1.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.TERESITA PUIG and ROMEO PORRAS, respondents.

This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court with petitioner People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, praying for the reversal of the Orders dated 30 January 2006 and 9 June 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the 6th Judicial Region, Branch 68, Dumangas, Iloilo, dismissing the 112 cases of Qualified Theft filed against respondents Teresita Puig and Romeo Porras, and denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, in Criminal Cases No. 05-3054 to 05-3165.

The following are the factual antecedents:

On 7 November 2005, the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutors Office filed before Branch 68 of the RTC in Dumangas, Iloilo, 112 cases of Qualified Theft against respondents Teresita Puig (Puig) and Romeo Porras (Porras) who were the Cashier and Bookkeeper, respectively, of private complainant Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc. The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases No. 05-3054 to 05-3165.

The allegations in the Informations1 filed before the RTC were uniform and pro-forma, except for the amounts, date and time of commission, to wit:

INFORMATION

That on or about the 1st day of August, 2002, in the Municipality of Pototan, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named [respondents], conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, with grave abuse of confidence, being the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo, without the knowledge and/or consent of the management of the Bank and with intent of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00), Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the said bank in the aforesaid amount.

After perusing the Informations in these cases, the trial court did not find the existence of probable cause that would have necessitated the issuance of a warrant of arrest based on the following grounds:

(1) the element of taking without the consent of the owners was missing on the ground that it is the depositors-clients, and not the Bank, which filed the complaint in these cases, who are the owners of the money allegedly taken by respondents and hence, are the real parties-in-interest; and

(2) the Informations are bereft of the phrase alleging "dependence, guardianship or vigilance between the respondents and the offended party that would have created a high degree of confidence between them which the respondents could have abused."

It added that allowing the 112 cases for Qualified Theft filed against the respondents to push through would be violative of the right of the respondents under Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution which states that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Following Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the RTC dismissed the cases on 30 January 2006 and refused to issue a warrant of arrest against Puig and Porras.

A Motion for Reconsideration2 was filed on 17 April 2006, by the petitioner.

On 9 June 2006, an Order3 denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was issued by the RTC, finding as follows:

Accordingly, the prosecutions Motion for Reconsideration should be, as it hereby, DENIED. The Order dated January 30, 2006 STANDS in all respects.

Petitioner went directly to this Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, raising the sole legal issue of:

WHETHER OR NOT THE 112 INFORMATIONS FOR QUALIFIED THEFT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE ELEMENT OF TAKING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER, AND THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF GRAVE ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE.

Petitioner prays that judgment be rendered annulling and setting aside the Orders dated 30 January 2006 and 9 June 2006 issued by the trial court, and that it be directed to proceed with Criminal Cases No. 05-3054 to 05-3165.

Petitioner explains that under Article 1980 of the New Civil Code, "fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loans." Corollary thereto, Article 1953 of the same Code provides that "a person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality." Thus, it posits that the depositors who place their money with the bank are considered creditors of the bank. The bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients, making the money taken by respondents as belonging to the bank.

Petitioner also insists that the Informations sufficiently allege all the elements of the crime of qualified theft, citing that a perusal of the Informations will show that they specifically allege that the respondents were the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc., respectively, and that they took various amounts of money with grave abuse of confidence, and without the knowledge and consent of the bank, to the damage and prejudice of the bank.

Parenthetically, respondents raise procedural issues. They challenge the petition on the ground that a Petition for Review on Certiorari via Rule 45 is the wrong mode of appeal because a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest presupposes evaluation of facts and circumstances, which is not proper under said Rule.

Respondents further claim that the Department of Justice (DOJ), through the Secretary of Justice, is the principal party to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari, considering that the incident was indorsed by the DOJ.

We find merit in the petition.

The dismissal by the RTC of the criminal cases was allegedly due to insufficiency of the Informations and, therefore, because of this defect, there is no basis for the existence of probable cause which will justify the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Petitioner assails the dismissal contending that the Informations for Qualified Theft sufficiently state facts which constitute (a) the qualifying circumstance of grave abuse of confidence; and (b) the element of taking, with intent to gain and without the consent of the owner, which is the Bank.

