SACRIFICE OF JUSTICE IN FAVOR OF
TECHNICALITY;
B. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT
FAILED TO RULE THAT THE CAUSES OF ACTION CANNOT
BE IDENTICAL IF THE CAUSE OF ACTION IN ONE AROSE
AFTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE OTHER;
C. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT
FAILED TO RULE THAT THE EXTRAJUDICIAL
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE INSTITUTED BY PRIVATE
RESPONDENT AMPARO MEDINA CONTRAVENES THE
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT
CODIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE,
AND WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE RECOVERY EVEN AS
THE B.P. BLG. 22 VIOLATIONS ARE STILL PENDING IN THE
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY;
D. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT
FAILED TO RULE THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT
AMPARO MEDINA HAS ELECTED HER REMEDY WHEN SHE
SUED PE-

_______________

15 Rollo, p. 38.
16 CA Rollo, pp. 110-121.
17 Id., at pp. 134-135.

106

106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Torres vs. Medina

TITIONER FERNANDO TORRES ON A B.P. BLG. 22

VIOLATION, AND ENGAGED THE SERVICES OF A PRIVATE
PROSECUTOR TO PROSECUTE THE SAME. THE FILING OF
THE B.P. BLG. 22 VIOLATION BARS AND EXCLUDES THE
REMEDY OF FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE.18
 The petition is not meritorious.
At the crux of the controversy is the determination of
whether or not res judicata bars the filing of Civil Case No.
Q-99-38781.
Civil Case No. Q-94-18962 vis-a-vis Civil Case No.
Q-99-38781
As borne from the records of the case, the Spouses
Torres first instituted Civil Case No. Q-94-18962 before the
RTC of Quezon City, Branch 216, which, among others,
prayed for the nullity of the real estate mortgage, dated
December 20, 1993.
On March 7, 1997, the RTC issued a Decision19
dismissing the complaint thereby upholding the validity of
the real estate mortgage, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. DISMISSING the plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of merit;
2. Ordering the plaintiffs, spouses Fernando Torres and Irma
Torres, to pay defendant Amparo Medina, the sum of FIFTY
THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS as and by way of attorney’s fees
and to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.”20

The Spouses Torres appealed said Decision to the CA.

_______________

18 Rollo, pp. 13-14.

19 Records, pp. 81-85.
20 Id., at p. 85.

107

VOL. 615, March 10, 2010 107

Torres vs. Medina

On February 18, 1998, the CA issued a Resolution21

dismissing the appeal, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

“WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the

appellants’ motion for extension of time to file appellants’ brief is
hereby DENIED for being filed out of time. The appeal is hereby
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.”22

The Spouses Torres then filed a Motion for

Reconsideration, which was, however, denied by the CA in
the Resolution23 dated August 6, 1998.
Aggrieved, the Spouses Torres then sought relief from
this Court.
On July 5, 1999, the Court’s First Division issued a
Resolution24 denying the petition of the Spouses Torres. On
August 16, 1999, the First Division issued another
Resolution25 denying the motion for reconsideration. On
September 7, 1999, an Entry of Judgment26 was rendered.
Res judicata literally means “a matter adjudged; a thing
judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled
by judgment.”27 Res judicata lays the rule that an existing
final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and
without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent
jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all
other actions or suits in the

_______________

21 Id., at pp. 99-100.

22 Id., at p. 100.
23 Id., at pp. 101-102.
24 Id., at pp. 103-106.
25 Id., at p. 107.
26 Id., at p. 108.
27 Manila Electric Company v. Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc.,
425 Phil. 65, 78; 374 SCRA 262, 272 [2002], citing 46 Am. Jur. § 514.

108

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Torres vs. Medina

same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent

jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first
suit.28
The elements of res judicata are:

(1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;
(2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
(3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and
(4) there must be as between the first and second action identity of
parties, subject matter, and causes of action.29

In their petition, the Spouses Torres do not dispute the

presence of the first three elements. They, however, dispute
the presence of the last element, specifically arguing that
the evidence necessary to establish the cause of action in
Civil Case No. Q-99-38781 is different from that of Civil
Case No. Q-94-18962. The Spouses Torres conclude that
the evidence is not identical so as to place the causes of
action within the prohibition based on res judicata.30
This Court is not persuaded.
To reiterate, in Civil Case No. Q-99-38781, the Spouses
Torres raised the following causes of action:

a) the December 20, 1993 Deed of Real Estate Mortgage does not
contain a period or term; hence, performance of the obligation has
not yet become due as there is a need for judicial determination of
the period or term;

_______________

28 Oropeza Marketing Corporation v. Allied Banking Corporation, 441

Phil. 551, 563; 393 SCRA 278, 285-286 (2002).
29  Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103412, February 3, 2000,
324 SCRA 560, 565, citing Casil v. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 264, 276
(1998).
30 Rollo, p. 16.

