G.R. No. 129282 ; November 29, 2001
DMPI EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC., (DMPI-ECCI), petitioner, vs. HON. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Misamis Oriental, Br. 20, and ERIBERTA VILLEGAS, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Eriberta Villegas entrusted P608,532.46 to Carmen Mandawe, an employee of petitioner DMPI-ECCI, for deposit with the cooperative. Mandawe failed to account for the amount, leading to the filing of a criminal information for estafa against her on February 18, 1994. Subsequently, on March 29, 1994, Villegas filed a separate civil complaint for a sum of money and damages against both Mandawe and DMPI-ECCI before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Petitioner moved to dismiss the civil case, citing the pending criminal case and the complaint’s lack of a certification against forum shopping as required by Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91.
The trial court initially dismissed the civil case on December 12, 1996. However, upon Villegas’s motion for reconsideration, the court reversed itself and reinstated the case on February 21, 1997. DMPI-ECCI filed this special civil action for certiorari to annul the order reinstating the civil case.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the failure to attach a certification against forum shopping warrants dismissal; and (2) whether the civil case can proceed independently of the pending criminal case for estafa without a prior reservation to file a separate civil action.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the trial court’s order. On the first issue, the Court held that the forum shopping certification requirement was not applicable. At the time Villegas filed her complaint on March 29, 1994, Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 required the certification only for petitions filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The extension of this requirement to all initiatory pleadings via Administrative Circular No. 04-94 took effect on April 1, 1994, three days after the filing. Thus, no violation occurred.
On the second issue, the Court applied the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which became effective on December 1, 2000, and held they have retroactive application to pending cases. Under the new Rule 111, the civil action to recover civil liability arising from the offense is generally deemed instituted with the criminal action. However, an independent civil action under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code may proceed separately. The civil case filed by Villegas is an independent action for damages based on fraud under Article 33 of the Civil Code. Consequently, it can proceed independently of the criminal case for estafa, and there is no longer a requirement for a prior reservation of the right to file such an independent action. Procedural rules may be applied retroactively as they involve no vested rights.