[Quasi-Delict and Delict overlap] Dispositive

02 Cinco v Canonoy WHEREFORE, decision of CFI set aside.

May 31, 1979 | Melencio-Herrera, J. |

Doctrine: Liability being predicated on quasi-delict the civil case may proceed as a separate
and independent civil action, as specifically provided for in Article 2177 of the Civil Code.

Art. 2177. 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.

Facts:
● Cinco filed a complaint for damages against Romeo Hilot, Valeriana Pepito and Carlos
Pepito (private respondents)
○ Cinco’s automobile was involved in an accident with a jeepney driven by Hilot
and operated by the Pepitos
● A criminal case was filed against Hilot arising from the same accident
● The City Court of Mandaue issued an order suspending the civil case after a motion filed
by the private respondent, invoking Rule 111 of the Rules of Court
○ No civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted, and shall be
suspended until final judgement in the criminal proceeding has been rendered
● CFI judge dismissed Cinco’s petition for certiorari alleging that the City judge acted with
grave abuse of discretion in suspending the civil action
○ There was no grave abuse of discretion since damage to property is not one of
the instances when an independent civil action is proper
○ Cinco has another plain, speedy, adequate remedy, which is to submit his claim
for damages in the criminal case
● Hence current petition

Issue:
W/N there can be an independent civil action for damage to property during the pendency of
the criminal action

Held:
YES. A civil case predicated on a quasi-delict liability may proceed as a separate and
independent civil action, as provided for in NCC 2177
● It is evident that the nature and character of Cinco’s complaint was quasi-delictual based
on NCC 2176 and 2180
○ He made the allegations that it was the fault/negligence of the driver which
caused the collision between his automobile and the jeepney, that he sustained
damages from the collision, and that there was a direct causal connection
between the damage he suffered and the fault/negligence of the respondents
○ The respondents’ defense was that they observed due diligence in the selection
and supervision of the driver, a defense peculiar to actions based on quasi-
delict
● Rules of Court Sec 2 Rule 111 also provides that a separate and independent civil action
for a quasi-delict may be instituted
○ For cases provided for in NCC 31, 32, 33, 34, and 2177
● The civil action which must be suspended until final judgement in the criminal
proceeding has been rendered applies to the civil action arising from the criminal offense,
not to the civil action based on a quasi-delict