G.R. No. 172505. October 1, 2014.

*
 
ANTONIO M. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. FERRO
CHEMICALS, INC., respondent.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Jurisdiction; In criminal

cases, the imposable penalty of the crime charged in the
information determines the court that has jurisdiction over the
case.—Jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is vested by
law. In criminal cases, the imposable penalty of the crime charged
in the information determines the court that has jurisdiction over
the case. The information charged Antonio Garcia with violation
of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, which is punishable by
arresto mayor, or imprisonment for a period of one (1) month and
one (1) day to six (6) months.
Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction is conferred by law and
cannot be waived by the parties.—The trial court’s lack of
jurisdiction cannot be cured by the parties’ silence on the matter.
The failure of the parties to raise the matter of jurisdiction also
cannot be construed as a waiver of the parties. Jurisdiction is
conferred by law and cannot be waived by the parties. The
assailed decision is void, considering that it originates from a void
decision of the Regional Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter.
Same; Civil Procedure; Words and Phrases; Forum Shopping;
Forum shopping is defined as “the act of a litigant who ‘repetitively
availed of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the
same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances,
and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or
already resolved adversely by some other court . . . to increase his
chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then
in another.’”—Forum shopping is defined as “the act of a litigant
who ‘repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in different
courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded
on the same transactions and the same essential facts and
circumstances, and all raising substan-

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.
 253

VOL. 737, OCTOBER 1, 2014 253

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

tially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved

adversely by some other court . . . to increase his chances of
obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in
another.’”
Same; Same; Once clearly established that forum shopping
was committed willfully and deliberately by a party or his or her
counsel, the case may be summarily dismissed with prejudice, and
the act shall constitute direct contempt and a cause for
administrative sanctions.—Once clearly established that forum
shopping was committed willfully and deliberately by a party or
his or her counsel, the case may be summarily dismissed with
prejudice, and the act shall constitute direct contempt and a cause
for administrative sanctions. Forum shopping is prohibited, and
sanctions are imposed on those who commit forum shopping as “it
trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the
administration of justice and adds to the already congested court
dockets.”
Same; Same; Requisites that Must Concur to Establish When
a Litigant Commits Forum Shopping.—The test and requisites
that must concur to establish when a litigant commits forum
shopping are the following: The test for determining the existence
of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are
present, or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res
judicata in another. Thus, there is forum shopping when the
following elements are present: (a) identity of parties, or at least
such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b)
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two
preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the
other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount
to res judicata in the action under consideration; said requisites
are also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or
lis pendens.
Same; Same; Litigants cannot avail themselves of two (2)
separate remedies for the same relief in the hope that in one forum,
the relief prayed for will be granted.—Litigants cannot avail
themselves of two separate remedies for the same relief in the
hope that in one forum, the relief prayed for will be granted. This
is the evil sought to be averted by the doctrine of nonforum
shopping, and this is the problem that has happened in this case.
This court denied the petition for certiorari filed by Ferro
Chemicals, Inc. resulting in finality

254

254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

of the trial court’s decision. The decision found Antonio

Garcia not guilty of the offense charged, and no civil liability was
awarded to Ferro Chemicals, Inc. However, at present, there is a
conflicting decision from the Court of Appeals awarding Ferro
Chemicals, Inc. civil indemnity arising from the offense charged.
Same; Criminal Procedure; When the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability ex delicto is instituted with the criminal
action, whether by choice of private complainant (i.e., no
reservation is made or no prior filing of a separate civil action) or
as required by the law or rules, the case will be prosecuted under
the direction and control of the public prosecutor.—When the civil
action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto is instituted with
the criminal action, whether by choice of private complainant (i.e.,
no reservation is made or no prior filing of a separate civil action)
or as required by the law or rules, the case will be prosecuted
under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. The civil
action cannot proceed independently of the criminal case. This
includes subsequent proceedings on the criminal action such as an
appeal. In any case, Ferro Chemicals, Inc. joined the public
prosecutor in filing the petition for certiorari before this court.
Ramon Garcia, President of Ferro Chemicals, Inc., signed the
verification and certification of nonforum shopping of the petition
for certiorari. We must clarify, however, that private
complainants in criminal cases are not precluded from filing a
motion for reconsideration and subsequently an appeal on the
civil aspect of a decision acquitting the accused. An exception to
the rule that only the Solicitor General can bring actions in
criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeals or this court is
“when the private offended party questions the civil aspect of a
decision of a lower court.”
Same; Same; Civil Liability; Jurisprudence has enumerated
three (3) instances when, notwithstanding the accused’s acquittal,
the offended party may still claim civil liability ex delicto: (a) if the
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of
evidence is required; (b) if the court declared that the liability of
the accused is only civil; and (c) if the civil liability of the accused
does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the
accused is acquitted.—This is in consonance with the doctrine
that: [T]he extinction of the penal action does not necessarily
carry with it the extinction of the civil action, whether the latter
is instituted with or separately from the criminal action. The
offended party may still

