CIVIL LIABILITY

ex delicto

MAGBANUA | PAHM | RAMPING

Sources of Liabilities

1. Law
2. Contracts
3. Quasi-contracts
4. Delicts
5. Quasi-delicts
Art. 100.
Civil liability of a person
guilty of felony. — Every
person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly
liable.chanrobles virtual law
library
 A crime has dual character:
(1) as an offense against the
state because of the disturbance
of social order; and
(2) as an offense against the
BASIS OF CIVIL private person injured by the
crime.
LIABILITY In the ultimate analysis, what
gives rise to the civil liability
is really the obligation of
everyone to repair or to make whole
the damage caused to another by
reason of his act or omission,
whether done intentionally or
negligently and whether or not
punishable by law.
Are all persons
civilly liable also
criminally liable?

Are all persons

criminally liable
also civilly liable?
Persons Civilly Liable for FELONIES
GR: Every person criminally liable for a felony
is also civilly liable. (Art. 100, RPC)

XPNs:

1. If there is no damage caused by the commission

of the crime, the offender is not civilly liable.

2. There is no private person injured by the crime.

QUESTION:

Since a person
criminally liable is also
civilly liable, does his
acquittal in the criminal
case mean extinction
of his civil liability?
 ANSWER:

NO. Civil liability may exist, although the

accused is not held criminally liable, in the
following cases:
FOLLOWING CASES”

01
Acquittal on
reasonable doubt
FOLLOWING CASES”
02
Acquittal from a
cause of
non-imputability
 Acquittal from a cause of non-imputability
XPNs XPNs to the XPNs
Insane, Imbecile, Persons under their legal Own Property
Minor authority or control
(Art 12, Par. 1, 2, 3)

State of Necessity Persons for whose benefit the

(Art 11, Par 4) harm has been prevented

Irresistible force, Persons casing the violence Person doing the act
Uncontrollable Fear or casing the fear
(Art 12, Par. 5, 6)
FOLLOWING CASES”

03 Acquittal in the criminal action for

negligence does not preclude the
offended party from filing a civil
action to recover damages, based on
the new theory that the act is a
quasi-delict.
FOLLOWING CASES”

05
04 When there is
only civil
In cases of
independent civil
responsibility actions
CIVIL
LIABILITY
of Persons Exempt
from Criminal
Liability
01
GENERAL
RULE:
Exemption from criminal
liability does not include
exemption from civil
liability.
 XPNs:

2. No civil liability
1. No civil liability in Art. 12(7) of the
in Art. 12(4) of the RPC (failure to perform
RPC (injury caused by an act required by law
mere accident); when prevented by some
lawful or insuperable
cause).
Art. 101.
Rules regarding civil liability in
certain cases. - The exemption from
criminal liability established in
subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article
12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of
this Code does not include exemption from
civil liability, which shall be enforced
subject to the following rules:
 Persons
CIVILLY LIABLE
for the Acts of an
Insane or Minor
WHO is
Liable? NOTE:

If the persons having

legal authority or If there is no fault or
control over the insane negligence on their part;
or even if they are at
or minor are at fault fault or negligent but
or negligent, then they insolvent; or should there
are the persons civilly be no person having such
liable for the acts of authority or control, then
the insane, imbecile, or
the latter. such minor shall respond
with their own property not
exempt from execution.
 Persons

02
CIVILLY LIABLE
for Acts Committed by Persons
Acting under Irresistible Force
or Uncontrollable Fear
The person using violence or
causing the fear is primarily
liable. If there be no such
persons, those doing the act
shall be liable secondarily.
CIVIL LIABILITY GR: There is no civil
liability in justifying
in Justifying circumstances.
Circumstance
XPN: In Art. 11(4) of RPC
(State of Necessity), there is
civil liability, but the
person civilly liable is the
one who benefited by the act
which caused damage to
another.
 Acquittal from a cause of non-imputability
XPNs XPNs to the XPNs
Insane, Imbecile, Persons under their legal Own Property
Minor authority or control
(Art 12, Par. 1, 2, 3)

State of Necessity Persons for whose benefit the

(Art 11, Par 4) harm has been prevented

Irresistible force, Persons casing the violence Person doing the act
Uncontrollable Fear or casing the fear
(Art 12, Par. 5, 6)
SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY OF
INNKEEPERS, TAVERN KEEPERS,
AND PROPRIETORS OF
ESTABLISHMENTS ART. 102, RPC
Elements under Art. 102(1), RPC

1. That the innkeeper, 2.

tavernkeeper, or proprietor That a crime is
of the establishment or his committed in such
employee committed a
violation of municipal
inn, tavern, or
ordinance or some general or establishment; and
special police regulation;

