You are on page 1of 16


Held: Quasi-delict or culpa acquiliana is a separate legal institution
under the Civil Code of the Philippines is entirely distinct and
independent from a delict or crime under the Revised Penal Code. In
this jurisdiction the same negligent act causing damage may produce
civil lia!ility "su!sidiary# arising from a crime under $rticle %&' of the
Revised Penal Code of the Philippines( or create an action for quasi-
delicto or culpa aquiliana under $rticles )%*+ and )%,& of the Civil
Code and the parties are free to choose -hich course to ta.e. $nd in
the instant case the negligent act of /ontanilla produces t-o ")#
lia!ilities of 0arredo: /irst a su!sidiary one !ecause of the civil lia!ility
of /ontanilla arising from the latter1s criminal negligence under $rticle
%&' of the Revised Penal Code and second 0arredo1s primary and
direct responsi!ility arising from his presumed negligence as an
employer under $rticle )%,& of the Civil Code. 2ince the plainti3s are
free to choose -hat remedy to ta.e they preferred the second -hich
is -ithin their rights. 4his is the more e5pedious and e3ective method
of relief !ecause /ontanilla -as either in prison or just !een released or
had no property. 0arredo -as held lia!le for damages.
In 2eptem!er %+*6 0orilla -as driving a jeep -hen he hit $rsenio
7irata there!y causing the latter1s death. 4he heirs of 7irata sued
0orilla through an action for homicide through rec.less imprudence in
the C/I of Ri8al. 7irata1s la-yer reserved their right to 9le a separate
civil action the he later -ithdre- said motion. 0ut in :une %+*;
pending the criminal case the 7iratas again reserved their right to 9le
a separate civil action. 0orilla -as eventually acquitted as it -as ruled
that -hat happened -as a mere accident. 4he heirs of 7irata then sued
0orilla and <choa "the o-ner of the jeep and employer of 0orilla# for
damages !ased on quasi delict. <choa assailed the civil suit alleging
that 0orilla -as already acquitted and that the 7irata1s -ere merely
trying to recover damages t-ice. 4he lo-er court agreed -ith <choa
and dismissed the civil suit.
ISSUE: =hether or not the heirs of 7irata may 9le a separate civil suit.
HELD: Yes. It is settled that in negligence cases the aggrieved parties
may choose !et-een an action under the Revised Penal Code or of
quasi-delict under $rticle )%*; of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
=hat is prohi!ited !y $rticle )%** of the Civil Code of the Philippines is
to recover t-ice for the same negligent act. 4herefore under the
proposed $rticle )%** acquittal from an accusation of criminal
negligence -hether on reasona!le dou!t or not shall not !e a !ar to a
su!sequent civil action not for civil lia!ility arising from criminal
negligence !ut for damages due to a quasi-delict or >culpa aquiliana1.
0ut said article forestalls a dou!le recovery.
Banal vs. Tadeo
Petitioner herein is one of the complainants in the criminal cases 9led
against Rosario Claudio. Claudio is charged -ith %6 separate
information for violation of 0P)). Claudio pleaded not guilty thus trial
ensued. Petitioner moved to intervene through private prosecutor !ut
it -as rejected !y respondent judge on the ground that the charge is
for the violation of 0atas Pam!ansa 0lg. )) -hich does not provide for
any civil lia!ility or indemnity and hence ?it is not a crime against
property !ut pu!lic order.@ Petitioner 9led a motion for reconsideration
!ut -as denied !y the respondent judge. Hence this appeal.
=hether or not a private prosecutor may intervene in the prosecution
for violation of 0P )) -hich does not provide for civil lia!ility.
Yes. Ander $rt. %&& of the RPC >every person criminally lia!le for a
felony is also civilly lia!le.1 4hus a person committing a felony o3ends
namely "%# the society in -hich he lives in or the political entity called
the 2tate -hose la- he had violated( and ")# the individual mem!er of
that society -hose person right honor chastity or property -as
actually or directly injured or damaged !y the same punisha!le actor
omission. =hile an act or omission is felonious !ecause it is punisha!le
!y la- it gives rise to civil lia!ility not so much !ecause it is a crime
!ut !ecause it caused damage to another. 7ie-ing things
pragmatically -e can readily see that -hat gives rise to the civil
lia!ility is really the o!ligation and the moral duty of everyone to repair
or ma.e -hole the damage caused to another !y reason of his o-n act
or omission done intentionally or negligently -hether or not the same
!e punisha!le !y la-.