255

VOL. 737, OCTOBER 1, 2014 255

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

claim civil liability ex delicto if there is a finding in the final

judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from
which the liability may arise exists. Jurisprudence has
enumerated three instances when, notwithstanding the accused’s
acquittal, the offended party may still claim civil liability ex
delicto: (a) if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence is required; (b) if the court declared
that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) if the civil
liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon
the crime of which the accused is acquitted.
Same; Same; Same; If the state pursues an appeal on the
criminal aspect of a decision of the trial court acquitting the
accused and private complainant/s failed to reserve the right to
institute a separate civil action, the civil liability ex delicto that is
inherently attached to the offense is likewise appealed.—If the
state pursues an appeal on the criminal aspect of a decision of the
trial court acquitting the accused and private complainant/s failed
to reserve the right to institute a separate civil action, the civil
liability ex delicto that is inherently attached to the offense is
likewise appealed. The appeal of the civil liability ex delicto is
impliedly instituted with the petition for certiorari assailing the
acquittal of the accused. Private complainant cannot anymore
pursue a separate appeal from that of the state without violating
the doctrine of nonforum shopping.
Same; Same; Same; The conclusion is different if private
complainant reserved the right to institute the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability ex delicto before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) or institute a separate civil action prior to the filing of the
criminal case in accordance with Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. In
these situations, the filing of an appeal as to the civil aspect of the
case cannot be considered as forum shopping.—The conclusion is
different if private complainant reserved the right to institute the
civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto before the
Regional Trial Court or institute a separate civil action prior to
the filing of the criminal case in accordance with Rule 111 of the
Rules of Court. In these situations, the filing of an appeal as to
the civil aspect of the case cannot be considered as forum
shopping. This is not the situation here.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals.

256

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

  Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for
petitioner.
  Jimenez, Gonzales, Liwanag, Bello, Valdez, Caluya &
Fernandez for respondent.

 
LEONEN, J.:
 
Before this court is a petition for review on certiorari1
assailing the decision2 of the Court of Appeals dated
August 11, 2005 and its resolution3 dated April 27, 2006,
denying petitioner Antonio Garcia’s motion for
reconsideration.
Antonio Garcia, as seller, and Ferro Chemicals, Inc.,
through Ramon Garcia, as buyer, entered into a deed of
absolute sale and purchase of shares of stock on July 15,
1988. The deed was for the sale and purchase of shares of
stock from various corporations, including one class “A”
share in Alabang Country Club, Inc. and one proprietary
membership in the Manila Polo Club, Inc.4 These shares of
stock were in the name of Antonio Garcia.5 The contract
was allegedly entered into to prevent these shares of stock
from being sold at public auction to pay the outstanding
obligations of Antonio Garcia.6
On March 3, 1989, a deed of right of repurchase over the
same shares of stock subject of the deed of absolute sale
and purchase of shares of stock was entered into between
Antonio Garcia and Ferro Chemicals, Inc. Under the deed
of right of

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 14-33.

2  Id., at pp. 96-108.
3  Id., at pp. 110-112.
4  Id., at p. 16.
5  Id.
6  Id., at p. 97.
 257

VOL. 737, OCTOBER 1, 2014 257

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

repurchase, Antonio Garcia can redeem the properties

sold within 180 days from the signing of the agreement.7
Before the end of the 180-day period, Antonio Garcia
exercised his right to repurchase the properties.8 However,
Ferro Chemicals, Inc. did not agree to the repurchase of the
shares of stock.9 Thus, Antonio Garcia filed an action for
specific performance and annulment of transfer of shares.10
On September 6, 1989, the class “A” share in Alabang
Country Club, Inc. and proprietary membership in the
Manila Polo Club, Inc., which were included in the
contracts entered into between Antonio Garcia and Ferro
Chemicals, Inc., were sold at public auction to Philippine
Investment System Organization.11
On September 3, 1990, the information based on the
complaint of Ferro Chemicals, Inc. was filed against
Antonio Garcia before the Regional Trial Court.12 He was
charged with estafa under Article 318 (Other Deceits) of
the Revised Penal Code for allegedly misrepresenting to
Ferro Chemicals, Inc. that the shares subject of the
contracts entered into were free from all liens and
encumbrances. The information reads:

The undersigned Assistant Prosecutor accuses Antonio M.