In determining the existence of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest, the RTC judge found the allegations in the Information inadequate. He ruled that the Information failed to state facts constituting the qualifying circumstance of grave abuse of confidence and the element of taking without the consent of the owner, since the owner of the money is not the Bank, but the depositors therein. He also cites People v. Koc Song,4 in which this Court held:

There must be allegation in the information and proof of a relation, by reason of dependence, guardianship or vigilance, between the respondents and the offended party that has created a high degree of confidence between them, which the respondents abused.

At this point, it needs stressing that the RTC Judge based his conclusion that there was no probable cause simply on the insufficiency of the allegations in the Informations concerning the facts constitutive of the elements of the offense charged. This, therefore, makes the issue of sufficiency of the allegations in the Informations the focal point of discussion.

Qualified Theft, as defined and punished under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, is committed as follows, viz:

ART. 310. Qualified Theft. The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (Emphasis supplied.)

Theft, as defined in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, requires the physical taking of anothers property without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. The elements of the crime under this Article are:

1. Intent to gain;

2. Unlawful taking;

3. Personal property belonging to another;

4. Absence of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things.

To fall under the crime of Qualified Theft, the following elements must concur:

1. Taking of personal property;

2. That the said property belongs to another;

3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;

4. That it be done without the owners consent;

5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things;

6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.

On the sufficiency of the Information, Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court requires, inter alia, that the information must state the acts or omissions complained of as constitutive of the offense.

On the manner of how the Information should be worded, Section 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, is enlightening:

Section 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.

It is evident that the Information need not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly.5

The portion of the Information relevant to this discussion reads:

A]bove-named [respondents], conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, with grave abuse of confidence, being the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo, without the knowledge and/or consent of the management of the Bank x x x.

It is beyond doubt that tellers, Cashiers, Bookkeepers and other employees of a Bank who come into possession of the monies deposited therein enjoy the confidence reposed in them by their employer. Banks, on the other hand, where monies are deposited, are considered the owners thereof. This is very clear not only from the express provisions of the law, but from established jurisprudence. The relationship between banks and depositors has been held to be that of creditor and debtor. Articles 1953 and 1980 of the New Civil Code, as appropriately pointed out by petitioner, provide as follows:

Article 1953. A person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality.

Article 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning loan.

In a long line of cases involving Qualified Theft, this Court has firmly established the nature of possession by the Bank of the money deposits therein, and the duties being performed by its employees who have custody of the money or have come into possession of it. The Court has consistently considered the allegations in the Information that such employees acted with grave abuse of confidence, to the damage and prejudice of the Bank, without particularly referring to it as owner of the money deposits, as sufficient to make out a case of Qualified Theft. For a graphic illustration, we cite Roque v. People,6 where the accused teller was convicted for Qualified Theft based on this Information:

That on or about the 16th day of November, 1989, in the municipality of Floridablanca, province of Pampanga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of his Honorable Court, the above-named accused ASUNCION GALANG ROQUE, being then employed as teller of the Basa Air Base Savings and Loan Association Inc. (BABSLA) with office address at Basa Air Base, Floridablanca, Pampanga, and as such was authorized and reposed with the responsibility to receive and collect capital contributions from its member/contributors of said corporation, and having collected and received in her capacity as teller of the BABSLA the sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00), said accused, with intent of gain, with grave abuse of confidence and without the knowledge and consent of said corporation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the amount of P10,000.00, Philippine currency, by making it appear that a certain depositor by the name of Antonio Salazar withdrew from his Savings Account No. 1359, when in truth and in fact said Antonio Salazar did not withdr[a]w the said amount of P10,000.00 to the damage and prejudice of BABSLA in the total amount of P10,000.00, Philippine currency.

In convicting the therein appellant, the Court held that:

[S]ince the teller occupies a position of confidence, and the bank places money in the tellers possession due to the confidence reposed on the teller, the felony of qualified theft would be committed.7

Also in People v. Sison,8 the Branch Operations Officer was convicted of the crime of Qualified Theft based on the Information as herein cited:

That in or about and during the period compressed between January 24, 1992 and February 13, 1992, both dates inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away the following, to wit:

Cash money amounting to P6,000,000.00 in different denominations belonging to the PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (PCIBank for brevity), Luneta Branch, Manila represented by its Branch Manager, HELEN U. FARGAS, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount of P6,000,000.00, Philippine Currency.

That in the commission of the said offense, herein accused acted with grave abuse of confidence and unfaithfulness, he being the Branch Operation Officer of the said complainant and as such he had free access to the place where the said amount of money was kept.

