Which "civil case" is deemed instituted with the criminal case for violation of BP 22?
In the recent case of Gosiaco vs. Ching (G.R. No. 173807, 16 April 2009), the Supreme Court (SC) had the opportunity to reconcile the seemingly conflicting rules on:
1. automatic inclusion of the civil aspect of BP 22 in the criminal action for violation thereof [Sec. 1(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court]; and
2. non-inclusion of corporations in criminal cases.
In the Gosiaco case, Petitioner Jaime U. Gosiaco (Gosiaco) loaned money to ASB Holdings, Inc. (ASB) in the amount of P8M for a period of 48 days with interest at 10.5%. In exchange, ASB, through its Business Development Operation Group Manager, Respondent Leticia Ching (Ching), signed and issued 2 checks in favor of Gosiaco.
Said checks were dishonored and despite demand, Gosiaco was not paid the amount equivalent to the value thereof. Hence, he filed a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against Ching and Edwin Casta (Casta) before the MTC.
Ching was arraigned but Casta remained at large. Ching denied liability and claimed that she was a mere employee of ASB. She asserted that she did not have knowledge as to how much money ASB had in the banks. Such responsibility, she claimed, belonged to another department.
Citing Sec. 1(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, Gosiaco then moved that ASB and its President, Luke Roxas (Roxas), be impleaded as party defendants but it was denied by the MTC as the case had already been submitted for final decision. The MTC acquitted Ching of criminal liability but it did not absolve her from civil liability. The MTC ruled that Ching, as a corporate officer of ASB, was civilly liable since she was a signatory to the checks.
On appeal, the RTC exonerated Ching from civil liability and ruled that the subject obligation fell squarely on ASB. The RTC likewise affirmed the MTC’s ruling which denied the motion to implead ASB and Roxas for lack of jurisdiction over their persons.
Gosiaco elevated the case to the CA on the grounds that the RTC erred in absolving Ching from civil liability; in upholding the refusal of the MTC to implead ASB and Roxas; and in refusing to pierce the corporate veil of ASB and hold Roxas liable. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC and stated that the amount Gosiaco sought to recover was a loan made to ASB and not to Ching. It further ruled that ASB cannot be impleaded in a BP 22 case since it is not a natural person and in the case of Roxas, he was not the subject of a preliminary investigation. Lastly, the CA held that there was no need to pierce the corporate veil of ASB since none of the requisites were present.
When the case was brought to the SC, the High Court ruled that ASB, or any other corporation for that matter, cannot be impleaded in the BP 22 case even if Sec. 1(b), Rule 11 of the Rules of Court require the joint trial of both the criminal and civil liability. Nowhere in BP 22 is it provided that a corporation may be impleaded as an accused or defendant in the prosecution for violations of that law, even in the litigation of the civil aspect thereof.
However, this does not mean that an aggrieved party has no recourse against the debtor-corporation. Technically, nothing in Sec. 1(b), Rule 11 of the Rules of Court prohibits the filing of a separate civil action against the corporation on whose behalf the check was issued. What the rules prohibit is the reservation of a separate civil action against the natural person charged with violating BP 22, including such corporate officer who had signed the bounced check.
The implied institution of the civil case into the criminal case for BP 22 should not affect the civil liability of the corporation for the same check, since such implied institution concerns the civil liability of the signatory, and not of the corporation. The civil liability attaching to the signatory arises from the wrongful act of signing the check despite the insufficiency of funds in the account, while the civil liability attaching to the corporation is itself the very obligation covered by the check or the consideration for its execution. Yet these civil liabilities are mistaken to be indistinct. Thus, the SC clarified that under Sec. 1(b), Rule 11 of the Rules of Court, the civil action that is impliedly instituted in the BP 22 action is only the civil liability of the signatory and not the civil liability of the corporation which can be the subject of another civil case.
There is, however, the possibility that the aggrieved party might be able to collect twice on the basis of the same checks if he wins in both the BP 22 case and the separate civil action against the corporation. The SC declared that the same should not be permitted because that will amount to unjust enrichment. Consequently, the matter was already referred to the Committee on Rules for the formulation of proper guidelines to prevent that possibility.
As regards the payment of filing fees, the SC intimated that an aggrieved party who deliberately pursued two (2) separate cases, even if the recovery of the amounts of the checks against the corporation could evidently be pursued through the civil action alone, should be made to pay the corresponding filing fees in both the BP 22 case and the civil action against the corporation.
In fine, when a person files a BP 22 case, what is deemed impliedly instituted in the said criminal case is the civil case against the signatory of the check/corporate officer. The civil case against the debtor-corporation can be filed simultaneously with and proceed independently of the BP 22 case. Nevertheless, double compensation is not allowed and separate filing fees for the BP 22 case and the civil case against the corporation should be paid. (Atty. Archivald de Mata) [N.B. SEDALAW represented the accused in this case. The SEC has an existing suspension order against any claim from ASB; thus, any civil action is suspended even during the pendency of this case.]