3. That the person

criminally liable
is insolvent.
Elements under Art. 102 (2), RPC
1. The guests notified in
advance the innkeeper or
the person representing
him of the deposit of
their goods within the The guests followed the 2.
inn or house; directions of the innkeeper
or his representative with
3. respect to the care of and
Such goods of the guests vigilance over such goods;
lodging therein were and
taken by robbery with
force upon things or
theft committed within
the inn or house.
GR: No liability shall attach in
case of robbery with violence
against or intimidation of
persons.
XPN:
When it is committed by the
innkeeper’s employees, there
is civil liability.
 SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY OF
OTHER PERSONS
Liability of Employer, Teacher, or Person or Corporation

1. The employer, teacher, or person or corporation is

engaged in any kind of industry;

2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen,

apprentices, or employees commits a felony while in
the discharge of their duties; and

3. The said employee is insolvent and has not

satisfied his civil liability. (Art. 103, RPC).
NOTES:
a. The subsidiary civil liability arises only after
conviction of the employee in the criminal action.
(Baza Marketing Corp. v. Bolinao Sec. & Inv.
Services, Inc., G.R. No. L-32383, 30 Sept. 1982)

b. The subsidiary liability may be enforced only upon

a motion for the subsidiary writ of execution against
the employer and upon proof that employee is
insolvent. (Basilio v. CA, G.R. No. 113433, 17 Mar.
2000)

c. A hospital is not engaged in industry; hence, not

subsidiary liable for acts of nurses. (Clemente v.
Foreign Mission Sisters, CA 38 O.G. 1594)
QUESTION:

X, the chauffer or
driver of the car owned
by Y, bumped the car
driven by Z. X was
found guilty but was
insolvent. Is Y
subsidiary liable?
ANSWER:

NO, Y is a private person

who has no business or
industry and uses his
automobile for private
persons.
QUESTION:
Can the persons mentioned
in Art. 103 invoke the
defense of diligence of a
good father of a family?
ANSWER:
NO. It will be seen that neither
in Art. 103 nor any other article
of the RPC, is it provided that
the employment of the diligence
of a good father of a family in
the selection of his employees
will exempt the parties
secondarily liable for damages.
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
(Chapter II)
RESTITUTION

REPARATION OF
DAMAGE CAUSED

INDEMNIFICATION
FOR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES
EXAMPLES OF-
RESTITUTION
In theft, the culprit is duty-bound to return the
property stolen.

REPARATION
In case of inability to return the property stolen, the
culprit must pay the value of the property stolen; in case of
physical injuries, the reparation of the damage caused would
consist in the payment of hospital bills and doctor’s fees to
the offended party.

INDEMNIFICATION for consequential damages

The loss of his salary or earning.
 1. RESTITUTION (ART. 105)
Restitution of the thing itself must be made
whenever possible, with the allowance for any
deterioration or diminution of value as determined
by the court. (Art. 105(1), RPC)

NOTE: If restitution cannot be made by the offender (Art.

105, RPC), or by his heirs (Art. 108, RPC), the law allows
the offended party reparation (Art. 106, RPC). In either
case, indemnity for consequential damages may be required.
(Art. 107, RPC)
QUESTION:
Can restitution be made
even if the thing is
already found in the
possession of a third
person who has acquired
it by lawful means?
 ANSWER:
GR: YES. The thing itself shall
be restored, even though it be
found in the possession of a
third person who has acquired it
by lawful means, saving to the
latter his action against the
proper person who may be liable
to him. (Art. 105(2), RPC)

XPN: Art. 105 is not applicable in cases

in which the thing has been acquired by
the third person in the manner and under
the requirements which, by law, bar an
action for its recovery.
(Art. 105(3), RPC)
 2. REPARATION ART. 106
Determination of Reparation
The court shall determine the amount of damage,
taking into consideration:

1. The price of thing, whenever possible; and

2. Its special sentimental value to the injured.
(Art. 106, RPC)

NOTE: Reparation will be ordered by the court if

restitution is not possible. It is limited to those
caused by and flowing from the commission of the
crime.
QUESTION:

Does the payment of an

insurance company
relieve the accused of
his obligation to pay
damages?
 ANSWER:
NO, the payment by the
insurance company was not made
on behalf of the accused, but
was made pursuant to its
contract with the owner of the
car. But the insurance company
is subrogated to the right of
the offended party as regards
the damages.
 3. INDEMNIFICATION ART.107

Indemnification of consequential damages shall

include:

1. Those caused the injured party;

2. Those suffered by his family or by a third
person by reason of the crime. (Art. 107, RPC)
 INDEMNITY
INDEMNITY refers generally to crimes against
persons: reparation tp crimes against property.

TAKE NOTE:

INDEMNITY- remedy granted to the victims of crimes

against persons.