Garcia of the felony of Estafa as defined and penalized under Art.
318 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, committed as follows:
THAT on or about 15 July 1988, in Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above named accused, with evident bad faith and
deceit, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
misrepresent to FERRO

_______________

7   Id., at p. 98.
8   Id., at p. 99.
9   Id.
10  Id., at p. 100.
11  Id.
12  Id., at pp. 100-101.

258
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

CHEMICALS, INC. (FCI) represented by Ramon M. Garcia, that

his share of stock/proprietary share with Ayala Alabang Country
Club, Inc. and Manila Polo Club, Inc. collectively valued at about
P10.00 Million Pesos, being part of other shares of stock subject
matter of a Deed of Absolute Sale and Purchase of Shares of Stock
between the accused and FCI, were free from all liens,
encumbrances and claims by third persons, when in truth and in
fact, accused well knew that aforesaid share of stock/proprietary
share had already been garnished in July 1985 and subsequently
sold at public auction in September 1989, and which
misrepresentation and assurance FCI relied upon and paid the
consideration in accordance with the stipulated condition/manner
of payment, all to the damage and prejudice of FCI in the afore-
stated amount of P10.00 Million Pesos.
Contrary to law.13

 
In the decision dated December 12, 1996 of the Regional
Trial Court, Antonio Garcia was acquitted for insufficiency
of evidence.14 The Regional Trial Court held:

From the foregoing, it is very clear that private complainant

was aware of the status of the subject CLUB SHARES. Thus, the
element of false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means
which constitute the very cause or the only motive which induced
the private complainant to enter into the questioned deed of sale
(Exh. “A”) is wanting in the case at bar.15 (Underscoring in the
original)

 
Ferro Chemicals, Inc. filed a motion for reconsideration,
which was denied by the Regional Trial Court in the order
dated July 29, 1997.16

_______________

13  Id.
14  Id., at p. 130.
15  Id.
16  Id., at p. 22.

259

VOL. 737, OCTOBER 1, 2014 259

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.
 On August 25, 1997, Ferro Chemicals, Inc. appealed to
the Court of Appeals the July 29, 1997 order of the
Regional Trial Court as to the civil aspect of the case.17 The
notice of appeal18 filed was entitled “Notice of Appeal Ex
Gratia Abudantia Ad Cautelam (Of The Civil Aspect of the
Case).” It alleged:

4. Herein private complainant hereby gives notice, out of

extreme caution, that it is appealing the Decision dated 12
December 1996 and the Order dated 29 July 1997 on the civil
aspect of the case to the Court of Appeals on the ground that it is
not in accordance with the law and the facts of the case.
5. This notice of appeal is without prejudice to the filing of an
appropriate petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court on the criminal aspect, upon the giving of due course
thereto, private complainant shall endeavor to seek the
consolidation of this appeal with the said petition.19

 
On October 15, 1997, the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office
and Ferro Chemicals, Inc. also filed a petition for
certiorari20 with this court, assailing the Regional Trial
Court’s December 12, 1996 decision and July 29, 1997 order
acquitting Antonio Garcia.21
The petition for certiorari22 filed before this court sought
to annul the decision of the trial court acquitting Antonio
Garcia. People of the Philippines and Ferro Chemicals, Inc.
argued that the trial court “acted in grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when
it rendered the judgment of acquittal based on affidavits
not at all introduced in evidence by either of the parties
thereby depriving

_______________

17  CA Rollo, p. 76.

18  RTC Records, pp. 1267-1269.
19  Id., at pp. 1267-1268.
20  Rollo, p. 22.  The case was docketed as G.R. No. 130880.
21  Rollo, p. 89 and RTC Records, p. 1316.
22  RTC Records, pp. 1273-1317.

