SAN ILDEFONSO LINES, INC., and EDUARDO JAVIER vs.

COURT OF APPEALS (Thirteenth Division) and PIONEER INSURANCE and SURETY CORPORATION G.R. No.119771. 24 Apr 1998. FACTS: At around 3:30 in the afternoon of June 24, 1991, a Toyota Lite Ace Van being driven by its owner Annie U. Jao and a passenger bus of herein petitioner San Ildefonso Lines, Inc. (hereafter, SILI) figured in a vehicular mishap at the intersection of Julia Vargas Avenue and Rodriguez Lanuza Avenue in Pasig, Metro Manila, totally wrecking the Toyota van and injuring Ms. Jao and her two (2) passengers in the process. A criminal case was thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig on September 18, 1991 charging the driver of the bus, herein petitioner Eduardo Javier, with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries. About four (4) months later, or on January 13, 1992, herein private respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation (PISC), as insurer of the van and subrogee, filed a case for damages against petitioner SILI with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking to recover the sums it paid the assured under a motor vehicle insurance policy as well as other damages, totaling P564,500.00 (P454,000.00 as actual/compensatory damages; P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; P10,000.00 as litigation expenses; and P500.00 as appearance fees.) ISSUEs: 1) If a criminal case was filed, can an independent civil action based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code be filed if no reservation was made in the said criminal case? 2) Can a subrogee of an offended party maintain an independent civil action during the pendency of a criminal action when no reservation of the right to file an independent civil action was made in the criminal action and despite the fact that the private complainant is actively participating through a private prosecutor in the aforementioned criminal case? RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 24, 1995 and the Resolution dated April 3, 1995 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The "MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO SUSPEND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS" filed by petitioners is GRANTED. RATIO: Now that the necessity of a prior reservation is the standing rule that shall govern the institution of the independent civil actions referred to in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, past pronouncements that view the reservation

requirement as an "unauthorized amendment" to substantive law - i.e., the Civil Code, should no longer be controlling. There must be a renewed adherence to the time-honored dictum that procedural rules are designed, not to defeat, but to safeguard the ends of substantial justice. And for this noble reason, no less than the Constitution itself has mandated this Court to promulgate rules concerning the enforcement of rights with the end in view of providing a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases which should not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Far from altering substantive rights, the primary purpose of the reservation is, to borrow the words of the Court in "Caos v. Peralta" Clearly then, private respondent PISC, as subrogee under Article 2207 of the Civil Code, is not exempt from the reservation requirement with respect to its damages suit based on quasi-delict arising from the same act or omission of petitioner Javier complained of in the criminal case. As private respondent PISC merely stepped into the shoes of Ms. Jao (as owner of the insured Toyota van), then it is bound to observe the procedural requirements which Ms. Jao ought to follow had she herself instituted the civil case.

LRT vs Navidad FACTS:

October 14, 1993, 7:30 p.m. : Drunk Nicanor Navidad (Nicanor) entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a token. o While Nicanor was standing at the platform near the LRT tracks, the guard Junelito Escartin approached him. o Due to misunderstanding, they had a fist fight Nicanor fell on the tracks and killed instantaneously upon being hit by a moving train operated by Rodolfo Roman December 8, 1994: The widow of Nicanor, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, LRTA, Metro Transit Org. Inc. and Prudent (agency of security guards) for the death of her husband. o LRTA and Roman filed a counter-claim against Nicanor and a cross-claim against Escartin and Prudent Prudent: denied liability averred that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and surpervision of its security guards LRTA and Roman: presented evidence Prudent and Escartin: demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that Escartin was negligent in his assigned task RTC: In favour of widow and against Prudent and Escartin, complaint against LRT and Roman were dismissed for lack of merit CA: reversed by exonerating Prudent and held LRTA and Roman liable

ISSUE:
W/N LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the contract of carriage

HELD:
NO. Affirmed with Modification: (a) nominal damages is DELETED (CANNOT co-exist w/ compensatory damages) (b) Roman is absolved. Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty off exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers Civil Code: o Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances o Art. 1756. In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755 o Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the formers employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers This liability of the common carriers does NOT cease upon proof that they o Exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees o Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carriers employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieaved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task, the common carrier is NOT relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage

GR: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and related provisions in conjunction with Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. (Tort may arise even under a contract, where tort [quasi-delict liability] is that which breaches the contract) o EX: if employers liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee, employer can be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees. o EX to the EX: (Prudent liable) Upon showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee none shown here Factual finding of the CA: NO link bet. Prudent and the death of Nicanor for the reason that the negligence of Escartin was NOT proven NO showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also be absolved from liability o Contractual tie bet. LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical relation bet. Nicanor and Roman Roman can be liable only for his own fault or negligence