REPARATION- to the victims of crimes against

property.
QUESTION:

Who has the obligation

to make restoration,
reparation for damages,
or indemnification for
consequential damages?
 ANSWER:
The obligation to make
restoration or reparation for
damages and indemnification for
consequential damages devolves
upon the heirs of the person
liable. (Art. 108(1), RPC)

NOTE: The heirs of the person

liable have no obligation if
restoration is not possible and
the deceased has left no
property.
(Art. 108(2), RPC)

The action to demand

restoration, reparation and
indemnification likewise
descends to the heirs of the
person injured.
 ARTICLE 109

Share of each person civilly liable.- If

there are two or more persons civilly
liable for a felony, the courts shall
determine the amount for which each must
respond.
 APPORTIONMENT OF
CIVIL LIABILITY
The entire amount of civil indemnity,
together with the moral and actual damages,
should be apportioned among the persons who
cooperated in the commission of the crime
according to the degree of their liability,
respective responsibilities and actual
participation in the criminal act.
 SEVERAL AND SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF
PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES, AND
ACCESSORIES OF FELONY

The principals, accomplices and accessories,

each within their respective class, shall be
severally liable (in solidum) among
themselves for their quotas, and
subsidiarily for those of the other persons
liable. (Art. 110(1), RPC)
 SEVERAL AND SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF
PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES, AND
ACCESSORIES OF FELONY
Q: How is the subsidiary civil liability
enforced?

A: The subsidiary liability shall be enforced:

1. First, against the property of the

principals;
2. Next, against that of the accomplices; and
3. Lastly, against that of the accessories.
(Art. 110(2), RPC)
QUESTION:
A stole a diamond ring worth
P1000 and gave it to B, who
not knowing the illegal
origin of the sale, accepts
it. B later sells the ring
for P500 to Y, a foreigner
who left the country. In case
A is insolvent, can B, a
person who participated
gratuitously in the proceeds
of a felony, be subsidiarily
liable?
 ANSWER:
YES, any person who has
participated gratuitously in
the proceeds of a felony shall
be bound to make restitution in
an amount equivalent to the
extent of such participation
(Art. 111, RPC). Thus, B
shall be subsidiarily liable in
the sum not exceeding P500
which is the gratuitous share
in the commission of the crime.
 Types of Damages (MENTAL)
1. Moral Damages
2. Exemplary Damages
3. Nominal Damages
4. Tempearate Damages
5. Actual or Compensatory Damages
6. Liquidated Damages
 EXTINCTION AND
SURVIVAL OF CIVIL
LIABILITY
Chapter III
Extinguishment of Civil Liability
Civil liability shall be extinguished in the same manner as other obligations in
accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law:

1. Payment or performance;
2. Loss of the thing due;
3. Condonation or remission of debt;
4. Confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor;
5. Compensation; and
6. Novation.

Other Causes: Annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a

resolutory condition, and prescription.
(Art. 1231, NCC)
NOTE: Civil liability is extinguished by
subsequent agreement between the accused
and the offended party. Express
condonation by the offended party has
the effect of waiving civil liability
with regard to the interest of the
injured party.
Survival of Civil Liability

The offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil

liability resulting from the crime committed by him,
notwithstanding the fact he has served his sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has
not been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty,
pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason.
(Art. 113, RPC)
NOTE: While amnesty wipes out all traces
and vestiges of the crime, it does not
extinguish civil liability of the
offender. A pardon shall in no case
exempt the culprit from the payment of
the civil indemnity imposed upon him by
the sentence.
QUESTION:

Florencio was an appellant

of a case for the crime of
murder. Pending his appeal,
he died while in
confinement and notice of
his death was belatedly
conveyed to the court. Does
his death extinguish his
criminal and civil
liabilities?
 ANSWER:

YES. Florencio’s death prior

to the court’s final
judgment extinguished his
criminal and civil liability
ex delicto pursuant to Art.
89(1) of the Revised Penal
Code. (People v. Agacer,
G.R. No. 177751, 07 Jan.
2013)
04
LET’S HEAR
SOME CASES
CIVIL LIABILITY
CASES
 10. PEOPLE V. TAMPUS, et al. GR N0. 181084 6/16/2009
FACTS:

A mother (Ida Montesclaros) is held liable as an accomplice in the

rape of her daughter, as her acts of forcing ABC (daughter) to drink
beer and giving consent to the plan of the perpatrator showed her
knowledge and participation in the crime, despite her schizophrenia
considered as mitigating circumstance.

