Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 438 views

    DMPI Employees V Velez

    Uploaded by

    JeahMaureenDominguez
    This case involves a civil complaint filed by Villegas against Carmen Mandawe and DMPI-ECCI for failure to account for P608,532.46 entrusted to Mandawe. DMPI-ECCI sought dismissal arguing a related criminal case was pending and no forum shopping certification was attached. The court held that (1) failure to attach the forum shopping certification was not grounds for dismissal, as the requirement did not apply at the time. (2) The civil case for damages under Article 33 of the Civil Code could proceed independently from the criminal case for estafa, as there is no longer a need to reserve independent civil actions. Procedural laws can be applied retroactively

    Copyright:

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

    DMPI Employees V Velez

    Uploaded by

    JeahMaureenDominguez
    438 views2 pages
    This case involves a civil complaint filed by Villegas against Carmen Mandawe and DMPI-ECCI for failure to account for P608,532.46 entrusted to Mandawe. DMPI-ECCI sought dismissal arguing a related criminal case was pending and no forum shopping certification was attached. The court held that (1) failure to attach the forum shopping certification was not grounds for dismissal, as the requirement did not apply at the time. (2) The civil case for damages under Article 33 of the Civil Code could proceed independently from the criminal case for estafa, as there is no longer a need to reserve independent civil actions. Procedural laws can be applied retroactively

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    DMPI Employees v Velez

    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 complaint filed by Villegas against Carmen Mandawe and DMPI-ECCI for failure to account for P608,532.46 entrusted to Mandawe. DMPI-ECCI sought dismissal arguing a related criminal case was pending and no forum shopping certification was attached. The court held that (1) failure to attach the forum shopping certification was not grounds for dismissal, as the requirement did not apply at the time. (2) The civil case for damages under Article 33 of the Civil Code could proceed independently from the criminal case for estafa, as there is no longer a need to reserve independent civil actions. Procedural laws can be applied retroactively

    Copyright:

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

    DMPI Employees V Velez

    Uploaded by

    JeahMaureenDominguez
    This case involves a civil complaint filed by Villegas against Carmen Mandawe and DMPI-ECCI for failure to account for P608,532.46 entrusted to Mandawe. DMPI-ECCI sought dismissal arguing a related criminal case was pending and no forum shopping certification was attached. The court held that (1) failure to attach the forum shopping certification was not grounds for dismissal, as the requirement did not apply at the time. (2) The civil case for damages under Article 33 of the Civil Code could proceed independently from the criminal case for estafa, as there is no longer a need to reserve independent civil actions. Procedural laws can be applied retroactively

    Copyright:

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

    DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative, Inc. v Hon.

    Velez
    G.R. No. 129282
    November 29, 2001
    Independent Civil Action
    FACTS:
    A case for estafa was filed against Carmen Mandawe for alleged failure
    to account to priv respondent Villegas the amount of P608,532.46.
    Villegas entrusted this amount to Carmen Mandawe, an employee of
    petitioner DMPI-ECCI, for deposit with the teller of petitioner.
    Subsequently, Villegas filed with a complaint against Carmen Mandawe
    and petitioner DMPI-ECCI for a sum of money and damages with
    preliminary attachment arising out of the same transaction. In time,
    petitioner sought the dismissal of the civil case on the following
    grounds: (1) that there is a pending criminal case in RTC Branch 37,
    arising from the same facts, and (2) that the complaint failed to
    contain a certification against forum shopping.
    The trial court issued an order dismissing the civil case but after an MR
    by Villegas, the case was reinstated.
    ISSUE:
    (1) whether the plaintiffs failure to attach a certification against forum
    shopping in the complaint is a ground to dismiss the case? (NOT IMPT)
    (2) whether the civil case could proceed independently of the criminal
    case for estafa without having reserved the filing of the civil action?
    HELD AND RATIO:
    (1) NO. (NOT IMPT) Respondent Villegas failure to attach a certificate of
    non-forum shopping in her complaint did not violate Circular No. 28-91,
    because at the time of filing, the requirement applied only to petitions
    filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Likewise,
    Administrative Circular No. 04-94 is inapplicable for the reason that the
    complaint was filed on March 29, 1994, three days before April 1, 1994,
    the date of effectivity of the circular.
    (2) YES IT COULD. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also
    civilly liable. This is the law governing the recovery of civil liability
    arising from the commission of an offense. Civil liability includes
    restitution, reparation for damage caused, and indemnification of
    consequential damages.
    The offended party may prove the civil liability of an accused arising
    from the commission of the offense in the criminal case since the civil

    action is either deemed instituted with the criminal action or is


    separately instituted. However, with respect to civil actions for
    recovery of civil liability under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
    Code arising from the same act or omission, the rule has been
    changed.
    Under the present rule, only the civil liability arising from the offense
    charged is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
    offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it
    separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
    There is no more need for a reservation of the right to file the
    independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
    Code of the Philippines. The reservation and waiver referred to in the
    Rules of Court refer only to the civil action for the recovery of the civil
    liability arising from the offense charged. This does not include
    recovery of civil liability under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
    Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission which
    may be prosecuted separately even without a reservation. (See Rule
    111, Section 3)
    The changes in the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure pertaining to
    independent civil actions which became effective on December 1, 2000
    are applicable to this case. Procedural laws may be given retroactive
    effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their
    passage. There are no vested rights in the rules of procedure.
    Thus, the Civil Case, an independent civil action for damages
    on account of the fraud commited against respondent Villegas
    under Article 33 of the Civil Code, may proceed independently
    even if there was no reservation as to its filing.

    You might also like