DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, vs. Cleofe S. Janiola and Hon. Arthur A. Famini, Respondents
DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, vs. Cleofe S. Janiola and Hon. Arthur A. Famini, Respondents
DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, vs. Cleofe S. Janiola and Hon. Arthur A. Famini, Respondents
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
467
468
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
The Facts
_______________
469
_______________
470
„Should the trial court declare the rescission of contract and the
nullification of the checks issued as the same are without
consideration, then the instant criminal cases for alleged violation
of BP 22 must be dismissed. The belated filing of the civil case by
the herein accused did not detract from the correctness of her cause,
since a motion for suspension of a criminal action may be filed at
any time before the prosecution rests (Section 6, Rule 111, Revised
Rules of Court).‰8
_______________
8 Id., at p. 67.
9 Id., at pp. 75-76.
10 Id., at p. 90.
471
The Issue
_______________
11 Id., at p. 11.
12 Carlos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109887, February 10, 1997, 268
SCRA 25, 33; Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 110544, October 17,
1995, 249 SCRA 342, 351; Apa v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 112381, March 30,
1995, 242 SCRA 509, 512; Yap v. Paras, G.R. No.101236, January 30,
1994, 205 SCRA 625, 629; Umali v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
No. 63198, June 21, 1990, 186 SCRA 680, 685.
13 G.R. No. 137567, June 20, 2000, 334 SCRA 106, 110.
472
473
_______________
474
_______________
475
Here, the civil case was filed two (2) years after the
institution of the criminal complaint and from the time
that private respondent allegedly withdrew its equipment
from the job site. Also, it is worth noting that the civil case
was instituted more than two and a half (2 ½) years from
the time that private respondent allegedly stopped
construction of the proposed building for no valid reason.
More importantly, the civil case praying for the rescission
of the construction agreement for lack of consideration was
filed more than three (3) years from the execution of the
construction agreement.
Evidently, as in Sabandal, the circumstances
surrounding the filing of the cases involved here show that
the filing of the civil action was a mere afterthought on the
part of private respondent and interposed for delay. And as
correctly argued by petitioner, it is this scenario that Sec. 7
of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court seeks to prevent. Thus,
private respondentÊs positions cannot be left to stand.
_______________
477
478
had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to
stop payment.‰20
20 Mejia v. People, G.R. No. 149937, June 21, 2007, 525 SCRA 209,
213-214.
21 Rigor v. People, G.R. No. 144887, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA
451, 461; Narte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132552, July 14, 2004, 434
SCRA 336, 341; Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105461, November
11, 1993, 227 SCRA 723, 726-727, citing People v. Nitafan, G.R. No.
75954, October 22, 1992, 215 SCRA 79, 84-85 and Que v. People, Nos. L-
75217-18, September 21, 1987, 154 SCRA 161, 165.
22 Supra note 20, at pp. 214-215.
23 G.R. No. 145498, January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 455.
479
_______________
480