ISSUE:
The main issue raised in the case is whether Ida Montesclaros should
be held liable as an accomplice in the rape of her daughter, ABC.
 10. PEOPLE V. TAMPUS, et al. GR N0. 181084 6/16/2009
RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that Ida Montesclaros should be held

liable as an accomplice in the rape of her daughter, ABC. Tampus
(perpetrator) was found guilty of rape, while Ida was found guilty as an
accomplice. The court considered Ida's schizophrenia as a mitigating
circumstance, and the relationship between Ida and ABC as a potential
qualifying circumstance that was not properly alleged.
 10. PEOPLE V. TAMPUS, et al. GR N0. 181084 6/16/2009
Determination of Civil Indemnity in a rape case

● The court rules that the victim is entitled to a civil indemnity of P50,000.
● The court discusses the apportionment of civil liability among the principal and
accomplice.
● The share of each accused should be based on their degree of participation in the
crime.
● The court emphasizes that the discretion of the court in determining the
apportionment should be guided by the principle that those with greater
participation should have a greater share in the liability.
● The trial court's ruling, which made the accomplice solidarily liable with the principal
for the entire amount of civil indemnity, is deemed erroneous by the court.
 11. CORPUZ V. PEOPLE GR. No. 180016 4/29/2014
FACTS:

The case at hand involves the constitutionality of the incremental penalty

rule (IPR) under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in the Philippines.
The IPR provides for increasing penalties based on the amount involved in the
crime of estafa (swindling). The argument raised by Dean Jose Manuel I.
Diokno is that the IPR violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

ISSUE:
The main issue in the case is whether the incremental penalty rule (IPR)
under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Constitution.
 11. CORPUZ V. PEOPLE GR. No. 180016
RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that the incremental penalty rule (IPR) under
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is constitutional and does not
violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Court's Discussion on Penalties for Crimes Against Property

● The Court discussed the issue of penalties for crimes against property.
● The Court concluded that it cannot modify the range of penalties as it would be
encroaching upon the power of the legislature.
● However, the Court can report to the Chief Executive the need for penal legislation in
cases where the act is not punishable by law or when the penalty is deemed excessive.
● The Court noted that the present penalties for theft and estafa do not seem excessive
compared to the proposed penalties based on the current inflation rate.
●
 12. PEOPLE V. JUGUETA GR no. 202124 4/5/2016
FACTS:

Accused-appelant Ireneo Jugueta appeals his conviction for double murder

and multiple attempted murder, but the supreme court upholds the conviction,
finding that Jugueta acted in concert with his co-accused and that treachery
was present in the crime.

ISSUE:
The main issue raised in the case is whether there were inconsistencies in
Norberto's testimony that would cast doubt on Jugueta's guilt.
 12. PEOPLE V. JUGUETA GR no. 202124 4/5/2016
RULING:

The Supreme Court upheld Jugueta's conviction, stating that the trial court's factual
findings and assessment of witness credibility are entitled to great respect. The evidence
on record supported the finding that Jugueta acted in concert with the other assailants,
all of them carrying firearms and firing at Norberto and his family. The court ruled that
conspiracy existed, as the three men went to Norberto's house together with their own
firearms. It was not necessary to identify which bullet specifically killed the children. The
court also found that treachery was present, as the victims were defenseless and
overpowered by armed assailants.

Jugueta's conviction for Double Murder was affirmed, and he was sentenced to
Reclusion Perpetua for each victim and ordered to indemnify their heirs. His conviction
for Multiple Attempted Murder was also affirmed, and he was sentenced to four years and
two months of Prision Correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of Prision
Mayor as maximum for each offended party.
 12. PEOPLE V. JUGUETA GR no. 202124 4/5/2016
Awarding of Damages in Criminal Cases

● The case discusses the awarding of damages in criminal cases in the Philippines.
● Moral damages aim to restore the spiritual status quo ante and should be proportionate to the
suffering inflicted.
● Exemplary damages, also known as punitive or vindictive damages, serve as a deterrent and
punishment for outrageous conduct.
● The presence of aggravating circumstances entitles the victim to an award of exemplary
damages.
● The amount of damages awarded can be adjusted as long as it does not
exceed the award of civil indemnity.
● The penalty imposed by law, rather than the penalty actually imposed, should be considered
when awarding damages.
● Specific amounts for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages
are provided based on the circumstances of the crime.
 13. DARIO NACAR V. GALLERY FRAMES 8/13/13
FACTS:

Petitioner Dario Nacar filed a constructive dismissal complaint against Gallery

Frames and/or Felipe Bordey, Jr. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, awarding
backwages and separation pay. Despite failed appeals, the Supreme Court's denial,
and the issuance of an Entry of Judgment, the case returned for execution.
Respondents' non-appearance at a pre-execution conference led to a Motion for
Correct Computation, resulting in an updated judgment award. Respondents
opposed, leading to the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution. Despite an
NLRC-ordered recomputation, a lower amount was assessed after a late
respondents' appearance. Petitioner sought enforcement of the original amount,
receiving it after an Alias Writ of Execution. He then moved for a recomputation with
interests, partially granted by the Labor Arbiter. Nacar's appeal to the NLRC was
denied, and his petition before the CA was also unsuccessful. His argument is that
backwages and separation pay should be computed based on the decision's finality,
not its execution.
 13. DARIO NACAR V. GALLERY FRAMES 8/13/13
ISSUE: The main issue in this case is whether a re-computation of the awards is
necessary.

