Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

ELCANO vs.

HILL, 77 SCRA 98 (1977); case has not extinguished his liability for
quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a
FACTS: bar to the instant action against him.

Respondent Reginald Hill killed the son of 2. Yes, the above mentioned provision may
the plaintiffs named Agapito Elcano. A still be applied against Atty Marvin Hill.
criminal complaint was instituted against Although parental authority is terminated
him but he was acquitted on the ground upon emancipation of the child,
that his act was not criminal, because of emancipation by marriage is not absolute,
lack of intent to kill, couple with mistake. i.e. he can sue and be sued in court only
Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a complaint with the assistance of his father, mother or
for recovery of damages against defendant guardian. As in the present case, killing
Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the time someone else contemplated judicial
of the occurrence, and his father, the litigation, thus, making Article 2180 apply
defendant Marvin Hill, with who he was to Atty. Hill.However, inasmuch as it is
living and getting subsistence, for the same evident that Reginald is now of age, as a
killing. A motion to dismiss was filed by the matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill
defendants. The Court of First Instance of has become milling, subsidiary to that of
Quezon City denied the motion. his son.
Nevertheless, the civil case was finally
dismissed upon motion for reconsideration.
CINCO vs. CANONOY, 90 SCRA 369
ISSUE: (1979);

1. W/N the present civil action for damages FACTS:


is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the Petitioner filed a complaint in the City Court
criminal case. for recovery of damages on account of
a vehicular accident involving his car and a
2. W/N Article 2180 (2nd and last jeepney driven by respondent Romeo
paragraphs) of the Civil Code may be Hilot and operated by respondents
applied against Atty. Hill, notwithstanding Valeriana Pepito and Carlos Pepito.
the undisputed fact that at the time of the
occurrence complained of. Reginald, Subsequently, a criminal case was filed
though a minor, living with and getting against the driver. At the pre-trial of the
subsistence from his father, was already civil case counsel for the respondents
legally married. moved for the suspension of the civil action
pending determination of the criminal case
HELD: invoking Section 3(b), Rule 111 of the
Rules of Court.
1. No, the present civil action for damages
is not barred by the acquittal of Reginald in The City Court granted the motion and
the criminal case. Firstly, there is a ordered the suspension of the civil case.
distinction as regards the proof required in Petitioner elevated the matter on certiorari
a criminal case and a civil case. To find the to the Court of First Instance, alleging that
accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of the City Judge acted with grave abuse of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, discretion in suspending the civil action for
while in a civil case, preponderance of being contrary to law and jurisprudence.
evidence is sufficient to make the
defendant pay in damages. Furthermore, a The Court of First Instance dismissed the
civil case for damages on the basis of petition; hence, this petition to review on
quasi-delict does is independently certiorari.
instituted from a criminal act. As such the
acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal ISSUE:
W/N there can be an independent civil The concept of quasi-delict enunciated in
action for damages to property during the Article 2176 of the New Civil Code is so
pendency of the criminal action? broad that it includes not only injuries to
persons but also damage to property. It
HELD: makes no distinction between "damage to
The Supreme Court held that an action for persons" on the one hand and "damage to
damages based on Articles 2176 and property" on the other.
2180 of the New Civil Code is quasi-
delictual in character which can be The word "damage" is used in two
prosecuted independently of the criminal concepts: the "harm" done and
action. "reparation" for the harm done. And with
respect to "harm" it is plain that
Where the plaintiff made essential it includes both injuries to person and
averments in the complaint that it was the property since "harm" is not limited to
driver's fault or negligence in the operation personal but also to property injuries. An
of the jeepney which caused the collision example of quasi-delict in the law itself
between his automobile and said jeepney; which includes damage to property in
that plaintiff sustained damages because of Article 2191(2) of the Civil Code which
the collision; that a direct causal holds proprietors responsible for damages
connection exists between the damage he caused by excessive smoke which may be
suffered and the fault or negligence of the harmful "to person or property".
defendant-driver and where the defendant-
operator in their answer, contended, Respondent Judge gravely abused his
among others, that they observed due discretion in upholding the decision of the
diligence in the selection and supervision of city court suspending the civil action based
their employees, a defense peculiar to on quasi-delict until after the criminal
actions based on quasi-delict , such action action is finally terminated.
is principally predicated on Articles 32176
and 2180 of the New Civil Code which is
quasi-delictual in nature and character.
Liability being predicated on quasi-delict ,
the civil case may proceed as a separate
and independent court action as specifically MENDOZA vs. ARRIETA; 91 SCRA 113
provided for in Article 2177. (1979);

Section 3 (b), Rule 111 of the Rules of FACTS:


Court refers to "other civil actions arising On October 22, 1969, a three-way
from cases not included in Section 2 of the vehicular accident occurred along Mac-
same rule" in which, "once the criminal Arthur Highway, Marilao Bulacan involving
action has been commenced, no civil action Mercedes Benz Owner/ petitioner, Edgardo
arising from the same offense can be Mendoza, and respondents jeepney driver
prosecuted and the same shall be Salazar and truck driver Montoya. This
suspended in whatever stage it may be resulted in the filing of two separate
found, until final judgment in the criminal Informations of Reckless Imprudence
proceeding has been rendered". resulting to Damage to Property.