In other -ords criminal lia!ility -ill give rise to civil lia!ility only if
the same felonious act or omission results in damage or injury to
another and is the direct and pro5imate cause thereof. Bamage or
injury to another is evidently the foundation of the civil action. 2uch is
not the case in criminal actions for to !e criminally lia!le it is enough
that the act or omission complained of is punisha!le regardless of
-hether or not it also causes material damage to another. $rticle )& of
the Ce- Civil Code provides: ?Dvery person -ho contrary to la-
-ilfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the
latter for the same.@ Regardless therefore of -hether or not a special
la- so provides Indemni9cation of the o3ended party may !e had on
account of the damage loss or injury directly su3ered as a
consequence of the -rongful act of another.
G.R. O. %&'() *anua+, &&# '--.. /01nds o2 Da3a4es5
!ETITIO 2o+ +ev1e6 on ce+t1o+a+1 see71n4 to annul t8e dec1s1on
o2 t8e RTC
Facts: Petitioner <ccena 9led a criminal complaint for Erave <ral
Befamation against private respondent Cristina 7egra9a for allegedly
openly pu!licly and maliciously uttering the follo-ing insulting -ords
and statements: FEago i.a- nga 0arangay Captain montisco traidor
malugus Hudas.F Private respondent as accused therein entered a
plea of not guilty. $fter trial private respondent -as convicted of the
o3ense of 2light <ral Befamation and -as sentenced to pay a 9ne of
/ifty Pesos "P6&.&&# -ith su!sidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
and to pay the costs. Co damages -ere a-arded to petitioner.
Issue: =<C petitioner is entitled to an a-ard of damages arising from
the remar.s uttered !y private respondent and found !y the trial court
to !e defamatory.
Rul1n4: PD4I4I<C ER$C4DB. 4he decision of the R4C is G<BI/IDB and
private respondent is ordered to pay petitioner the amount of
P6&&&.&& as moral damages and another P6&&&.&& as e5emplary
=hat gives rise to the civil lia!ility is really the o!ligation of everyone
to repair or to ma.e -hole the damage caused to another !y reason of
his act or omission -hether done intentionally or negligently and
-hether or not punisha!le !y la-. 4he o3ense of -hich private
respondent -as found guilty is not one of those felonies -here no civil
lia!ility results !ecause either there is no o3ended party or no damage
-as caused to a private person.
$rticle ))%+ par. "*# of the Civil Code allo-s the recovery of moral
damages in case of li!el slander or any other form of defamation. 4his
provision of la- esta!lishes the right of an o3ended party in a case for
oral defamation to recover from the guilty party damages for injury to
his feelings and reputation. 4he o3ended party is li.e-ise allo-ed to
recover punitive or e5emplary damages.
G.R. o. ')-()9
Fe:+ua+, &;# &.'.
/$C42: petitioners 9led -ith the trial court a civil case for damages
against respondent Gorales.
Petitioners are the parents of $lfred Pacis a %*-year old student -ho
died in a shooting incident inside the 4op Eun /irearms and
$mmunitions 2tore in 0aguio City. Gorales is the o-ner of the gun
<n the fateful day $lfred -as in the gun store -ith Gati!ag and
Her!olario as sales agents and careta.ers of the store -hile o-ner
Gorales -as in Ganila. 4he gun -hich .illed $lfred is a gun o-ned !y a
store customer -hich -as left -ith Gorales for repairs -hich he placed
inside a dra-er. 2ince Gorales -ould !e going to Ganila he left the
.eys to the store -ith the careta.ers. It appears that the careta.ers
too. the gun from the dra-er and placed it on top of a ta!le. $ttracted
!y the sight of the gun the young $lfred got hold of the same. Gati!ag
as.ed $lfred to return the gun. 4he latter follo-ed and handed the gun
to Gati!ag. It -ent o3 the !ullet hitting the young $lfred in the head.
$ criminal case for homicide -as 9led against Gati!ag. Gati!ag
ho-ever -as acquitted of the charge against him !ecause of the
e5empting circumstance of ?accident@ under $rt. %) par. H of the RPC.
0y agreement of the parties the evidence adduced in the criminal
case for homicide against Gati!ag -as reproduced and adopted !y
them as part of their evidence in the instant case.
4he trial court rendered its decision in favor of petitioners ordering the
defendant to pay plainti3s indemnity for the death of $lfred actual
damages for the hospitali8ation and !urial e5penses incurred !y the
plainti3s compensatory damages GB and $/.
Respondent appealed to the C$ -hich reversed the trial court1s
Becision and a!solved respondent from civil lia!ility under $rticle )%,&
of the Civil Code. GR denied hence this petition.
ISSUE: <as "o+ales ne4l14ent=
HELD: Petition granted. 4he C$ decision is set aside and the trial
court1s Becision reinstated. YES
4his case for damages arose out of the accidental shooting of
petitioners1 son. Ander $rticle %%;% of the Civil Code petitioners may
enforce their claim for damages !ased on the civil lia!ility arising from
the crime under $rticle %&& of the RPC or they may opt to 9le an
independent civil action for damages under the Civil Code. In this case
instead of enforcing their claim for damages in the homicide case 9led
against Gati!ag petitioners opted to 9le an independent civil action
for damages against respondent -hom they alleged -as Gati!ag1s
employer. Petitioners !ased their claim for damages under $rticles
)%*; and )%,& of the Civil Code.