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.
 the people of their substantive right to due process of
law.”23 The verification/certification against forum
shopping, signed by Ramon Garcia as President of Ferro
Chemicals, Inc., disclosed that the notice of appeal was
filed “with respect to the civil aspect of the case.”24
In the resolution25 dated November 16, 1998, this court
dismissed the petition for certiorari filed, and entry of
judgment was made on December 24, 1998.26
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals,27 in its
decision28 dated August 11, 2005, granted the appeal and
awarded Ferro Chemicals, Inc. the amount of
P1,000,000.00 as actual loss with legal interest and
attorney’s fees in the amount of P20,000.00.29 The
appellate court found that Antonio Garcia failed to disclose
the Philippine Investment and Savings Organization’s lien
over the club shares.30 Thus:

The issue in this case is whether or not Antonio Garcia

disclosed to Ferro Chemicals, during the negotiation stage of the
impending sale of the imputed club shares, the third attachment
lien in favor of Philippine Investment and Savings Organization
(PISO) which, ultimately, became the basis of the auction sale of
said club shares. We have scrutinized the records of the case but
found no evidence that Antonio Garcia intimated to his brother
the third attachment lien of PISO over the said club shares. While
it is true that Antonio Garcia divulged

_______________

23  Id., at p. 1278.
24  Id., at p. 1318.
25  Rollo, p. 22.
26  Id., at pp. 22-23.
27  The decision was penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza
(now member of this Court) and concurred in by Presiding Justice Romeo
A. Brawner and Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, First Division of the
Court of Appeals, Manila.
28  Rollo, pp. 37-49.
29  Id., at p. 48.
30  Id., at p. 45.

261

VOL. 737, OCTOBER 1, 2014 261

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

the two liens of Security Bank and Insular Bank of Asia and
America, the lien of PISO was clearly not discussed. The
affidavits executed by the two lawyers to the effect that the lien of
PISO was considered but deliberately left out in the deed cannot
be given much weight as they were never placed on the witness
stand and cross-examined by Ferro Chemicals. If their affidavits,
although not offered, were considered in the criminal aspect and
placed a cloud on the prosecution’s thrust, they cannot be given
the same probative value in this civil aspect as only a
preponderance of evidence is necessary to carry the day for the
plaintiff, Ferro Chemicals.
While Antonio Garcia insists that no consideration was ever
made over the club shares as the same were merely given for
safekeeping, the document denominated as Deed of Absolute Sale
states otherwise. It is a basic rule of evidence that between
documentary evidence and oral evidence, the former carries more
weight.
Also, We have observed that in Antonio Garcia’s letter of
redemption addressed to Ferro Chemicals, he mentioned his
interest in redeeming the company shares only. That he did not
include the club shares only meant that said club shares no longer
had any much redeemable value as there was a lien over them. To
redeem them would be pointless.
If they had no redeemable value to Antonio Garcia, to Ferro
Chemical they were certainly marketable assets. The
nondisclosure of the third lien in favor of PISO materially affected
Ferro Chemicals since it was not able to act on time to protect its
interest when the auction sale over the club shares actually took
place. As a result, Ferro Chemicals suffered losses due to the
unfortunate public auction sale. It is but just and fair that
Antonio Garcia be made to compensate the loss pursuant to
Articles 21 and 2199 of the Civil Code.
The actual loss suffered by Ferro Chemicals amounted to
P1,000,000.00 which correspondents to the bid value of the club
shares at the time of the auction as

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

evidenced by the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale.31 (Citations omitted)

 
Antonio Garcia filed a motion for reconsideration and
Ferro Chemicals, Inc. filed a partial motion for
reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals.32
These motions were denied in the resolution33 dated April
27, 2006. Thus, Antonio Garcia filed this petition for review
on certiorari,34 assailing the decision and resolution of the
Court of Appeals.
Antonio Garcia argues that the factual findings of the
Court of Appeals were erroneous35 and insists that “[Ferro
Chemicals, Inc.] was fully aware that the shares covered by
the Deed of Absolute Sale, including the Subject Club
Shares, were not free from liens and encumbrances and
that the Deed [of] Sale was executed [to] warehouse
[Antonio Garcia’s] assets based on, among other evidence,
the affidavits executed by Jaime Gonzales . . . and Rolando
Navarro. . . .”36
Antonio Garcia faults the Court of Appeals in
disregarding the affidavits executed by Jaime Gonzales and
Rolando Navarro. Antonio Garcia argues that even this
court in G.R. No. 130880 entitled People of the Philippines
and Ferro Chemicals, Inc. v. Hon. Dennis Villa Ignacio and
Antonio Garcia where the admissibility of the affidavits
was put in issue held that the trial court did not commit
any grave abuse of discretion in the challenged decision.37
He then reasoned that “pursuant to the law of the case, [the
affidavits of Gon-

_______________

31  Id., at pp. 45-46.

32  Id., at p. 51.
33   Id., at pp. 51-53. The resolution was penned by Associate Justice
Jose Catral Mendoza (now member of this Court) and concurred in by
Presiding Justice Roberto A. Barrios and Associate Justice Edgardo P.
Cruz.
34  Id., at pp. 73-92.
35  Id., at pp. 82-83.
36  Id., at pp. 86-87.
37  Id., at p. 89.

