ANTONIO M. GARCIA v. FERRO CHEMICALS, INC
SUMMARY: The respondent, Ferro Ferro Chemicals Inc, Inc, fled an appeal as to the civil aspect o the case to the Court o Appeals hile flin!, to!ether ith the Ma"ati Cit# $rosecutor%s &'ce, a petition or certiorari over the same case( The CA !ranted the appeal o the respondent hile the Supreme Court dismissed dismissed the petition or certiorari(
FACTS: )eore this court is a petition or revie on certiorari * assailin! the decision + o the Court o Appeals dated Au!ust **, +- and i ts. resolution/ dated April +0, +1, den#in! petitioner Antonio 2arcia3s motion or reconsideration(
Antonio 2arcia, as seller, and Ferro Ferro Chemicals, Inc(, throu!h Ramon 2arcia, as 4u# er, entered into a deed o a4solute. sale and purchase o shares o stoc" on 5ul# *-, *677( The deed as or the sale and purchase o shares o stoc" rom various corporations, includin! one class 8A8 share in Ala4an! Countr# Clu4, Inc( and one proprietar# mem4ership in the Manila $olo Clu4, Inc(9 These shares o stoc" ere in the name o Antonio 2arcia( - The contract as alle!edl# entered into to prevent these shares o stoc" rom 4ein! sold at pu4lic auction to pa# th e outstandin! o4li!ations o Antonio 2arcia( 1
&n March /, *676, a deed o r i!ht o repurchase over the same shares o stoc" su4ect o the deed o a4solute sale and purchase o shares o stoc" as entered into 4eteen Antonio 2arcia and Ferro Chemicals, Inc( Under the deed o ri!ht o repurchase, Antonio 2arcia can redeem the properties properties sold 0 ithin *7 da#s rom the si!nin! o the a!reement(
)eore the end o the *7;da# period, Antonio 2 arcia e
&n Septem4er 1, *676, the class 8A8 share in Al a4an! Countr# Clu4, Inc( and proprietar# mem4ership in the Manila $olo Clu4, Inc(, hich ere included in the contracts entered into 4eteen Antonio 2arcia and Ferro Chemicals, Inc(, ere sold at pu4lic auction to $hilippine Investment S#stem &r!ani>ation(**
&n Septem4er /, *66, the i normation 4ased on the complaint o Ferro Chemicals, Chemicals, Inc( as fled *+ a!ainst Antonio 2 arcia 4eore the Re!ional Trial Trial Court( =e as char!ed ith estaa under Article /*7 ?&ther @eceits o the Revised $enal Code or alle!edl# misrepresentin! to Ferro Ferro Chemicals, Inc( that the shares su4ect o the contracts entered into ere ree rom all liens and encum4rances(
ANTONIO M. GARCIA v. FERRO CHEMICALS, INC
In the decision dated @ecem4er *+, *661 o the Re!ional Trial Court, Antonio 2arcia as acBuitted or insu'cienc# o evidence( &n Au!ust +-, *660, Ferro Chemicals, Inc( appealed to the Court o Appeals the 5ul# +6, *660 order o the Re!ional Trial Court as to the civil aspect o the case( &n &cto4er *-, *660, the Ma"ati Cit# $rosecutor%s &'ce and Ferro Chemicals, Inc( also fled a petition or certiorari+ ith this court, assailin! the Re!ional Trial Court%s @ecem4er *+, *661 decision and 5ul# +6, *660 order acBuittin! Antonio 2arcia( The petition or certiorari++ fled 4eore this court sou!ht to annul the decision o the trial court acBuittin! Antonio 2arcia( $eople o the $hilippines and Ferro Chemicals, Inc( ar!ued that the trial court 8acted in !rave a4use o discretion amountin! to lac" or e
The verifcationcertifcation a!ainst orum shoppin!, si!ned 4# Ramon 2arcia as president o Ferro Chemicals, Inc(, disclosed that the notice o appeal as fled 8ith respect to the civil aspect o the case(8+9 In the resolution +- dated Dovem4er *1, *667, this court di smissed the petition or certiorari fled, and entr# o ud!ment as made on @ecem4er +9, *6 67(+1
&n the other hand, the Court o Appeals,+0 in its decision +7 dated Au!ust **, +-, !ran ted the appeal and aarded Ferro Chemicals, Inc( the amount o $*,,( as actual loss ith le!al i nterest and attorne#%s ees in the amount o $+,((+6 The appellate court ound that Antonio 2 arcia ailed to disclose the $hilippine Investment and Savin!s &r!ani>ation%s lien over the clu4 shares(/