Anli.e the su!sidiary lia!ility of the employer under $rticle %&' of the
RPC the lia!ility of the employer or any person for that matter under
$rticle )%*; of the Civil Code is primary and direct !ased on a
person1s o-n negligence. $rticle )%*; states:
A+t. &'9). =hoever !y act or omission causes damage to another
there !eing fault or negligence is o!liged to pay for the damage done.
2uch fault or negligence if there is no pre-e5isting contractual relation
!et-een the parties is called quasi-delict and is governed !y the
provisions of this Chapter.
4his case involves the accidental discharge of a 9rearm inside a gun
store. Ander PCP Circular Co. + entitled the ?Policy on /irearms and
$mmunition BealershipIRepair@ a person -ho is in the !usiness of
purchasing and selling of 9rearms and ammunition must maintain
!asic security and safety requirements of a gun dealer other-ise his
Jicense to <perate Bealership -ill !e suspended or canceled. Indeed
a higher degree of care is required of someone -ho has in his
possession or under his control an instrumentality e5tremely
dangerous in character such as dangerous -eapons or su!stances.
2uch person in possession or control of dangerous instrumentalities
has the duty to ta.e e5ceptional precautions to prevent any injury
!eing done there!y. Anli.e the ordinary a3airs of life or !usiness -hich
involve little or no ris. a !usiness dealing -ith dangerous -eapons
requires the e5ercise of a higher degree of care.
$s a gun store o-ner respondent is presumed to !e .no-ledgea!le
a!out 9rearms safety and should have .no-n never to .eep a loaded
-eapon in his store to avoid unreasona!le ris. of harm or injury to
others. Respondent has the duty to ensure that all the guns in his store
are not loaded. /irearms should !e stored unloaded and separate from
ammunition -hen the 9rearms are not needed for ready-access
defensive use. =ith more reason guns accepted !y the store for repair
should not !e loaded precisely !ecause they are defective and may
cause an accidental discharge such as -hat happened in this case.
Respondent -as clearly negligent -hen he accepted the gun for
repair and placed it inside the dra-er -ithout ensuring 9rst that it -as
not loaded. In the 9rst place the defective gun should have !een
stored in a vault. 0efore accepting the defective gun for repair
respondent should have made sure that it -as not loaded to prevent
any unto-ard accident. Indeed respondent should never accept a
9rearm from another person until the cylinder or action is open and he
has personally chec.ed that the -eapon is completely unloaded. /or
failing to insure that the gun -as not loaded respondent himself -as
negligent. /urthermore it -as not sho-n in this case -hether
respondent had a Jicense to Repair -hich authori8es him to repair
defective 9rearms to restore its original composition or enhance or
upgrade 9rearms.
Clearly respondent did not e5ercise the degree of care and diligence
required of a good father of a family much less the degree of care
required of someone dealing -ith dangerous -eapons as -ould
e5empt him from lia!ility in this case.
:ose Kuan 2ing -as Fside-s-iped !y a vehicle in the evening in l8nart
2treet Iloilo CityF and sustained physical injuries as a consequence.
4he said vehicle -hich 9gured in the mishap a 7ol.s-agen "0eetle
type# car -as driven !y Ddgar :arantilla along said street to-ard the
direction of the provincial capitol.
:arantilla -as charged !efore the City Court of Iloilo for serious
physical injuries thru rec.less imprudence in a criminal case. Kuan 2ing
did not reserve his right to institute a separate civil action and he
intervened in the prosecution of said criminal case through a private
prosecutor. :arantilla -as acquitted in said criminal case Fon
reasona!le dou!tF
Kuan 2ing then 9led a complaint a civil action that involved the
same su!ject matter and act complained of in the criminal case. *
:arantilla alleged as a defense a lac. of cause of action on the part of
2ing and !ar !y prior judgment in the previous criminal case even if
there -as a cause of action. the trial court issued an order of denial for
:arantilla1s motion to dismiss suggesting he ta.e the case to the 2C via
$fter trial the court !elo- rendered judgment in favor of 2ing and
ordered :arantilla to pay the former the sum for hospitali8ation
medicines and so forth other actual e5penses for moral damages for
attorneyLs fees and costs. 4he C$ aMrmed.
%. -hether Kuan 2ing could 9le a separate civil action arising from the
criminal complaint 9led against :arantilla -hen :arantilla had !een
acquitted for reasona!le dou!t.
