What is culpa criminal?
because he may not recover damages twice for
Culpa criminal simply means negligence
arising from a criminal act.
What is culpa aquiliana?
Culpa aquiliana is simply quasi-delict or civil
damages due to negligence.
As to what affects them, what is the difference
between culpa criminal and culpa aquiliana?
Culpa criminal affects public interest, while
culpa aquiliana or quasi-delitos are only of
private concern.
As to what they punish or correct, what is the
difference between culpa criminal and culpa
aquiliana?
Culpa criminal punishes and corrects the
criminal act, while culpa aquiliana by means of
indemnification, merely repairs the damage.
As to their basis, what is the difference
between culpa criminal and culpa aquiliana?
Culpa criminal is imposed only if there is a
penal law covering them, while quasi-delict or
culpa aquiliana includes all acts in which any
kind of fault or negligence intervenes. Hence,
the latter is broader in concept.
What are the facts in Rafael Reyes Trucking
Corporation versus People? (G.R. 129029)
In this case, the Provincial Prosecutor of
Isabela filed with the RTC an amended
information charging Romeo Dunca y de
Tumol with reckless imprudence resulting in
double homicide and damage to property.
On arraignment, the offended parties made a
reservation to file a separate civil action
against the accused arising from the offense
charged.
Hence, the offended parties filed with RTC a
complaint against the employer of the driver
based on quasi-delict.
What is the issue in Rafael Reyes v. People?
Among the issues was whether or not the
Court may award the damages to the offended
parties in the criminal case despite filing of a
civil action against the employer of the truck
driver.
What did the Court rule in Rafael Reyes v.
People?
The Court ruled that in negligence cases, the
aggrieved party has the choice between
(1) an action to enforce civil liability arising
from crime under Article 100 of the Revised
Penal Code, and (2) a separate civil action for
quasi delict under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code. Once the choice is made, the injured
party can not avail himself of any other remedy
the same negligent act or omission of the
accused.
Capusanan et al. v. Laroya G.R. 145391
To file a separate and individual action for
quasi-delict under the 1985 Rules, the
offended party had to reserve in a criminal
action the right to bring such action.
When shall the civil liability arising from the
offense charged deemed instituted with the
criminal action? (Rule 111, Section 1-
Institution of criminal and civil actions)
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil
action for the recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense charged shall be deemed
instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves
the right to institute it separately or institutes
the civil action prior to the criminal action.
When shall the reservation of the right to
institute separately the civil action be made?
The reservation of the right to institute
separately the civil action shall be made before
the prosecution starts presenting its evidence
and under circumstances affording the
offended party a reasonable opportunity to
make such reservation.
What should be done when the offended party
seeks to enforce civil liability without
specifying the amount in the complaint or
information?
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil
liability against the accused by way of moral,
nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages
without specifying the amount thereof in the
complaint or information, the filing fees
thereof shall constitute a first lien on the
judgment awarding such damages.
What must the offended party do when the
amount of damages other than actual is
specified in the complaint or information?
Where the amount of damages, other than
actual, is specified in the complaint or
information, the corresponding filing fees shall
be paid by the offended party upon the filing
thereof in court.
As a general rule, are there any filing fees
required for actual damages?
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules,
no filing fees shall be required for actual
damages
May a counterclaim, cross-claim or third party
complaint be filed by the accused in a criminal
case?
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
complaint may be filed by the accused in the
criminal case, but any cause of action which
could have been the subject thereof may be
litigated in a separate civil action. (1a)
In BP 22 cases, is reservation to file civil action
separately allowed?
No. Section 111 of the Rules of Court states
that 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.
G.R. 199067 Nissan Gallery Ortigas v.
Purificacion Felipe
The rule is that every act or omission
punishable by law has its accompanying civil
liability. The civil aspect of every criminal case
is based on the principle that every person
criminally liable is also civilly liable.
What is the effect if the accused is not found to
be criminally liable?
If the accused is not found to be criminally
liable, it does not necessarily mean that he will
not likewise be held civilly liable because the
extinction of a penal action does not carry with
it the extinction of the civil action.
When does the rule which says that the
extinction of a penal action does not carry with
it the extinction of a civil action?
(a) When the acquittal is based on reasonable
doubt as only preponderance of evidence is
required;
(b) The Court declares that the liability of the
accused is only civil;
(c) The civil liability of the accused does not
arise from or is not based upon the crime of
which the accused was acquitted.
When is the only instance that an accused will
NOT be civilly liable from the crime charged?
In order to be completely free from civil
liability arising from a crime charged, a
person's acquittal must be based on the fact
that he did not commit the offense.
Under Section 1 of Rule 111, what is "deemed
instituted" with the criminal action?
Under Section 1 of Rule 111, what is deemed
instituted with the criminal action is only the
action to recover civil liability arising from the
crime or "ex delicto".
Are civil actions under Articles 32, 33, and
2176 of the Civil Code "deemed instituted" in a
criminal charge?
No. These civil actions are not deemed
instituted in a criminal action and may be filed
separately and prosecuted independently even
without any reservation in the criminal action.
Is the failure to make reservation in the
criminal action a waiver of right to file a
separate and independent civil action based on
the articles of the Civil Code?
