Lessons Applicable: 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.
Laws Applicable:
FACTS:
- December 1996: Eduard Simon issued a check to Elvin Chan a Landbank Check dated December 26, 1996 worth P336,000.00
- December 26, 1996: It was dishonored due to account closed.
- After a formal demand, Simon filed for preliminary attachmen - MeTC in Pasay City issued a writ of preliminary attachment
- Simon filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia because there is already a charge of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 - granted by the MeTC
- Chan appealed to the CA - reversed and set aside the decision of the MeTC
HELD: YES. Reversa CA and reinstate MeTC
- 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. xxx
- Surely, it could not have been the intendment of the framers of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 to leave the offended private party defrauded and empty-handed by excluding the civil liability of the offender, giving her only the remedy, which in many cases results in a Pyrrhic victory, of having to file a separate civil suit. To do so may leave the offended party unable to recover even the face value of the check due her, thereby unjustly enriching the errant drawer at the expense of the payee. The protection which the law seeks to provide would, therefore, be brought to naught. However, there is no independent civil action to recover the value of a bouncing check issued in contravention of BP 22. Applying Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, effective December 1, 200 that 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
- DMPI Employees Credit Association v. Velez (different facts): issuance of a bouncing check may result in two separate and distinct crimes of estafa and violation of BP 22, the procedures for the recovery of the civil liabilities arising from these two distinct crimes are different and non-interchangeable
- In prosecutions of estafa, the offended party may opt to reserve his right to file a separate civil action, or may institute an independent action based on fraud pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code
- In prosecutions of violations of BP 22,
however, the Court has adopted a policy to prohibit the reservation or
institution of a separate civil action to claim the civil liability
arising from the issuance of the bouncing check