109

VOL. 615, March 10, 2010 109

Torres vs. Medina

b) the June 28, 1994 Statement of Account is not the loan

contemplated by law; therefore, it cannot serve as basis to
foreclose extrajudicially the mortgage;
c) the credit transaction is either void or unenforceable due to
breach of Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 3765, otherwise known
as “The Truth in Lending Act”;
d) Since appellee sued appellants for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22, there could arise a situation of double recovery of damages
which is proscribed by law. If the extrajudicial foreclosure will be
allowed and if appellants will be made to pay the amount of the
checks subject of the criminal suit under B.P. Blg. 22, it would
result in the unjust enrichment of appellee.31

This Court has previously employed various tests in

determining whether or not there is identity of causes of
action as to warrant the application of the principle of res
judicata. One test of identity is the “absence of
inconsistency test” where it is determined whether the
judgment sought will be inconsistent with the prior
judgment. If no inconsistency is shown, the prior judgment
shall not constitute a bar to subsequent actions.32
This Court finds that the first three causes of action
inevitably deal with the validity of the real estate
mortgage. Although the Spouses Torres do not admit it, the
conclusion is certain in that any affirmative relief that this
Court may grant on said causes of action would affect the
validity of the real estate mortgage; an issue which could
no longer be revived, as the same has been settled.
In Civil Case No. Q-94-18962, the Spouses Torres
already assailed the validity of the Real Estate Mortgage
dated December 20, 1993 as evidenced from the reliefs
sought for by them, to wit:

_______________

31 Id., at p. 33.
32 Tan v. Valdehueza, No. L-38745, August 6, 1975, 66 SCRA 61, 64.

110

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Torres vs. Medina

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court to render judgment as follows:
1. Declaring the x x x Deed of Real Estate Mortgage dated 20
December 1993 (Exhibit “E”) void;
2. Declaring that x x x all RCBC checks issued pursuant to
the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage dated 20 December 1993 as
likewise void;
3. Directing defendant Register of Deeds of Quezon City to
cancel the annotation of the real estate mortgage in TCT No. RT-
61056; x x x”33

In dismissing the Complaint, the RTC decision in Civil

Case No. 94-18962 was categorical in upholding the
validity of the instrument, to wit:

“The contention that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage dated

December 20, 1993 should also be annulled being the fruit of the
previous voidable contracts deserves scant consideration. The
same was found to have the essential elements of a valid contract
x x x.
xxxx
Corollarily, the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, dated December
20, 1993, being perfectly valid, defendant Amparo Medina has the
right to its registration in her favor. x x x”34
 It bears stressing that the doctrine of res judicata
actually embraces two different concepts: (1) bar by former
judgment and (b) conclusiveness of judgment.
The second concept—conclusiveness of judgment—states
that a fact or question which was in issue in a former suit
and was there judicially passed upon and determined by a
court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by
the judgment therein as far as the parties to that action
and persons in privity with them are concerned and cannot
be again litigated in any future action between such parties
or their privies, in

_______________

33 Records, p. 146.
34 Id., at pp. 84-85.

111

VOL. 615, March 10, 2010 111

Torres vs. Medina

the same court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction

on either the same or different cause of action, while the
judgment remains unreversed by proper authority. It has
been held that in order that a judgment in one action can
be conclusive as to a particular matter in another action
between the same parties or their privies, it is essential
that the issue be identical. If a particular point or question
is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will
depend on the determination of that particular point or
question, a former judgment between the same parties or
their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if
that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in
the first suit. Identity of cause of action is not required, but
merely identity of issues.35
Based on the foregoing, the validity of the real estate
mortgage can no longer be attacked, more so because the
decision in Civil Case No. Q-94-18962 has become final and
Entry of Judgment has already been entered in our books.
It therefore goes without saying that the foreclosure of
the mortgage is a right given to Medina as the same is
embodied in the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, to wit:

“x x x x
That it is further understood that if the MORTGAGOR shall
well and truly perform the obligation above contracted then this
Mortgage shall be null and void; otherwise, it shall remain in
full force and effect and may be foreclosed extrajudicially
under Act 3135 as amended.”36

Thus, this Court finds no error in the decisions of the

lower court and the appellate court declaring that there
exists, in fact, res judicata. As succinctly put in FELS
Energy, Inc. v.