The judgment of conviction elaborated thus:

The crime perpetuated by appellant against his employer, the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB), is Qualified Theft. Appellant could not have committed the crime had he not been holding the position of Luneta Branch Operation Officer which gave him not only sole access to the bank vault xxx. The management of the PCIB reposed its trust and confidence in the appellant as its Luneta Branch Operation Officer, and it was this trust and confidence which he exploited to enrich himself to the damage and prejudice of PCIB x x x.9

From another end, People v. Locson,10 in addition to People v. Sison, described the nature of possession by the Bank. The money in this case was in the possession of the defendant as receiving teller of the bank, and the possession of the defendant was the possession of the Bank. The Court held therein that when the defendant, with grave abuse of confidence, removed the money and appropriated it to his own use without the consent of the Bank, there was taking as contemplated in the crime of Qualified Theft.11

Conspicuously, in all of the foregoing cases, where the Informations merely alleged the positions of the respondents; that the crime was committed with grave abuse of confidence, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the Bank, without necessarily stating the phrase being assiduously insisted upon by respondents, "of a relation by reason of dependence, guardianship or vigilance, between the respondents and the offended party that has created a high degree of confidence between them, which respondents abused,"12 and without employing the word "owner" in lieu of the "Bank" were considered to have satisfied the test of sufficiency of allegations.

As regards the respondents who were employed as Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Bank in this case, there is even no reason to quibble on the allegation in the Informations that they acted with grave abuse of confidence. In fact, the Information which alleged grave abuse of confidence by accused herein is even more precise, as this is exactly the requirement of the law in qualifying the crime of Theft.

In summary, the Bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients; and the employees of the Bank, who are entrusted with the possession of money of the Bank due to the confidence reposed in them, occupy positions of confidence. The Informations, therefore, sufficiently allege all the essential elements constituting the crime of Qualified Theft.

On the theory of the defense that the DOJ is the principal party who may file the instant petition, the ruling in Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Hajime Umezawa13 is instructive. The Court thus enunciated:

In a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the offended party is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom. Hence, if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, a reconsideration of the order of dismissal or acquittal may be undertaken, whenever legally feasible, insofar as the criminal aspect thereof is concerned and may be made only by the public prosecutor; or in the case of an appeal, by the State only, through the OSG. x x x.

On the alleged wrong mode of appeal by petitioner, suffice it to state that the rule is well-settled that in appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only errors of law may be raised,14 and herein petitioner certainly raised a question of law.

As an aside, even if we go beyond the allegations of the Informations in these cases, a closer look at the records of the preliminary investigation conducted will show that, indeed, probable cause exists for the indictment of herein respondents. Pursuant to Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, the judge shall issue a warrant of arrest only upon a finding of probable cause after personally evaluating the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. Soliven v. Makasiar,15 as reiterated in Allado v. Driokno,16 explained that probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.17 The records reasonably indicate that the respondents may have, indeed, committed the offense charged.

Before closing, let it be stated that while it is truly imperative upon the fiscal or the judge, as the case may be, to relieve the respondents from the pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the respondents, conversely, it is also equally imperative upon the judge to proceed with the case upon a showing that there is a prima facie case against the respondents.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Orders dated 30 January 2006 and 9 June 2006 of the RTC dismissing Criminal Cases No. 05-3054 to 05-3165 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let the corresponding Warrants of Arrest issue against herein respondents TERESITA PUIG and ROMEO PORRAS. The RTC Judge of Branch 68, in Dumangas, Iloilo, is directed to proceed with the trial of Criminal Cases No. 05-3054 to 05-3165, inclusive, with reasonable dispatch. No pronouncement as to costs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, vs. TERESITA PUIG and ROMEO PORRAS,Respondent.