RULING:

The court ruled in favor to the petitioner. The court explained that a
re-computation is necessary in illegal dismissal cases to ensure that the reliefs
continue to add up until full satisfaction. The civil liability, in this context, pertains
to the financial compensation awarded to Nacar, encompassing backwages and
separation pay, with the ongoing dispute focusing on the method and timing of
computation.
 14. SSS V. DOJ, et. al GR no. 158131 8/8/07
FACTS:

The Social Security System files a petition for review against the
Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss their complaint against Jose and
Olga Martel for non remittance of contributions, arguing that the concept of
novation does not apply in this case.

ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether the concept of novation serves to abate
the prosecution of the Martels for violation of the law.
 14. SSS V. DOJ, et. al GR no. 158131 8/8/07
RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, stating that novation does not apply in this
case because there was no original contract that could be replaced by a new contract.
The original relationship between SENCOR and the SSS is defined by law, and no amount
of agreements between the parties can change the nature of their relationship and the
consequence of non-payment of contributions. Therefore, the petition was granted, and
the DOJ's ruling was reversed.

Distinction between Civil and Criminal Liability

● The court held that any payment made by SENCOR would only affect its civil liability, not
its criminal liability.
● This means that even if SENCOR made a payment, it would still be held accountable for its
criminal offense of non-remittance of contributions.
●
 15. MILLA v PEOPLE, GR NO. 188726, JANUARY 25, 2012
FACTS:

Cresencio Milla sold a real property to Market Pursuits, Inc. (MPI) by presenting falsified documents
thereby causing the latter to believe that the registered owners of the said lot are actually selling
their property. After the sale, MPI discovered that the CTC given to them by Milla are spurious and
the title of the property was not transferred under its name.

Consequently, MPI demanded the return of the amount it paid to Milla who then issued 2 checks
covering the said amount. However, the checks were dishonored for having been drawn against
insufficient funds. MPI demanded Milla to make good of his checks but the demand went
unheeded which led them to file a criminal charge of estafa through falsification of Public
documents against Milla.

The RTC found Milla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of estafa through falsification of
public documents. The CA affirmed RTC’s decision. In this Petition, as part of his defense, Milla
contended that his issuance of the two checks before the institution of the criminal complaint
against him novated his obligation to MPI, thereby enabling him to avoid any incipient criminal
liability and converting his obligation into a purely civil one.
ISSUE:

Whether novation is applicable when the accused issued 2 checks resulting to the extinguishment
of his criminal liability?

HELD:

Novation is never presumed, and the animus novandi, whether totally or partially, must appear by
express agreement of the parties, or by their acts that are too clear and unequivocal to be
mistaken.

The criminal liability for estafa already committed is then not affected by the subsequent novation
of contract, for it is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the state in its
own conation.

In the case at bar, the acceptance by MPI of the Equitable PCI checks tendered by Milla could not
have novated the original transaction, as the checks were only intended to secure the return of the
P2 million the former had already given him. Even then, these checks bounced and were thus
unable to satisfy his liability. Moreover, the estafa involved here was not for simple misappropriation
or conversion, but was committed through Millas falsification of public documents, the liability for
which cannot be extinguished by mere novation.
 16. PEOPLE v ABESAMIS, G.R. NO. 140985, AUGUST 28, 2007
FACTS:

Accused-appellant and his brother, Rodel Abesamis, were in the billiard hall located at Cruz corner Pepin
Streets in Sampaloc, Manila. Accused-appellant played a game of billiards with Rogelio Mercado, Jr. called
"rotation" where the... first player who garners 61 points wins the game. A P40 bet was on the line. Ramon
Villo stood as "spotter" for them.

Matters got worse when Rogelio suddenly rearranged the balls on the table and the game turned into a
shouting match between Rogelio and accused-appellant. Ramon tried to mediate but accused-appellant
vented his ire on him, sparking a heated argument which led to a fistfight then the victim getting stabbed.

Thus, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty of homicide and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months and one day of
reclusion temporal as maximum.

In a letter dated June 12, 2007, Julio Arciaga, assistant director for prisons and security of the Bureau of
Corrections, informed the Court that accused-appellant was granted parole by the Board of Pardons and
Parole (Board) on March 5, 2003 and released from the custody of the Bureau of Corrections on March 20,
2003.
ISSUE:

WON accused-appellant’s civil liability subsists despite his release on parole?

