18 Padua and Padua v.

Robles and Bay Taxi Cab | Castro

G.R. No. L-40486, August 29, 1975
FACTS
In the early morning of New Year's Day of 1969 a taxicab (bearing 1968 plate no. TX-9395 and driven by Romeo N.
Punzalan but operated by the Bay Taxi Cab owned by Gregorio N. Robles) struck ten-year old Normandy Padua on the
national road in barrio Barretto, Olongapo City. The impact hurled Normandy about forty meters away from the point
where the taxicab struck him, as a result of which he died.
Normandy's parents filed a complaint for damages (civil case 427-O) against Punzalan and the Bay Taxi Cab. The city
Fiscal filed with the same court an information for homicide through reckless imprudence (criminal case 1158-O).
TC in the civil case ordered defendant Punzalan to pay plaintiffs actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
TC in the criminal case convicted Punzalan of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. The court in its
dispositive portion stated that the civil liability of the accused has already been determined and assessed in the civil
case.
The Paduas sought execution of the judgment. This proved futile.
They instituted an action against Robles to enforce his subsidiary responsibility under Article 103, RPC. Robles filed a
motion to dismiss.
TC granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTS
W/N the judgment in the criminal case includes a determination and adjudication of Punzalans
civil liability arising from his criminal act upon which Robles subsidiary civil responsibility may
be based.

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

YES. Paduas' complaint in civil case states a cause of action against Robles whose concommitant
subsidiary responsibility, per the judgment in criminal case, subsists.
The said judgment states no civil liability arising from the offense charged against Punzalan. However, a careful study
of the judgment in question, the situation to which it applies, and the attendant circumstances, the court a quo, on the
contrary, recognized the enforceable right of the Paduas to the civil liability arising from the offense committed by
Punzalan and awarded the corresponding indemnity therefore.
Civil liability coexists with criminal responsibility. In negligence cases the offended party (or his heirs) has the option
between an action for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code
and an action for recovery of damages based on culpa aquiliana under article 2177 of the Civil Code. The action for
enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court deems simultaneously

instituted with the criminal action, unless expressly waived or reserved for a separate application by the offended party.
Article 2177 of the Civil Code, however, precludes recovery of damages twice for the same negligent act or omission.
It is immaterial that the Paduas chose, in the first instance, an action for recovery of damages based on culpa aquiliana
under articles 2176, 2177, and 2180 of the Civil Code, which action proved ineffectual. Allowance of the latter
application involves no violation of the proscription against double recovery of damages for the same negligent act or
omission. For, as hereinbefore stated, the corresponding officer of the court a quo returned unsatisfied the writ of
execution issued against Punzalan to satisfy the amount of indemnity awarded to the Paduas in the civil case.
The substance of such statement, taken in the light of the situation to which it applies and the attendant
circumstances, makes unmistakably clear the intention of the court to accord affirmation to the Paduas' right to the civil
liability arising from the judgment against Punzalan in the criminal case. Indeed, by including such statement in the
decretal portion of the said judgment, the court intended to adopt the same adjudication and award it made in the civil
case as Punzalan's civil liability in the criminal case.

25 Virata vs. Ochoa | Fernandez

G.R. No. L-46179, January 31, 1978
FACTS
Arsenio Virata died as a result of having been bumped while walking along Taft Avenue by a passenger jeepney driven
by Maximo Borilla and registered in the name of Victoria Ochoa.
An action for homicide through reckless imprudence was instituted against Maximo Borilla in the CFI of Rizal.
Atty. Francisco, the private prosecutor, made a reservation to file separately the civil action for damages against the
driver for his criminal liability, which he later on withdrew and presented evidence on the damages.
The Heirs of Arsenio Virata again reserved their right to institute a separate civil action.
They commenced an action for damages based on quasi-delict against the driver Maximo Borilla and the registered
owner of the vehicle, Victoria Ochoa.
Private respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that there is another action pending for the same cause.
The CFI acquitted Borilla on the ground that he caused the injury by accident. The motion to dismiss was granted.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTS

W/N the Heirs of Arsenio Virata can prosecute an action for damages based
on quasi-delict against Maximo Borilla and Victoria Ochoa, driver and
owner, respectively on the passenger jeepney that bumped Arsenio Virata?
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

YES.
In negligence cases, the aggrieved parties may choose between an action under the Revised Penal Code or of quasidelict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. What is prohibited by Article 2177 of the Civil Code is to recover twice for
the same negligent act.
In this case, the petitioners are not seeking to recover twice for the same negligent act. Before the Criminal Case was
decided, they manifested in the said case that they were filing a separate civil action for damages against the owner and
driver of the passenger jeepney based on quasi-delict.
Acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a
subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to a quasi-delict or
culpa aquiliana.
The source of damages sought to be enforced in the Civil Case is quasi-delict, not an act or omission punishable by
law. Under Art. 1157 of the Civil Code, quasi-delict and an act or omission punishable by law are two different sources
of obligation.
Moreover, for petitioners to prevail in the Civil Case, they have only to establish their cause of action by
preponderance of evidence.

Bun Tiong Vs Balboa

Case Doctrine:
A separate proceeding for the recovery of civil liability in cases of violations of B.P. No. 22 is allowed when
the
civil
case
is
filed
ahead
of
the
criminal
case.

Facts:

Vicente Balboa filed two (2) cases against Sps. Benito Lo Bun Tiong and Caroline Siok

Ching Teng:

(1) A CIVIL CASE for sum of money based on the three (3) post-dated checks issued by Caroline in the
total amount of P5,175,250.00. The Regional Trial Court found the spouses liable and ordered them to pay
the amount.
(2) A CRIMINAL CASE for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Caroline covering the said three
checks. The Municipal Trial Court acquitted Caroline but held her civilly liable. On appeal, the RTC modified
the MTC Decision by deleting the award of civil damages.
The spouses now comes to court charging Balboa with forum-shopping.

Issue:
Whether or not the Balboa's act of filing civil and criminal cases constitute forum-shopping.

Held:
Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on
the supposition that one or the other court would render a favorable disposition. It is usually resorted to by
a party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek
and possibly to get a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by an appeal or a special civil action for
certiorari.
There is forum shopping when the following elements concur: (1) identity of the parties or, at least, of the
parties who represent the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed
for, as the latter is founded on the same set of facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars, such
that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration
or
will
constitute
litis
pendentia.
In Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp.,
of parties and causes of action between a civil case for the recovery
issuance of bouncing checks, and a criminal case for the prosecution
ordered the dismissal of the civil action so as to prevent

the Court ruled that there is identity

of sum of money as a result of the
of a B.P. No. 22 violation. Thus, it
double payment of the claim.

In the said case, the Court applied Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 effective September 16, 1997, which
provides that "the criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily
include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such action separately shall be allowed or
recognized."
This was later adopted as Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: (b) The
criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil
action.
No
reservation
to
file
such
civil
action
separately
shall
be
allowed.
The foregoing, however, is not applicable as the civil and criminal case were filed on February 24, 1997 and
on July 21, 1997, respectively, prior to the adoption of Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 on September 16,
1997. At the time of filing of the cases, the governing rule is Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of
Court,
to
wit:
SEC. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a criminal action is instituted, 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.
Since Balboa instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action, then the civil case may proceed
independently of the criminal cases and there is no forum shopping to speak of. Even under the amended
rules, a separate proceeding for the recovery of civil liability in cases of violations of B.P. No. 22 is allowed
when the civil case is filed ahead of the criminal case. Even then, the Rules encourage the consolidation of
the civil and criminal cases.

**