CANCIO vs.

ISIP
G.R. No. 133978 November 12, 2002

Facts:
The accused, EmerenciaIsip, was charged with 3 counts of violation of B.P. 22, also known
as the Bouncing Checks Law and 3 cases of Estafa. One of the B.P. 22 cases was dismissed due to it
being deposited before 90 days from the date written on the check. The other two cases of B.P. 22
were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga and were then dismissed due to the
failure of the prosecution to prosecute the crime.

Meanwhile the three cases of Estafa were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga.
After failing to present its second witness, the prosecution dismissed the Estafa case. The
prosecution reserved its right to file a separate civil action from the said criminal cases. The court
granted the reservation. The criminal case of Estafa was then dismissed without prejudice to the
civil action. On December 15, 1997, petitioner filed the instant case for the collection of the sum of
money, seeking to recover the amount of the check subject to the Estafa cases. Respondent then
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint contending that the petition is already barred by the
doctrine of Res Judicata.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents can file a separate civil action regardless of the dismissal of
the criminal case of estafa.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the civil action can prosper. The reservation for civil action
was made by the prosecution on time. According to Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure states that civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal case unless there is a
reservation of the right to file a separate civil action.

In the case at bar, the complaint is clearly based on culpa contractual. The cause of action
was the breach of the respondents breach of the contractual obligation. Evidently, the petitioner
was seeking to make good the value written on the checks in exchange for cash. The case was not
anchored the criminal aspect of estafa but on the civil aspect of culpa contractual. As such, it is
distinct and independent from the estafa case filed against the offender and may proceed regardless
of the result of the criminal proceedings.