FACTS:
Parole refers to the conditional release of an offender from a correctional institution after he serves
the minimum term of his prison sentence.17 The grant thereof does not extinguish the criminal
liability of the offender. Parole is not one of the modes of totally extinguishing criminal liability
under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code.18 Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

Similarly, accused-appellant’s release on parole did not extinguish his civil liability.19 Article 113 of the
Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. – Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as
provided in the next preceding article,20 the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the
civil liability resulting from the crime committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served
his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve
the same by reason of amnesty, pardon commutation of sentence or any other reason.

Thus, accused-appellant’s civil liability subsists despite his release on parole.

 17. JOCSON v GLORIOSO, GR NO. L-22686, JANUARY 30, 1968
FACTS:

For the death of a 3-year old boy who was run over by a passenger jeepney two(2) actions were
filed by the parents: (1) a civil case for damages against the owner of the jeepney and the driver for
culpa aquiliana; and (2) a criminal action against the driver for homicide thru reckless imprudence —
which was filed while said civil case was still pending hearing. The civil case was dismissed, the
lower court being of the opinion that “in conscience” it could not “hold the defendant guilty of
negligence resulting in, or contributory to, the said accident.” In the criminal case, however, the trial
court convicted the driver of homicide thru reckless imprudence and aside from the prison
sentence imposed upon him, he was ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased son with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The driver appealed to the Court of Appeals raising
as one of the issues “the propriety of sentencing the driver to pay the indemnity to the parents of
the deceased child, considering the fact that the civil action for damages brought by the parents of
the child against the driver and the owner of the jeepney was dismissed. The CA issued a writ of
execution to enforce the civil liability but the same was returned unsatisfied due to the insolvency
of the driver. Hence, the parents brought in an action against the owner of the jeepney to enforce
such civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the previous dismissal of an action based on culpa aquiliana precludes the
application of the plain and explicit command of Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code?

HELD:

No, the previous dismissal of an action based on culpa aquiliana DOES NOT precludes the
application of the plain and explicit command of Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 103 of the RPC states that, “for a felony committed by servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties, the employers, teachers, persons,
and corporations are made subsidiarily liable.” As authoritatively Interpreted in Martinez v.
Barredo, 81 Phil. 1, (1948), “judgment of conviction, in the absence
of any collusion between the defendant and the offended party, should bind the person
subsidiarily liable.” Such a decision is of a conclusive nature. it is “binding and
conclusive upon defendant not only with regard to its civil liability but also with regard to its
amount because the liability of an employer cannot be separated but follows that of his
employee.” What clearly emerges then is the controlling force of the principle that once there
is a conviction for a felony, final in character, the employer, according to the command of
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, is subsidiarily liable, if it shown that the commission
thereof was in the discharge of the duties of such employee.
18. SPOUSES FRANCO
PHILIPPINE RABBIT vv IAC GR NO.
PEOPLE, GR71137, OCTOBER
NO. 147703, 5, 1989
APRIL 14, 2004
 SPOUSES FRANCO v IAC GR NO. 71137, OCTOBER 5, 1989
FACTS:

The instant petition deals mainly with the nature of an employer’s liability for his employee’s
negligent act. In the evening of October 18, 1974, Macario Yuro swerved the northbound
Franco Bus that he was driving to the left to avoid hitting a truck with a trailer parked facing
north along the cemented pavement of the MacArthur Highway at Barrio Talaga, Capas Tarlac,
thereby taking the lane of an incoming Isuzu Mini Bus being driven by one Magdaleno Lugue
and making a collision between the two (2) vehicles an unavoidable and disastrous
eventuality. Dragged fifteen (15) meters from the point of impact (midway the length of the
parked truck with trailer), the mini bus landed right side down facing south in the canal of the
highway, a total wreck. The Franco Bus was also damaged but not as severely. The collision
resulted in the deaths of the two (2) drivers, Macario Yuro and Magdaleno Lugue, and two (2)
passengers of the mini bus, Romeo Bue and Fernando Chuay.

Consequently, Antonio Reyes, the registered owner of the Isuzu Mini Bus, Mrs. Susan Chuay,
the wife of victim Fernando Chuay, and Mrs. Lolita Lugue, the wife of driver-victim Magdaleno
Lugue, filed an action for damages through reckless imprudence against Mr. & Mrs. Federico
Franco, the owners and operators of the Franco Transportation Company.
ISSUE:

Whether the action for recovery of damages instituted by herein private respondents was
predicated upon crime or quasi-delict?

HELD:

Yes. Under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code, liability is based on culpa aquiliana which
holds the employer primarily liable for tortious acts of its employees subject, however, to the
defense that the former exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of his employees.