Nes. It is a settled rule that the same act or omission "in this case the
negligent sides-iping of private respondent# can create t-o .inds of
lia!ility on the part of the o3ender that is civil lia!ility e5 delicto and
civil lia!ility e5 quasi delicto. 2ince the same negligence can give rise
either to a delict or crime or to a quasi-delict or tort either of these
t-o types of civil lia!ility may !e enforced against the culprit su!ject
to the caveat under $rticle )%** of the Civil Code that the o3ended
party cannot recover damages under !oth types of lia!ility.
=hen the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground
that his guilt has not !een proved !eyond reasona!le dou!t a civil
action for damages for the same act or omission may !e instituted.
2uch action requires only a preponderance of evidence... $nother
consideration in favor of Kuan 2ing is the doctrine that the failure of
the court to ma.e any pronouncement favora!le or unfavora!le as to
the civil lia!ility of the accused amounts to a reservation of the right to
have the civil lia!ility litigated and determined in a separate action.
4he rules no-here provide that if the court fails to determine the civil
lia!ility it !ecomes no longer enforcea!le.
4he civil lia!ility sought to !e recovered through the application of
$rticle )+ is no longer that !ased on or arising from the criminal
o3ense. 4he acquittal of the accused foreclosed the civil lia!ility !ased
on $rticle %&& of the Revised Penal Code -hich presupposes the
e5istence of criminal lia!ility or requires a conviction of the o3ense
charged. Bivested of its penal element !y such acquittal the causative
act or omission !ecomes in e3ect a quasi-delict hence only a civil
action !ased thereon may !e instituted or prosecuted thereafter -hich
action can !e proved !y mere preponderance of evidence. 2ince this
action is !ased on a quasi-delict the failure of the respondent to
reserve his right to 9le a separate civil case and his intervention in the
criminal case did not !ar him from 9ling such separate civil action for
Rol1to Calan4 and !81lt+anco vs. !eo?le o2 t8e !81l1??1nes# G.R
o. '-.)-)# .@ Au4ust &..9
$t around ):&& p.m. of $pril )) %+,+ Rolito Calang -as driving
Philtranco 0us Co. *&&% o-ned !y Philtranco along Baang Gaharli.a
High-ay in 0arangay Jam!ao 2ta. Gargarita 2amar -hen its rear left
side hit the front left portion of a 2arao jeep coming from the opposite
direction. $s a result of the collision Cresencio Pinohermoso the jeepLs
driver lost control of the vehicle and !umped and .illed :ose
Ga!ansag a !ystander -ho -as standing along the high-ayLs
shoulder. 4he jeep turned turtle three "'# times !efore 9nally stopping
at a!out )6 meters from the point of impact. 4-o of the jeepLs
passengers $rmando Ca!lo and an unidenti9ed -oman -ere instantly
.illed -hile the other passengers sustained serious physical injuries.
4he prosecution charged Calang -ith multiple homicide multiple
serious physical injuries and damage to property thru rec.less
imprudence !efore the R4C founding Calang guilty !eyond reasona!le
dou!t of rec.less imprudence resulting to multiple homicide multiple
physical injuries and damage to property and sentenced him to su3er
an indeterminate penalty of thirty days of arresto menor as minimum
to four years and t-o months of prision correccional as ma5imum. 4he
R4C ordered Calang and Philtranco jointly and severally to pay
P6&&&&.&& as death indemnity to the heirs of $rmando( P6&&&&.&& as
death indemnity to the heirs of Ga!ansag( and P+&&,'.+' as actual
damages to the private complainants.
4he petitioners appealed to C$. 4he C$ ruled that petitioner Calang
failed to e5ercise due care and precaution in driving the Philtranco !us.
$ccording to the C$ various eye-itnesses testi9ed that the !us -as
traveling fast and encroached into the opposite lane -hen it evaded a
pushcart that -as on the side of the road. In addition he failed to
slac.en his speed despite admitting that he had already seen the jeep
coming from the opposite direction -hen it -as still half a .ilometer
a-ay. 4he C$ further ruled that Calang demonstrated a rec.less
attitude -hen he drove the !us despite .no-ing that it -as su3ering
from loose compression hence not road-orthy.
4he C$ added that the R4C correctly held Philtranco jointly and
severally lia!le -ith petitioner Calang for failing to prove that it had
e5ercised the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the
accident. Petitioner 9led a petition for revie- on certiorari
HELD: Court partly grants petition. $Mrming decision of C$ and R4C
L1a:1l1t, o2 Calan4. =e see no reason to overturn the lo-er courtsL
9nding on CalangLs culpa!ility. 4he 9nding of negligence on his part !y
the trial court aMrmed !y the C$ is a question of fact that -e cannot
pass upon -ithout going into factual matters touching on the 9nding of
negligence. In petitions for revie- on certiorari under Rule H6 of the
Revised Rules of Court this Court is limited to revie-ing only errors of
la- not of fact unless the factual 9ndings complained of are devoid of
support !y the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is !ased
on a misapprehension of facts.