The civil action referred to in Section 2(a) The first one being a Php 1604.00 Criminal
and 3(b), Rule 11 of the Rules of Court case against truck driver Montoya for
which should be suspended after the hitting Salazar’s jeepney at the right rear
criminal action has been instituted is that portion causing the jeep to hit Mendoza’s
arising from the criminal offense and not Mercedes, and the second Criminal Case
the civil action based on quasi delict. was against jeepney driver Salazar for
hitting the Benz in the amount of Php liability arising from criminal negligence,
8,890.00. while the August 22 Civil Case is based on
quasi delict under Art 2180 in relation to
On July 31, 1970, the Court of First Art 2176 of the New Civil Code.
Instance (CFI) of Bulacan rendered
judgment. Truck driver Montoya was found The civil case against Salazar should be
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of crime of dismissed.
damage to property through reckless
imprudence and was sentence to pay The extinction of the penal action does not
jeepney driver Salazar a fine for actual entail the extinction of the civil, unless the
damages and indemnity. Accused Rodolfo extinction proceeds from a declaration in
Salazar, on the other hand, was acquitted. the final judgment that the fact from which
Mercedes Benz owner was not awarded the civil might arise did not exist. Given the
damages. facts of the case, the trial court pronounced
that jeepney driver Salazar cannot be held
On August 22, 1970 , after termination of liable for the damages sustained by
criminal cases, Petitioner filed Civil Case petitioner’s car.
against truck owner Timbol and jeepney
driver Salazar. Timbol filed a motion to Accordingly the civil action against Salazar
dismiss claiming that such action is barred must be held to have been extinguished in
by the prior judgment in criminal cases. consonance with Section 3 (c) Rule 111 of
The CFI judge granted Timbol’s Motion to the Rules of Court.
Dismiss.

ISSUES: 3. CULPA AQUILIANA DISTINGUISHED


Can Timbol be sued for damages by FROM CRIME;
Mendoza after termination of criminal
cases? – YES. CRIMES:

Should the Civil Case against jeepney 1. Crimes affected the public interest.
driver Salazar be dismissed? YES.
2. Penal law punishes/ corrects the criminal
act.
HELD:
Timbol can be sued for damages. 3. Only acts covered by Penal Law are
punished (Barredo vs Garcia, 73 Phil 607;
No reservation need be made in the J. Bocobo, 1940 : Taxi c lied with Carretela)
criminal case, it being substantive in
character and is not within the power of the 4. Guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court to promulgate. Even if it
were not substantive but adjective, it 5. Reservation to file separate civil action.
cannot stand because of its inconsistency No reservation, civil action is impliedly
with Article 2177, an enactment of the instituted in the criminal action.
legislature superseding the Rule of 1940.
6. Employer’s liability is subsidiary.
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 CULPA AQUILIANA:
case while in the latter only the jeepney
driver, Salazar, was a party in the case for 1. Only private concern.
the damage to Petitioner’s Mercedes Benz.
Moreover, in the criminal cases, the cause 2. Repairs the damage by indemnification.
of action was the enforcement of a civil
3. Covers all acts that are faulty or 6. Employer’s 6. Employer’s
negligent. liability is liability is solidary
subsidiary. (Fabre Jr. vs CA,
4. Preponderance of evidence. 259 SCRA 426, ‘
96)
5. No reservation – it’s independent from
crime. (Andamo vs IAC, 191 SCRA 203)

6. Employer’s liability is solidary (Fabre Jr. ARTICLES 101 TO 101, RPC;


vs CA, 259 SCRA 426, ‘ 96)
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of
CULPA felony. — Every person criminally liable for
CRIMES
AQUILIANA a felony is also civilly liable.
1. Crimes affected 1. Only private
the public interest. concern. Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in
certain cases. — The exemption from
criminal liability established in subdivisions
2. Penal law 2. Repairs the 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in
punishes/ corrects damage by subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does
the criminal act. indemnification. not include exemption from civil liability,
which shall be enforced subject to the
following rules:
3. Only acts covered 3. Covers all acts
by Penal Law are that are faulty or First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of
punished (Barredo negligent. Article 12, the civil liability for acts
vs Garcia, 73 Phil committed by an imbecile or insane person,
607; J. Bocobo, and by a person under nine years of age,
1940 : Taxi c lied or by one over nine but under fifteen years
with Carretela) of age, who has acted without discernment,
shall devolve upon those having such
person under their legal authority or
control, unless it appears that there was no
4. Guilt proven 4. Preponderance fault or negligence on their part.
beyond reasonable of evidence.
doubt. Should there be no person having such
insane, imbecile or minor under his
authority, legal guardianship or control, or
5. Reservation to 5. No reservation if such person be insolvent, said insane,
file separate civil – it’s independent imbecile, or minor shall respond with their
action. No from crime. own property, excepting property exempt
reservation, civil (Andamo vs IAC, from execution, in accordance with the civil
action is impliedly 191 SCRA 203) law.
instituted in the
criminal action. Second. In cases falling within subdivision
4 of Article 11, the persons for whose
benefit the harm has been prevented shall
be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit
which they may have received.

