connection exists between the damage he suffered and the fault or negligence of the

defendant-driver and where the defendant-operator in their answer, contended, among others,
that they observed due diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees, a defense
peculiar to actions based on quasi-delict , such action is principally predicated on Articles 32176
and 2180 of the New Civil Code which is quasi-delictual in nature and character. Liability being
predicated on quasi-delict , the civil case may proceed as a separate and independent court
action as specifically provided for in Article 2177. Section 3 (b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court
refers to "other civil actions arising from cases not included in Section 2 of the same rule" in
which, "once the criminal action has been commenced, no civil action arising from the same
offense can be prosecuted and the same shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found,
until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered". The civil action referred to
in Section 2(a) and 3(b), Rule 11 of the Rules of Court which should be suspended after the
criminal action has been instituted is that arising from the criminal offense and not the civil
action based on quasi delict.

The concept of quasi-delict enunciated in Article 2176 of the New Civil Code is so broad that it
includes not only injuries to persons but also damage to property. It makes no distinction
between "damage to persons" on the one hand and "damage to property" on the other. The
word "damage" is used in two concepts: the "harm" done and "reparation" for the harm done.
And with respect to "harm" it is plain that it includes both injuries to person and property since
"harm" is not limited to personal but also to property injuries. An example of quasi-delict in the
law itself which includes damage to property in Article 2191(2) of the Civil Code which holds
proprietors responsible for damages caused by excessive smoke which may be harmful "to
person or property". Respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in upholding the decision
of the city court suspending the civil action based on quasi-delict until after the criminal action
is
finally terminated.

Garcia v Florido

August 4, 1971: German C. Garcia, Chief of the Misamis Occidental Hospital, his wife, Luminosa
L. Garcia, and Ester Francisco, bookkeeper of the hospital, hired and boarded a PU car owned
and operated by Marcelino Inesin, and driven by respondent, Ricardo Vayson, for a round-trip
from Oroquieta City to Zamboanga City for the purpose of attending a conference

August 4, 1971 9:30 a.m.: While the PU car was negotiating a slight curve on the national
highway at 21 km, it collided with an oncoming passenger bus owned and operated by the
Mactan Transit Co., Inc. and driven by Pedro Tumala

Garcia et al. sustained various physical injuries which necessitated their medical treatment and
hospitalization
Garcia et al. filed an action for damages against both drivers and their owners for driving in a
reckless, grossly negligent and imprudent manner in gross violation of traffic rules and without
due regard to the safety of the passengers aboard the PU car