#15

G.R. No. L-46179 January 31, 1978

CANDIDA VIRATA, TOMAS VIRATA, MANOLITO VIRATA, EDERLINDA VIRATA, NAPOLEON VIRATA,
ARACELY VIRATA, ZENAIDA VIRATA, LUZMINDA VIRATA, PACITA VIRATA, and EVANGELINA
VIRATA, petitioners,
vs.
VICTORIO OCHOA, MAXIMO BORILLA and THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, 7th JUDICIAL
DISTRICT, BRANCH V, stationed at BACOOR, CAVITE, respondents.

FACTS:

 September 24, 1975 – Arsenio Virata died for having been bumped while walking along Taft Ave
by a jeepney driven by Maximo Borilla.
 The jeepney was registered in the name of Victoria Ochoa, Borilla’s employer.
 September 25, 1975 – Homicide through reckless imprudence against Borilla in CFI Rizal
 December 12, 1975 – Atty. Francisco, private prosecutor, made a reservation to file a separate
civil action for damages against Borilla on his criminal liability.
 Feb. 19, 1976 – Atty. Francisco filed a motion to withdraw the same reservation.
 June 29, 1976 – the heirs of Arsenio Virata again reserved their right to institute a separate civil
action
 July 19, 1977 – the heirs commenced the civil case in CFI Cavite for damages based on quasi-
delict against Borilla and Ochoa.
 August 13, 1976 – Ochoa and Borilla filed motion to dismiss on the ground that there is another
action, a criminal case, pending between same parties for same cause.
 September 8, 1976 – Borilla was acquitted in criminal case on the ground that he caused injury
by name accident
 Jan. 31, 1977 – CFI Cavite granted civil case for damages.

ISSUE: Whether or not the heirs of the Arsenio Virata can prosecute an action for the damages based on
quasi-delict against Borilla and Ochoa on the passenger jeepney that bumped Arsenio Virata.

RULING:
Yes. It is settled that in negligence cases the aggrieved parties may choose between an action under the
Revised Penal Code or of quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. What is
prohibited by Article 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is to recover twice for the same negligent
act.

According to the Code of Commission, under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of
criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action,
not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa
aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a double recovery.

The petitioners are not seeking to recover twice for the same negligent act. Before the Criminal Case
was decided, they manifested in said criminal case that they were filing a separate civil action for
damages against the owner and driver of the passenger jeepney based on quasi-delict. The acquittal of
the driver, Maximo Borilla, of the crime charged in the Criminal Case is not a bar to the prosecution of
the Civil Case for damages based on quasi-delict. The source of the obligation sought to be enforced in
Civil Case is quasi-delict, not an act or omission punishable by law. Under Article 1157 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines, quasi-delict and an act or omission punishable by law are two different sources of
obligation.

Dismissal is set aside by the SC. Civil case is reinstated and remanded to the lower court.