The courts shall determine, in sound


discretion, the proportionate amount for
which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be shall be paid by the offended party upon
equitably determined, even approximately, the filing thereof in court.
or when the liability also attaches to the
Government, or to the majority of the Except as otherwise provided in these
inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, Rules, no filing fees shall be required for
whenever the damages have been caused actual damages.
with the consent of the authorities or their
agents, indemnification shall be made in No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
the manner prescribed by special laws or complaint may be filed by the accused in
regulations. the criminal case, but any cause of action
which could have been the subject thereof
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 may be litigated in a separate civil action.
and 6 of Article 12, the persons using (1a)
violence or causing the fears shall be
primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there (b) The criminal action for violation of
be no such persons, those doing the act Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed
shall be liable, saving always to the latter to include the corresponding civil action. No
that part of their property exempt from reservation to file such civil action
execution. separately shall be allowed.

RULES 111, ROC; Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal


and civil actions, the offended party shall
Prosecution of Civil Action pay in full the filing fees based on the
amount of the check involved, which shall
Section 1. Institution of criminal and be considered as the actual damages
civil actions. — (a) When a criminal action claimed. Where the complaint or
is instituted, the civil action for the information also seeks to recover
recovery of civil liability arising from the liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or
offense charged shall be deemed instituted exemplary damages, the offended party
with the criminal action unless the offended shall pay additional filing fees based on the
party waives the civil action, reserves the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts
right to institute it separately or institutes are not so alleged but any of these
the civil action prior to the criminal action. damages are subsequently awarded by the
court, the filing fees based on the amount
The reservation of the right to institute awarded shall constitute a first lien on the
separately the civil action shall be made judgment.
before the prosecution starts presenting its
evidence and under circumstances Where the civil action has been filed
affording the offended party a reasonable separately and trial thereof has not yet
opportunity to make such reservation. commenced, it may be consolidated with
the criminal action upon application with
When the offended party seeks to enforce the court trying the latter case. If the
civil liability against the accused by way of application is granted, the trial of both
moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary actions shall proceed in accordance with
damages without specifying the amount section 2 of this Rule governing
thereof in the complaint or information, the consolidation of the civil and criminal
filing fees thereof shall constitute a first lien actions. (cir. 57-97)
on the judgment awarding such damages.
Section 2. When separate civil action is
Where the amount of damages, other than suspended. — After the criminal action has
actual, is specified in the complaint or been commenced, the separate civil action
information, the corresponding filing fees arising therefrom cannot be instituted until
final judgment has been entered in the
criminal action. Section 4. Effect of death on civil
actions. — The death of the accused after
If the criminal action is filed after the said arraignment and during the pendency of
civil action has already been instituted, the the criminal action shall extinguish the civil
latter shall be suspended in whatever stage liability arising from the delict. However,
it may be found before judgment on the the independent civil action instituted
merits. The suspension shall last until final under section 3 of this Rule or which
judgment is rendered in the criminal thereafter is instituted to enforce liability
action. Nevertheless, before judgment on arising from other sources of obligation
the merits is rendered in the civil action, may be continued against the estate or
the same may, upon motion of the legal representative of the accused after
offended party, be consolidated with the proper substitution or against said estate,
criminal action in the court trying the as the case may be. The heirs of the
criminal action. In case of consolidation, accused may be substituted for the
the evidence already adduced in the civil deceased without requiring the
action shall be deemed automatically appointment of an executor or
reproduced in the criminal action without administrator and the court may appoint a
prejudice to the right of the prosecution to guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
cross-examine the witnesses presented by
the offended party in the criminal case and The court shall forthwith order said legal
of the parties to present additional representative or representatives to
evidence. The consolidated criminal and appear and be substituted within a period
civil actions shall be tried and decided of thirty (30) days from notice.
jointly.
A final judgment entered in favor of the
During the pendency of the criminal action, offended party shall be enforced in the
the running of the period of prescription of manner especially provided in these rules
the civil action which cannot be instituted for prosecuting claims against the estate of
separately or whose proceeding has been the deceased.
suspended shall be tolled. (n)
If the accused dies before arraignment, the
The extinction of the penal action does not case shall be dismissed without prejudice
carry with it extinction of the civil action. to any civil action the offended party may
However, the civil action based on delict file against the estate of the deceased. (n)
shall be deemed extinguished if there is a
finding in a final judgment in the criminal Section 5. Judgment in civil action not
action that the act or omission from which a bar. — A final judgment rendered in a civil
the civil liability may arise did not exist. action absolving the defendant from civil
(2a) liability is not a bar to a criminal action
against the defendant for the same act or
Section 3. When civil action may omission subject of the civil action. (4a)
proceeded independently. — In the cases
provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 Section 6. Suspension by reason of
of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the prejudicial question. — A petition for
independent civil action may be brought by suspension of the criminal action based
the offended party. It shall proceed upon the pendency of a prejudicial question
independently of the criminal action and in a civil action may be filed in the office of
shall require only a preponderance of the prosecutor or the court conducting the
evidence. In no case, however, may the preliminary investigation. When the
offended party recover damages twice for criminal action has been filed in court for
the same act or omission charged in the trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed
criminal action. (3a)
in the same criminal action at any time
before the prosecution rests. (6a) ISSUE:
1. W/N Barredo, as employer, is civilly
Section 7. Elements of prejudicial liable for the acts of his employee,
question. — The elements of a prejudicial Fontanilla?
question are: (a) the previously instituted
civil action involves an issue similar or 2. W/N the parents of the deceased file civil
intimately related to the issue raised in the action against Fausto Barredo thus making
subsequent criminal action, and (b) the him primarily and directly responsible
resolution of such issue determines under Article 1903 of the Civil Code as an
whether or not the criminal action may employer of Pedro Fontanilla?
proceed. (5a)
HELD:
Yes, Barredo is primarily liable under
BARREDO vs. GARCIA; 73 PHIL 607 Article 1903. The parents were well within
(1942); their rights in suing him.

