Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
HILL, 77 SCRA 98 (1977); case has not extinguished his liability for
quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a
FACTS: bar to the instant action against him.
Respondent Reginald Hill killed the son of 2. Yes, the above mentioned provision may
the plaintiffs named Agapito Elcano. A still be applied against Atty Marvin Hill.
criminal complaint was instituted against Although parental authority is terminated
him but he was acquitted on the ground upon emancipation of the child,
that his act was not criminal, because of emancipation by marriage is not absolute,
lack of intent to kill, couple with mistake. i.e. he can sue and be sued in court only
Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a complaint with the assistance of his father, mother or
for recovery of damages against defendant guardian. As in the present case, killing
Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the time someone else contemplated judicial
of the occurrence, and his father, the litigation, thus, making Article 2180 apply
defendant Marvin Hill, with who he was to Atty. Hill.However, inasmuch as it is
living and getting subsistence, for the same evident that Reginald is now of age, as a
killing. A motion to dismiss was filed by the matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill
defendants. The Court of First Instance of has become milling, subsidiary to that of
Quezon City denied the motion. his son.
Nevertheless, the civil case was finally
dismissed upon motion for reconsideration.
CINCO vs. CANONOY, 90 SCRA 369
ISSUE: (1979);
The civil action referred to in Section 2(a) The first one being a Php 1604.00 Criminal
and 3(b), Rule 11 of the Rules of Court case against truck driver Montoya for
which should be suspended after the hitting Salazar’s jeepney at the right rear
criminal action has been instituted is that portion causing the jeep to hit Mendoza’s
arising from the criminal offense and not Mercedes, and the second Criminal Case
the civil action based on quasi delict. was against jeepney driver Salazar for
hitting the Benz in the amount of Php liability arising from criminal negligence,
8,890.00. while the August 22 Civil Case is based on
quasi delict under Art 2180 in relation to
On July 31, 1970, the Court of First Art 2176 of the New Civil Code.
Instance (CFI) of Bulacan rendered
judgment. Truck driver Montoya was found The civil case against Salazar should be
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of crime of dismissed.
damage to property through reckless
imprudence and was sentence to pay The extinction of the penal action does not
jeepney driver Salazar a fine for actual entail the extinction of the civil, unless the
damages and indemnity. Accused Rodolfo extinction proceeds from a declaration in
Salazar, on the other hand, was acquitted. the final judgment that the fact from which
Mercedes Benz owner was not awarded the civil might arise did not exist. Given the
damages. facts of the case, the trial court pronounced
that jeepney driver Salazar cannot be held
On August 22, 1970 , after termination of liable for the damages sustained by
criminal cases, Petitioner filed Civil Case petitioner’s car.
against truck owner Timbol and jeepney
driver Salazar. Timbol filed a motion to Accordingly the civil action against Salazar
dismiss claiming that such action is barred must be held to have been extinguished in
by the prior judgment in criminal cases. consonance with Section 3 (c) Rule 111 of
The CFI judge granted Timbol’s Motion to the Rules of Court.
Dismiss.
Should the Civil Case against jeepney 1. Crimes affected the public interest.
driver Salazar be dismissed? YES.
2. Penal law punishes/ corrects the criminal
act.
HELD:
Timbol can be sued for damages. 3. Only acts covered by Penal Law are
punished (Barredo vs Garcia, 73 Phil 607;
No reservation need be made in the J. Bocobo, 1940 : Taxi c lied with Carretela)
criminal case, it being substantive in
character and is not within the power of the 4. Guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court to promulgate. Even if it
were not substantive but adjective, it 5. Reservation to file separate civil action.
cannot stand because of its inconsistency No reservation, civil action is impliedly
with Article 2177, an enactment of the instituted in the criminal action.
legislature superseding the Rule of 1940.
6. Employer’s liability is subsidiary.
There is no oneness in Identity in the civil
and criminal cases. In the former, the truck
owner, Timbol, was made a party in the CULPA AQUILIANA:
case while in the latter only the jeepney
driver, Salazar, was a party in the case for 1. Only private concern.
the damage to Petitioner’s Mercedes Benz.
Moreover, in the criminal cases, the cause 2. Repairs the damage by indemnification.
of action was the enforcement of a civil
3. Covers all acts that are faulty or 6. Employer’s 6. Employer’s
negligent. liability is liability is solidary
subsidiary. (Fabre Jr. vs CA,
4. Preponderance of evidence. 259 SCRA 426, ‘
96)
5. No reservation – it’s independent from
crime. (Andamo vs IAC, 191 SCRA 203)
“Some of the differences between crimes 1. W/N the present civil action for damages
under the Penal Code are: is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the
criminal case.