Court held that R4C and C$ erred in holding PHIJ4R$CC< solidarily
lia!le -ith Calang. $s it -as not a direct party in the case. 2ince the
cause of action against Calang -as !ased on delict !oth the R4C and
the C$ erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally lia!le -ith
Calang !ased on quasi-delict under $rticles )%*;O%P and )%,&O)P of
the Civil Code. $rticles )%*; and )%,& of the Civil Code pertain to the
vicarious lia!ility of an employer for quasi-delicts that an employee has
committed. Suc8 ?+ov1s1on o2 la6 does not a??l, to c1v1l l1a:1l1t,
a+1s1n4 2+o3 del1ct.
If at all PhiltrancoLs lia!ility may only !e su!sidiary lia!le. $rticle
%&) of the Revised Penal Code states the su!sidiary civil lia!ilities of
inn.eepers tavern.eepers and proprietors of esta!lishments as
follo-s: In default of the persons criminally lia!le inn.eepers tavern.eepers and
any other persons or corporations shall !e civilly lia!le for crimes committed in their
esta!lishments in all cases -here a violation of municipal ordinances or some
general or special police regulations shall have !een committed !y them or their
Inn.eepers are also su!sidiary lia!le for the restitution of goods ta.en !y ro!!ery
or theft -ithin their houses from guests lodging therein or for the payment of the
value thereof provided that such guests shall have noti9ed in advance the inn.eeper
himself or the person representing him of the deposit of such goods -ithin the inn(
and shall furthermore have follo-ed the directions -hich such inn.eeper or his
representative may have given them -ith respect to the care of and vigilance over
such goods. Co lia!ility shall attach in case of ro!!ery -ith violence against or
intimidation of persons unless committed !y the inn.eeperLs employees.
4he foregoing su!sidiary lia!ility applies to employers according to
$rticle %&' of the Revised Penal Code -hich reads: 4he su!sidiary
lia!ility esta!lished in the ne5t preceding article shall also apply to employers
teachers persons and corporations engaged in any .ind of industry for felonies
committed !y their servants pupils apprentices or employees in the
discharge of their duties.
Revised Penal Code on su!sidiary lia!ility - $rticles %&) and %&' -
are deemed -ritten into the judgments in cases to -hich they are
applica!le. 4hus in the dispositive portion of its decision the trial court
need not e5pressly pronounce the su!sidiary lia!ility of the
employer.onet8eless# :e2o+e t8e e3?lo,e+sA su:s1d1a+, l1a:1l1t,
1s en2o+ced# adeBuate ev1dence 3ust eC1st esta:l1s81n4 t8at /'5
t8e, a+e 1ndeed t8e e3?lo,e+s o2 t8e conv1cted e3?lo,eesD /&5
t8e, a+e en4a4ed 1n so3e 71nd o2 1ndust+,D /@5 t8e c+13e 6as
co331tted :, t8e e3?lo,ees 1n t8e d1sc8a+4e o2 t8e1+ dut1esD
and /(5 t8e eCecut1on a4a1nst t8e latte+ 8as not :een sat1sEed
due to 1nsolvenc,. 4he determination of these conditions may !e
done in the same criminal action in -hich the employeeLs lia!ility
criminal and civil has !een pronounced in a hearing set for that
precise purpose -ith due notice to the employer as part of the
proceedings for the e5ecution of the judgment.
!EO!LE V. Anastac1o A31stoso
$ccused-appellant $nastacio $mistoso y 0roca "$mistoso# -as charged
!efore the R4C Gas!ate -ith the rape of his daughter $$$
alleged to !e %)
years old at the time of the incident. 4he Information
speci9cally charged
$mistoso -ith statutory rape under $rticle );;-$ paragraph "%#"d# of the
Revised Penal Code as amended. R4C found him guilty of quali9ed rape
under $rt );;-$ sentenced to capital penalty of BD$4H to pay *6. as
indemnity 6&. for moral damages. C$ aMrmed R4C !ut modi9ed imposition
of R.$. +'H; imposing instead reclusion perpertua -Io eligi!ility of parole
*6. civil indemnity *6. moral damages and '&. e5emplary damages.
