Civil Liability After Acquittal: When a Bouncing Check Leads to Ejectment

n

TLDR: Even if acquitted of a crime related to a bouncing check, a person can still be held civilly liable for the debt. Furthermore, employees occupying a property can be ejected if their employer (the previous owner) sells the property, and they fail to vacate after a demand, even if the ejectment suit is filed more than a year after the initial agreement to vacate, as long as it is within a year of the final demand.

nn

G.R. No. 106214, September 05, 1997

nn

Introduction

n

Imagine selling a valuable asset, only to receive a check that bounces. While criminal charges might fail, can you still recover the money owed? This scenario highlights a crucial aspect of Philippine law: the distinction between criminal and civil liability. This case, Villaluz v. Court of Appeals, delves into this issue, alongside a related dispute over property possession arising from the same set of events. It underscores how intertwined financial transactions and property rights can become, and how legal remedies can differ depending on the cause of action pursued.

n

The case involves Teresita Villaluz, who sold a vessel to Reynaldo Anzures, paying with a check that later bounced. Criminal charges for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), the Bouncing Checks Law, were filed but Villaluz was acquitted. However, the court also considered civil liability. Simultaneously, an ejectment suit was filed against Villaluz’s employees occupying a property Anzures purchased from Villaluz, adding another layer of complexity to the legal battle.

nn

Legal Context: Civil Liability, Bouncing Checks, and Ejectment

n

Philippine law distinguishes between criminal and civil liability. An acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically absolve the accused of civil liability. As stated in Section 2 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court:

n

In case of acquittal, unless there is a clear showing that the act from which the civil liability might arise did not exist, the judgment shall make a finding on the civil liability of the accused in favor of the offended party.

n

This means that even if the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court can still order the accused to pay damages if the evidence shows they are civilly liable.

n

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, penalizes the act of issuing a check without sufficient funds or with a closed account. The elements of the offense are:

n

n
• Making or drawing and issuing a check to apply on account or for value;

n

• Knowing at the time of issue that the drawer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and

n

• Subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

n

n

An ejectment suit, on the other hand, is a summary proceeding to recover possession of property. The action for unlawful detainer must be filed within one year from the last demand to vacate. Rule 70, Section 1 of the Rules of Court governs ejectment cases.

n

A key concept in ejectment cases is