Mendoza vs. Arrieta, G.R. No.

L-32599,
June 29, 1979
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018

FACTS:
On October 22, 1969, a three-way vehicular accident occurred along Mac-Arthur Highway,
Marilao Bulacan involving Mercedes Benz Owner/ petitioner, Edgardo Mendoza, and
respondents jeepney driver Salazar and truck driver Montoya. This resulted in the filing of
two separate Informations of Reckless Imprudence resulting to Damage to Property. The first
one being a Php 1604.00 Criminal case against truck driver Montoya for hitting Salazar’s
jeepney at the right rear portion causing the jeep to hit Mendoza’s Mercedes, and the second
Criminal Case was against jeepney driver Salazar for hitting the Benz in the amount of Php
8,890.00.

On July 31, 1970, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan rendered judgment. Truck
driver Montoya was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of crime of damage to property
through reckless imprudence and was sentence to pay jeepney driver Salazar a fine for actual
damages and indemnity. Accused Rodolfo Salazar, on the other hand, was acquitted.
Mercedes Benz owner was not awarded damages.

On August 22, 1970 , after termination of criminal cases, Petitioner filed Civil Case against
truck owner Timbol and jeepney driver Salazar. Timbol filed a motion to dismiss claiming
that such action is barred by the prior judgment in criminal cases. The CFI judge granted
Timbol’s Motion to Dismiss.

ISSUES:
1. Can Timbol be sued for damages by Mendoza after termination of
criminal cases? – YES.
2. Should the Civil Case against jeepney driver Salazar be dismissed?
YES.

RULING:
Timbol can be sued for damages.

No reservation need be made in the criminal case, it being substantive in character and is not
within the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate. Even if it were not substantive but
adjective, it cannot stand because of its inconsistency with Article 2177, an enactment of the
legislature superseding the Rule of 1940.

There is no oneness in Identity in the civil and criminal cases. In the former, the truck owner,
Timbol, was made a party in the case while in the latter only the jeepney driver, Salazar, was
a party in the case for the damage to Petitioner’s Mercedes Benz. Moreover, in the criminal
cases, the cause of action was the enforcement of a civil liability arising from criminal
negligence, while the August 22 Civil Case is based on quasi delict under Art 2180 in relation
to Art 2176 of the New Civil Code.

The civil case against Salazar should be dismissed.

The extinction of the penal action does not entail the extinction of the civil, unless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration in the final judgment that the fact from which the civil
might arise did not exist. Given the facts of the case, the trial court pronounced that jeepney
driver Salazar cannot be held liable for the damages sustained by petitioner’s car.

Accordingly the civil action against Salazar must be held to have been extinguished in
consonance with Section 3 (c) Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.