More than three years later or on August 3 2000 Chan commenced in the MeTC in

More than three years later or on august 3 2000 chan

This preview shows page 6 - 7 out of 8 pages.

More than three years later, or on August 3, 2000, Chan commenced in the MeTC in Pasay City a Civil Action for the collection of the principal amount of P 336,000.00, coupled with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment. The MeTC in Pasay City issued a writ of preliminary attachment, which was implemented through the sheriff attaching a Nissan vehicle of Simon. Simon filed an urgent Motion to Dismiss with application to charge plaintiff’s attachment bond for damages, averring the on the ground of litis pendentia, that is, as a consequence of the pendency of another action between the same instant parties for the same cause, the instant case is dismissable. Chan countered the argument of Simon by pointing out that he did not make any allegation as to the exact amount of his claim in the criminal case, constituting an implied right to initiate civil action. Chan also cited Rule 111 Section 3 of the Rules of Court pertaining to instances when civil action may proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence further citing that the instant case falls under Art 33 of the Civil Code. The MeTC in Pasay City granted Simon’s urgent Motion to Dismiss with application to charge plaintiff’s attachment bond for damages, dismissing the complaint of Chan. Subsequently, Chan’s motion for reconsideration was denied by Pasay City MeTC as well as his appeal with the RTC. However, the Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the RTC and Chan’s Appeal was granted. CA further denied Simon’s motion for reconsideration ISSUE: Is there an independent civil action to recover the civil liability arising from the issuance of an unfunded check prohibited and punished under Batasang Pambansa 22 (BP22)? RULING: 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 as amended December 1, 2000. As clearly provided in Section 1 (b) of the aforesaid rule, 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. The afore quoted provisions of the Rules of Court, even if not yet in effect when Chan commenced his Civil Case against Simon, are nonetheless applicable as it is a procedural law and as a general rule, no vested right may attach to or arise from procedural laws. Thus, any new rule may validly be made to apply to cases pending at the time of their promulgation, considering that no party to an action has a vested right in the rules of procedure. Moreover, the application of the rule would not be precluded by the violation of any assumed vested right because the new rule was adopted from Supreme Court Circular 57-59 that took effect on November 1, 1997 which also provides that the criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 8 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • Dimphna Dulay
  • Supreme Court of the United States, annulment

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture