(TITLE) Justice Dizon reiterated such doctrine in these words: “The rule in

this jurisdiction is that upon appeal by the defendant from a judgement of

CRISPIN ABELLANA AND FRANCISCO ABELLA (Petitioners)
conviction by the Municipal Court, the appealed decision was vacated, and
Vs
the appealed case shall be tried in all respects anew in the court of first
HON. GERONIMO MARAVE (Respondent)
instance as if it had been originally instated in that court”, it cannot be said
G.R. NO. L-27760 May 29, 1974
then that there was an error committed by the respondent judge.
Nor is the above the only ground for rejecting the contention of
FACTS: the petitioners, Article 33 of the Civil Code is clear “In cases of…physical
The dispute has its origin in a prosecution of petitioner Francisco injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
Abellana of the crime of Physical Injuries through Reckless Imprudence criminal action, maybe brought by the injured party, such civil action shall
through driving his cargo truck, hitting a motorized pedicab resulting to the proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only
injuries of the passengers. preponderance of evidence.
The criminal case was files with the city court of Ozamis City which It is a well settled doctrine that the court is to avoid construing a
found Francisco Abellana guilty as charged, damages in favor of the statute or legal norm in such a manner as would give rise to a
offended parties likewise being awarded. constitutional doubt. Wherefor the petition for certiorari is dismissed.
Francisco Abellana appealed the decision to the CFI, at this
instance, the offended parties filed with another branch of the CFI,
presided by the respondent Judge, a separate and independent civil action
for damages allegedly suffered by them.
In such complaint, Crispin Abellana, as the alleged employer was
included as defendant, which both Francisco and Crispin sought the
dismissal of such action on the ground that there was no reservation for
the filling thereof in the City Court of Ozamis, also, it was argued by them
that it was not allowable at the stage where the criminal case was already
on appeal.
The respondent Judge was not persuaded, thus he issued an order
which states, the court in this opinion that at this stage, the offended
parties may still waive the civil action because the judgement of the city
court is vacated and a trial de novo will have to be had, wherefore the
motion is hereby denied. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a grave abuse of discretion on the order issued
by the respondent judge on the readings of Section Rule 111 of the Rules
of Court.

RULING: