Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 122150 March 17, 2003
GEORGE (CULHI) HAMON, petitioner,
vs.
COURT O! APPEALS AN" #ALENTINO U. CARANTES, respondents.
AUSTRIA$MARTINE%, J.&
Petitioner eor!e "Culhi# $a%bon filed herein petition for revie& on certiorari, raisin!
the follo&in! issues'
($E)$ER OR NO) * CIVI+ C*SE ,OR D*M*ES -*SED ON *N
INDEPENDEN) CIVI+ *C)ION ,*++IN .NDER *R)IC+E /0, //, /1 *ND 0234
O, )$E NE( CIVI+ CODE -E D.+5 DISMISSED ,OR ,*I+.RE )O M*6E
RESERV*)ION )O ,I+E * SEP*R*)E CIVI+ *C)ION IN * CRIMIN*+ C*SE ,I+ED
*RISIN ,ROM )$E S*ME *C) OR OMISSION O, )$E *CC.SED P.RS.*N)
)O R.+E 222, SEC)ION 2 O, )$E R.+ES O, CO.R), )$E ,*I+.RE )O M*6E
RESERV*)ION -EIN D.E )O )$E ,*C) )$*) )$E CRIMIN*+ C*SE (*S
DISMISSED -E,ORE )$E PROSEC.)ION S)*R)ED )O PRESEN) EVIDENCE
,OR ,*I+.RE O, )$E PRIV*)E COMP+*IN*N) )O *PPE*R DESPI)E NO)ICE
S$O.+D * S)RIC) IN)ERPRE)*)ION O, R.+E 222, SEC)ION 2 O, )$E R.+ES
O, CO.R) ($IC$ IN,RINES ON * RI$) O, * P*R)5 -*SED ON *
S.-S)*N)IVE +*( -E PERMI))ED ($EN )O DO SO (O.+D DIMINIS$,
MODI,5 *ND7OR *MEND * S.-S)*N)IVE RI$) CON)R*R5 )O +*(.
2
)he factual bac8!round that led to the filin! of the petition is as follo&s'
On 9une 4, 2:;:, the petitioner filed before the Re!ional )rial Court of -a!uio
"-ranch 4#, a co%plaint for da%a!es
0
for the in<uries and e=penses he sustained
after the truc8 driven b> the respondent bu%ped hi% on the ni!ht of Dece%ber :,
2:;?.
/
In ans&er thereto, respondent contended that the cri%inal case arisin! fro%
the sa%e incident, Cri%inal Case No. 0@1: for Serious Ph>sical In<uries thru
Rec8less I%prudence, earlier filed on 9anuar> ;, 2:;4,
1
had alread> been
provisionall> dis%issed b> the Municipal )rial Court of )uba, -en!uet on March 0/,
2:;3, due to petitionerAs lac8 of interestB
?
and that the dis%issal &as &ith respect to
both cri%inal and civil liabilities of respondent.
4
*fter trial, the Re!ional )rial Court rendered a decision, dated Dece%ber 2;, 2::2,
rulin! that the civil case &as not barred b> the dis%issal of the cri%inal case, and
that petitioner is entitled to da%a!es. )he dispositive portion of the R)C decision
reads'
($ERE,ORE, 9ud!%ent is hereb> rendered, sentencin! defendant
Valentino Cerantes to pa> plaintiff eor!e $a%bon the su% of P4@,@@@.@@
for hospitaliCation and %edical e=penses and P2@,@@@.@@ for native rituals,
as *ctual Da%a!esB the su% of P2@,@@@.@@ as Moral Da%a!es, P?,@@@.@@
as E=e%plar> Da%a!es and P?,@@@.@@ as *ttorne>As fees and costs.
SO ORDERED.
3
On appeal,
;
the Court of *ppeals, in its decision pro%ul!ated on March ;, 2::?,
:

reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court, and dis%issed petitionerAs
co%plaint for da%a!es.
*ccordin! to the appellate court, since the petitioner did not %a8e an> reservation to
institute a separate civil action for da%a!es, it &as i%pliedl> instituted &ith the
cri%inal case, and the dis%issal of the cri%inal case carried &ith it the dis%issal of
the suit for da%a!es, not&ithstandin! the fact that the dis%issal &as provisional as it
a%ounted to an acDuittal and had the effect of an ad<udication on the %erits.
2@
$ence, herein petition for revie& on certiorari under Rule 1? of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner ar!ues that the rulin! in the case of Abellana v. Marave
22
should be
observed, i.e., a civil action for da%a!es %a> be filed and proceed independentl> of
the cri%inal action even &ithout reservation to file the sa%e has been %adeB
20
and
that the reDuire%ent of reservation, as provided in Rule 222 of the Rules of Court,
practicall> di%inished7a%ended7%odified his substantial ri!ht.
2/
)he petition %ust be denied.
Petitioner filed the co%plaint for da%a!es on 9une 4, 2:;:. $ence, Section 2, Rule
222 of the 2:;? Rules on Cri%inal Procedure, as a%ended in 2:;;,
21
is the prevailin!
and !overnin! la& in this case, viz.'
