Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 179 views

    Rodriguez V Ponferrada

    Uploaded by

    Ton Rivera
    The victim filed cases against the accused for violation of BP 22 and estafa. The court ruled that the doctrine of election of remedies did not apply because BP 22 and estafa are distinct offenses with different elements, so civil actions under each are not inconsistent. While a separate civil action is not allowed for BP 22, civil actions are not barred for different offenses arising from the same facts. Therefore, the civil actions for both BP 22 and estafa could proceed.

    Copyright:

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

    Rodriguez V Ponferrada

    Uploaded by

    Ton Rivera
    179 views2 pages
    The victim filed cases against the accused for violation of BP 22 and estafa. The court ruled that the doctrine of election of remedies did not apply because BP 22 and estafa are distinct offenses with different elements, so civil actions under each are not inconsistent. While a separate civil action is not allowed for BP 22, civil actions are not barred for different offenses arising from the same facts. Therefore, the civil actions for both BP 22 and estafa could proceed.

    Original Description:

    v

    Original Title

    Rodriguez v Ponferrada

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The victim filed cases against the accused for violation of BP 22 and estafa. The court ruled that the doctrine of election of remedies did not apply because BP 22 and estafa are distinct offenses with different elements, so civil actions under each are not inconsistent. While a separate civil action is not allowed for BP 22, civil actions are not barred for different offenses arising from the same facts. Therefore, the civil actions for both BP 22 and estafa could proceed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    179 views2 pages

    Rodriguez V Ponferrada

    Uploaded by

    Ton Rivera
    The victim filed cases against the accused for violation of BP 22 and estafa. The court ruled that the doctrine of election of remedies did not apply because BP 22 and estafa are distinct offenses with different elements, so civil actions under each are not inconsistent. While a separate civil action is not allowed for BP 22, civil actions are not barred for different offenses arising from the same facts. Therefore, the civil actions for both BP 22 and estafa could proceed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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

    You might also like