Insisting upon his innocence $mistoso appealed to this Court. In its
dated :anuary + )&%' the Court aMrmed -ith modi9cation the
judgment of conviction against $mistoso e5pressly him lia!le for
interest on the amounts of damages a-arded. " legal rate of ;Q per annum
from date of 9nality of decision# . Roque <IC of 0ureau of Corrections
ho-ever informed Court that $mistoso had died at the Ce- 0ili!id Prison
Guntinlupa City. "died at ;) years old of Cardio Respiratory $rrest#
Net on /e!ruary )) )&%' the Pu!lic $ttorney1s <Mce "P$<# -hich
represented $mistoso and -hich -as apparently also una-are of its client1s
demise still 9led a Gotion for Recon of the Court1s Becision . In a Resolution
dated Garch )& )&%' the Court required Roque to su!mit a certi9ed true
copy of $mistoso1s Beath Certi9cate -ithin %& days from notice and deferred
action on the Gotion for Reconsideration 9led !y the P$< pending compliance
-ith the Court1s former directive. In a letter
dated :une )& )&%' and
received !y the Court on :une )6 )&%' PI2 Jansangan 9nally provided the
Court -ith a certi9ed true copy of $mistoso1s Beath Certi9cate.
crala- virtuala- li!rary
$rticle ,+ of the Revised Penal Code provides:
ART. %-. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. F C+131nal
l1a:1l1t, 1s totall, eCt1n4u1s8ed:c+ala6l1:+a+,
%. B, t8e deat8 o2 t8e conv1ct# as to t8e ?e+sonal ?enalt1esD and as
to ?ecun1a+, ?enalt1es# l1a:1l1t, t8e+e2o+e 1s eCt1n4u1s8ed onl, 68en
t8e deat8 o2 t8e oGende+ occu+s :e2o+e Enal Hud43entI.J
In People v. Bayotas
the Court laid do-n the rules in case the accused dies
prior to 9nal judgment:
%. Beath of the accused pending appeal of his conviction e5tinguishes his
criminal lia!ility as -ell as the civil lia!ility !ased solely thereon. $s opined !y
:ustice Regalado in this regard ?the death of the accused prior to 9nal
judgment terminates his criminal lia!ility and only the civil lia!ility directly
arising from and !ased solely on the o3ense committed i.e. civil lia!ility ex
delicto in senso strictiore.@
). Co+olla+1l,# t8e cla13 2o+ c1v1l l1a:1l1t, su+v1ves not61t8stand1n4 t8e
deat8 o2 accused# 12 t8e sa3e 3a, also :e ?+ed1cated on a sou+ce o2
o:l14at1on ot8e+ t8an del1ct. $rticle %%6* of the Civil Code enumerates
these other sources of o!ligation from -hich the civil lia!ility may arise as a
result of the same act or omission:crala-li!rary
a# Ja-
!# Contracts
c# Quasi-contracts
d# 5 5 5
e# Quasi-delicts
'. =here the civil lia!ility survives as e5plained in Cum!er ) a!ove an
action for recovery therefor may !e pursued !ut onl, :, 6a, o2 El1n4 a
se?a+ate c1v1l act1on and su!ject to 2ection % Rule %%% of the %+,6 Rules
on Criminal Procedure as amended. 4his separate civil action may !e
enforced either against the e5ecutorIadministrator or the estate of the
accused depending on the source of o!ligation upon -hich the same is
!ased as e5plained a!ove.
H. /inally the private o3ended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to
9le this separate civil action !y prescription in cases -here during the
prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its e5tinction the private-
o3ended party instituted together there-ith the civil action. In such case the
statute of limitations on the civil lia!ility is deemed interrupted during the
pendency of the criminal case conforma!ly -ith provisions of $rticle %%66 of
the Civil Code that should there!y avoid any apprehension on a possi!le
privation of right !y prescription. "Citations omitted.#
Eiven the foregoing 1t 1s clea+ t8at t8e deat8 o2 t8e accused ?end1n4
a??eal o2 81s conv1ct1on eCt1n4u1s8es 81s c+131nal l1a:1l1t,# as 6ell as
81s c1v1l l1a:1l1t, ex delicto. 2ince the criminal action is e5tinguished
inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused the civil
action instituted therein for recovery of civil lia!ility ex delicto is ipso facto
e5tinguished grounded as it is on the criminal case.
crala- virtuala- li!rary
Andenia!ly $mistoso1s death on Becem!er %% )&%) preceded the
promulgation !y the Court of its Becision on :anuary + )&%'. =hen $mistoso
died his appeal !efore the Court -as still pending and unresolved. 4he Court
ruled upon $mistoso1s appeal only !ecause it -as not immediately informed
of his death. $mistoso1s death on Becem!er %% )&%) renders the Court1s
Becision dated :anuary + )&%' even though aMrming $mistoso1s conviction
irrelevant and ine3ectual. Goreover said Becision has not yet !ecome 9nal
and the Court still has the jurisdiction to set it aside.