SEC)ION 2. Institution of criminal and civil actions. E (hen a cri%inal
action is instituted, the civil action for the recover> of civil liabilit> is i%pliedl>
instituted &ith the cri%inal action, unless the offended part> &aives the civil
action, reserves his ri!ht to institute it separatel>, or institutes the civil action
prior to the cri%inal action.
1
Such civil action includes recover> of inde%nit> under the Revised Penal
Code, and da%a!es under *rticle /0, //, /1 and 0234 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines arisin! fro% the sa%e act or o%ission of the accused.
. . .
.nder the fore!oin! rule, civil actions to recover liabilit> arisin! fro% cri%e "ex
delicto# and under *rticles /0, //, /1 and 0234 of the Civil Code "quasi-delict# are
dee%ed i%pliedl> instituted &ith the cri%inal action unless &aived, reserved or
previousl> instituted.
)hus, in Maniago v. Court of Appeals,
2?
the Court ruled that the ri!ht to brin! an
action for da%a!es under the Civil Code %ust be reserved, as reDuired b> Section 2,
Rule 222, other&ise it should be dis%issedB
24
and that the reservation reDuire%ent
does not i%pair, di%inish or defeat substantive ri!hts, but onl> re!ulates their
e=ercise in the !eneral interest of orderl> procedure.
23
In the Maniago case, petitioner Ruben Mania!o &as the o&ner of the bus driven b>
$er%inio *nda>a that fi!ured in a vehicular accident &ith the <eepne> o&ned b>
respondent *lfredo -oado. )he petitioner therein initiall> sou!ht for the suspension of
the civil case for da%a!es filed a!ainst hi% in vie& of the pendenc> of the cri%inal
case for rec8less i%prudence resultin! in da%a!e to propert> and %ultiple ph>sical
in<uries filed a!ainst his driver. )he respondent, in the cri%inal case, did not reserve
the ri!ht to brin! the separate civil action a!ainst the petitioner or his driver. )he
cri%inal case &as later dis%issed for the failure of the prosecution to prosecute its
case. On appeal, the Court identified the issues as "2# &hether the respondent can
file a civil action for da%a!es despite the absence of reservationB "0# &hether the
dis%issal of the cri%inal case brou!ht &ith it the dis%issal of the civil actionB and "/#
&hether the reservation reDuire%ent is substantive in character and be>ond the ruleF
%a8in! po&er of the Court.
2;

)he Court e=pounded'
. . . G2Duite clearl> reDuires that a reservation %ust be %ade to institute
separatel> all civil actions for the recover> of civil liabilit>, other&ise the> &ill
de dee%ed to have been instituted &ith the cri%inal case. H In other &ords
the ri!ht of the in<ured part> to sue separatel> for the recover> of the civil
liabilit> &hether arisin! fro% cri%es "ex delicto# or fro% DuasiFdelict under
*rt. 0234 of the Civil Code %ust be reserved other&ise the> &ill de dee%ed
instituted &ith the cri%inal action.
. . .
Contrar> to private respondentAs contention, the reDuire%ent that before a
separate civil action %a> be brou!ht it %ust be reserved does not i%pair,
di%inish or defeat substantive ri!hts, but onl> re!ulates their e=ercise in the
!eneral interest of procedure. )he reDuire%ent is %erel> procedural in
nature. ,or that %atter the Revised Penal Code, b> providin! in *rt. 2@@ that
an> person cri%inall> liable is also civill> liable, !ives the offended part> the
ri!ht to brin! a separate civil action, >et no one has ever Duestioned the rule
that such action %ust be reserved before it %a> be brou!ht separatel>.
2:
(hile the *bellana case ruled that a reservation is not necessar>, the 2:;;
a%end%ent of the rule e=plicitl> reDuires reservation of the civil action.
= = = Prior reservation is a condition sine qua non before an> of these
independent civil actions can be instituted and thereafter have a continuous
deter%ination apart fro% or si%ultaneous &ith the cri%inal action.
. . . ,ar fro% alterin! substantive ri!hts, the pri%ar> purpose of the
reservation is, to borro& the &ords of the Court in ICaos v. PeraltaI'
J. . . to avoid %ultiplicit> of suits, to !uard a!ainst oppression and
abuse, to prevent dela>s, to clear con!ested doc8ets, to si%plif>
the &or8 of the trial courtB in short, the attain%ent of <ustice &ith the
least e=pense and ve=ation to the partiesFliti!ants.A
0@
)hus, herein petitioner $a%bon should have reserved his ri!ht to separatel> institute
the civil action for da%a!es in Cri%inal Case No. 0@1:. $avin! failed to do so, Civil
Case No. 2342FR for da%a!es subseDuentl> filed b> hi% &ithout prior reservation
should be dis%issed. (ith the dis%issal of Cri%inal Case No. 0@1:, &hatever civil
action for the recover> of civil liabilit> that &as i%pliedl> instituted therein &as
li8e&ise dis%issed.
($ERE,ORE, the instant petition for revie& on certiorari is hereb> DENIED for lac8
of %erit, and the decision of the Court of *ppeals dated March ;, 2::?, is *,,IRMED
in toto.
SO ORDERED.
2