Cheng, Raymond

DAMAGES based on Quasi-Delict

Mendoza v Arrieta

June 29, 1979

Melencio-Herrera, J.
Petition: For Reviewon Certioari

Parties:
Edgardo e. Mendoza petitioner

Hon. Abundio Z. Arrieta, Presideing Judge of Brach VIII, Court of First Instance of Manila --
respondent court
Felino Timbol and Rodolfo Salazar private respondents

Facts:
On October 22, 1969, at around 4pm, a 3-way vehicular accident occurred along Mac-Arthur Highway Bulacan,
involving a Mercedez Benz owned and driven by petitioner, a private jeep owned and driven by respondent
Salazar and a gravel and sand truck owned by respondent Timbol and driven by Montoya. As a consequence,
separate information were filed against Salazar and Montoya.

At the trial, petitioner testified that Salazar overtook the truck, swerved to the left and hit his car. He further
testified that before impact, Salazar jumped from the jeep not knowing that Salazar was hit by the truck of
Montoya. Montoya affirmed this. On the other hand, Salazar tried to show that after overtaking the truck, he
flashed a signal showing his intention to turn left but was stopped at by a policeman directing traffic at the
intersection which he contends to be the time he was hit by the truck causing his jeep to hit petitioners car.

The trial Court absolved jeep-owner-driver Salazar of any liability, civil and criminal, in view of its findings that
the collision between Salazars jeep and petitioners car was the result of the former having been bumped from
behind by the truck driven by Montoya. Neither was petitioner awarded damages as he was not a complainant
against truck-driver Montoya but only against jeep-owner-driver Salazar.

After the termination of the criminal cases, petitioner filed a civil case against respondents Salazar and Timbol
for the damages sustained by his car as a result of the collision involving their vehicles. Both were denied by the
respondent judge claiming that for a separate civil action to prosecute independently, reservation
must be made during the criminal offense.* Both the civil claim against Salazar and Timbol were
dismissed by the respondent Judge.

Issue:
Whether or not the damages ensued to the vehicle of petitioner shall be the liability of the (1) driver of the jeep
OR (2) the driver of the truck?

Ruling:
1) Denied on Salazars case. The SC rules that the criminal case of Salazar showed that Salazar was not guilty in criminal
case and it was Timbol who was ordered to pay for damages and fine on the damages on Salazars jeep.

2) The SC ruled that the so far as the truck-owner Timbol is concerned is not barred by the fact that petitioner failed to
reserve, in the criminal action, his right to fine an independent civil action based on quasi-delict.**

Notes:

* Independent civil action for liability under Article 2177 of the Civil Code could be prosecuted independently of the
criminal action for the offense from which it arose, the New Rules of Court, which took effect on janauary 1, 1964,
requires an express reservation of the civil action to be made in the criminal action; otherwise, the same would be
barred pursuant to Section 2, Rule 111.

**The court observed that Art 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code creats a civil liability distinct and different from the civil
action arising from the offense of negligence under the RPC, no reservation is needed.
Cheng, Raymond

Doctrine:

No reservation is needed when one claims damages under QUASI-DELICT even if there was a criminal case filed.