BUN TIONG VS BALBOA

Facts:

Vicente Balboa filed two (2) cases against Sps. Benito Lo Bun
Tiong and Caroline Siok Ching Teng:

(1) FEB 24 1997 DONATO VS LUNA

A CIVIL CASE for sum of money based on the three (3)
post-dated checks issued by Caroline in the total amount of
P5,175,250.00. The Regional Trial Court found the spouses liable Facts:
and ordered them to pay the amount.
January 23, 1979
(2) JULY 21, 1997 (After 5 mos) Fiscal of manila thru complaint of Paz Abaya filed an
A CRIMINAL CASE for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. information of Bigamy against Leonilo Donato.
22 against Caroline covering the said three checks. The
Municipal Trial Court acquitted Caroline but held her civilly liable.
On appeal, the RTC modified the MTC Decision by deleting the After 8 mos (September 28, 1989)
award of civil damages. Paz filed a civil action for declaration of nullity of her
marriage against Donato before the latter's
The spouses now comes to court charging Balboa with forum- arraignment.
shopping. Donato answered: Marriage is void for lack of
marriage license and consent of his to marry was
Issue: obtained by Paz thru force, violence, intimidation and
undue influence.
Whether or not the Balboa's act of filing civil and criminal cases
constitute forum-shopping. Donato filed a motion to suspend Bigamy as civil case for
annullment of marriage raises Prejudicial Question which must
Held: be decided first before the Bigamy case can proceed.
There is no forum shopping.
Judge Luna: Denied motion
Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or Basis is ruling in Landicho vs Ejercito
proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the supposition
that one or the other court would render a favorable disposition. Donato: filed otion for Reconsideration thru counsel
It is usually resorted to by a party against whom an adverse Basis: De La Cruz vs Ejercito ( A much later decided
judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt case)
to seek and possibly to get a favorable opinion in another forum,
other than by an appeal or a special civil action for certiorari.
Judge Luna: Denied motion again for lack of merit.
There is forum shopping when the following elements concur:

(1) Identity of the parties or, at least, of the parties who

represent the same interest in both actions;
(2) Identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as
the latter is founded on the same set of facts; and
(3) Identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any
judgment rendered in the other action will amount to
res judicata in the action under consideration or will
constitute litis pendentia.
Issue:
WON a criminal case for bigamy pending before RTC of Manila
should be suspended in view of a civil case of annullment of
marriage pending before a Family Court on the ground that the
latter raises Prejudicial Question.

In Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix

Corp., the Court ruled that there is identity of parties and causes Held:
of action between a civil case for the recovery of sum of money
as a result of the issuance of bouncing checks, and a criminal
case for the prosecution of a B.P. No. 22 violation. Thus, it There is no Prejudicial Question in the instant case.
ordered the dismissal of the civil action so as to prevent double
payment of the claim. The mere fact that there are actions to annul the marriages
entered into by the accused in a bigamy case does not mean
In the said case, the Court applied Supreme Court Circular No. that "prejudicial questions" are automatically raised in civil
57-97 effective September 16, 1997, which provides that "the actions as to warrant the suspension of the case.
criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be
deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action, In order that the case of annulment of marriage be considered a
and no reservation to file such action separately shall be allowed prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused, it
or recognized." must be shown that the petitioner's consent to such marriage
must be the one that was obtained by means of duress, force
This was later adopted as Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules and intimidation to show that his act in the second marriage
of Criminal Procedure, to wit: (b) The criminal action for violation must be involuntary and cannot be the basis of his conviction for
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the the crime of bigamy.
corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed. However, Petitioner Donato raised the argument that the
second marriage should have been declared null and void on the
The foregoing, however, is not applicable as the civil and ground of force, threats and intimidation allegedly employed
criminal case were filed on February 24, 1997 and on July 21, against him by private respondent only sometime later when he
1997, respectively, prior to the adoption of Supreme Court was required to answer the civil action for anulment of the
Circular No. 57-97 on September 16, 1997. At the time of filing second marriage. Donato has not even sufficiently shown that
of the cases, the governing rule is Section 1, Rule 111 of the his consent to the second marriage has been obtained by the
1985 Rules of Court, to wit: use of threats, force and intimidation.

SEC. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a It was also Paz B. Abayan, petitioner's second wife, who filed a
criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of complaint for annulment of the second marriage on the ground
civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, that her consent was obtained through deceit since she was not
unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his aware that petitioner's marriage was still subsisting
right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior
to the criminal action. The records reveal that prior to petitioner's second marriage on
September 26, 1978, he had been living with private respondent
Since Balboa instituted the civil action prior to the criminal Paz B. Abayan as husband and wife for more than five years
action, then the civil case may proceed independently of the without the benefit of marriage. Thus, petitioner's averments
criminal cases and there is no forum shopping to speak of. that his consent was obtained by private respondent through
force, violence, intimidation and undue influence in entering a
Even under the amended rules, a separate proceeding for the subsequent marriage is belled by the fact that both petitioner
recovery of civil liability in cases of violations of B.P. No. 22 is and private respondent executed an affidavit which stated that
allowed when the civil case is filed ahead of the criminal case. they had lived together as husband and wife without benefit of
Even then, the Rules encourage the consolidation of the civil and marriage for five years, one month and one day until their
criminal cases. marital union was formally ratified by the second marriage and
that it was private respondent who eventually filed the civil
action for nullity. UMALI vs IAC