FACTS: The petitioners filed before the RTC of Iloilo 112 cases of Qualified Theft against respondents Teresita Puig (Puig) and Romeo Porras (Porras) who were the Cashier and Bookkeeper, respectively, of private complainant Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc for taking various amounts of money with grave abuse of confidence, and without the knowledge and consent of the bank, to the damage and prejudice of the bank. The RTC dismissed the cases and refused to issue a warrant of arrest against Puig and Porras on the ground of lack of probable cause because the complaint failed to state the facts constituting the qualifying circumstance of grave abuse of confidence and the element of taking without the consent of the owner since the owner of the money is not the Bank, but the depositors therein. MR was filed but it was also denied.ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE 112 INFORMATIONS FOR QUALIFIED THEFTSUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE ELEMENT OF TAKING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THEOWNER, AND THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF GRAVE ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE.RULING: Yes. Qualified Theft, as defined and punished under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, is committed as follows,ART. 310.Qualified Theft . The crime of theft shall be punished by thepenalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the nextpreceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (Emphasis supplied.) Theft, as defined in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, requires the physical taking of anothers property without violence or intimidation against persons or forceupon things. The elements of the crime under this Article are: 1. Intent to gain;2. Unlawful taking; 3. Personal property belonging to another;4. Absence of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. To fall under the crime of Qualified Theft, the following elements must concur: 1. Taking of personal property;2. That the said property belongs to another;3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;4. That it be done without the owners consent;5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation againstpersons, nor of force upon things;6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. On the sufficiency of the Information, Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court requires,inter alia, that the information must state the acts or omissions complained of as constitutive of the offense. On the manner of how the Information should be worded, Section 9, Rule 110 of the rRules of Court, is enlightening: Section 9.Cause of the accusation.The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. It is evident that the Information need not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly.[5] The portion of the Information relevant to this discussion reads: [A]bove-named [respondents], conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, with grave abuse of confidence, being the Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo, without the knowledge and/or consent of the management of the Bank x x x. It is beyond doubt that tellers, Cashiers, Bookkeepers and other employees of a Bank who come into possession of the monies deposited therein enjoy the confidence reposed in them by their employer. Banks, on the other hand, where monies are deposited, are considered the owners thereof. This is very clear not only from the express provisions of the law, but from established jurisprudence. The relationship between banks and depositors has been held to be that of creditor and debtor. Articles 1953 and 1980 of the New Civil Code, as appropriately pointed out by petitioner, provide as follows: Article 1953. A person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality. Article 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning loan. In a long line of cases involving Qualified Theft, this Court has firmly established the nature of possession by the Bank of the money deposits therein, and the duties being performed by its employees who have custody of the money or have come into possession of it. The Court has consistently considered the allegations in the Information that such employees acted with grave abuse of confidence, to the damage and prejudice of the Bank, without particularly referring to it as owner of the money deposits, as sufficient to make out a case of Qualified Theft Where the Informations merely alleged the positions of the respondents; that the crime was committed with grave abuse of confidence, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the Bank, without necessarily stating the