263

VOL. 737, OCTOBER 1, 2014 263

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

zalez and Navarro] are admissible and should be given

weight.”38
Finally, Antonio Garcia claims that both he and Ferro
Chemicals, Inc. acted in bad faith when they entered into
the deed of absolute sale as a scheme to defraud Antonio
Garcia’s creditors. Thus, they are in pari delicto and Ferro
Chemicals, Inc. should not be allowed to recover from
Antonio Garcia.39
 In its comment,40 Ferro Chemicals, Inc. points out that
Antonio Garcia raised factual issues not proper in a Rule
45 petition and reiterates the findings of the Court of
Appeals.41
There are pertinent and important issues that the
parties failed to raise before the trial court, Court of
Appeals, and this court. Nonetheless, we resolve to rule on
these issues.
As a general rule, this court through its appellate
jurisdiction can only decide on matters or issues raised by
the parties.42 However, the rule admits of exceptions.43
When the unassigned error affects jurisdiction over the
subject matter44 or when the consideration of the error is
necessary for a complete resolution of the case,45 this court
can still decide on these issues.

_______________

38  Id., at p. 90.
39  Id., at pp. 90-91.
40  Id., at pp. 144-155.
41  Id.
42  Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals, 332 Phil. 206, 218;
264 SCRA 181, 192 (1996) [Per J. Hermosisima, Jr., First Division]. See
also Rules of Court, Rule 51, Sec. 8.
43  Id., at pp. 217-218; p. 191.
44  Id., at p. 217; p. 191. See also Rules of Court, Rule 51, Sec. 8.
45   Id., citing Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
114061, August 3, 1994, 234 SCRA 717, 725 [Per J. Cruz, First Division];
Vda. de Javellana v. Court of Appeals, 208 Phil. 706, 714; 123 SCRA 799,
805 (1983) [Per J. Concepcion, Jr., Second Division]; Saura Import &
Export Co., Inc. v. Philippine International Co., Inc., 118 Phil. 150, 156; 8
SCRA 143, 148 (1963) [Per J. Paredes, En Banc]; Servicewide Specialists,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 327

264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

We cannot turn a blind eye on glaring misapplications of

the law or patently erroneous decisions or resolutions
simply because the parties failed to raise these errors
before the court. Otherwise, we will be allowing injustice by
reason of the mistakes of the parties’ counsel and
condoning reckless and negligent acts of lawyers to the
prejudice of the litigants. Failure to rule on these issues
amounts to an abdication of our duty to dispense justice to
all parties.
The issues are:
I. Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction
over the case.
II. Whether the act of Ferro Chemicals, Inc. in filing the
notice of appeal before the Court of Appeals and the
petition for certiorari assailing the same trial court decision
amounted to forum shopping.
III. Whether Ferro Chemicals, Inc. was entitled to the
awards given as civil liability ex delicto.
 
The Regional Trial Court
did not have jurisdiction
 
Jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is vested
by law.46 In criminal cases, the imposable penalty of the
crime charged in the information determines the court that
has jurisdiction over the case.47
The information charged Antonio Garcia with violation
of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, which is
punishable by

_______________

Phil. 431, 442; 257 SCRA 643, 653 (1996) [Per J. Puno, Second
Division].
46  People v. Sps. Vanzuela, 581 Phil. 211, 219; 559 SCRA 234, 242-243
(2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
47   People v. Purisima, 161 Phil. 443, 451; 69 SCRA 341, 346 (1976)
[Per J. Martin, First Division].

265

VOL. 737, OCTOBER 1, 2014 265

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

arresto mayor, or imprisonment for a period of one (1)

month and one (1) day to six (6) months. Article 318 states:

ART. 318. Other deceits.—The penalty of arresto mayor and a

fine of not less than the amount of the damage caused and not
more than twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person
who shall defraud or damage another by any other deceit not
mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter.
Any person who, for profit or gain, shall interpret dreams, make
forecasts, tell fortunes, or take advantage of the credulity of the
public in any other similar manner, shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

 
When the information was filed on September 3, 1990,
the law in force was Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 before it was
amended by Republic Act No. 7691. Under Section 32 of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the Metropolitan Trial Court
had jurisdiction over the case:

