G.R. No.

145391 August 26, 2002

AVELINO CASUPANAN and ROBERTO CAPITULO, petitioners,
vs.
MARIO LLAVORE LAROYA, respondent.

CARPIO, J.:

FACTS:
The car driven by Avelino Casupanan, owned by Roberto Capitulo, both petitioners herein, and
another car driven by Mario Llavore Laroya, respondent herein, crashed with each other.

Respondent filed a criminal case of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property against
Casupanan and Capitulo, while petitioners filed a civil case for quasi-delict against Laroya, both
in MCTC.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the civil case on the ground of forum shopping since their
criminal case against the petitioners were in the preliminary stage that time. Said motion was
granted by the MCTC, thus, the civil case was dismissed. Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration but to no avail. Hence, they filed petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court in RTC, but it was also dismissed for lack of merit by the trial court. Hence this
petition.

Petitioners argue that action on quasi-delict is different from an action resulting from the crime
of reckless imprudence, and accused in a criminal case can be an aggrieved party in a civil case
arising from the same incident. They also argue that under Article 31 and 2176 of the Civil Code,
a civil case can proceed independently of the criminal action. Respondent, on the other hand,
argue that the petitioners waived their right to question the order of dismissal since they failed
to avail the proper remedy of appeal.

ISSUE:
WON an accused in a pending criminal case can validly file a simultaneous and separate civil
action for quasi-delict against the private complainant therein?

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The Court ruled that the 2 different cases
have different causes of action and the civil case cannot be dismissed on the ground of forum-
shopping. The criminal case is based on culpa criminal punished under Revised Penal Code,
while the civil case is based on culpa aquiliana as discussed in Article 2176 and 2177 of the Civil
Code.

The 2 provisions in the Civil Code provides that any aggrieved party can file a separate civil
action as long as he can prove, by preponderance of evidence that he has suffered a damaged
because of the fault or negligence of another, provided that there is no pre-existing contractual
relationship between them.
The Court ruled that Rule 111, Section 1, paragraph 6 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
requires the accused in a criminal case to litigate his counterclaim in a separate civil action.
Section 3 of the same Rule, allows the “offended party” to bring an independent civil action
under Art. 32, 33, 34, 2176 of the Civil Code. It shall proceed independently of the criminal
action as long as the offended party do not recover damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action.

The issue, however, is that Casupanan and Capitulo are the accused in the criminal case, not the
offended party. The Court explained that the accused is expressly allowed under the present
Rules of Criminal Procedure to file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he
is accused of in the criminal case because under the Rules, the accused are forced to file a
separate civil case against the offended party since a counterclaim on the civil aspect will only
complicate the proceeding and thus, prescriptive period may set in. They are also allowed
because as an accused, they are presumed innocent who has a right to due process of law,
access to the courts, and equal protection of the law.

The civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Casupanan and Capitulo is proper. The
order of dismissal by the MCTC of Civil Case No. 2089 on the ground of forum-shopping is
erroneous.