• “1. That crimes affect the public interest,
while quasi-delitos are only of private 2. W/N Article 2180 (2nd and last
concern. paragraphs) of the Civil Code may be
applied against Atty. Hill, notwithstanding
• “2. That consequently, the Penal Code the undisputed fact that at the time of the
punishes or corrects the criminal act, while occurrence complained of. Reginald,
the Civil Code, by means of though a minor, living with and getting
indemnification, merely repairs the subsistence from his father, was already
damage. legally married.
Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court The Civil Code provision does not state that
states the fundamental proposition that the remedy can be availed of only in a
when a criminal action is instituted, the civil separate civil action. A separate civil case
action for recovery of civil liability arising may be filed but there is no statement that
from the offense charged is impliedly such separate filing is the only and
instituted with it. The exceptions are when exclusive permissible mode of recovering
the offended party expressly waives the damages. Considering moreover the delays
civil action or reserves his right to institute suffered by the case in the trial, appellate,
it separately. and review stages, it would be unjust to the
complainants in this case to require at this
Civil liability which is also extinguished time a separate civil action to be filed.
upon acquittal of the accused is the civil
liability arising from the act as a crime.
The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the PEOPLE vs. LIGON, 152 SCRA 419
liability of the accused for damages only (1987);
when it includes a declaration that the facts
from which the civil might arise did not FACTS:
exist. Thus, the civil liability is not An appeal from te judgment of the RTC
extinguished by acquittal where the convicting accused of the crime of robbery
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt. with homicide sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua. The victim was Jose Rosales, a
Article 2177 of the Civil Code provides: 17-year-old working student who was
Responsibility for fault or negligence under earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. He
the preceding article is entirely separate was allegedly robbed of his cigarette box,
and distinct from the civil liability arising and the latter uon clinging to the window of
from negligence under the Penal Code. But the accused, lost his grip and fell down the
the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice pavement as the car sped up. On appeal.
for the same act or omission of the The Cort held that it was not convinced with
defendant. That the same punishable act or moral certainty of the guilt of the accused
omission can create two kinds of civil beyond reasonable doubt, hence he was
liabilities against the accused and, where acquitted.
ISSUE:
ISSUE: W/N a person feed from criminal
liability is also freed from civil liability? W/N the civil action may proceed
independently of the criminal action when
Ruling: Accused acquitted but held civilly no reservation of right to bring it separately
liable for his acts and omissions, there was made?
being fault and negligence.
J: It does not follow that a person who is HELD:
not criminally liable is also free from civil No.
liability. While the guilt must be established
beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal *We have reached the conclusion that the
prosecution, only preponderance of right to bring an action for damages under
evidence is required in a civil action. the Civil Code must be reserved as required
by Rule III, §1, otherwise it should be
On the basis of the trial court’s evaluation dismissed.
of the testimonies of both prosecution and
defense witness at the trial and applying To begin with, §1 quite clearly requires that
the quantum of proof required in civil a reservation must be made to institute
cases, We find that a preponderance of separately all civil actions for the recovery
evidence establishes that Gabat by his act of civil liability, otherwise they will be
and omission with fault and negligence deemed to have been instituted with the
caused damage to Rosales and should criminal case. Such civil actions are not
answer civilly for the damage done. limited to those which arise “from the
offense charged,” as originally provided in
Rule III before the amendment of the Rules
MANIAGO vs. CA, 253 SCRA 674 of Court in 1988. In other words the right
(1996); of the injured party to sue separately for
the recovery of the civil liability whether
FACTS: arising from crimes (ex delicto) or from
quasi delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil
One of the shuttle buses owned by Code must be reserved otherwise they will
petitioner Ruben Maniago, and driven by be deemed instituted with the criminal
Herminio Andaya, figured in a vehicular action.
accident with a passenger jeepney owned
by respondent Boado along Loakan Road,
Baguio City. A criminal case for reckless MANLICLIC vs. CALAUNAN, 512 SCRA
imprudence resulting in damage to 642 (2007);
property and multiple physical injuries was
filed against petitioner’s driver. A month FACTS:
later, respondent Boado filed a civil case for 1. The vehicles involved in this case are:
damages against petitioner Maniago (1) Philippine Rabbit Bus owned by
himself. Petitioner moved that the civil case petitioner PRBLI and driven by
be suspended citing that a criminal case petitioner Mauricio Manliclic; and (2)
was already pending. The trial court denied owner-type jeep owned by respondent
the motion on the ground that the civil Modesto Calaunan and driven by
action could proceed independently of the Marcelo Mendoza
criminal action. On appeal to CA, petitioner 2. At approximately Kilometer 40 of the
reiterated his contention adding that the North Luzon Expressway in Barangay
civil action could not proceed because no Lalangan, Plaridel, Bulacan, the two
reservation to bring it separately was made vehicles collided.
in the criminal case. CA affirmed the trial - The front right side of the Philippine
court’s decision. Rabbit Bus hit the rear left side of
the jeep causing the latter to move
to the shoulder on the right and right because it was bumped by the
then fall on a ditch with water Philippine Rabbit bus from behind.
resulting to further extensive
damage. Petitioner’s version:
- Respondent suffered minor injuries - The petitioner explained that when
while his driver was unhurt. the Philippine Rabbit bus was about
3. By reason of such collision, a criminal to go to the left lane to overtake the
case was filed charging petitioner jeep, the latter jeep swerved to the
Manliclic with Reckless Imprudence left because it was to overtake
Resulting in Damage to Property with another jeep in front of it.
Physical Injuries. - Petitioner PRBLI maintained that it
4. Subsequently on 2 December 1991, observed and exercised the
respondent filed a complaint for diligence of a good father of a family
damages against petitioners Manliclic in the selection and supervision of
and PRBLI its employee
5. The criminal case was tried ahead of the 8. RTC ruled in favor of the respondent.
civil case. CA found no reversible error and
6. When the civil case was heard, counsel affirmed the RTC’s decision.
for respondent prayed that the
transcripts of stenographic notes ISSUES:
(TSNs) of the testimonies in the 1. Whether the TSNs from the criminal
criminal case be received in evidence in case may be admitted in evidence for
the civil case in as much as these the civil case.
witnesses are not available to testify in 2. Whether the petitioner, Manliclic, may
the civil case. be held liable for the collision and be
7. The versions of the parties are found negligent notwithstanding the
summarized by the trial court as declaration of the CA in the criminal
follows: case that there was an absence of
negligence on his part.
Respondent’s version: 3. Whether the petitioner, PRBLI,
- According to the respondent and his exercised due diligence and supervision
driver, the jeep was cruising at the of its employee.
speed of 60 to 70 kilometers per
hour on the slow lane of the HELD: The petitioner, Manliclic, is civilly
expressway when the Philippine liable for the damages for his negligence or
Rabbit Bus overtook the jeep and in reckless imprudence based on quasi-delict.
the process of overtaking the jeep, The PRBLI is held solidarily liable for the
the Philippine Rabbit Bus hit the damages caused by the petitioner
rear of the jeep on the left side. Manliclic’s negligence.
- At the time the Philippine Rabbit Bus
hit the jeep, it was about to 1. Admissibility of the TSNs
overtake the jeep. In other words, Petitioner’s contention:
the Philippine Rabbit Bus was still at - The TSNs should not be admitted to
the back of the jeep when the jeep evidence for failure to comply with
was hit. the requisites of Sec. 47, Rule 130
- Fernando Ramos corroborated the of the ROC
testimony of and Marcelo Mendoza. - The petitioner, PRBLI, had no
He said that he was on another jeep opportunity to cross examine the
following the Philippine Rabbit Bus witnesses because the criminal case
and the jeep of plaintiff when the was filed exclusively against
incident took place. He testified that Manliclic.
the jeep of plaintiff swerved to the - Admission of the TSNs will deprive
the petitioner of due process.
Court: fact from which the civil might arise did
- The testimonies are still admissible not exist.
on the ground that the petitioner
failed to object on their - In spite of said ruling, petitioner
admissibility. Manliclic can still be held liable for
- Failure to object to the inclusion of the mishap. The afore-quoted
the evidence is a waiver on the section applies only to a civil action
provision of the law. arising from crime or ex delicto and
- In addition, the petitioner even not to a civil action arising from
offered in evidence the TSN quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.
containing the testimony of - The extinction of civil liability
Ganiban. referred to in the quoted provision,
- The court disagrees that it would refers exclusively to civil liability
deprive the petitioner of due founded on Article 100 of the
process. For the failure of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the
petitioner to object at the proper civil liability for the same act
time, it waived its right to object for considered as a quasi-delict only
the non compliance with the ROC. and not as a crime is not
extinguished even by a declaration
2. Civil liability arising from crime v. in the criminal case that the criminal
Quasi-delict/Culpa Acquiliana act charged has not happened or
Petitioner: has not been committed by the
- The version of the petitioner accused.
deserves more credit as the
petitioner was already acquitted by In sum, the court distinguished civil
the CA of the charge of Reckless liability arising from a crime and that
imprudence resulting in damage to arising from quasi-delict:
property with physical injuries.
Court: CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM A
- From the complaint, it can be CRIME
gathered that the civil case for (a) if an accused is acquitted based on
damages was one arising from or reasonable doubt on his guilt, his
based on quasi-delict: Petitioner civil liability arising from the crime
Manliclic was sued for his may be proved by preponderance of
negligence or reckless imprudence evidence only.
in causing the collision, while (b) if an accused is acquitted on the
petitioner PRBLI was sued for its basis that he was not the author of
failure to exercise the diligence of a the act or omission complained of
good father in the selection and (or that there is declaration in a final
supervision of its employees judgment that the fact from which
- it appears that petitioner Manliclic the civil might arise did not exist),
was acquitted not on reasonable said acquittal closes the door to civil
doubt, but on the ground that he is liability based on the crime or ex
not the author of the act complained delicto.
of which is based on Section 2(b) of
Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure which reads: CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM
QUASI-DELICT
(b) Extinction of the penal action does - A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a
not carry with it extinction of the civil, separate legal institution under the
unless the extinction proceeds from a Civil Code with a substantivity all its
declaration in a final judgment that the own, and individuality that is
entirely apart and independent from rear. Furthermore, the jeep should
a delict or crime. have fallen on the road itself rather
- The same negligence causing than having been forced off the
damages may produce civil liability road.
arising from a crime under the Penal
Code, or create an action for quasi- 3. PRBLI’s liability
delicts or culpa extra-contractual - Under Article 2180 of the New Civil
under the Civil Code. The acquittal Code, when an injury is caused by
of the accused, even if based on the negligence of the employee,
a finding that he is not guilty, there instantly arises a presumption
does not carry with it the of law that there was negligence on
extinction of the civil liability the part of the master or employer
based on quasi delict. either in the selection of the servant
- civil liability arising from quasi- or employee, or in supervision over
delict or culpa aquiliana, same will him after selection or both.
not be extinguished by an acquittal, - The liability of the employer under
whether it be on ground of Article 2180 is direct and
reasonable doubt or that accused immediate; it is not conditioned
was not the author of the act or upon prior recourse against the
omission complained of (or that negligent employee and a prior
there is declaration in a final showing of the insolvency of such
judgment that the fact from which employee. Therefore, it is
the civil liability might arise did not incumbent upon the private
exist). respondents to prove that they
- An acquittal or conviction in the exercised the diligence of a good
criminal case is entirely irrelevant in father of a family in the selection
the civil case based on quasi-delict and supervision of their employee.
or culpa aquiliana.
Petitioner’s contention:
- The petitioners urge the court to - PRBLI maintains that it had shown
give more credence to their version that it exercised the required
of the story however, as they diligence in the selection and
constitute a question of fact, it may supervision of its employees
not be raised as a subject for a - In the matter of selection, it showed
petition for review. Findings of the the screening process that
trial court and appellate court are petitioner Manliclic underwent
binding on the Supreme Court. before he became a regular driver.
- The testimony of the petitioner - As to the exercise of due diligence
about the jeep of the respondent in the supervision of its employees,
overtaking another vehicle in the it argues that presence of ready
criminal case was not consistent investigators is sufficient proof that
with what he gave to the it exercised the required due
investigator which is evidently a diligence in the supervision of its
product of an after-thought employees
- If one would believe the testimony Court:
of the defendant, Mauricio Manliclic, - In the selection of prospective
and his conductor, Oscar Buan, that employees, employers are required
the Philippine Rabbit Bus was to examine them as to their
already somewhat parallel to the qualifications, experience and
jeep when the collision took place, service records. In the supervision
the point of collision on the jeep of employees, the employer must
should have been somewhat on the formulate standard operating
left side thereof rather than on its procedures, monitor their
implementation and impose selection and supervision of its
disciplinary measures for the breach employees, petitioner PRBLI is
thereof. held solidarily responsible for
- As the negligence of the employee the damages caused by
gives rise to the presumption of petitioner Manliclic’s
negligence on the part of the negligence.
employer, the latter has the burden
of proving that it has been diligent DISPOSITIVE:
not only in the selection of
employees but also in the actual WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
supervision of their work. instant petition for review is DENIED. The
- The trial court found that decision of the Court of Appeals is
petitioner PRBLI exercised the AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that (1)
diligence of a good father of a the award of moral damages shall be
family in the selection but not in reduced to P50,000.00; and (2) the award
the supervision of its employees of exemplary damages shall be lowered
- it seems that the Philippine Rabbit to P50,000.00.
Bus Lines has a very good
procedure of recruiting its driver as
well as in the maintenance of its
vehicles. There is no evidence
though that it is as good in the
supervision of its personnel.
o no evidence introduced that
there are rules promulgated by
the bus company regarding the
safe operation of its vehicle and
in the way its driver should
manage and operate the
vehicles
o no showing that somebody in
the bus company has been
employed to oversee how its
driver should behave while
operating their vehicles
o The presence of ready
investigators after the
occurrence of the accident is not
enough. Same does not comply
with the guidelines set forth with
regard to the supervision.
o Regular supervision of
employees, that is, prior to any
accident, should have been
shown and established.
o the lack of supervision can
further be seen by the fact that
there is only one set of manual
containing the rules and
regulations for all the drivers
- For failure to adduce proof that
it exercised the diligence of a
good father of a family in the
4. Culpa Aquiliana distinguished from
Culpa Contractual;
Presence of Contractual relations;