Civil Code: Persons, Family, and Relations  Art 4 of the Civil Code states that Laws shall

Topic: Retroactivity of laws have no retroactive effect unless the

contrary is provided.
Relevant Article: Art 4 of the Civil Code  In relation to this case, as cited by CA,
Laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the procedural laws are given retroactive effect
contrary is provided. to actions pending and undetermined at the
time of passage. No vested rights in the
Heirs of Eduardo Simon v Elvin Chan and the Court of procedure.
Appeals  However, there is no independent civil action
G.R. No. 157547, February 23, 2011 to recover the value of the check in relation
to BP 22. Applying the Rules in Rule 111 of
Ponente: Justice Bersamin
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures
effective Dec 1, 2000, the criminal action for
Facts: violation of BP 22 shall be deemed to include
the civil action.
 1996 - Eduardo Simon willfully and  If the case of Chan commenced August 3,
feloniously issued a check amounting to 2000, the Revised Rules of Criminal
P336,000 against Elvin Chan payable in Procedures shall be retroactively applied.
cash. The check bounced due to insufficient The new issuance was based on SC Circular
funds, and Simon failed to pay Chan or 57-97 that took effect November 1, 1997.
make arrangements for the full payment.
 1997 – Simon, the petitioner, was then Therefore, the Court, speaking thru Justice
charged with a violation of BP 22 in the Besamin, dismissed the case due to litis
Metropolitan Trial Court. pendentia, reinstated the decision of the MeTC
 August 3, 2000 – Elvin Chan, the and RTC, hereby reversing the CA’s decision.
respondent, commenced in the MeTC a civil
action for the collection of the principal
amounting to P336,000, coupled with a writ
of preliminary attachment.
 Simon filed an urgent Motion to Dismiss with
application to charge the plaintiff’s
attachment bond for damages on the ground
of litis pendentia. Chan opposed it.
 MeTC ruled in favor of Simon. Chan filed for
a motion for reconsideration and has been
subsequently dismissed.
 Chan appealed to the CA challenging the
propriety of the dismissal on the ground of
litis pendentia.
 CA overturned the decision citing Rule 111
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures.
Hence, this Petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the case should be
dismissed due to litis pendentia because the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedures pertaining to
independent civil actions became effective December
1, 2000 are applicable to this case renders Chan’s
civil action to recover as an independent civil action
Rulings:

 Yes, the case should be dismissed on the

ground of litis pendentia.