ARTICLE 31. CIVIL OBLIGATION NOT ARISING FROM FELONY.

When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained
of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and
regardless of the result of the latter.

• Refers to a civil action which is no longer based on the criminal liability of the
defendant, but on an obligation arising from other sources, such as law, contracts,
quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts. (Art. 1157)
o Quasi-delict (or “culpa aquiliana”) — If there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
(Arts. 2176-2194, Title XVII, Chapter 2 of the New Civil Code)
• A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may give rise to two
separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender: (Lim v. Ping, G.R. No. 175256)
o Civil liability ex delicto — Civil liability arising from the criminal offense under
Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code
o Independent civil liability — Civil liability that may be pursued independently of
the criminal proceedings.
• Independent civil liability may be based on “an obligation not arising from the act or
omission complained of as a felony,” such as breach of contract or for tort.
o May also be based on an act or omission that may constitute felony, but should
be treated independently from the criminal action by specific provision of Art. 33
(in cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries).
• Article 31 of the Civil Code does not provide for an independent civil action. (Corpus v.
Paje, G.R. No. L-26737)
o Independent Civil Action — Action based upon the same criminal act, as in the
case of Arts. 32 to 34.
o Civil action being based upon obligation not arising from the criminal act but
from a different source is not an independent civil action within the meaning of
Arts. 32 to 34.
o Article 31 (drafted by Code Commissioner Capistrano) states a self-explanatory
rule different and distinct from that laid down in Arts. 32 to 34.
▪ Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from
negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. (Art. 2177)
• Criminal negligence v. Civil negligence (Capistrano, Civil Code of the Philippines)
o Criminal negligence — A violation of the criminal law.
o Civil negligence — Also known as culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict. Distinct and
independent negligence, separate from criminal negligence.
o Under the proposed Art. 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal
negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a
subsequent civil action, for damages due to a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.
• Article 31 likewise applies to culpa contractual
o Culpa contractual — The fault or negligence incident in the performance of an
obligation which already existed, such as a law or a contract.
• Regardless of the result of the criminal prosecution, an independent civil action could
still be filed.
o The reason for this is that the basis of the civil action is no longer the criminal
liability of the defendant, but another source, may be a quasi-delict.
o As long as the basis of the civil action is separate and different from the delict
(crime) complained of, it may proceed separately and independently.