• Facts

• The petitioner filed a case of libel against the defendant for the article that the latter
has written in column of a magazine that has affected the petitioner. The case was
instituted in the Regional trial court The petitioner also filed a motion to consolidate
the criminal case and the civil case on the ground that the evidences to be presented
were actually the same. The court granted the motion and consolidated the case.
The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration to the court contending that the
criminal and civil case should run separately. The motion was dismissed and the
defendant filed an appeal to the appellate court which granted its appeal and
reversed the decision of the RTC. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was
dismissed by the court of appeals and thus the appeal to the Supreme Court.
• Issue
whether the criminal case and the separate and independent civil action to
enforce the civil liability arising from the former, filed pursuant to Article 33 of
the Civil Code, may be consolidated for joint trial?
• Held:
• The court ruled that the criminal and civil case may be consolidated. Section 3 of rule 111 states
that “Whenever the offended party shall have instituted the civil action as provided for in
the first paragraph of Section 1 hereof before the filing of the criminal action and the
criminal action is subsequently commenced, the pending civil action shall be suspended, in
whatever stage before final judgment it may be found, until final judgment in the criminal
action has been rendered. However, if no final judgment has been rendered by the trial
court in the civil action, the same may be consolidated with the criminal action upon
application with the court trying the criminal action. If the application is granted, the
evidence presented and admitted in the civil action shall be deemed automatically
reproduced in the criminal action, without prejudice to the admission of additional
evidence that any party may wish to present. In case of consolidation, both the criminal
and the civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly”
• According to the supreme court “it follows without saying that an independent civil
action for t recovery of civil liability, authorized under Articles 32, 33, 34 or 2176 of
the Civil Code, filed before the institution of the criminal case, may be consolidated
with the latter, subject to the condition that no final judgment has been rendered in
the criminal case. If this is permitted, there is neither rhyme nor reason why, given
the existence of the condition, an independent civil action under any of the said
Articles, but filed after the institution of the criminal case, may not be consolidated
with the latter. This second scenario is equally and logically addressed by the
reasoning behind the provision for the first situation”
• Facts
The petitioner bernabe castillo was driving his vehicle when he had a collision
with the car driven by the private defendant, juanito rosario. The incident
caused the petitioner and his passengers to suffer physical injuries . This led the
filing of criminal case and a claim for damages under the civil case. Due to lack
of evidence, the criminal case was dismissed. The case fot damages of both
parties were also dismissed by the trial court causing the petitioner to file an
appeal to the appellate court which affirmed the decision of the trial court and
thus the case.
• Issue
Is the decision of the Court of Appeals, where its dispositive part, or "fallo",
states that the guilt of the (appellant) accused was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt final and conclusive, on an action for damages based on
quasi-delict?
• Held
The final and conclusive judgment has an effect on the decision. Section 2 of rule 111 states
that “Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration from a final judgment that the fact from which the civil
action might arise did not exist.” Also according to the sc, Negligence, being the source and
foundation of actions of quasi-delict, is the basis for the recovery of damages. In the case at
bar, the Court of Appeals found that no negligence was committed by Juanito Rosario to
warrant an award of damages to the petitioners.”
Since negligence was the basis for the damages filed which was not proven in the criminal
proceeding
• D. Nature of liability
 Hernandez v dolor

• Facts
Boyet Dolor, The child of the respondent dolor was driving an owner type jeep when the
vehicle had a collision with a passenger jeepney driven by gonzales. Due to such incident, Boyet
along with anothet passenger died and the others suffered serious physical injuries while the
passengers of tge jeepney also suffered injuries. A case was filed for damages alleging the
reckless of gonzales which was countered by the petitioner alleging that the deceased was the
reckless one.
The evidenced proved the contention lf dolor and awarded them damages holding both
gonzales and hernandez as solidary liable. This was appealed by the petitioner hernandez but
the court of appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court and thus the case
• Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in awarding temperate
damages to private respondents namely the Spouses Dolor, Spouses
Valmocina and Spouses Panopio and to Joseph Sandoval, although the
grant of temperate damages is not provided for in decision of the court
a quo
The supreme court ruled that the appellate court was correct in awarding the temperate damages.
Anent the award of temperate damages to the private respondents, we hold that the
appellate court committed no reversible error in awarding the same to the respondents.
Tempera te or moderate damages are damages which are more than nominal but less than
compensatory which may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has
been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
Temperate damages are awarded for those cases where, from the nature of the case, definite
proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, although the court is co 16 nvinced that there
has been such loss. A judge should be empowered to calculate moderate damages in such
cases, rather than the plaintiff should suffer, without redress, from the defendant's wrongful
act. 17 The assessment of temperate damages is left to the sound discretion of the court
provided that such an award is reasonable under the circumstances.
• We have gone through the records of this case and we find that, indeed,
respondents suffered losses which cannot be quantified in monetary terms.
These losses came in the form of the damage sustained by the owner type
jeep of the Dolor spouses; the internment and burial of Oscar Valmocina;
the hospitalization of Joseph Sandoval on account of the injuries he
sustained from the collision and the artificial leg and crutches that respondent
Fred Panopio had to use because of the amputation of his right leg. Further,
we find that the amount of temperate damages awarded to the respondents
were reasonable under the circumstances