SI@E ISSUE: &D RTC had urisdiction over the case( The Re!ional Trial Court did not have urisdiction to hear and decide the case( This lac" o urisdiction resulted in voidin! all o the tri al court%s proceedin!s and the ud!ment rendered(97 Althou!h the trial court%s lac" o urisdiction as never raised as an issue in an# part o the proceedin!s and even until it reached this court, e proceed ith resolvin! the matter(
MTC had urisdiction 4# virtue o the penalt# imposed or the crime o estaa( The trial court%s lac" o urisdiction cannot 4e cured 4# the parties% silence on the matter(-* The ailure o the parties to raise the matter o urisdiction also cannot 4e construed as a aiver o the parties( 5urisdiction is conerred 4# la and cannot 4e aived 4# the parties(
MAID ISSUE: hether the act o Ferro Chemicals, Inc( in flin! the notice o appeal 4eore the Court o Appeals and the petition or certiorari assailin! the same trial court decision amounted to orum shoppin!
ANTONIO M. GARCIA v. FERRO CHEMICALS, INC
=EG@: Yes( Forum shoppin! is defned as 8theact o a liti!ant ho Hrepetitivel# availed o several udicial remedies in dierent courts, simultaneousl# or successivel#, all su4stantiall# ounded on the same transactions and the same essential acts and circumstances, and all raisin! su4stantiall# the same issues either pendin! in, or alread# resolved adversel# 4# some other court ( ( ( to increase his chances o o4tainin! a avora4le decision i not in one court, then in another%(8 -+ &nce clearl# esta4lished that orum shoppin! as committed illull# and deli 4eratel# 4# a part# or his or her counsel, the case ma# 4e summaril# dismissed ith preudice, and the act shall constitute direct contempt and a cause or administrative sanctions(-/
The test and reBuisites that must concur to esta4lish hen a liti!ant commits orum shoppin! are the olloin!: The test or determinin! the e
There is no Buestion that Ferro Chemicals, Inc( committed orum shoppin! hen it fled an appeal 4eore the Court o Appeals and a petition or certiorari 4eore this court assailin! the same trial court decision( This is true even i Ferro Chemicals, Inc(%s notice o appeal to the Court o Appeals as entitled 8Dotice o Appeal E< 2ratia A4udanti a Ad Cautelam ?& The Civil Aspect o the Case(8-0 The 8civil aspect o the case8 reerred to 4# Ferro Chemicals, Inc( is or the recover# o civil l ia4ilit# e< delicto( =oever, it ailed to ma"e a reservation 4eore the trial court to institute the civi l action or the recover# o civil lia4ilit# e< delicto or institute a separate civil action prior to the flin! o the criminal case(
There is identit# o parties( $etitioner, Antonio 2arcia, and respondent, Ferro Chemicals, Inc(, are 4oth parties in the appeal fled 4eore the Court o Appeals and the petition or certiorari 4eore this court(
There is identit# o the ri!hts asserted and relies pra#ed or in 4oth actions( At a !lance, it ma# appear that Ferro Chemicals, Inc( asserted dierent ri!hts: The appeal 4eore the Court o Appeals is purel# on the civil aspect o the trial court%s decision hile the petition or certiorari 4eore this court is alle!edl#
ANTONIO M. GARCIA v. FERRO CHEMICALS, INC
onl# on the criminal aspect o the case( =oever, the civil lia4ilit# asserted 4# Ferro Chemicals, Inc( 4eore the Court o Appeals arose rom the criminal act( It is in the nature o civil lia4ilit# e< delicto( Ferro Chemicals, Inc( did not reserve the ri!ht to institute the civil action or the recover# o civil lia4ilit# e< delicto or institute a separate civi l action prior to the flin! o the criminal case(-7 Thus, it is an adunct o the criminal aspect o the case(*Kphi*
