Republic v. Court of Appeals
Republic v. Court of Appeals
Republic v. Court of Appeals
✓ A counterclaim in a criminal case must be litigated separately to avoid complication and co nfusion in the
resolution of the criminal cases. This is the rationale behind Section 1 of Rule 111. The same rationale applies to
NIC’s collection case against petitioner and DPWH. Thus, NIC’s collection case must be litigated separately before
the Malabon trial court to avoid confusion in resolving the criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan.
ON THE ISSUE OF W/N THE CIVIL ACTION CAN PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY AND SEPARATELY FROM THE CRIMINAL CASE
✓ Under Section 3 of Rule 111, civil actions falling under Articles 32, 33, 34 or 2176 may proceed independently and
separately from the criminal case. However, NIC’s collection case for unpaid services from its dredging contracts
with DPWH obviously does not fall under Articles 32, 33 or 34 (on Human Relations) of the Civil Code. Neither
does it fall under Article 2176 (on quasi-delict) of the Civil Code. THUS, NIC cannot invoke any of these articles.
✓ The only other possibility is for NIC’s civil action to fall under Article 31 of the Civil Code which provides that
“when the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony,
such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the
latter.”
✓ Article 31 speaks of a civil action “based on an obligation not arising from the act x x x complained of as a felony.”
This clearly means that the obligation must arise from an act not constituting a crime. Hence, when the civil
action is based on a purported contract that is assailed as illegal per se, Article 31 does not apply.
✓ Clearly, NIC’s civil case before the Malabon trial court does not fall under Article 31 of the Civil Code. Under
Section 3 (g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, entering into a contract that is manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the government is “declared to be unlawful.” If the act of entering into the contract is
assailed as a crime in itself, then the issue of whether the contract is illegal must first be resolved before any civil
action based on the contract can proceed. Only the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction to decide whether the act
of entering into such contract is a crime, where the salary grade of one of the accused is grade 27 or higher, as in
Criminal Cases Nos. 16889-16900 filed with the Sandiganbayan.
✓ This calls then for the application of the second paragraph of Section 2 of Rule 111 which states that “if the
criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in
whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits.” Consequently, the civil case for collection
pending in the Malabon trial court must be suspended until after the termination of the criminal cases filed
with the Sandiganbayan.
✓ The suspension of the civil case for collection of sum of money will avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions
between the Sandiganbayan and the Malabon trial court on the validity of NIC’s dredging contracts. If the
Sandiganbayan declares the dredging contracts illegal and void ab initio, and such declaration becomes final, then
NIC’s civil case for collection of sum of money will have no legal leg to stand on. However, if the Sandiganbayan
finds the dredging contracts valid, then NIC’s collection case before the Malabon trial court can then proceed to
trial.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 18 July 1994 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. The counterclaim of petitioner in Civil Case No. 1153-MN pending with the Regional Trial Court of
Malabon, Branch 73, is deemed abandoned. The Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 73, is ordered to suspend the
trial of Civil Case No. 1153-MN until the termination of Criminal Cases Nos. 16889-16900 filed with the Sandiganbayan. SO
ORDERED.
GUINTO