SEC. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal

Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal
cases.—
....
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable
with imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months, or
a fine of not more than four thousand pesos, or both such fine and
imprisonment, regardless of other imposable accessory or other
penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or
predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount
thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction where the imposable fine does not exceed
twenty thousand pesos. (Emphasis supplied)

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

The Regional Trial Court did not have jurisdiction to

hear and decide the case. This lack of jurisdiction resulted
in voiding all of the trial court’s proceedings and the
judgment rendered.48
Although the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction was never
raised as an issue in any part of the proceedings and even
until it reached this court, we proceed with resolving the
matter.
In Pangilinan v. Court of Appeals,49 this court held:

Thus, we apply the general rule that jurisdiction is vested by

law and cannot be conferred or waived by the parties. Even on
appeal and even if the reviewing parties did not raise the issue of
jurisdiction, the reviewing court is not precluded from ruling that
the lower court had no jurisdiction over the case[.]
....
Having arrived at the conclusion that the Regional Trial Court
did not have jurisdiction to try the case against the appellant, it is
no longer necessary to consider the other issues raised as the
decision of the Regional Trial Court is null and void.50

 
The trial court’s lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by
the parties’ silence on the matter.51 The failure of the
parties to raise the matter of jurisdiction also cannot be
construed as a

_______________

48  Villagracia v. Fifth Shari’a District Court, et al., G.R. No. 188832,

April 23, 2014, 723 SCRA 550 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/
web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/april2014/188832.pdf>   [Per J.
Leonen, Third Division].
49  378 Phil. 670; 321 SCRA 51 (1999) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].
50  Id., at pp. 677-679; p. 61.
51   People v. Sps. Vanzuela, 581 Phil. 211, 219; 559 SCRA 234, 242
(2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].

267

VOL. 737, OCTOBER 1, 2014 267

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

waiver of the parties. Jurisdiction is conferred by law

and cannot be waived by the parties.
The assailed decision is void, considering that it
originates from a void decision of the Regional Trial Court
for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
 
Ferro Chemicals, Inc.
committed forum shopping
 
Forum shopping is defined as “the act of a litigant who
‘repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in different
courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially
founded on the same transactions and the same essential
facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the
same issues either pending in, or already resolved
adversely by some other court . . . to increase his chances of
obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in
another.’”52
Once clearly established that forum shopping was
committed willfully and deliberately by a party or his or
her counsel, the case may be summarily dismissed with
prejudice, and the act shall constitute direct contempt and
a cause for administrative sanctions.53
 Forum shopping is prohibited, and sanctions are
imposed on those who commit forum shopping as “it trifles
with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the
administration of

_______________

52   Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Company Inc., et al. v. Valdez,

566 Phil. 443, 453; 542 SCRA 455, 464-465 (2008) [Per J. Sandoval-
Gutierrez, First Division], citing Gatmaytan v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil.
155, 167; 267 SCRA 487, 500 (1997) [Per CJ. Narvasa, Third Division].
53  Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 5, par. 2.

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

justice and adds to the already congested court

dockets.”54 This court has said:

What is critical is the vexation brought upon the courts and the
litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same
or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same
reliefs and in the process creates the possibility of conflicting
decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same
issues, regardless of whether the court in which one of the suits
was brought has no jurisdiction over the action.55 (Citation
omitted)

 
The test and requisites that must concur to establish
when a litigant commits forum shopping are the following:

The test for determining the existence of forum shopping is

whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a
final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in another.
Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements are
present: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights
asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the
same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars,
such that any judgment rendered in the other action will,
regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in
the action under consideration; said requisites are also
constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis
pendens.56 (Citation omitted)
_______________

54   Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. v. Paxton

Development Corporation, 457 Phil. 740, 748; 410 SCRA 604, 606 (2003)
[Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
55  Id.
56  Rural Bank of the Seven Lakes (S.P.C.), Inc. v. Dan, 595 Phil. 1061,
1071; 575 SCRA 476, 485-486 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third
Division].