FACTS: 1. Quasi-delict or culpa acquiliana is a


1. At about 1:30 am on May 3, 1936, taxi separate legal institution under the Civil
driver Fontanilla guided by Dimapilis Code of the Philippines and is entirely
collided head on with a “kalesa” thereby distinct and independent from a delict or
injuring and killing the 16 year old Faustino crime under the Revised Penal Code.
Garcia.
In this jurisdiction, the same negligent act
2. Faustino’s parents, Garcia and Alamario, causing damage may produce civil liability
filed a criminal suit against Fontanilla and (subsidiary) arising from a crime under
reserved their right to file a separate civil Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code of the
suit. Philippines; or create an action for quasi-
delicto or culpa aquiliana under Articles
3. Fontanilla was eventually convicted. 2179 and 2180 of the Civil Code and the
parties are free to choose which course to
4. After the criminal suit, on March 7, 1939, take.
the parents of the deceased instituted a
civil suit against Barredo – the owner of the And in the instant case, the negligent act of
Malate taxicab (employer of Fontanilla) Fontanilla produces two (2) liabilities of
making him primarily and directly Barredo:
responsible under culpa acquiliana of
Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the First, a subsidiary one because of the civil
Philippines. liability of Fontanilla arising from the
latter’s criminal negligence under Article
5. The suit was based on Article 1903 of the 103 of the Revised Penal Code, and
civil code (negligence of employers in the
selection of their employees). Second, Barredo’s primary and direct
responsibility arising from his presumed
6. Barredo’s defense was that Fontanilla’s negligence as an employer under Article
negligence is punished by the Revised 2180 of the Civil Code.
Penal Code, but since Fontanilla was not
sued for civil liability, therefore, Barredo 2. Barredo was held liable for damages.
claims that he cannot be held liable arguing It was also proven that Barredo is negligent
that his liability is only subsidiary and that in hiring his employees because it was
the separate civil suit should have been shown that Fontanilla had had multiple
filed against Fontanilla primarily and not traffic infractions already before he hired
him. him. He is not being sued for damages
arising from a criminal act (his driver’s Nevertheless, the civil case was finally
negligence) but rather for his own dismissed upon motion for reconsideration.
negligence in selecting his employee
(Article 1903). ISSUE:

“Some of the differences between crimes 1. W/N the present civil action for damages
under the Penal Code are: is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the
criminal case.
• “1. That crimes affect the public interest,
while quasi-delitos are only of private 2. W/N Article 2180 (2nd and last
concern. paragraphs) of the Civil Code may be
applied against Atty. Hill, notwithstanding
• “2. That consequently, the Penal Code the undisputed fact that at the time of the
punishes or corrects the criminal act, while occurrence complained of. Reginald,
the Civil Code, by means of though a minor, living with and getting
indemnification, merely repairs the subsistence from his father, was already
damage. legally married.

• “3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi- HELD:


delicts, because for the former are
punished only if there is a penal law clearly 1. No, the present civil action for damages
covering them, while the latter, cuasi- is not barred by the acquittal of Reginald in
delitos, include all acts in which any kind of the criminal case. Firstly, there is a
fault or negligence intervenes. distinction as regards the proof required in
a criminal case and a civil case. To find the
However, it should be noted that not all accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of
violations of the penal law produce civil guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required,
responsibility, such as begging in while in a civil case, preponderance of
contravention of ordinances, violation of evidence is sufficient to make the
the game laws, infraction of the rules of defendant pay in damages. Furthermore, a
traffic when nobody is hurt. civil case for damages on the basis of
quasi-delict does is independently
instituted from a criminal act. As such the
ELCANO vs. HILL, 77 SCRA 98, (1977); acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal
case has not extinguished his liability for
FACTS: quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a
bar to the instant action against him.
Respondent Reginald Hill killed the son of
the plaintiffs named Agapito Elcano. A 2. Yes, the above mentioned provision may
criminal complaint was instituted against still be applied against Atty Marvin Hill.
him but he was acquitted on the ground Although parental authority is terminated
that his act was not criminal, because of upon emancipation of the child,
lack of intent to kill, couple with mistake. emancipation by marriage is not absolute,
Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a complaint i.e. he can sue and be sued in court only
for recovery of damages against defendant with the assistance of his father, mother or
Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the time guardian. As in the present case, killing
of the occurrence, and his father, the someone else contemplated judicial
defendant Marvin Hill, with who he was litigation, thus, making Article 2180 apply
living and getting subsistence, for the same to Atty. Hill.However, inasmuch as it is
killing. A motion to dismiss was filed by the evident that Reginald is now of age, as a
defendants. The Court of First Instance of matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill
Quezon City denied the motion. has become milling, subsidiary to that of
his son.
DULAY vs. CA, 243 SCRA 220, (1995);
ISSUES:
FACTS:
On December 7, 1988, an altercation 1. Whether or not Torzuela’ s act of
between Benigno Torzuela and Atty. shooting Napoleon Dulay constitutes a
Napoleon Dulay occurred at the “Big Bang quasi-delict actionable under Article 2176
Sa Alabang,” Alabang Village, Muntinlupa of the New Civil Code;
as a result of which Benigno Torzuela, the
security guard on duty at the said carnival, 2. Whether or not Article 33 of the New
shot and killed Atty. Napoleon Dulay. Civil Code applies only to injuries
Petitioner Maria Benita A. Dulay, widow of intentionally committed; and
the deceased Napoleon Dulay, in her own
behalf and in behalf of her minor children, 3. Whether or not the liability or
filed an action for damages against Benigno respondents is subsidiary under the
Torzuela and private respondents Revised Penal Code.
Safeguard and/or Superguard, alleged
employers of defendant Torzuela. HELD:
Respondent Superguard filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground that the complaint 1. Yes. Article 2176 of the New Civil Code
does not state a valid cause of action. provides that “whoever by act or omission
Superguard claimed that Torzuela’s act of causes damage to another, there being
shooting Dulay was beyond the scope of his fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
duties, and that since the alleged act of damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
shooting was committed with deliberate there is no pre-existing contractual relation
intent (dolo), the civil liability therefor is between the parties is called a quasi-delict
governed by Article 100 of the Revised and is governed by the provisions of this
Penal Code. Superguard further alleged Chapter.” Contrary to the theory of private
that a complaint for damages based on respondents, there is no justification for
negligence under Article 2176 of the New limiting the scope of Article 2176 of the
Civil Code, such as the one filed by Civil Code to acts or omissions resulting
petitioners, cannot lie, since the civil from negligence. Well-entrenched is the
liability under Article 2176 applies only to doctrine that article 2176 covers not only
quasi-offenses under Article 365 of the acts committed with negligence, but also
Revised Penal Code. In addition, the acts which are voluntary and intentional.
respondent argued that petitioners’ filing of
the complaint is premature considering 2. No. The term “physical injuries” in Article
that the conviction of Torzuela in a criminal 33 has already been construed to include
case is a condition sine qua non for the bodily injuries causing death. It is not the
employer’s subsidiary liability. Respondent crime of physical injuries defined in the
Safeguard also filed a motion praying that Revised Penal Code. It includes not only
it be excluded as defendant on the ground physical injuries but also consummated,
that defendant Torzuela is not one of its frustrated, and attempted homicide.
employees. Petitioners opposed both Although in the Marcia case, it was held
motions, stating that their cause of action that no independent civil action may be
against the private respondents is based on filed under Article 33 where the crime is the
their liability under Article 2180 of the New result of criminal negligence, it must be
Civil Code. Respondent judge declared that noted, however, that Torzuela, the accused
the complaint was one for damages in the case at bar, is charged with
founded on crimes punishable under homicide, not with reckless imprudence,
Articles 100 and 103 of the Revised Penal whereas the defendant in Marcia was
Code as distinguished from those arising charged with reckless imprudence.
from, quasi-delict.
Therefore, in this case, a civil action based 1. finding of grave coercion was not
on Article 33 lies. supported by the evidence
2. the town mayor had the power to order
3. No. Under Article 2180 of the New Civil the clearance of market premises and the
Code, when an injury is caused by the removal of the complainants' stall because
negligence of the employee, there instantly the municipality had enacted municipal
arises a presumption of law that there was ordinances pursuant to which the market
negligence on the part of the master or stall was a nuisance per se
employer either in the selection of the 3. violation of the very directive of the
servant or employee, or in supervision over petitioner Mayor which gave the stall
him after selection or both. The liability of owners seventy two (72) hours to vacate
the employer under Article 2180 is direct the market premise
and immediate; it is not conditioned upon
prior recourse against the negligent
employee and a prior showing of the DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
insolvency of such employee. Therefore, it (1) Trial court: conviction. Roy Padilla,
is incumbent upon the private respondents Filomeno Galdonez, Ismael Gonzalgo and
to prove that they exercised the diligence Jose Parley Bedenia guilty beyond
of a good father of a family in the selection reasonable doubt of the crime of grave
and supervision of their employee. coercion, and hereby imposes upon them
to suffer an imprisonment of FIVE (5)
months and One (1) day; to pay a fine of
PADILLA vs. CA, 129 SCRA 558, P500.00 each; to pay actual and
(1984); compensatory damages in the amount of
P10,000.00; moral damages in the amount
FACTS: of P30,000.00; and another P10,000.00 for
1. The information states that on February exemplary damages, jointly and severally,
8, 1964 at around 9AM, the accused and all the accessory penalties provided for
prevented Antonio Vergara and his family by law; and to pay the proportionate costs
to close their stall located at the Public of this proceedings.
Market, Building No. 3, Jose Panganiban,
Camarines Norte, and by subsequently (2) Court of Appeals: acquittal but ordered
forcibly opening the door of said stall and them to pay solidarily the amount of 9,000.
thereafter brutally demolishing and The petitioners were acquitted because
destroying said stall and the furnitures these acts were denominated coercion
therein by axes and other massive when they properly constituted some
instruments, and carrying away the goods, petitioners were acquitted because these
wares and merchandise acts were denominated coercion when they
properly constituted some other offense
Contentions: such as threat or malicious mischief

