Santos vs. Pizardo, GR No.

151452
Facts:

Dionisio M. Sibayan was charged with reckless imprudence resulting to multiple homicide and
multiple physical injuries due to the vehicle collision between Viron Transit bus driven by Sibayan and a
Lite Van Ace. However the municipal circuit trial court was no pronouncement of civil liability. The
petitioners filed a complaint for damages to the respondents pursuant to their reservation to file a
separate civil action citing Sibayan’s judgment conviction. And it was moved to dismiss by the Viron
Transit. The petitioners opposed and contends that the motion to dismiss that be ten (10) years from the
judgment of criminal action is the prescription and therefore it is within the period since it was just barely
two (2) years had elapse.

The complaint was dismissed by the trial court due to the ground that the cause of action had
prescribed; based on quasi-delict that it prescribes four (4) years from the accrual of the cause of action.
Again the petitioners filed a reconsideration that the complaint is not based on quasi- delict but on the
final judgment of conviction in the criminal case which prescribes ten (10) years upon the finality of the
judgment. The motion for reconsideration of the petitioners was denied by the trial court based on quasi-
delict in Article 1146 of the Civil Code that the complaint was filed more than four (4) years after the
vehicular activities therefore it prescribes already.

On the petition for certiorari the petitioners filed to the Court of Appeals it was dismissed the
same error in the choice or mode of appeal. It also denies the petitioners’ motion for and the petitioners
failed to allege that the petition was brought within the recognized exceptions for the allowance of
certiorari in lieu of appeal. Petitioners insist that it should be enforced in the complaint that arose in ex
delicto and not based on quasi-delict. Since the action is based on the criminal liability of private
respondents, the cause of action accrued from the finality of the judgment of conviction. Private
respondents insisted, pointing out the averments in the complaint make out a cause of action for quasi
delict in Article 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. The prescriptive period of four (4) years should be
reckoned from the time the accident took place. Viron transit also alleges that its subsidiary liability cannot
be enforced since Sibayan was not ordered to pay damages in the criminal case, in sitting Art. 103 of
Revised Penal Code the civil aspect of the case were instituted in the criminal case and no reservation to
file a separate civil case was made. Respondents likewise allege that the petitioners should have
appealed the adverse order of the trial court. Petitioners filed a reply and the private respondents also
filled a rejoinder both in reiteration of their arguments. Hence this petition.

Issues:
Whether or not the dismissal of the action was based on culpa aquiliana is a bar to the enforcement of the
subsidiary liability of the employer?

Held:
The dismissal of the action based on culpa aquiliana is not a bar to the subsidiary liability of the employer.
Because the Article 103 of the R.P.C. operates with controlling force to obviate the possibility of the
aggrieved party being deprived of indemnity even after the rendition of a final judgment convicting the
employee. The trial court should not have dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, but
instead allowed the complaint for damages ex delicto to be prosecuted on the merits, this does not offend
the policy that the reservation or institution of a separate civil waives the other civil actions but this is
merely an avoidance of multiple suits. The action for damages based on quasi- delict should be
considered waived no occasion for petitioners to file multiple suits against private respondets as available
to them is to pursue damages ex delicto.