269

VOL. 737, OCTOBER 1, 2014 269

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

There is no question that Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

committed forum shopping when it filed an appeal before
the Court of Appeals and a petition for certiorari before this
court assailing the same trial court decision. This is true
even if Ferro Chemicals, Inc.’s notice of appeal to the Court
of Appeals was entitled “Notice of Appeal Ex Gratia
Abudantia Ad Cautelam (Of The Civil Aspect of the
Case).”57 The “civil aspect of the case” referred to by Ferro
Chemicals, Inc. is for the recovery of civil liability ex
delicto. However, it failed to make a reservation before the
trial court to institute the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability ex delicto or institute a separate civil action
prior to the filing of the criminal case.
There is identity of parties. Petitioner, Antonio Garcia,
and respondent, Ferro Chemicals, Inc., are both parties in
the appeal filed before the Court of Appeals and the
petition for certiorari before this court.
There is identity of the rights asserted and reliefs
prayed for in both actions. At a glance, it may appear that
Ferro Chemicals, Inc. asserted different rights: The appeal
before the Court of Appeals is purely on the civil aspect of
the trial court’s decision while the petition for certiorari
before this court is allegedly only on the criminal aspect of
the case. However, the civil liability asserted by Ferro
Chemicals, Inc. before the Court of Appeals arose from the
criminal act. It is in the nature of civil liability ex delicto.
Ferro Chemicals, Inc. did not reserve the right to institute
the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto or
institute a separate civil action prior to the filing of the
criminal case.58 Thus, it is an adjunct of the criminal aspect
of the case. As held in Lim v. Kou Co Ping:59

_______________
 57  RTC Records, p. 1267.
58  Rules of Court, Rule 111, Sec. 1, par. (a).
59   G.R. No. 175256, August 23, 2012, 679 SCRA 114 [Per J. Del
Castillo, First Division].

270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

The civil liability arising from the offense or ex delicto is based

on the acts or omissions that constitute the criminal offense;
hence, its trial is inherently intertwined with the criminal action.
For this reason, the civil liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted
with the criminal offense. If the action for the civil liability ex
delicto is instituted prior to or subsequent to the filing of the
criminal action, its proceedings are suspended until the final
outcome of the criminal action. The civil liability based on delict is
extinguished when the court hearing the criminal action declares
that ‘the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise
did not exist.’”60 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

When the trial court’s decision was appealed as to its

criminal aspect in the petition for certiorari before this
court, the civil aspect thereof is deemed included in the
appeal. Thus, the relief prayed for by Ferro Chemicals, Inc.,
that is, recovery of civil liability ex delicto, is asserted in
both actions before this court and the Court of Appeals.
Even the allegations in the notice of appeal readily show
that Ferro Chemicals, Inc. committed forum shopping, to
wit:

5. This notice of appeal is without prejudice to the filing of an

appropriate petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court on the criminal aspect, upon the giving of due course
thereto, private complainant shall endeavor to seek the
consolidation of this appeal with the said petition.61

As to the third requisite, on the assumption that the

trial court had jurisdiction over the case, this court’s
decision in G.R. No. 130880 affirming the trial court’s
decision acquitting the accused for lack of an essential
element of the crime charged amounts to res judicata to
assert the recovery of civil

_______________

60  Id., at p. 128.
61  RTC Records, p. 1268.
 271

VOL. 737, OCTOBER 1, 2014 271

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

liability arising from the offense. This court’s resolution

dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by Ferro
Chemicals, Inc. states:

In any event, petitioners failed to sufficiently show that any

grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Regional Trial
Court in rendering the challenged decision and order which, on
the contrary, appear to be in accord with the facts and the
applicable law and jurisprudence.62

Litigants cannot avail themselves of two separate

remedies for the same relief in the hope that in one forum,
the relief prayed for will be granted. This is the evil sought
to be averted by the doctrine of nonforum shopping, and
this is the problem that has happened in this case. This
court denied the petition for certiorari filed by Ferro
Chemicals, Inc. resulting in finality of the trial court’s
decision. The decision found Antonio Garcia not guilty of
the offense charged, and no civil liability was awarded to
Ferro Chemicals, Inc. However, at present, there is a
conflicting decision from the Court of Appeals awarding
Ferro Chemicals, Inc. civil indemnity arising from the
offense charged.
When the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex
delicto is instituted with the criminal action, whether by
choice of private complainant (i.e., no reservation is made
or no prior filing of a separate civil action) or as required by
the law or rules, the case will be prosecuted under the
direction and control of the public prosecutor.63 The civil
action cannot proceed independently of the criminal case.
This includes subsequent proceedings on the criminal
action such as an appeal. In any case, Ferro Chemicals, Inc.
joined the public prosecutor in filing the petition for
certiorari before this court. Ramon Garcia, President of
Ferro Chemicals, Inc., signed the

_______________

62  Rollo, p. 23.
63  Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 5.

272
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

verification and certification of nonforum shopping of

the petition for certiorari.64
We must clarify, however, that private complainants in
criminal cases are not precluded from filing a motion for
reconsideration and subsequently an appeal on the civil
aspect of a decision acquitting the accused. An exception to
the rule that only the Solicitor General can bring actions in
criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeals or this
court is “when the private offended party questions the
civil aspect of a decision of a lower court.”65 As discussed in
Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Hajime Umezawa:66