Vergara Family Roy Padilla et al for petition for review on


1. accused took advantage of their public certiorari - grounds
positions: Roy Padilla, being the incumbent
municipal mayor, and the rest of the 1. where the civil liability which is included
accused being policemen, except Ricardo in the criminal action is that arising from
Celestino who is a civilian, all of Jose and as a consequence of the criminal act,
Panganiban, Camarines Norte, and that it and the defendant was acquitted in the
was committed with evident premeditation. criminal case, (no civil liability arising from
the criminal case), no civil liability arising
from the criminal charge could be imposed
Roy Padilla, et al upon him.
2. liability of the defendant for the return provided by law, his employer. 'There is the
of the amount received by him may not be civil liability arising from the act as a crime
enforced in the criminal case but must be and the liability arising from the same act
raised in a separate civil action for the as a quasi-delict. Either one of these two
recovery of the said amount types of civil liability may be enforced
against the accused, However, the
ISSUE: whether or not the respondent offended party cannot recover damages
court committed a reversible error in under both types of liability.
requiring the petitioners to pay civil
indemnity to the complainants after Article 29 of the Civil Code, earlier cited,
acquitting them from the criminal charge. that "when the accused in a criminal
prosecution is acquitted on the ground that
RULING: his guilt has not been proved beyond
No, the Court of Appeals is correct. reasonable doubt, a civil action for
1. A separate civil action is not required. To damages for the same act or omission may
require a separate civil action simply be instituted."
because the accused was acquitted would
mean needless clogging of court dockets What Article 29 merely emphasizes that a
and unnecessary duplication of litigation civil action for damages is not precluded by
with all its attendant loss of time, effort, an acquittal for the same criminal act or
and money on the part of all concerned. omission.

Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court The Civil Code provision does not state that
states the fundamental proposition that the remedy can be availed of only in a
when a criminal action is instituted, the civil separate civil action. A separate civil case
action for recovery of civil liability arising may be filed but there is no statement that
from the offense charged is impliedly such separate filing is the only and
instituted with it. The exceptions are when exclusive permissible mode of recovering
the offended party expressly waives the damages. Considering moreover the delays
civil action or reserves his right to institute suffered by the case in the trial, appellate,
it separately. and review stages, it would be unjust to the
complainants in this case to require at this
Civil liability which is also extinguished time a separate civil action to be filed.
upon acquittal of the accused is the civil
liability arising from the act as a crime.
The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the PEOPLE vs. LIGON, 152 SCRA 419
liability of the accused for damages only (1987);
when it includes a declaration that the facts
from which the civil might arise did not FACTS:
exist. Thus, the civil liability is not An appeal from te judgment of the RTC
extinguished by acquittal where the convicting accused of the crime of robbery
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt. with homicide sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua. The victim was Jose Rosales, a
Article 2177 of the Civil Code provides: 17-year-old working student who was
Responsibility for fault or negligence under earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. He
the preceding article is entirely separate was allegedly robbed of his cigarette box,
and distinct from the civil liability arising and the latter uon clinging to the window of
from negligence under the Penal Code. But the accused, lost his grip and fell down the
the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice pavement as the car sped up. On appeal.
for the same act or omission of the The Cort held that it was not convinced with
defendant. That the same punishable act or moral certainty of the guilt of the accused
omission can create two kinds of civil beyond reasonable doubt, hence he was
liabilities against the accused and, where acquitted.
ISSUE:
ISSUE: W/N a person feed from criminal
liability is also freed from civil liability? W/N the civil action may proceed
independently of the criminal action when
Ruling: Accused acquitted but held civilly no reservation of right to bring it separately
liable for his acts and omissions, there was made?
being fault and negligence.
J: It does not follow that a person who is HELD:
not criminally liable is also free from civil No.
liability. While the guilt must be established
beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal *We have reached the conclusion that the
prosecution, only preponderance of right to bring an action for damages under
evidence is required in a civil action. the Civil Code must be reserved as required
by Rule III, §1, otherwise it should be
On the basis of the trial court’s evaluation dismissed.
of the testimonies of both prosecution and
defense witness at the trial and applying To begin with, §1 quite clearly requires that
the quantum of proof required in civil a reservation must be made to institute
cases, We find that a preponderance of separately all civil actions for the recovery
evidence establishes that Gabat by his act of civil liability, otherwise they will be
and omission with fault and negligence deemed to have been instituted with the
caused damage to Rosales and should criminal case. Such civil actions are not
answer civilly for the damage done. limited to those which arise “from the
offense charged,” as originally provided in
Rule III before the amendment of the Rules
MANIAGO vs. CA, 253 SCRA 674 of Court in 1988. In other words the right
(1996); of the injured party to sue separately for
the recovery of the civil liability whether
FACTS: arising from crimes (ex delicto) or from
quasi delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil
One of the shuttle buses owned by Code must be reserved otherwise they will
petitioner Ruben Maniago, and driven by be deemed instituted with the criminal
Herminio Andaya, figured in a vehicular action.
accident with a passenger jeepney owned
by respondent Boado along Loakan Road,
Baguio City. A criminal case for reckless MANLICLIC vs. CALAUNAN, 512 SCRA
imprudence resulting in damage to 642 (2007);
property and multiple physical injuries was
filed against petitioner’s driver. A month FACTS:
later, respondent Boado filed a civil case for 1. The vehicles involved in this case are:
damages against petitioner Maniago (1) Philippine Rabbit Bus owned by
himself. Petitioner moved that the civil case petitioner PRBLI and driven by
be suspended citing that a criminal case petitioner Mauricio Manliclic; and (2)
was already pending. The trial court denied owner-type jeep owned by respondent
the motion on the ground that the civil Modesto Calaunan and driven by
action could proceed independently of the Marcelo Mendoza
criminal action. On appeal to CA, petitioner 2. At approximately Kilometer 40 of the
reiterated his contention adding that the North Luzon Expressway in Barangay
civil action could not proceed because no Lalangan, Plaridel, Bulacan, the two
reservation to bring it separately was made vehicles collided.
in the criminal case. CA affirmed the trial - The front right side of the Philippine
court’s decision. Rabbit Bus hit the rear left side of
the jeep causing the latter to move
to the shoulder on the right and right because it was bumped by the
then fall on a ditch with water Philippine Rabbit bus from behind.
resulting to further extensive
damage. Petitioner’s version:
- Respondent suffered minor injuries - The petitioner explained that when
while his driver was unhurt. the Philippine Rabbit bus was about
3. By reason of such collision, a criminal to go to the left lane to overtake the
case was filed charging petitioner jeep, the latter jeep swerved to the
Manliclic with Reckless Imprudence left because it was to overtake
Resulting in Damage to Property with another jeep in front of it.
Physical Injuries. - Petitioner PRBLI maintained that it
4. Subsequently on 2 December 1991, observed and exercised the
respondent filed a complaint for diligence of a good father of a family
damages against petitioners Manliclic in the selection and supervision of
and PRBLI its employee
5. The criminal case was tried ahead of the 8. RTC ruled in favor of the respondent.
civil case. CA found no reversible error and
6. When the civil case was heard, counsel affirmed the RTC’s decision.
for respondent prayed that the
transcripts of stenographic notes ISSUES:
(TSNs) of the testimonies in the 1. Whether the TSNs from the criminal
criminal case be received in evidence in case may be admitted in evidence for
the civil case in as much as these the civil case.
witnesses are not available to testify in 2. Whether the petitioner, Manliclic, may
the civil case. be held liable for the collision and be
7. The versions of the parties are found negligent notwithstanding the
summarized by the trial court as declaration of the CA in the criminal
follows: case that there was an absence of
negligence on his part.
Respondent’s version: 3. Whether the petitioner, PRBLI,
- According to the respondent and his exercised due diligence and supervision
driver, the jeep was cruising at the of its employee.
speed of 60 to 70 kilometers per
hour on the slow lane of the HELD: The petitioner, Manliclic, is civilly
expressway when the Philippine liable for the damages for his negligence or
Rabbit Bus overtook the jeep and in reckless imprudence based on quasi-delict.
the process of overtaking the jeep, The PRBLI is held solidarily liable for the
the Philippine Rabbit Bus hit the damages caused by the petitioner
rear of the jeep on the left side. Manliclic’s negligence.
- At the time the Philippine Rabbit Bus
hit the jeep, it was about to 1. Admissibility of the TSNs
overtake the jeep. In other words, Petitioner’s contention:
the Philippine Rabbit Bus was still at - The TSNs should not be admitted to
the back of the jeep when the jeep evidence for failure to comply with
was hit. the requisites of Sec. 47, Rule 130
- Fernando Ramos corroborated the of the ROC
testimony of and Marcelo Mendoza. - The petitioner, PRBLI, had no
He said that he was on another jeep opportunity to cross examine the
following the Philippine Rabbit Bus witnesses because the criminal case
and the jeep of plaintiff when the was filed exclusively against
incident took place. He testified that Manliclic.
the jeep of plaintiff swerved to the - Admission of the TSNs will deprive
the petitioner of due process.
