Maria C. Roa – (Plaintiff-appellant) vs.

Segunda

De La Cruz Et Al., - (Defendants- Appellees)

G.R. No. L-13134 | February 13, 1960

(SIMON, JODETTE CASE DIGEST)

Facts are as follows:

Segunda De La Cruz defendant-appellee was charged with serious oral defamation.
Plaintiff-appellant Maria C. Roa did not waived civil action reserve her right to institute and the
counsel intervene through counsel in the prosecution.
On April 30, 1957 rendered decision finding the defendant Segunda De La Cruz guilty of
slight slander and sentencing her to pay fine of P 50.00 and ordered her to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
On May 28, 1957 the plaintiff-appellant Roa filed action in the Court of First Instance
against De La Cruz and her husband Juan Aguas to recover moral and exemplary damages.
Based on defamatory remarks subject to criminal action against the defendant and aggregate
sought to be recovered and P 28,000.00 attorney’s fees. The defendant moved complaint
dismissal on the grounds that it was barred by prior judgment and that it did not state a cause of
action. The motion dismissed the court and even the plaintiff file due time for motion for
reconsideration denied provided in the Article 33 of the New Civil Code.

Issue:
1.) Whether or not the Court of First Instance erred in affirming the dismissal of the motion
for reconsideration on the grounds that it was barred by prior judgment and that it did not
state a cause of action.
Ruling:
No, the fact that there is no claim or allegation of damages in the complaint or
information is no legal consequence. It is true did not enter a judgment for indemnity when it
was duty to bound to do so because of the intervention of the offended party. Every person
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable (Art. 100, Revised Penal Code.) The criminal
court it is true did not enter a judgment for indemnity when it was duty bound to do so because
of the intervention of the offend party. Under the principle of res judicata, that judgment is
conclusive as to future proceedings at law not only as to every matter which was offered and
received to sustain the claim or demand but as to any other admissible matter have been offered
for that purpose. The order of dismissal appealed from is hereby affirmed.