In a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the

interest of the private complainant or the offended party is
limited to the civil liability arising therefrom. Hence, if a criminal
case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, a
reconsideration of the order of dismissal or acquittal may be
undertaken, whenever legally feasible, insofar as the criminal
aspect thereof is concerned and may be made only by the public
prosecutor; or in the case of an appeal, by the State only, through
the OSG. The private complainant or offended party may not
undertake such motion for reconsideration or appeal on the
criminal aspect of the case. However, the offended party or
private complainant may file a motion for reconsideration of such
dismissal or acquittal or appeal therefrom but only insofar as the
civil aspect thereof is concerned. In so doing, the private
complainant or offended party need not secure the conformity of
the public prosecutor. If the court denies his motion for
reconsideration, the private complainant or offended party may
appeal or file a petition for certiorari or mandamus, if grave abuse
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction

_______________

64  RTC Records, p. 1318.

65  Heirs of Delgado, et al. v. Gonzalez, et al., 612 Phil. 817, 844; 595
SCRA 501, 524 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
66   493 Phil. 85; 452 SCRA 736 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second
Division].

273

VOL. 737, OCTOBER 1, 2014 273

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.
is shown and the aggrieved party has no right of appeal or given
an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.67 (Citations
omitted)

This is in consonance with the doctrine that:

[T]he extinction of the penal action does not necessarily carry

with it the extinction of the civil action, whether the latter is
instituted with or separately from the criminal action. The
offended party may still claim civil liability ex delicto if there is a
finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or
omission from which the liability may arise exists. Jurisprudence
has enumerated three instances when, notwithstanding the
accused’s acquittal, the offended party may still claim civil
liability ex delicto: (a) if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt
as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) if the court
declared that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) if the
civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based
upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted.68

However, if the state pursues an appeal on the criminal

aspect of a decision of the trial court acquitting the accused
and private complainant/s failed to reserve the right to
institute a separate civil action, the civil liability ex delicto
that is inherently attached to the offense is likewise
appealed. The appeal of the civil liability ex delicto is
impliedly instituted with the petition for certiorari
assailing the acquittal of the accused. Private complainant
cannot anymore pursue a separate appeal from that of the
state without violating the doctrine of nonforum shopping.

_______________

67  Id., at p. 108.
68   Co v. Muñoz, Jr., G.R. No. 181986, December 4, 2013, 711 SCRA
508 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2013/december2013/181986.pdf> [Per J. Brion, Second
Division].

274

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

On the other hand, the conclusion is different if private

complainant reserved the right to institute the civil action
for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto before the
Regional Trial Court or institute a separate civil action
prior to the filing of the criminal case in accordance with
Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. In these situations, the
filing of an appeal as to the civil aspect of the case cannot
be considered as forum shopping. This is not the situation
here.
We see no more reason to discuss the issues presented
by the parties in light of the foregoing discussion.
Entry of judgment having been made on the resolution
of the court in G.R. No. 130880 involving the same parties
and issues and by virtue of the doctrine of finality of
judgment, we reiterate the resolution of this court.
WHEREFORE, the resolution in G.R. No. 130880 is
reiterated. We grant the petition insofar as it prays for the
setting aside of the Court of Appeals’ decision dated August
11, 2005 and resolution dated April 27, 2006 as a final
decision over the assailed Regional Trial Court decision
that was rendered on November 16, 1998 in G.R. No.
130880.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr.,** Brion (Acting Chairperson), Del Castillo

and Villarama, Jr.,*** JJ., concur.

Petition granted insofar as it prays for setting aside of

Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution.

Notes.—Article 2176 of the New Civil Code prescribes a

civil liability for damages caused by a person’s act or
omission constituting fault or negligence. (Philippine
National Railways Corporation vs. Vizcara, 666 SCRA 363
[2012])

_______________

* *  Designated additional member per Raffle dated September 24,

2014.
* ** Designated member per Raffle dated August 8, 2011.

275

VOL. 737, OCTOBER 1, 2014 275

Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.

The need to abide by the Rules of Court and the

procedural requirements it imposes has been constantly
underscored by this Court. One of these procedural
 requirements is the certificate of nonforum shopping which,
time and again, has been declared as basic, necessary and
mandatory for procedural orderliness. (Anderson vs. Ho,
688 SCRA 8 [2013])
——o0o——
 

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.