AVELINO CASUPANAN and ROBERTO CAPITULO

vs.
MARIO LLAVORE LAROYA
G.R. No. 145391; August 26, 2002

FACTS:

Respondent Mario Llavore Laroya, and petitioner Avelino Casupanan(driver of

the vehicle) and Roberto Capitulo were in a vehicle clash. 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.
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 granted the motion in the Order of March 26, 1999,
dismissing the civil case.

Casupanan and Capitulo moved for a motion for consideration, insisted that the
civil case is a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the
criminal case but was however denied by the MTC. The petitioners then filed a
petition for certiorari as remedy but was later on dismissed as it lacked merit,
stating that the proper remedy should have been an appeal. Petitioners then filed
for a motion for reconsideration as they believe that the court erred in judgement.

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.
Ruling:
Yes, 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 filing of such does not suspend the criminal case as the independent civil
action are indicated in these articles. The filing of independent civil acts from the
criminal act is provided to the offended party unless the civil action is filed before
the presentation of evidence then the civil actions will be deemed arising from the
criminal act which includes the recovery of damages and civil liabilities.
Therefore, the separate filing of the respondents of the civil action is appropriate.