Having thus established that Civil Case No. 2154 is a civil action to impose the primary liability
of the employer as a result of the tortious act of its alleged reckless driver, we confront
ourselves with the plausibility of defendants-petitioners' defense that they observed due
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. A
perusal of the record shows that the appellants were not able to establish the defense of a
good father of a family in the supervision of their bus driver. “ Consequently, therefore, the
petitioners are liable for the damages claimed pursuant to their primary liability under the
Civil Code.
CO v MUÑOZ, G.R. No. 181986

The case springs from the statements made by the respondent against the petitioner, Elizalde S. Co (Co), in several interviews with radio stations in Legaspi
City. Munoz, a contractor, was charged and arrested for perjury. Suspecting that Co, a wealthy businessman, was behind the filing of suit, Munoz made the
following statements:

(a) Co influenced the Office of the City Prosecutor of Legaspi City to expedite the issuance of warrant of arrest against Muñoz in connection with the
perjury case;

(b) Co manipulated the results of the government bidding involving the Masarawag-San Francisco dredging project, and;

(c) Co received ₱2,000,000.00 from Muñoz on the condition that Co will sub-contract the project to Muñoz, which condition Co did not comply with.

Co filed his complaint-affidavit which led to the filing of three criminal informations for libel before the RTC. He did not waive, institute or reserve his right to
file a separate civil action arising from Muñoz’s libelous remarks against him.

Applying the rules on privileged communication to libel suits, the prosecution has the burden of proving the existence of actual malice, which, Muñoz
claimed, it failed to do.

The RTC found Muñoz guilty of three counts of libel

The CA reversed the RTC decision and acquitted Muñoz of the libel charges

In the present petition, Co claims damages only on the basis of Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE:

whether a private party may appeal the judgment of acquittal insofar as he seeks to enforce the accused’s civil liability; and whether the respondent is liable
for damages arising from the libelous remarks despite his acquittal.

RULING:

The last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 111 of the ROC applies to civil actions to claim civil liability arising from the offense charged, regardless if the action is
instituted with or filed separately from the criminal action. Section 2, Rule 111 of the ROC governs situations when the offended party opts to institute the
civil action separately from the criminal action; hence, its title “When separate civil action is suspended.” Despite this wording, the last paragraph, by its
terms, governs all claims for civil liability ex delicto. This is based on Article 100 of the RPC which states that that “[e]very person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable.” Each criminal act gives rise to two liabilities: one criminal and one civil.
ROMERO vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 167546

FACTS:

On April 1, 1999 at around 12:00 noon, the JC Liner driven by petitioner Sonny Romero and the Apego Taxi driven by Jimmy Padua figured in a head-on
collision along Governor Jose Fuentebella Highway at Barangay Hibago, Ocampo, Camarines Sur. The collision resulted in the death of 6 people and 2
seriously injured persons.

As a consequence, petitioner was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and multiple serious physical injuries with
damage to property in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Ocampo, Camarines Sur.

After trial on the merits, the MTC acquitted petitioner of the crime charged however he was held civilly liable and was ordered to pay the heirs of the victims
the total amount of 3,541,900 by way of actual damages, civil indemnity for death, moral damages, temperate damages and loss of earning capacity.

The RTC affirmed the MTC judgment in toto.

The CA rendered the assailed decision affirming the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether his acquittal should have freed him from payment of civil liability.

RULING:

NO. The rule is that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. Criminal liability will give rise to civil liability only if the felonious act or omission results
in damage or injury to another and is the direct and proximate cause thereof. Every crime gives rise to (1) a criminal action for the punishment of the guilty
party and (2) a civil action for the restitution of the thing, repair of the damage, and indemnification for the losses.
Lee v Chua GR NO. 181658

Facts:

Petitioner Lee Pue Liong, a.k.a. Paul Lee, is the President of Centillion Holdings, Inc. The CKC Group is the subject of... intra-corporate disputes between
petitioner and his siblings, including herein respondent Chua Pue Chin Lee, a majority stockholder and Treasurer of CHI.

On July 19, 1999, petitioner's siblings including respondent and some unidentified persons took over and barricaded themselves inside the premises of a
factory owned by CKC. Petitioner and other factory employees were unable to enter the factory premises. This incident led to... the filing of Criminal Case
Nos. 971-V-99, 55503 to 55505 against Nixon Lee and 972-V-99 against Nixon Lee, Andy Lee, Chua Kipsi a.k.a. Jensen Chua and respondent.