Another event which militates against petitioner's contentions is

the fact hat it was only when Civil Case No. E-02627 was filed on Facts:
September 28, 1979, or more than the lapse of one year from
the solemnization of the second marriage that petitioner came
up with the story that his consent to the marriage was secured
through the use of force, violence, intimidation and undue
influence. Petitioner also continued to live with private
respondent until November 1978, when the latter left their
abode upon learning that Leonilo Donato was already previously
married.
BOBIS vs BOBIS
Facts:
Isagani Bobis married Imelda Marabella-Bobis in Jan 25,
1996 without first terminating his first marriage 11
years ago with with Dulce Javier. A third marriage was
said to take place too after marriage with Imelda.
Hence, an information charging Isagani Bobis of Bigamy
was filed in RTC Quezon City.
Isagani Bobis then filed a civil action of Judicial
declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage to
Dulce Javier on the ground that it was celebrated
without license.
A motion to suspend Bigamy case was thenivoked by
Isagani Bobis as the civil action raises Prejudicail
Question to the case of Biagamy.
Issue:
Umali Et al are officers of OROSEA. They bought a
lot/property from Edano spuses for 1M payable in 4
installments.
First payment of check was honored and with this, DAS
was executed by Edano spoused to OROSEA despite the
price not having been paid in full yet.
OROSEA then secured a loan from Veterans Bank using
the lot/property as collateral.
Second installment fell due and deferment of checks
have been executed by OROSEA for how many times
until checks was dishonored due to insufficiency of
funds.
Edano sps thru information filed before fiscal of Quezon
city charged OROSEA of Estafa.
OROSEA didnt appear on arraignment and kept on
postponing the proceeding
5 months after Estafa case was filed, OROSEA filed a
complaint for the annullment/rescission of the contract
of sale executed between them & Edano sps.
Before arraignment, after all the postponement,
OROSEA filed "Motion to Suspend Arraignment and
Further Proceedings," in the criminal case of ESTAFA
RTC Zambales denied said motion. MR was filed by
OROSEA and still likewise was denied.
CA upon a petition for certiorari and prohibition affirmed
RTC decision for lack of merit.
Issue:
WON CV No. 8769 (CIVIL CASE) involves a prejudicial question in
relation to CR No. 1423-I (ESTAFA) so as to require a suspension
of proceedings in the latter case, until the civil case is disposed
of.

WON Filing a civil action for Judicial declarartion of absolute Held:

nullity of first marriage consitutes prejudicial question to criminal
case for bigamy.
There is no Prejudicial Question in the instant case.
Held:
Issues in CV No. 8769 and CR No. 1423-I (ESTAFA) are
There is no Prejudicial Question in the instant case. completely different from each other, and that the resolution of
one is not necessary for the resolution of the other, the issue
The lower court, therefore, erred in suspending the criminal case involved in CV No. 8769 is not a prejudicial question vis-a-vis the
for bigamy. It was only after he was sued by petitioner for issue in CR No. 1423-I so as to warrant the suspension of the
bigamy that he thought of seeking a judicial declaration of nullity proceedings in the latter case, until the termination of the civil
of his first marriage. The obvious intent, therefore, is that case.
respondent merely resorted to the civil action as a potential
prejudicial question for the purpose of frustrating or delaying his Although OROSEA seeks the annulment of the deed of sale on
criminal prosecution. As has been discussed above, this cannot the ground of fraud or misrepresentation, are in effect saying
be done. that said deed is voidable, vitiated consent being one of the
grounds mentioned in Article 1390 5 of the Civil Code for voiding
In the case at bar, respondent's clear intent is to obtain a judicial or annulling contracts, it can not be denied, however, that at the
declaration of nullity of his first marriage and thereafter to time the acts complained of in CR No. 1423-I (ESTAFA) were
invoke that very same judgment to prevent his prosecution for committed, the deed of sale sought to be later annulled in CV
bigamy. No. 8769 was binding upon the parties thereto, including the
petitioners. The two (2) essential elements for a prejudicial
He cannot have his cake and eat it too. Otherwise, all that an question to exist are: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar
adventurous bigamist has to do is to disregard Article 40 of the or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action;
Family Code, contract a subsequent marriage and escape a and (b) the resolution of such issue in the civil action determines
bigamy charge by simply claiming that the first marriage is void whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
and that the subsequent marriage is equally void for lack of a
prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first. A party may even What private respondents complained of in CR No. 1423-I
enter into a marriage aware of the absence of a requisite - (ESTAFA) is that the checks issued by petitioners in their favor
usually the marriage license - and thereafter contract a were dishonored for lack of funds upon due presentment to the
subsequent marriage without obtaining a declaration of nullity of drawee bank. Undeniably, at the time of said dishonor,
the first on the assumption that the first marriage is void. Such petitioners' obligation to pay private respondents pursuant to
scenario would render nugatory the provisions on bigamy. the deed of sale, continued to subsist. And because petitioners'
checks were dishonored for lack of funds, petitioners are
Ignorance of the existence of Article 40 of the Family Code answerable under the law for the consequences of their said
cannot even be successfully invoked as an excuse.16 The acts. And even if CV No. 8769 were to be finally adjudged to the
contracting of a marriage knowing that the requirements of the effect that the said deed of sale should be annulled, such
law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in declararion would be of no material importance in the
disregard of a legal impediment is an act penalized by the determination of the guilt or innocence of petitioners-accused in
Revised Penal Code.17 The legality of a marriage is a matter of CR No. 1423-I.
law and every person is presumed to know the law. As
respondent did not obtain the judicial declaration of nullity when
he entered into the second marriage, why should he be allowed SPS JOSE vs SPS SUAREZ
to belatedly obtain that judicial declaration in order to delay his
criminal prosecution and subsequently defeat it by his own Facts:
disobedience of the law? If he wants to raise the nullity of the
previous marriage, he can do it as a matter of defense when he Carolina Jose lend Purita Suarez money with 1-2% daily
presents his evidence during the trial proper in the criminal case. interest.
Carolina Jose then increased said interest to 5% to
Not every defense raised in the civil action may be used as a which Purita said having no other option left, they wer
prejudicial question to obtain the suspension of the criminal forced to accept.
action. Their usual practice is : Carolina gives Purita the
money, Purita deposits it in their account and secures
checks to their other loans as well as back to Carolina
Jose as payment for the borrowed money and daily 5%
 interest.
In 2004, Purita filed a complaint against Carolina Jose
1. Declaration of Nullity of 5% per day, fixing
of ineterest
2. Recovery of interest payment
3. Writ of Preliminary Injuction (5% daily rate is
contrary to
morals as they took advantage of their
financial distress)
4.TRO to restrain Carolina Jose from enforcing
checks and filing criminal cases for BP 22.

Carolina filed a case against Purita for violationg BP 22

in MTCC of Cebu City.
Purita then filed motion to suspend the criminal
proceeding on the ground of PREJUDICIAL QUESTION ~
Checks subject to BP22 are void for being contrary to
morals and issued for unconscionable interest.
Motions were denied by MTCC.
Purita then filed in RTC a Motion for Writ of Preliminary
Injuction and TRO to restrain MTCC from further
proceeding with the BP22 Case.
RTC granted.
Carolina filed MR but denied.
CA Affirmed RTC based on the following grounds:
1. Purita sought to annul checks for being void
pursuant to ART.1422 of CC meaning a contract
which is a direct result of previous illegal contract is
also void & non existent
2. Should the checks be declared NULL & VOID
then said checks could not be made the bases
for BP22 case. Therefore, validity of said
checks are determinative of of guilt or innocence of
Purita.
FORUM SHOPPING: Their application or
preliminary injunction cannot be considered as FS
since its the only remedy available . to them.
Carolina's Argument:
1. Sec 6. Rule 111 states that Petition to suspend proceedings on
the ground of Prejudicial questin should be filed in the same
criminal action, therefor RTC has no jurisdiction.
2. They are guilty of Forum Shopping since after motion in MTCC
was denied they sought RTC's favor and succeeded in getting
relief.

Issue:

WON there exists a Prejudicial Question which necessitates the

suspension of the proceedings in MTCCs.

Held:

There is no Prejudicial Question in the instant case.

The prejudicial question posed by respondents is simply this:

whether the daily interest rate of 5% is void, such that the
checks issued by respondents to cover said interest are likewise
void for being contra bonos mores, and thus the cases for B.P.
Blg. 22 will no longer prosper.

The validity or invalidity of the interest rate is not determinative

of the guilt of respondents in the criminal cases. Issuance of a
check is inconsequential in determining criminal culpability
under B.P. Blg. 22. W hat the law punishes is the issuance of a
bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued or
the terms and conditions relating to its issuance; and that the
mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum
provided the other elements of the offense are properly proved.

Whether or not the interest rate imposed by petitioners is

eventually declared void for being contra bonos mores will not
affect the outcome of the B.P. Blg. 22 cases because what will
ultimately be penalized is the mere issuance of bouncing checks.

The issue has in fact been correctly addressed by the MTCCs

when respondents motion to suspend the criminal proceedings
was denied upon the finding that there exists no prejudicial
question which could be the basis for the suspension of the
proceedings. The reason for the denial of the motion is that the
cases can very well proceed for the prosecution of the accused
in order to determine her criminal propensity as a
consequence of the issuance of several checks which
subsequently bounced for what the law punishes is the
issuance and/or drawing of a check and upon presentment for
deposit or encashment, it was dishonored due to insufficient
funds [or] account closed.

Therefore, There being no prejudicial question, the RTC and,

consequently, the Court of Appeals gravely erred when they
allowed the suspension of the proceedings in the B.P. Blg. 22
cases.