Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83730:58014&catid=1588&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:59:55+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 172505, October 01, 2014 - ANTONIO M. GARCIA, Petitioner, v. FERRO CHEMICALS, INC., Respondent.
ANTONIO M. GARCIA, Petitioner, v. FERRO CHEMICALS, INC., Respondent.
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.
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 aforestated amount of P10.00 Million Pesos.
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.
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 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 non-disclosure 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 non-forum 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.
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 non-forum shopping.
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 Appeal's decision dated August 11, 2005 and resolution dated April 27, 2006 as final decision over the assailed Regional Trial Court decision that was rendered on November 16, 1998 in G.R. No. 130880.
Velasco, Jr.,* Brion, (Acting Chairperson), Del Castillo, and Villarama, Jr.** JJ., concur.
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated September 24, 2014.
** Designated member per Raffle dated August 8, 2011.
17 CA rollo, p. 76.
18 RTC records, pp. 1267-1269.
20Rollo, p. 22. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 130880.
21Rollo, p. 89 and RTC records, p. 1316.
22 RTC records, pp. 1273-1317.
27 The decision was penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza and concurred in by Presiding Justice Romeo A. Brawner and Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, First Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
33 Id. at 51-53. The resolution was penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza and concurred in by Presiding Justice Roberto A. Barrios and Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz.
42Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals, 332 Phil. 206, 218 (1996) [Per J. Hermosisima, Jr., First Division]. See also RULES OF COURT, Rule 51, sec. 8.
43Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals. 332 Phil. 206, 217-218 (1996) [Per J. Hermosisima, Jr., First Division].
44Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals, 332 Phil. 206, 217 (1996) [Per J. Hermosisima, Jr., First Division]. See also RULES Of COURT, Rule 5 1, sec. 8.
45Catholic Bishop of Balgnga v. Court of Appeals, 332 Phil. 206, 217 (1996) [Per J. Hermosisima, Jr., First Division], citing Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114061, August 3, 1994, 234 SCRA717, 725 [Per J. Cruz, First Division]; Vda. deJavellanav. Court of Appeals, 208 Phil. 706, 714 (1983) [Per J. Concepcion, Jr., Second Division]; Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. v. Philippine International Co., Inc., 118 Phil. 150, 156 (1963) [Per J. Paredes, En Bane]; Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al, 327 Phil. 43 1, 442 (1996) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
46People v. Sps. Vanzuela, 581 Phil. 211, 219 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
48Villagracia v. Fifth Shari'a District Court, et al, G.R. No. 188832, April 23, 2014 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
49 378 Phil. 670 (1999) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].
52Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Company Inc., et al. v. Valdez, 566 Phil. 443, 453 (2008) [Per J.
53 RULES OF COURT, Rule 7, sec 5-, par. 2.
54Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. v. Paxton Development Corporation, 457 Phil. 740, 748 (2003) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
56Rural Bank of the Seven Lakes (S.P.C.), Inc. v. Dan, 595 Phil. 1061, 1071 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
57 RTC records, p. 1267.
58 RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, sec. 1, par. (a).
61 RTC records, p. 1268.
63 RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, sec. 5.
64 RTC records, p. 1318.
55Heirs of Delgado, el al. v. Gonzalez, el at, 612 Phil. 817, 844 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
66 493 Phil. 85 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
68Co v. Munoz, Jr., G.R. No. 181986, December 4, 2013 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

References: v. 
 v. 

ART. 318
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.