2. Cheng vs. SyThis is a petition[1] for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Order dated January 2, 2006[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Manila in Civil Case No. 05-112452 entitled Anita Cheng v. Spouses William Sy and Tessie Sy. The antecedents are as follows Petitioner Anita Cheng filed two (2) estafa cases before the RTC, Branch 7, Manila against respondent spouses William and Tessie Sy (Criminal Case No. 98-969952 against Tessie Sy and Criminal Case No. 98-969953 against William Sy) for issuing to her Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC) Check Nos. 171762 and 71860 for P300,000.00 each, in payment of their loan, both of which were dishonored upon presentment for having been drawn against a closed account. Meanwhile, based on the same facts, petitioner, on January 20, 1999, filed against respondents two (2) cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP Blg.) 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 25, Manila (Criminal Case Nos. 341458-59). On March 16, 2004, the RTC, Branch 7, Manila dismissed the estafa cases for failure of the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime. The Order dismissing Criminal Case No. 98-969952 contained no declaration as to the civil liability of Tessie Sy.[3] On the other hand, the Order in Criminal Case No. 98-969953 contained a statement, Hence, if there is any liability of the accused, the same is purely civil, not criminal in nature.[4] Later, the MeTC, Branch 25, Manila, dismissed, on demurrer, the BP Blg. 22 cases in its Order[5] dated February 7, 2005 on account of the failure of petitioner to identify the accused respondents in open court. The Order also did not make any pronouncement as to the civil liability of accused respondents. On April 26, 2005, petitioner lodged against respondents before the RTC, Branch 18, Manila, a complaint[6] for collection of a sum of money with damages (Civil Case No. 05-112452) based on the same loaned amount of P600,000.00 covered by the two PBC checks previously subject of the estafa and BP Blg. 22 cases. In the assailed Order[7] dated January 2, 2006, the RTC, Branch 18, Manila, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ratiocinating that the civil action to collect the amount of P600,000.00 with damages was already impliedly instituted in the BP Blg. 22 cases in light of Section 1, paragraph (b) of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration[8] which the court denied in its Order[9] dated June 5, 2006. Hence, this petition, raising the sole legal issue Whether or not Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure and Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 on the Rules and Guidelines in the filing and prosecution of criminal cases under BP Blg. 22 are applicable to the present case where the nature of the order dismissing the cases for bouncing checks against the respondents was [based] on the failure of the prosecution to identify both the accused (respondents herein)?[10] Essentially, petitioner argues that since the BP Blg. 22 cases were filed on January 20, 1999, the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure promulgated on December 1, 2000 should not apply, as it must be given only prospective application. She further contends that that her case falls within the following exceptions to the rule that the civil action correspondent to the criminal action is deemed instituted with the latter (1) additional evidence as to the identities of the accused is necessary for the resolution of the civil aspect of the case; (2) a separate complaint would be just as efficacious as or even more expedient than a timely remand to the trial court where the criminal action was decided for further hearings on the civil aspect of the case; (3) the trial court failed to make any pronouncement as to the civil liability of the accused amounting to a reservation of the right to have the civil liability litigated in a separate action; (4) the trial court did not declare that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not exist; (5) the civil complaint is based on an obligation ex-contractu and not ex-delicto pursuant to Article 31[11] of the Civil Code; and (6) the claim for civil liability for damages may be had under Article 29[12] of the Civil Code. Petitioner also points out that she was not assisted by any private prosecutor in the BP Blg. 22 proceedings. The rule is that upon the filing of the estafa and BP Blg. 22 cases against respondents, where the petitioner has not made any waiver, express reservation to litigate separately, or has not instituted the corresponding civil action to collect the amount of P600,000.00 and damages prior to the criminal action, the civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal cases.[13] This rule applies especially with the advent of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Thus, during the pendency of both the estafa and the BP Blg. 22 cases, the action to recover the civil liability was impliedly instituted and remained pending before the respective trial courts. This is consonant with our ruling in Rodriguez v. Ponferrada[14] that the possible single civil liability arising from the act of issuing a bouncing check can be the subject of both civil actions deemed instituted with the estafa case and the prosecution for violation of BP Blg. 22, simultaneously available to the complaining party, without traversing the prohibition against forum shopping.[15] Prior to the judgment in either the estafa case or the BP Blg. 22 case, petitioner, as the complainant, cannot be deemed to have elected either of the civil actions both impliedly instituted in the said criminal proceedings to the exclusion of the other.[16]The dismissal of the estafa cases for failure of the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubtwhere in Criminal Case No. 98-969952 there was no pronouncement as regards the civil liability of the accused and in Criminal Case No. 98-969953 where the trial court declared that the liability of the accused was only civil in natureproduced the legal effect of a reservation by the petitioner of her right to litigate separately the civil action impliedly instituted with the estafa cases, following Article 29 of the Civil Code.[17] However, although this civil action could have been litigated separately on account of the dismissal of the estafa cases on reasonable doubt, the petitioner was deemed to have also elected that such civil action be prosecuted together with the BP Blg. 22 cases in light of the Rodriguez v. Ponferrada ruling. With the dismissal of the BP Blg. 22 cases for failure to establish the identity of the accused, the question that arises is whether such dismissal would have the same legal effect as the dismissed estafa cases. Put differently, may petitioners action to recover respondents civil liability be also allowed to prosper separately after the BP Blg. 22 cases were dismissed? Section 1 (b), Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. x x x (b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed. Upon filing of the joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay the filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages [is] subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment. Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions. Petitioner is in error when she insists that the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure should not apply because she filed her BP Blg. 22 complaints in 1999. It is now settled that rules of procedure apply even to cases already pending at the time of their promulgation. The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants rights does not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. It is axiomatic that the retroactive application of procedural laws does not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, nor is it constitutionally objectionable. The reason for this is that, as a general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws.[18] Indeed, under the present revised Rules, the criminal action for violation of BP Blg. 22 includes the corresponding civil action to recover the amount of the checks. It should be stressed, this policy is intended to discourage the separate filing of the civil action. In fact, the Rules even prohibits the reservation of a separate civil action, i.e., one can no longer file a separate civil case after the criminal complaint is filed in court. The only instance when separate proceedings are allowed is when the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal case. Even then, the Rules encourages the consolidation of the civil and criminal cases. Thus, where petitioners rights may be fully adjudicated in the proceedings before the court trying the BP Blg. 22 cases, resort to a separate action to recover civil liability is clearly unwarranted on account of res judicata, for failure of petitioner to appeal the civil aspect of the cases. In view of this special rule governing actions for violation of BP Blg. 22, Article 31 of the Civil Code is not applicable.[19] Be it remembered that rules governing procedure before the courts, while not cast in stone, are for the speedy, efficient, and orderly dispensation of justice and should therefore be adhered to in order to attain this objective.[20] However, in applying the procedure discussed above, it appears that petitioner would be left without a remedy to recover from respondents the P600,000.00 allegedly loaned from her. This could prejudice even the petitioners Notice of Claim involving the same amount filed in Special Proceedings No. 98-88390 (Petition for Voluntary Insolvency by Kolin Enterprises, William Sy and Tessie Sy), which case was reportedly archived for failure to prosecute the petition for an unreasonable length of time.[21] Expectedly, respondents would raise the same defense that petitioner had already elected to litigate the civil action to recover the amount of the checks along with the BP Blg. 22 cases. It is in this light that we find petitioners contention that she was not assisted by a private prosecutor during the BP Blg. 22 proceedings critical. Petitioner indirectly protests that the public prosecutor failed to protect and prosecute her cause when he failed to have her establish the identities of the accused during the trial and when he failed to appeal the civil action deemed impliedly instituted with the BP Blg. 22 cases. On this ground, we agree with petitioner. Faced with the dismissal of the BP Blg. 22 cases, petitioners recourse pursuant to the prevailing rules of procedure would have been to appeal the civil action to recover the amount loaned to respondents corresponding to the bounced checks. Hence, the said civil action may proceed requiring only a preponderance of evidence on the part of petitioner. Her failure to appeal within the reglementary period was tantamount to a waiver altogether of the remedy to recover the civil liability of respondents. However, due to the gross mistake of the prosecutor in the BP Blg. 22 cases, we are constrained to digress from this rule. It is true that clients are bound by the mistakes, negligence and omission of their counsel.[22] But this rule admits of exceptions (1) where the counsels mistake is so great and serious that the client is prejudiced and denied his day in court, or (2) where the counsel is guilty of gross negligence resulting in the clients deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law.[23] Tested against these guidelines, we hold that petitioners lot falls within the exceptions. It is an oft-repeated exhortation to counsels to be well-informed of existing laws and rules and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations as members of the Bar.[24] Further, lawyers in the government service are expected to be more conscientious in the performance of their duties as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the Bar but are also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service.[25] Apparently, the public prosecutor neglected to equip himself with the knowledge of the proper procedure for BP Blg. 22 cases under the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure such that he failed to appeal the civil action impliedly instituted with the BP Blg. 22 cases, the only remaining remedy available to petitioner to be able to recover the money she loaned to respondents, upon the dismissal of the criminal cases on demurrer. By this failure, petitioner was denied her day in court to prosecute the respondents for their obligation to pay their loan. Moreover, we take into consideration the trial courts observation when it dismissed the estafa charge in Criminal Case No. 98-969953 that if there was any liability on the part of respondents, it was civil in nature. Hence, if the loan be proven true, the inability of petitioner to recover the loaned amount would be tantamount to unjust enrichment of respondents, as they may now conveniently evade payment of their obligation merely on account of a technicality applied against petitioner. There is unjust enrichment when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another. This doctrine simply means that a person shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at anothers expense. One condition for invoking this principle of unjust enrichment is that the aggrieved party has no other recourse based on contract, quasi-contract, crime, quasi-delict or any other provision of law.[26] Court litigations are primarily designed to search for the truth, and a liberal interpretation and application of the rules which will give the parties the fullest opportunity to adduce proof is the best way to ferret out the truth. The dispensation of justice and vindication of legitimate grievances should not be barred by technicalities.[27] For reasons of substantial justice and equity, as the complement of the legal jurisdiction that seeks to dispense justice where courts of law, through the inflexibility of their rules and want of power to adapt their judgments to the special circumstances of cases, are incompetent to do so,[28] we thus rule, pro hac vice, in favor of petitioner. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Civil Case No. 05-112452 entitled Anita Cheng v. Spouses William Sy and Tessie Sy is hereby ordered REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to costs.12