<HEREFORE the Court RESOLVES to:crala-li!rary
"%# OTE !IS Jansangan1s letter dated :une )& )&%' providing the Court
-ith a certi9ed true copy of $mistoso1s Beath Certi9cate(chanr&!lesvirtuala-li!rary
")# SET ASIDE its Becision dated :anuary + )&%' and BI2GI22 Criminal Case
Co. %&%&; !efore the R4C of Gas!ate City 0ranch H, !y reason of $mistoso1s
death on Becem!er %% )&%)( and
"'# OTE <ITHOUT ACTIO the Gotion for Reconsideration of the Court1s
Becision dated :anuary + )&%' 9led !y the P$< given the Court1s actions in
the preceding paragraphs.
He1+s o2 Edua+do S13on /!et1t1one+5 vs
Elv1n C8an and Cou+t o2 A??eals /Res?ondent5 GR. O. ';9;(9
Fe:+ua+, &@# &.''
In %% :uly %++* the City Prosecutor of Ganila 9led a criminal case in the
Getropolitan 4rial Court of Ganila charging Dduardo 2imon of violating
0P)). 2ometime in Becem!er %++; 2imon issued to Dlvin Chan a
Jand!an. chec. -ith a declared amount of P'';&&&. 4he accuse did
not have suMcient fund in his account to fund the chec. he issued
contrary to the information he had given to the respondent. Bespite
notice insuMciency of his account%)s funds the petitioner failed to pay
the respondent the value of the chec. -ithin 6 days after receiving the
notice. 4hree years later on ' $ugust )&&& Dlvin Chan commenced in
the G4C in Pasay City a Civil $ction for the collection of the principal
amount of P '';&&&.&&.
<n %* $ugust )&&& 2imon 9led an urgent Gotion to Bismiss -ith
application to change plainti3%)s attachment !ond for damages on the
ground of litis pendentia as a consequence of the pendency of another
action !et-een parties for the same cause.
4he plainti3 countered the argument of 2imon !y pointing out he did
not ma.e an y allegation as to the e5act amount of his claim in the
criminal case consitituting an implied right to initiate civil action. 4he
Plainti3 also cited Rule %% % 2ection ) e5ception to 9le separate civil
action during the pendency of a criminal case under $rt. '% ') '' 'H
and )%** of the CCP. 4he case falls under $rt. '' of the CCP.
<n )' <cto!er )&&& the GC4C in Pasay City granted 2imon%)s urgent
Gotion to Bismiss -ith application to charge plainti3%)s attachment
!ond for damages. <n '% :uly ) &&% the R4C of Pasay City upheld
GC4C%)s dismissal of Chan%)s initiated Civil Case. Chan appealed to
the C$ !y petition for revie- -ith the follo-ing issue( =hether or not
the R4C erred in the dismissal of his case on the ground of litis
4he C$ overturned the decision of the R4C -ith follo-ing legal !asis(
4hough the C$ recogni8ed that civil case cannot anymore initiated
follo-ing the 9lling o f a criminal case the follo-ing case falls under
the e5ception under Rule %%% sec. ). 4he case remanded to the trial
court for further proceedings.
2imon appealed to the 2upreme Court for petition for revie-.
%. =hether or not Chan%'s Civil action to recover the amount of the
!ounced chec. a s an independent civil action.
). =hether or not ne- 2upreme Court circular pertaining to 0P)) can
!e applied retroactively.
Rul1n4: 4he 2C set aside the decision promulgated !y the Court of
$ppeals on :un e )6 )&&). /urthermore the 2C reinstate the decision
rendered on <cto!er )' ) &&& !y the Getropolitan 4rial Court 0ranch
H6 in Pasay City. 4he 2C applied ne- rule on 0P)) speci9cally 4he
criminal action for violation of 0atas Pam!ansa 0lg. )) shall !e
deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action and no
reservation to 9le such civil action separately shall !e allo-ed or
4he aforequoted provisions of the Rules of Court even if not yet in
e3ect -hen Chan commenced Civil Case Co. +%6-&& on $ugust '
)&&& are nonetheless applica!le. It is a5iomatic that the retroactive
application of procedural la-s does not violate any right of a person
-ho may feel adversely a3ected nor is it constitutionally
o!jectiona!le. 4he reason is simply that as a general rule no vested
right may attach to or arise from procedural la-s.
$ny ne- rules may validly !e made to apply to cases pending at
the time of their promulgation considering that no party to an action
has a vested right in the rules of procedure e5cept that in criminal
cases the changes do not retroactively apply if t hey permit or require
a lesser quantum of evidence to convict than -hat is required at the
time of the commission of the o3enses !ecause such retroactivity
-ould !e unconstitutional for !eing e5 post facto under the
/urthermore for litis pendentia to !e successfully invo.ed as a !ar to
an action the concurrence of the follo-ing requisites is necessary
namely: "a# there must !e identity of parties or at least such as
represent the same interest in !oth actions( "!# there must !e identity
of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for the reliefs !eing founded on
the same facts( and "c# the identity in the t-o cases should !e such
that the judgment that may !e rendered in one -ould regardless of
-hich party is successful amount to res judicata in respect of the
other. $!sent the 9rst t-o requisites the possi!ility of the e5istence of
the third !ecomes nil.