_______________

35 Heirs of Clemencia Parasac v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No.

159910, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 498, 517-518.
36 Records, pp. 35-36. (Emphasis supplied.)

112

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Torres vs. Medina

Province of Batangas,37 res judicata, as a ground for

dismissal, is based on two grounds, namely:

“(1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest

of the State that there should be an end to litigation—republicae
ut sit litium; and (2) the hardship on the individual of being vexed
twice for the same cause—nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. A
conflicting doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to
the will and dereliction of individuals and prefer the regalement
of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the
preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.”38

Anent the fourth cause of action in Civil Case No. Q-99-

38781, this Court finds that the Spouses Torres had
already raised, in Civil Case No. 94-18962, the fact that
eleven (11) counts of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 22
violations are pending with Branch 36, Metropolitan Trial
Court (MeTC), Quezon City.39 Thus, the RTC is correct in
its observation that res judicata lies, as the Rizal
Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) checks referred
to in the complaint in Civil Case No. Q-99-38781 are the
very same documents subject of Civil Case No. Q-94-
18962.40
The foregoing findings notwithstanding, the Spouses
Torres contend that the election of Medina from sue them
for violation of B.P Blg. 22 bars Medina from the remedy of
foreclosure of mortgage. The Spouses Torres, citing Bank of
America NT & SA v. American Realty Corporation (Bank of
America),41 thus argue:
“x x x the remedies available to the mortgage creditor are deemed
alternative and not cumulative. Notably, an election of one
remedy operates as a waiver of the other. For this purpose, a
remedy is deemed chosen upon the fling of the suit for collection
or upon the

_______________

37 G.R. No. 168557, February 19, 2007, 516 SCRA 186.

38 Id., at p. 201.
39 Records, p. 144.
40 Id., at p. 175.
41 G.R. No. 133876, December 29, 1999, 321 SCRA 659.

113

VOL. 615, March 10, 2010 113

Torres vs. Medina

filing of the complaint in an action for foreclosure of mortgage,

pursuant to the provision of Rule 68 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. As to extrajudicial foreclosure, such remedy is deemed
elected by the mortgage creditor upon filing of the petition not
with any court of justice but with the Office of the Sheriff of the
province where the sale is to be made, in accordance with the
provisions of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118.”42

The argument of the Spouses Torres is misplaced. The

doctrine found in Bank of America, and in related cases,
finds no application to the case at bar, as the filing of a B.P.
Blg. 22 case is not the “collection suit” contemplated by law
and jurisprudence, which bars a mortgagee from later on
electing to foreclose the mortgaged property.
Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 provides:

“Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds.—Any person

who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or
for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment
of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the
bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of
not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or
by a fine of not less than but not more than double the
amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the court.”
 It bears stressing that in Que v. People,43 this Court
stated that the clear intention of the framers of B.P. Blg. 22
is to make the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum
prohibitum. In prosecutions for violation of B.P. Blg. 22
there-

_______________

42 Id., at pp. 668-669.

43 G.R. Nos. L-75217-18, September 21, 1987, 154 SCRA 160, 165.

114

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Torres vs. Medina

fore, prejudice or damage is not a pre-requisite for

conviction. In the later case of People v. Nitafan,44 this
Court ruled that the agreement surrounding the issuance
of the checks need not be first looked into since the law has
clearly provided that the mere issuance of any kind of
check, regardless of the intent of the parties, i.e., whether
the check is intended merely to serve as a guarantee or
deposit, but which check is subsequently dishonored,
makes the person who issued the check liable. The intent of
the law is to curb the proliferation of worthless checks as a
means of payment of obligations.
That B.P. Blg .22 is not the “collection suit”
contemplated by law can be seen by the fact that the law
seeks to punish the mere issuance of a “bum” check
notwithstanding the presence of damage or prejudice to the
offended party.
Lastly, the Spouses Torres also argue that the equitable
principle of unjust enrichment bars the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the mortgage, in the wise:

“If private respondent Amparo Medina were to be allowed the

extrajudicial foreclosure that she caused to be conducted, and
eventually owned the properties covered by TCT No. RT-61056
(354973) and at the same time is awarded the sum of Php
4,730,000.00 (including interest) in the eleven (11) counts of B.P.
Blg. 22 violations now pending at the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 36, then she would have recovered twice the
same loan transaction that took place in the first quarter of 1993.
Private respondent Amparo Medina will be twice richer.”45

Again, these arguments are misplaced. In Lazaro v.