June 14, 1999, petitioner on behalf of CHI (as per the Secretary's Certificate issued by Virginia Lee on even date) caused the filing of a verified Petition for
the Issuance of an Owner's Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate... of Title (TCT) No. 232238[10] which covers a property owned by CHI. The case was
docketed as LRC Record No. 4004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 4. Petitioner submitted before the said court an Affidavit of Loss
stating that: (1) by virtue of his position as President of CHI, he had in his custody and possession the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 232238 issued by
the Register of Deeds for Manila; (2) that said owner's copy of TCT No. 232238 was inadvertently lost or misplaced from... his files and he discovered such
loss in May 1999; (3) he exerted diligent efforts in locating the said title but it had not been found and is already beyond recovery; and (4) said title had not
been the subject of mortgage or used as collateral for the payment of any obligation... with any person, credit or banking institution. Petitioner likewise
testified in support of the foregoing averments during an ex-parte proceeding. In its Order dated September 17, 1999, the RTC granted the petition and
directed the Register of Deeds of Manila to issue a new Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 232238 in lieu of the lost one.
ISSUI:

Whether or not the honorable court of appeals committed a grave error when it upheld the resolution of the metropolitan trial court that there is a private
offended party in the crime of perjury, a crime against public interest.

RULING:

The petition has no merit.

Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from crime is the fundamental postulate of our law that "[e]very person criminally liable is also civilly liable."
Underlying this legal principle is the traditional theory that when a person commits a crime, he offends two entities, namely (1) the society in which he lives in
or the political entity, called the State, whose law he has violated; and (2) the individual member of that society whose person, right, honor, chastity or
property was actually or directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act or omission.
NISSAN GALLERY-ORTIGAS v. PURIFICACION F. FELIPE, GR No. 199067

This case stemmed from a criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) filed by petitioner Nissan Gallery-Ortigas (Nissan), an entity
engaged in the business of car dealership, against respondent Purificacion F. Felipe.

The said office found probable cause to indict Purificacion and filed an Information before the Metropolitan Trial Court or her issuance of a postdated check
in the amount of P1,020,000.00, which was subsequently dishonored upon presentment due to "STOP PAYMENT.

The SUV was delivered on May 14, 1997, but Frederick failed to pay upon delivery. Despite non-payment, Frederick took possession of the vehicle.

A demand letter was served upon Purificacion, through Frederick, who lived with her.

Purificacion refused to replace the check giving the reason that she was not the one who purchased the vehicle. On January 6, 1998, Nissan filed a criminal
case for violation of BP 22 against her.

During the preliminary investigation before the Assistant City Prosecutor, Purificacion gave P200,000.00 as partial payment to amicably settle the civil aspect
of the case. Thereafter, however, no additional payment had been made.
ISSUI:

Whether Purificacion is civilly liable for the issuance of a worthless check despite her acquittal from the criminal charge.

RULING:

YES,

The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its accompanying civil liability. The civil aspect of every criminal case is based on the
principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. If the accused, however, is not found to be criminally liable, it does not necessarily
mean that he will not likewise be held civilly liable because extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. This
rule more specifically applies when (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court
declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of
which the accused was acquitted. The civil action based on the delict is extinguished if there is a finding in the final judgment in the criminal action
that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him.
DR. ENCARNACION C. LUMANTAS v. HANZ CALAPIZ, GR No. 163753, 2014-01-15

Facts:

January 16, 1995, Spouses Hilario Calapiz, Jr. and Herlita Calapiz brought their 8-year-old son, Hanz Calapiz (Hanz), to the Misamis Occidental Provincial
Hospital, Oroquieta City, for an emergency appendectomy. Hanz was attended to by the petitioner, who suggested to the parents that Hanz also undergo
circumcision at no added cost to spare him the pain. With the parents' consent, the petitioner performed the coronal type of circumcision on Hanz after his
appendectomy. On the following day, Hanz complained of pain in his penis, which exhibited blisters. His testicles were swollen. The parents noticed that the
child urinated abnormally after the petitioner forcibly removed the catheter, but the petitioner dismissed the abnormality as normal. On January 30, 1995,
Hanz was discharged from the hospital over his parents'protestations, and was directed to continue taking antibiotics.

February 8, 1995, Hanz was confined in a hospital because of the abscess formation between the base and the shaft of his penis. Presuming that the
ulceration was brought about by Hanz's appendicitis, the petitioner referred him to Dr. Henry Go, an urologist, who diagnosed... the boy to have a damaged
urethra.
Issue

Whether the CA erred in affirming the petitioner’s civil liability despite his acquittal of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
injuries.

Ruling:

The petition for review lacks merit.

It is axiomatic that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.9 Nevertheless, the acquittal of an accused of the crime charged does not
necessarily extinguish his civil liability. In Manantan v. Court of Appeals, the Court elucidates on the two kinds of acquittal recognized by our law as well as
on the different effects of acquittal on the civil liability of the accused, viz:

First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a
person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no
delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict
complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the
guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be
proved by preponderance of evidence only.
END! Happy
Birthday,
Judge!
MAGBANUA | PAHM |