You are on page 1of 1

10) ANDAMO V CA - G.R. No.

74761 November 6, 1990 commenced the civil action cannot be instituted until final
judgment has been rendered in the criminal action."
NATIVIDAD V. ANDAMO and EMMANUEL R. ANDAMO, petitioners, o Petitioners appealed from that order to the Intermediate
vs. Appellate Court.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (First Civil Cases Division) and February 17, 1986: respondent Appellate Court affirmed the
MISSIONARIES OF OUR LADY OF LA SALETTE, INC., respondents. questioned order of the trial court.
Petitioners contend that the trial court and the Appellate Court erred
in dismissing Civil Case No. TG-748 since it is predicated on a quasi-
Facts:
delict.

Petitioner spouses Emmanuel and Natividad Andamo are the owners


Issue:
of a parcel of land situated in Biga (Biluso) Silang, Cavite ----
adjacent to that of private respondent, Missionaries of Our Lady of La
Salette, Inc., a religious corporation. WON the corporation may be held civilly liable for damages under Art. 2176
waterpaths and contrivances, including an artificial lake, were and 2177.
constructed in land of respondent.
o allegedly inundated and eroded petitioners' land, caused a (FULL ISSUE: Whether a corporation, which has built through its agents,
young man to drown, damaged petitioners' crops and plants, waterpaths, water conductors and contrivances within its land, thereby
washed away costly fences, endangered the lives of causing inundation and damage to an adjacent land, can be held civilly liable
petitioners and their laborers during rainy and stormy for damages under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts
seasons, and exposed plants and other improvements to such that the resulting civil case can proceed independently of the criminal
destruction. case.)
July 1982: petitioners instituted a criminal action for destruction by
means of inundation under Article 324 of the RPC Ruling:
o before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 4
(Tagaytay City) YES. Reversed and set aside. The trial court is ordered to reinstate Civil
o against Efren Musngi, Orlando Sapuay and Rutillo Mallillin, Case No. TG-748 entitled "Natividad V. Andamo and Emmanuel R. Andamo
officers and directors of respondent corporation vs. Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette Inc." and to proceed with the
February 22, 1983: petitioners filed another action against hearing of the case with dispatch
respondent corporation, this time a civil case for damages with
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction before the A careful examination of the aforequoted complaint shows that the civil action
same court is one under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. All the
March 11, 1983: respondent corporation filed its answer to the elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit: (a) damages suffered by the
complaint and opposition to the issuance of a writ of preliminary plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for
injunction whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect
April 26, 1984: the trial court, acting on respondent corporation's between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred
motion to dismiss or suspend the civil action, issued an by the plaintiff. 11
order suspending further hearings in Civil Case No, TG-748 until
after judgment in the related Criminal Case No. TG-907-82
Clearly, from petitioner's complaint, the waterpaths and contrivances built by
August 27, 1984: trial court issued the disputed order dismissing Civil respondent corporation are alleged to have inundated the land of petitioners.
Case No. TG-748 for lack of jurisdiction, as the criminal case which There is therefore, an assertion of a causal connection between the act of
was instituted ahead of the civil case was still unresolved. building these waterpaths and the damage sustained by petitioners. Such
o order was anchored on the provision of Section 3 (a), Rule action if proven constitutes fault or negligence which may be the basis for the
III of the Rules of Court which provides that "criminal and recovery of damages.
civil actions arising from the same offense may be instituted
separately, but after the criminal action has been