Court: fact from which the civil might arise did
- The testimonies are still admissible not exist.
on the ground that the petitioner
failed to object on their - In spite of said ruling, petitioner
admissibility. Manliclic can still be held liable for
- Failure to object to the inclusion of the mishap. The afore-quoted
the evidence is a waiver on the section applies only to a civil action
provision of the law. arising from crime or ex delicto and
- In addition, the petitioner even not to a civil action arising from
offered in evidence the TSN quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.
containing the testimony of - The extinction of civil liability
Ganiban. referred to in the quoted provision,
- The court disagrees that it would refers exclusively to civil liability
deprive the petitioner of due founded on Article 100 of the
process. For the failure of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the
petitioner to object at the proper civil liability for the same act
time, it waived its right to object for considered as a quasi-delict only
the non compliance with the ROC. and not as a crime is not
extinguished even by a declaration
2. Civil liability arising from crime v. in the criminal case that the criminal
Quasi-delict/Culpa Acquiliana act charged has not happened or
Petitioner: has not been committed by the
- The version of the petitioner accused.
deserves more credit as the
petitioner was already acquitted by In sum, the court distinguished civil
the CA of the charge of Reckless liability arising from a crime and that
imprudence resulting in damage to arising from quasi-delict:
property with physical injuries.
Court: CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM A
- From the complaint, it can be CRIME
gathered that the civil case for (a) if an accused is acquitted based on
damages was one arising from or reasonable doubt on his guilt, his
based on quasi-delict: Petitioner civil liability arising from the crime
Manliclic was sued for his may be proved by preponderance of
negligence or reckless imprudence evidence only.
in causing the collision, while (b) if an accused is acquitted on the
petitioner PRBLI was sued for its basis that he was not the author of
failure to exercise the diligence of a the act or omission complained of
good father in the selection and (or that there is declaration in a final
supervision of its employees judgment that the fact from which
- it appears that petitioner Manliclic the civil might arise did not exist),
was acquitted not on reasonable said acquittal closes the door to civil
doubt, but on the ground that he is liability based on the crime or ex
not the author of the act complained delicto.
of which is based on Section 2(b) of
Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure which reads: CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM
QUASI-DELICT
(b) Extinction of the penal action does - A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a
not carry with it extinction of the civil, separate legal institution under the
unless the extinction proceeds from a Civil Code with a substantivity all its
declaration in a final judgment that the own, and individuality that is
entirely apart and independent from rear. Furthermore, the jeep should
a delict or crime. have fallen on the road itself rather
- The same negligence causing than having been forced off the
damages may produce civil liability road.
arising from a crime under the Penal
Code, or create an action for quasi- 3. PRBLI’s liability
delicts or culpa extra-contractual - Under Article 2180 of the New Civil
under the Civil Code. The acquittal Code, when an injury is caused by
of the accused, even if based on the negligence of the employee,
a finding that he is not guilty, there instantly arises a presumption
does not carry with it the of law that there was negligence on
extinction of the civil liability the part of the master or employer
based on quasi delict. either in the selection of the servant
- civil liability arising from quasi- or employee, or in supervision over
delict or culpa aquiliana, same will him after selection or both.
not be extinguished by an acquittal, - The liability of the employer under
whether it be on ground of Article 2180 is direct and
reasonable doubt or that accused immediate; it is not conditioned
was not the author of the act or upon prior recourse against the
omission complained of (or that negligent employee and a prior
there is declaration in a final showing of the insolvency of such
judgment that the fact from which employee. Therefore, it is
the civil liability might arise did not incumbent upon the private
exist). respondents to prove that they
- An acquittal or conviction in the exercised the diligence of a good
criminal case is entirely irrelevant in father of a family in the selection
the civil case based on quasi-delict and supervision of their employee.
or culpa aquiliana.
Petitioner’s contention:
- The petitioners urge the court to - PRBLI maintains that it had shown
give more credence to their version that it exercised the required
of the story however, as they diligence in the selection and
constitute a question of fact, it may supervision of its employees
not be raised as a subject for a - In the matter of selection, it showed
petition for review. Findings of the the screening process that
trial court and appellate court are petitioner Manliclic underwent
binding on the Supreme Court. before he became a regular driver.
- The testimony of the petitioner - As to the exercise of due diligence
about the jeep of the respondent in the supervision of its employees,
overtaking another vehicle in the it argues that presence of ready
criminal case was not consistent investigators is sufficient proof that
with what he gave to the it exercised the required due
investigator which is evidently a diligence in the supervision of its
product of an after-thought employees
- If one would believe the testimony Court:
of the defendant, Mauricio Manliclic, - In the selection of prospective
and his conductor, Oscar Buan, that employees, employers are required
the Philippine Rabbit Bus was to examine them as to their
already somewhat parallel to the qualifications, experience and
jeep when the collision took place, service records. In the supervision
the point of collision on the jeep of employees, the employer must
should have been somewhat on the formulate standard operating
left side thereof rather than on its procedures, monitor their
implementation and impose selection and supervision of its
disciplinary measures for the breach employees, petitioner PRBLI is
thereof. held solidarily responsible for
- As the negligence of the employee the damages caused by
gives rise to the presumption of petitioner Manliclic’s
negligence on the part of the negligence.
employer, the latter has the burden
of proving that it has been diligent DISPOSITIVE:
not only in the selection of
employees but also in the actual WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
supervision of their work. instant petition for review is DENIED. The
- The trial court found that decision of the Court of Appeals is
petitioner PRBLI exercised the AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that (1)
diligence of a good father of a the award of moral damages shall be
family in the selection but not in reduced to P50,000.00; and (2) the award
the supervision of its employees of exemplary damages shall be lowered
- it seems that the Philippine Rabbit to P50,000.00.
Bus Lines has a very good
procedure of recruiting its driver as
well as in the maintenance of its
vehicles. There is no evidence
though that it is as good in the
supervision of its personnel.
o no evidence introduced that
there are rules promulgated by
the bus company regarding the
safe operation of its vehicle and
in the way its driver should
manage and operate the
vehicles
o no showing that somebody in
the bus company has been
employed to oversee how its
driver should behave while
operating their vehicles
o The presence of ready
investigators after the
occurrence of the accident is not
enough. Same does not comply
with the guidelines set forth with
regard to the supervision.
o Regular supervision of
employees, that is, prior to any
accident, should have been
shown and established.
o the lack of supervision can
further be seen by the fact that
there is only one set of manual
containing the rules and
regulations for all the drivers
- For failure to adduce proof that
it exercised the diligence of a
good father of a family in the
4. Culpa Aquiliana distinguished from
Culpa Contractual;
Presence of Contractual relations;

CANGCO vs. MANILA RAILROAD CO.,


38 PHIL 769 (1918);

DEL PRADO vs. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.,


52 PHIL 900;

VASQUEZ vs. DE BORJA, 74 PHIL 560


(1944);

AIR FRANCE vs. CARRASCO, 18 SCRA


155 (1966);