Rafael Reyes Trucking vs. People (2000)

FACTS: Romeo Dunca, the driver of a trailer truck tractor (for the t r a n s p o r t o f S a n M i g u e l C o r p . b e e r products), registered under the name of Reyes Trucking. While traveling from Tuguegarao to Pampanga, it approached a damaged portion of the road covering the full width of the truck's right lane going south and about six meters in length. These made the surface of the road uneven because the potholes were about five to six inches deep. The left lane parallel to this damaged portion is smooth. They used to evade this damaged road by taking the left lance but at that particular moment, because of the incoming vehicle, they had to run over it. This caused the truck to bounce wildly. Dunca lost control of the wheels and the truck swerved to the left invading the lane of the Nissan. As a result, Dunca's vehicle rammed the incoming Nissan dragging it to the left shoulder of the road and climbed a ridge above said shoulder where it finally stopped, causing damage to property, injuries and death to Feliciano Balcita and Francisco Dy, Jr. Thus a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in double homicide and damage to property. The accused plead not guilty. The heirs of the deceased Dy, made a reservation to file a separate civil action against the accused arising from the offense charged. Thereafter, the family filed a case against the employer, Rafael Reyes Trucking, for quasi delict. The family

withdrew their reservation for the f i l i n g o f a c i v i l a c t i o n a r i s i n g ex delicto and prosecuted it together with the criminal action. However, they did not withdraw their claim for quasi delict against the employer. RTC decision: found the truck driver guilty beyond reasonale doubt; ordered the driver to pay P84K as damages and ordered for the dismissal of the case for quasi delict. A supplemental decision was issued ordering Rafael Reyes Trucking to be subsidiarily liable in case of the drivers insolvency. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent jumped bail so the.CA decision: affirmed the decision and the supplemental decision of the RTC. ISSUE 1: WON the employer can be held subsidiarily liable to his employee who is found guilty in a criminal case despite a separate civil action filed against it for quasi delict. RULING: No. As regards the first issue, the answer is in the negative. Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation, as e m p l o y e r o f t h e a c c u s e d w h o has been adjudged guilty in the criminal case for r e c k l e s s imprudence, cannot be held subsidiarily liable because of the filing of the separate civil action based on quasi delict against it. In view of the reservation to file, and the subsequent filing of the civil action for recovery of civil liability, the same was not instituted with the criminal action. Such separate civil action was for recovery of damages under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, arising from the same act or omission of the accused. P u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n o f R u l e 111 , S e c t i o n 1 , p a r a g r a p h 3 o f t h e 1 9 8 5 R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l Procedure, when private respondents, as complainants in the criminal action, reserved the right to file the separate civil action, they waived other available civil actions predicated on the same act or omission of the accused-driver. Such civil action includes the recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. T h e i n t e n t i o n o f p r i v a t e respondents to proceed primarily and directly against p e t i t i o n e r a s employer of accused truck driver became clearer when they did not ask for the dismissal of the civil action against the latter based on quasi delict. It might be argued that private respondents as complainants in the criminal case withdrew the reservation to file a civil action against the driver (accused) and manifested that they would pursue the civil liability of the driver in the criminal action. However, the withdrawal is ineffective to reverse the effect of the reservation earlier made because private respondents did not withdraw the

civil action against petitioner based on quasi delict. ISSUE 2: WON the Court can award damages in a criminal action involving an employee despite a separate civil action for quasi delict against the employer. RULING: No. With regard to the second issue, the award of damages in the criminal case was improper b e c a u s e t h e c i v i l a c t i o n f o r t h e r e c o v e r y o f c i v i l l i a b i l i t y w a s w a i v e d i n t h e c r i m i n a l action by the filing of a separate civil action against the employer. As enunciated in Ramos vs. Gonong, "civil indemnity is not part of the penalty for the crime committed." The only issue brought before the trial court in the criminal action is whether accused Romeo Dunca y de Tumol is g u i l t y o f r e c k l e s s i m p r u d e n c e r e s u l t i n g i n h o m i c i d e a n d d a m a g e t o p r o p e r t y. T h e a c t i o n f o r recovery of civil liability is not included therein, but is covered by the separate civil action filed against the petitioner as employer of the accused truck-driver. In this case, accused-driver jumped bail pending his appeal from his conviction. Thus, the judgment convicting the accused became final and executory, but only insofar as the penalty in the criminal a c t i o n i s c o n c e r n e d . T h e damages awarded in the criminal action was invalid b e c a u s e o f i t s effective waiver. The pronouncement was void because the action for recovery of the civil liability arising from the crime has been waived in said criminal action