$ perusal of Civil Case Co. &%-&&'' and Criminal Case Co. )*6',%
inelucta!ly sho-s that all the elements of litis pendentia are attendant.
/irst of all the par ties in the civil action involved in Criminal Case Co.
)*6',% and in Civil Case Co. +%6-&& that is Chan and 2imon are the
same. 2econdly the information in Criminal Case Co. )*6',% and the
complaint in Civil Case Co. +%6-&& !oth alleged
that 2imon had issued Jand!an. Chec. Co. &&&*),& -orth
P'';&&&.&& paya!le to %Hcash%H there!y indicating that the rights
asserted and the reliefs prayed for as -e ll as the facts upon -hich the
reliefs sought -ere founded -ere identical in al
l respects. $nd thirdly any judgment rendered in one case -ould
necessarily !ar the other !y res judicata( other-ise Chan -ould !e
recovering t-ice upon the same claim.
It is clear therefore that the Ge4C in Pasay City properly dismissed
Civil Cas e Co. +%6-&& on the ground of litis pendentia through its
decision dated <cto!er
)' )&&&( and that the R4C in Pasay City did not err in aMrming the
F+anco vs. IAC K
E.R. Co. *%%'* <cto!er 6 %+,+ R
S Nulo -as driving a /ranco 0us -hen he s-erved to the opposite lane
to avoid colliding -ith a par.ed truc.. 4he /ranco 0us too. the lane of
an incoming Isu8u Gini 0us driven !y Jugue. 4he t-o vehicles collided
resulting in the deaths of !oth drivers and t-o passengers of the Gini
0us. 4he o-ner of the Isu8u Gini 0us the -ife of one of the passengers
-ho died and the -ife of the driver of the Gini 0us 9led an action for
damages against Gr. and Grs. /ranco o-ners of the /ranco
4ransportation Company.
S 4he spouses set up the defense that they e5ercised the diligence of a
good father of a family in selecting and supervising their employees
including the deceased driver. 4he R4C held that this defense of due
diligence could not !e invo.ed !y the spouses since the case -as one
for criminal negligence punisha!le under $rticle %&) and %&' of the
Revised Penal Code and not from $rticle )%,& of the Civil Code. It held
the spouses lia!le for damages to the family of the deceased. 4he C$
agreed -ith the lo-er court.
S =IC spouses /ranco as employer may invo.e the defense of
diligence of a
good father of a family in denying their lia!ilities against the victims.
YES. 4he action is predicated upon quasi delict not upon crime.
Hence the defense of due diligence can !e invo.ed !y the defendants.
Ho-ever in this case the spouses -ere not a!le to prove such due
diligence. 4herefore they are lia!le for damages under $rticle )%,& of
the Civil Code.
S Bistinction should !e made !et-een the su!sidiary lia!ility of the
employer under the RPC and the employer1s primary lia!ility under the
Civil Code -hich is quasi- delictual or tortious in character. 4he 9rst
type of lia!ility is governed !y $rticles %&) and %&' of the RPC -hich
provide that employers have su!sidiary civil lia!ility in default of their
employees -ho commit felonies in the discharge of their duties.
S 4he second .ind is governed !y $rticles )%*; )%** and )%,& of the
Civil Code on the vicarious lia!ility of employers for those damages
caused !y their employees acting -ithin the scope of their assigned
tas.s. In this second .ind the employer1s lia!ility ceases upon proof
that he o!served all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage. Ander $rticle %&' of the RPC the lia!ility of the
employer is su!sidiary to the lia!ility of the employee. 0efore the
employer1s su!sidiary lia!ility may !e proceeded against it is
imperative that there should !e a criminal action -here the
employee1s criminal negligence are proved. =ithout such criminal
action !eing instituted the employer1s lia!ility cannot !e predicated
under $rticle %&'. In this case there -as no criminal action instituted
!ecause the driver
-ho should stand as accused died in the accident. 4herefore there is
no !asis for the employer1s su!sidiary lia!ility -ithout the employee1s
primary lia!ility. It follo-s that the lia!ility !eing sued upon is !ased
not on crime !ut on culpa aquiliana -here the defense of the e5ercise
of the diligence of a good father of a family may !e raised !y the
4he employers are lia!le since they failed to prove that they e5ercised
the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting andIor
supervising the driver. 4hey admitted that the only .ind of supervision
given to the drivers referred to the running time !et-een the terminal
points of the line. 4hey only had t-o inspectors -hose duties -ere only inspections. 4here is no evidence that they -ere really safety