Yakult v.

CA
G.R. No. 91856 – October 5, 1990
J. Gancayco

Topic: Civil action for civil liability ex delicto

Petitioner: Yakult Philippines, Larry Salvado
Respondent: CA, Wenceslao M. Polo (as Judge of RTC Manila), Roy Camaso

Case Summary: Salvado, employee of Yakult, was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries
after sideswiping five-year-old Roy Camaso. Roy’s father filed a separate complaint for damages in a civil action, in
which the RTC ordered Salvado to pay for actual expenses, along with attorney’s fees and costs. The issue was whether
or not the civil action was validly instituted, due to the fact that no express reservation was made to file a separate civil
action prior to its actual institution, which is required in Sec. 1, Rule 111. The Court ruled in the affirmative, stating that
the fact that the civil action was filed in court before the presentation of evidence, and that the judge presiding on the
criminal case was duly informed, so that in the disposition of the criminal action no damages were awarded, meant it
fulfilled the purpose of the rule. The petition was denied.

Facts:

Crime Charged Reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries

Accused Larry Salvado

Complainant The case didn’t explicitly specify. But a complaint for damages was filed by Roy Camaso,
represented by his father.

Where First Filed Information filed with the City Court of Manila, docketed as Criminal Case No. 027184

● Pre-trial events:
○ Dec. 24, 1982: Roy Camaso (5yo) was sideswiped by a Yamaha motorcycle owned by Yakult Philippines,
driven by employee Larry Salvado, while standing on the sidewalk in Sampaloc, Manila.
○ Jan. 6, 1983: Information charged Salvado with reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries.
– Oct. 19, 1984: A complaint for damages was filed by Roy represented by his father, David, against
Yakult and Salvado in RTC Manila.

● Trial court:
○ May 26, 1989: RTC Decision in the civil case ordered Yakult and Salvado to pay jointly and severally the
plaintiff Php13,006.30 for actual expenses for medical services and hospital bills, and P3,000.00 attorney's
fees and costs.

● CA:
○ Defendants appealed, but also filed a petition for certiorari in CA challenging the jurisdiction of the trial
court over said civil case.
– They claim that the civil action for damages for injuries arising from criminal negligence, being
without malice, cannot be filed independently of the criminal action under NCC 39.
– [MAIN CONTENTION] And under Sec. 1, Rule 111, such a separate civil action may not be filed
unless reservation thereof is expressly made.
○ Nov. 3: CA dismissed the petition, as well as its MR. Hence this petition.

Issue + Held: W/N a civil action instituted after the criminal action was filed, before presentation of evidence by the
prosecution, would prosper even if there was no reservation to file a separate civil action – YES
● Under Sec. 1, Rule 111, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal
action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes
the civil action prior to the criminal action.
○ This includes recovery of indemnity and damages arising from the same act or omission of the accused.
 ○ The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts
to present its evidence, and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable
opportunity to make such reservation.
○ The Rules of Procedure apply even though the incident itself and the actions arising from it occurred before
its promulgation, because the provisions, which are procedural, may apply retroactively.
● Here, the offended party has not waived the civil action, reserved the right to institute it separately, or instituted it
prior to the criminal action. However, the civil action was filed in court before the presentation of the evidence for
the prosecution in the criminal action of which the judge presiding on the criminal case was duly informed, so that
in the disposition of the criminal action no damages was awarded.
○ Rationale of rule: to prevent the offended party from recovering damages 2x for the same act/omission.
● What the complainant did was even better than complying with the requirement of an express reservation that should
be made before the prosecution presents its evidence, as the civil action was likewise instituted before the
prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action, and the judge handling the latter case was informed thereof.
● Thus, the Court holds that the trial court had jurisdiction over the separate civil action brought before it.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The questioned decision of CA is hereby AFFIRMED.