Casupanan vs. Laroya, G.R. No.

145391, 26 August 2002

FACTS:
The driver of the vehicle accident was one driven by respondent Mario Llavore Laroya and the
other owned by petitioner Roberto Capitulo and driven by petitioner Avelino Casupanan. Laroya
filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property
while on the other hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict
in MCTC of Capas, Tarlac.

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 and
dismissed the civil case.

Then Casupanan and Capitulo filed for motion for reconsideration insisting that the civil case is a
separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal case. The MCTC denied the
motion for reconsideration resulting that Casupanan and Capitulo filed a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 before the Regional Trial Court of Capas, Tarlac, Branch 66, apparently it is denied
also. With the decision, Casupanan and Capitulo filed for certiorari in CA which they are granted.

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. Under 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 commencement of the criminal
action does not suspend the prosecution of the independent civil action under these articles of
the Civil Code. The suspension in Section 2 of the present Rule 111 refers only to the civil action
arising from the crime, if such civil action is reserved or filed before the commencement of the
criminal action.

Here, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or omission. The first a
criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted, and
the other a civil case for quasi-delict - without violating the rule on non-forum shopping. The two
cases can proceed simultaneously and independently of each other. The commencement or
prosecution of the criminal action will not suspend the civil action for quasi-delict. The only
limitation is that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission
of the defendant. In most cases, the offended party will have no reason to file a second civil action
since he cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused. In some
instances, the accused may be insolvent, necessitating the filing of another case against his
employer or guardians.