Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    Lim v. Ping G.R. No. 175256 August 23, 2012 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Dag-um Macalolot
    Lim filed a criminal case for estafa and a separate civil case against Co Ping for breach of contract regarding the sale of 37,200 bags of cement. Co Ping argued that Lim committed forum shopping by filing two cases seeking the same relief. However, the court held that the cases involved separate causes of action. The first was a civil action related to the criminal estafa case, while the second involved a breach of contract and tort. As the law allows for separate civil liabilities arising from both criminal offenses and independent contracts, Lim did not engage in forum shopping by filing two distinct cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lim v. Ping G.R. No. 175256 August 23, 2012 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Dag-um Macalolot
    64 views2 pages
    Lim filed a criminal case for estafa and a separate civil case against Co Ping for breach of contract regarding the sale of 37,200 bags of cement. Co Ping argued that Lim committed forum shopping by filing two cases seeking the same relief. However, the court held that the cases involved separate causes of action. The first was a civil action related to the criminal estafa case, while the second involved a breach of contract and tort. As the law allows for separate civil liabilities arising from both criminal offenses and independent contracts, Lim did not engage in forum shopping by filing two distinct cases.

    Original Title

    19.-Lim-v.-Ping-SHORTER-VERSION

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lim filed a criminal case for estafa and a separate civil case against Co Ping for breach of contract regarding the sale of 37,200 bags of cement. Co Ping argued that Lim committed forum shopping by filing two cases seeking the same relief. However, the court held that the cases involved separate causes of action. The first was a civil action related to the criminal estafa case, while the second involved a breach of contract and tort. As the law allows for separate civil liabilities arising from both criminal offenses and independent contracts, Lim did not engage in forum shopping by filing two distinct cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    64 views2 pages

    Lim v. Ping G.R. No. 175256 August 23, 2012 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Dag-um Macalolot
    Lim filed a criminal case for estafa and a separate civil case against Co Ping for breach of contract regarding the sale of 37,200 bags of cement. Co Ping argued that Lim committed forum shopping by filing two cases seeking the same relief. However, the court held that the cases involved separate causes of action. The first was a civil action related to the criminal estafa case, while the second involved a breach of contract and tort. As the law allows for separate civil liabilities arising from both criminal offenses and independent contracts, Lim did not engage in forum shopping by filing two distinct cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Lim v.

    Ping
    G.R. No. 175256
    August 23, 2012

    Facts:
    FR Cement Corporation (FRCC) issued several withdrawal Fil-Cement
    Center and Tigerbilt. Fil-Cement Center and Tigerbilt sold the withdrawal
    authorities to Kou Co Ping (Co). Co sold all such withdrawal authorities to
    Lily Lim (Lim). But sometime in April 1999, FRCC did not allow Lim to
    withdraw the remaining 37,200 bags covered by the withdrawal authorities.
    Lim filed to estafa with civil liability and also filed a separate civil case
    for CO’s violation on Lim’s right as a buyer in a contract of sale.
    Co maintains that Lim is guilty of forum shopping because she is
    asserting only one cause of action in the appeal from the civil aspect and in
    separate Civil Case, which is for Co’s violation of her right to receive 37,200
    bags of cement. The reliefs sought in both cases are the same, that is, for
    Co to deliver the 37,200 bags of cement or its value to Lim.
    Lim then explains the separate and distinct causes of action involved in
    two cases. Her first cause of action is based on the crime of estafa. Co
    violated Lim’s right to be protected against swindling. He represented to Lim
    that she can withdraw 37,200 bags of cement but he could not deliver what
    he promised. Lim’s second cause of action is based on contract. Co violated
    Lim’s rights as a buyer in a contract of sale. Co received payment for the
    37,200 bags of cement but did not deliver the goods that were the subject of
    the sale

    Issue:
    Did Lim commit forum shopping in filing the civil case for specific
    performance and damages during the pendency of her appeal on the civil
    aspect of the criminal case for estafa?

    Held:
    No, first action is clearly a civil action ex delicto, it having been
    instituted together with the criminal action while the second action is a civil
    action arising from a contractual obligation and for tortious conduct.
    The Law substantially provides that a single act or omission that
    causes damage to an offended party may give rise to two separate civil
    liabilities on the part of the offender-liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability
    arising from the criminal offense, and civil liability that may be pursued
    independently of the criminal proceedings.
    In the instant case, Lim’s first action is clearly a civil action ex delicto,
    it having been instituted together with the criminal action of estafa. In the
    second action, judging by the allegations contained in the complaint, is a
    civil action arising from a contractual obligation and for tortious conduct
    (abuse of rights) for CO and co-defendant did not honor the terms of the
    withdrawal authorities it issued.
    Hence, those two cases present different causes of action, which under
    the law, are considered "separate, distinct, and independent" from each
    other.

    You might also like