hen the trial court%s decision as appealed as to its criminal aspect in the petition or certiorari 4eore this court, the civil aspect thereo is deemed included in the appeal( Thus, the relie pra#ed or 4# Ferro Chemicals, Inc(, that is, recover# o civil li a4ilit# e< delicto, is asserted in 4oth actions 4eore this court and the Court o Appeals(
As to the third reBuisite, on the assumption that the trial court had urisdiction over the case, this court%s decision in 2(R( Do( */77 a'rmin! the trial court%s decision acBuittin! the accused or lac" o an essential element o the crime char!ed amounts to res udicata to assert the recover# o civil lia4ilit# arisin! rom the oense(
Giti!ants cannot avail themselves o to separate remedies or the same relie in the hope that in one orum, the relie pra#ed or ill 4e !ranted( This is the evil sou!ht to 4e averted 4# the doctrine o non; orum shoppin!, and this is the pro4lem that has happened in this case( This court denied the petition for certiorari led by Ferro Chemicals, Inc. resulting in nality of the trial court’s decision.1awp+ +i1 The decision found ntonio !arcia not guilty of the o"ense charged, and no ci#il liability was awarded to Ferro Chemicals, Inc. $owe#er, at present, there is a con%icting decision from the Court of ppeals awarding Ferro Chemicals, Inc. ci#il indemnity arising from the o"ense charged.
hen the civil action or the recover# o civil lia4ilit# e< delicto is instituted ith the criminal action, hether 4# choice o private complainant ?i(e(, no reservation is made or no prior flin! o a separate civil action or as reBuired 4# the la or rules, the case ill 4e prosecuted under the direction and control o the pu4lic prosecutor(1/ The civil action cannot proceed independentl# o the criminal case( This includes su4seBuent proceedin!s on the criminal action such as an appeal( In an# case, Ferro Chemicals, Inc( oined the pu4lic prosecutor in flin! the petition or certiorari 4eore this court( Ramon 2arcia, $resident o Ferro Chemicals, Inc(, si!ned the verifcation and certifcation o non;orum shoppin! o the petition or certiorari( 19
e must clari#, hoever, that private complainants in criminal cases are not precluded rom flin! a motion or reconsideration and su4seBuentl# an appeal on the civil aspect o a decision acBuittin! the accused( An e
ANTONIO M. GARCIA v. FERRO CHEMICALS, INC
LThe e
5urisprudence has enumerated three instances hen, notithstandin! the accused%s acBuittal, the oended part# ma# still claim civil lia4ilit# e< delicto: ?a i the acBuittal is 4ased on reasona4le dou4t as onl# preponderance o evidence is reBuiredJ ?4 i the court declared that the lia4ilit# o the accused is onl# civilJand ?c i the civil lia4ili t# o the accused does not arise rom or is not 4ased upon the crime o hich the accused is acBuitted(17
=oever, i the state pursues an appeal on the criminal aspect o a decision o the trial court acBuittin! the accused and private complainants ailed to reserve the ri!ht to institute a separate civil action, the civil lia4ilit# e< delicto that is inherentl# attached to the oense is li"eise appealed( The appeal o the civil lia4ilit# e< delicto is impliedl# instituted ith the petition or certiorari assailin! the acBuittal o the accused( $rivate complainant cannot an#more pursue a separate appeal rom that o the state ithout violatin! the doctrine o non; orum shoppin!( &n the other hand, the conclusion is dierent i private complainant reserved the ri!ht to institute the civil action or the recover# o civil lia4ilit# e< delicto 4eore the Re!ional Trial Court or institute a separate civil action prior to the flin! o the criminal case in accordance ith Rule *** o the Rules o Court( In these situations, the flin! o an app eal as to the civil aspect o the case cannot 4e considered as orum shoppin!(*Kphi* This is not the situation here(