Court of Appeals,46 notwithstanding petitioner Lazaro’s
claim that she had already paid her obligation, this Court
still found her liable for violation of B.P Blg. 22, thus:

_______________

44 G.R. No. 75954, October 22, 1992, 215 SCRA 79, 84.
45 Rollo, p. 20.
46 G.R. No. 105461, November 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 723.

115

VOL. 615, March 10, 2010 115

Torres vs. Medina

“That the obligation of Marlyn Lazaro to complainant Chua

has been extinguished by the conveyance by the former of her car
to Chua does not also justify the cancellation of the indemnity
awarded. It should be noted that BP 22 provides that a fine of not
less than but not more than double the amount of the dishonored
check may be imposed by the court. In the case of Esler vs.
Ledesma, this Court stated that a fine is a pecuniary punishment
imposed by a lawful tribunal upon a person convicted of a crime.
Clearly, the fine provided for in BP 22 was intended as an
additional penalty for the act of issuing a worthless check.
This is the only logical conclusion, since the law does not
require that there be damage or prejudice to the
individual complainant by reason of the issuance of the
worthless check.”47

There can be no double compensation as the indemnity

award is distinct from the underlying obligation of the
check. Thus, a person guilty of violating B.P Blg. 22 may be
subject to imprisonment or a fine at the discretion of the
court and the fact that the underlying obligation has been
paid is of no moment. There will be instances, of course,
that the court will also order the guilty party to pay the
face value of the check if the underlying obligation has not
yet been satisfied; however, the same will not apply to the
case at bar, as Medina has already been compensated for
the loan after foreclosing the mortgage. The Spouses Torres
will, therefore, only have to pay a fine or suffer
imprisonment if found guilty in their pending cases for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 subject to the rule of preference
embodied in Supreme Court Administrative Circular 12-
2000.48

_______________
 47 Id., at p. 727. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
48 As discussed in Jao Yu v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.134172,
September 20, 2004, 438 SCRA 431, 438-439: Thus, Administrative
Circular No. 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference in the application of
the penal provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such that where the circumstances of
both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear
mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone
should be considered as the more appropriate penalty. Needless to say, the
determination of

116

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Torres vs. Medina

The Spouses Torres argue that res judicata should not

apply if it will sacrifice justice to technicality.49 Indeed, as
cited by the Spouses Torres, this Court has on occasion
disregarded the application of res judicata, however, this
Court finds that the same consideration should not be
given in herein petition.
In the first place, the Spouses Torres only filed their
complaint in Civil Case No. Q-99-38781 after more than
two years had already lapsed from the time the ex-officio
sheriff sold the property in question at public auction. The
foreclosure proceeding was an action in rem, and therefore,
the Spouses Torres cannot feign knowledge thereof. More
importantly, the Spouses Torres were not completely left
without any remedy as they still had the right of
redemption, which expired one year from and after the date
of the registration of the Certificate of Sale. In the absence
of evidence to the contrary, this Court must assume that no
attempt to redeem the property was undertaken by the
Spouses Torres and that they simply allowed their right
and remedy to lapse by their inaction.
 In addition, the Spouses Torres have already lost their
right to question the validity of the real estate mortgage,
for most part due to the negligence of their counsel.50 More
importantly, the decision upholding the validity of the real
estate mortgage is already final; hence, the same can no
longer be questioned in another proceeding by simply
varying the form of the action, or adopting a different
method of presenting their case.51
 

_______________
 whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests
solely upon the Judge. Should the Judge decide that imprisonment is the
more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not
be deemed a hindrance.

49 Rollo, p. 16.
50 Refer to First Division Resolution dated July 5, 1999, Spouses
Fernando V. Torres and Irma Torres v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
134592.
51 Salido v. Court of Appeals, G.R No. 76671, May 17, 1989, 173 SCRA
429, 435, citing Penalosa v. Tuason, 22 Phil. 303, 311-313 (1911).

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.