CASE 09: CANDIDA VIRATA, et al. v.

VICTORIO OCHOA and MAXIMO criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such
BORILLA et al. eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two
GR No. L-46179 January 31, 1978 cases vary.

DOCTRINE:
It is settled that in negligence cases the aggrieved parties may choose between an
action under the RPC or for quasi-delcit under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code. What is
prohibited by Art. 2177 of the Civil Code is to recover twice for the same negligent
act.
The acquittal of the driver, Maximo Borilla, of the crime charged in Criminal Case
No. 3162-P is not a bar to the prosecution of Civil Case No. B-134 for damages based
on quasi-delict. The source of the obligation sought to be enforced in Civil Case No.
B-134 is quasi-delict, not an act or omission punishable by law. Under Article 1157 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines, quasi-delict and an act or omission punishable by
law are two different sources of obligation.

FACTS: RULING: The Order of dismissal appealed from is hereby set aside and Civil Case
On September 24, 1975, one Arsenio Virata died as a result of having been No. B-134 is reinstated and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, with
bumped while walking along Taft Ave. Pasay City by a passenger jeepney costs against the private respondents.
driven by Maximon Borlla (employee driver of Ochoa) which is registered in
the name of Victoriano Ochoa.
A criminal action for homicide through reckless imprudence was instituted
the next day against Borilla in the CFI of Rizal.
At the hearing, Atty. Francisco, private prosecutor, made a reservation to file
a separate civil action for damages against the driver on his criminal liablity
but later on withdrew such reservation. Thereafter, the private prosecutor
actively participated in the trial and presented evidence on the damages.
On June 29, 1976, the heirs of Arsenio Virata again reserved their right to
institute a separate civil action.
The following year, the heir commenced Civil Case No. B-134 in the CFI
Cavite for damages based on quasi-delcit against Borilla and Ochoa.
Defendants filed a MTD on the ground that there is noather action (Criminal
Case) pending between the same parties for the same cause.
CFI ruled for the acquittal of Borilla on the ground that he caused an injury
merely by accident. CFI also granted defendants MTD.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE/S: W/N the heirs of Arsenio Viraa can prosecute an action for damaes
based on quasi-delcit against Maximo Borilla (driver) and Ochoa (owner) of the
passenger jeepney that bumped Virata?
HELD/RATIO: YES!
SEE DOCTRINE. The petitioners are not seeking to recover twice for the same
negligent act. Before Criminal Case No. 3162-P was decided, they manifested in said
criminal case that they were filing a separate civil action for damages against the owner
and driver of the passenger jeepney based on quasi- delict.

Article 2176, where it refers to fault or negligence, covers not only acts not
punishable by law but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and
voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender
in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or
acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also
TORTS| CAL| CLEMENTE | ELINZANO | QUEBAL| WENCESLAO