Page |9

Casupanan and Capitulo vs. Laroya

Facts: A vehicle driven by Mario Laroya and a vehicle owned by Roberto Capitulo and driven by Avelino Casupanan
figured in an accident. Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
property while Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict.

MCTC Ruling: When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was then at its preliminary investigation stage. Laroya,
defendant in the civil case, filed a motion to dismiss the civil case on the ground of forum-shopping considering the
pendency of the criminal case. The MCTC of Capas, Tarlac granted the motion in March1999 and dismissed the civil
case.

On Motion for Reconsideration which was denied, Casupanan and Capitulo insisted that the civil case is a separate
civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal case. Casupanan and Capitulo appealed to the Capas RTC
which denied the petition for certiorari for lack of merit.

The Capas RTC ruled the order of dismissal by the MCTC is a final order which disposes of the case and therefore the
proper remedy should have been an appeal. The Capas RTC further held that a special civil action for certiorari is not a
substitute for a lost appeal. Finally, the Capas RTC declared that even on the premise that the MCTC erred in dismissing
the civil case, such error is a pure error of judgment and not an abuse of discretion.The Motion for Reconsideration filed
with the RTC was likewise dismissed.

Issue: whether an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and
independently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case.

Held: Yes. The order of the MCTC did not state that the dismissal is without prejudice. Section 1 of Rule 41provides that
an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a special civil
action under Rule 65. Section 1 of Rule 41 expressly states that where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the
aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. Clearly, the Capas RTC of the petition for
certiorari, on the ground that the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal, is erroneous.

As to the issue of non-forum shopping, no forum-shopping in the instant case because the law and the rules expressly
allow the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal action.

Laroya filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property based on the RPC while
Casupanan and Capitulo filed the civil action for damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Although these two
actions arose from the same act or omission, they have different causes of action. The criminal case is based on culpa
criminal punishable under the RPC while the civil case is based on culpa aquiliana actionable under Articles 2176 and
2177 of the Civil Code.

Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code
is not deemed instituted with the criminal action but may be filed separately by the offended party even without
reservation. The commencement of the criminal action does not suspend the prosecution of the independent civil action
under these articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in Section 2 of the present Rule 111 refers only to the civil action
arising from the crime, if such civil action is reserved or filed before the commencement of the criminal action.

Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or omission. The first a criminal case where the
civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi-delict - without violating
the rule on non-forum shopping. The two cases can proceed simultaneously and independently of each other. The
commencement or prosecution of the criminal action will not suspend the civil action for quasi-delict. The only limitation is
that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. In most cases, the
offended party will have no reason to file a second civil action since he cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the accused. In some instances, the accused may be insolvent, necessitating the filing of another case against
his employer or guardians.

Similarly, the accused (Casupanan) can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he is accused
of in the criminal case (paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111): “the counterclaim of the accused may be litigated
in a separate civil action.” This is only fair for two reasons:

1. accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in the civil aspect that is deemed instituted in the criminal
case. The accused is therefore forced to litigate separately his counterclaim against the offended party. If the accused does
not file a separate civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptive period may set in since the period continues to run until the
civil action for quasi-delict is filed.

2. the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to invoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code, in the same way
that the offended party can avail of this remedy which is independent of the criminal action. To disallow the accused from
filing a separate civil action for quasi-delict, while refusing to recognize his counterclaim in the criminal case, is to deny him
due process of law, access to the courts, and equal protection of the law.Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed
separately by Casupanan and Capitulo is proper. The order of dismissal by the MCTC of Civil Case No. 2089 on the ground
of forum-shopping is erroneous.