No. The failure to make a reservation in the
criminal action is not a waiver of the right to
file a separate and independent civil action
based on these articles of the Civil Code.
Why is it that an offended party may also file
separate and independent civil action based on
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code
other than the civil action "deemed instituted"
from the criminal act?
Because the civil actions based on these
articles of the Civil Code are separate, distinct
and independent of the civil action "deemed
instituted" in the criminal action.
What are the instances when the offended
party is impliedly viewed by law that he made
a reservation to file a separate civil action?
The offended party is deemed to have made a
reservation to file a separation civil action if he
did so before filing a criminal action.
What happens if the civil action to recover civil
liability ex delicto is filed separately but its
trial has not yet commenced?
If the civil action to recover civil liability ex
delicto is filed separately but its trial has not
yet commenced, the civil action may be
consolidated with the criminal action. Note
that this does not apply for civil actions in a
same act or omission filed based on Articles
32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code.
What are the two separate civil liabilities on
the part of the offender which may be the basis
for action against an act or omission causing
damage to another?
(1) civil liability ex delicto under Article 100 of
the Revised Penal Code
(2) independent civil liabilities
What are examples of independent civil
liabilities?
(1) Those not arising from an act or omission
complained of as felony or culpa contractual
(2) intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34
(3) culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the
Civil Code
(4) where the injured party is granted a right
to file action independent and distinct from
criminal action under Art. 33 of the Civil Code
In the event that the offended party files
these two cases simultaneously or one after
the other, should the civil case for quasi-
delict be suspended to await the outcome of
the criminal case for the same reckless or
negligent act?
Under Section 2, Rule 111 of the amended
1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, a separate
civil action, if reserved in criminal action, could
not be filed until after final judgment was
rendered in the criminal action.
If the separate civil action was filed before the
commencement of a criminal action, which
must go first?
If a separate civil action was filed before the
commencement of the criminal action, the civil
action, if still pending, was suspended upon the
filing of the criminal action until final judgment
was rendered in the criminal action.
When an employee is accused of a criminal
action in performance of his duty, will the
employer also face a civil action for quasi-
delict?
Yes. The employer may also be facing a civil
actionf or quasi-delict in this case due to his
vicarious liability as employer of the reckless
driver under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
Is there a difference between (a) subsidiary
liability of the employer under the Revised
Penal Code versus (b) the employer's primary
liability under the Civil Code which is quasi-
delictual or tortious in character?
Yes.
"Subsidiary liability" of the employer is
govered by Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised
Penal Code,
while the employer's liability under the Civil
Code is quasi-delictual in character as
mentioned in Article 2180. (respondeat
superior)
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code
Liability originates from a delict committed by
the employee who is primarily liable therefor
and upon whose primary liability his
employer's subsidiary liability is to be based.
What must be done before the employer's
subsidiary liability may be proceeded against
him?
Before the employer's subsidiary liability may
be proceeded against, it is imperative that
there should be a criminal action whereby the
employee's criminal negligence or delict and
corresponding liablity therefor are proved.
Is the conviction of an employee primarily
liable a condition sine qua non for the
employer's subsidiary liability?
Yes. Conviction of an employee primarily liable
is a mandatory requirement for the employer's
subsidiary liability, as there can be no
automatic subsidiary liability of the defendant
employer under Articles 103 of the RPC where
his employee has not been previously
convicted.
Where is the liability of an employer based
from?
Under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil
Code, liability is based on culpa aquiliana
which holds the employer primarily liable for
tortious acts of its employees, subject,
however, to the defense that the former
exercised all the diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of his
employees.
What is the difference between an employer's
liability based on quasi-delict versus the
employer's subsidiary liability based on the
Revised Penal Code?
An employer's liability based on quasi-delict is
primary and direct, while the employer's
liability based on a delict is merely subsidiary.
What does the word "primary and direct"
mean in primary and direct liability of the
employer based on quasi-delict?
The words primary and direct as contrasted
refers to the remedy provided by law for
enforcing the obligation rather than its
character and limits. Although liability of the
employee under Article 2180 originates from
negligent act of the employee, the aggrieved
party may sue the employer directly.
Hence, when the employee causes damage,
what does the law presume? (under Article
2180)
When the employee causes damage, the law
presumes that the employer has himself
committed an act of negligence in not
preventing or avoiding the damage.
Is the idea that the employer's liability is
purely subsidiary is wrong? (Cerezo v. Tuazon
G.R. 141538)
Yes. Because while the employer is civilly liable
in a subsidiary capacity for the employee's
criminal negligence, the employer is also civilly
liable directly and separately for his own civil
negligence in failing to exercise due diligence
in selecting and supervising his employee.
May a civil action for quasi-delict against the
employer proceed even without the erring
employee being impleaded?
Yes. The civil action for quasi-delict against the
employer may proceed even without the erring
employee being impleaded.
PSBA v. Court of Appeals 205 scra 729
This case involved a stabbing incident inside
the campus where the assailants were not
students or employees of the school, hence, no
contractual liability on the part of the school
towards the stabbed persons.
The SC refused to apply the rules on quasi-
delict as "the circumstances of the present case
evince a contractual relation between PSBA
and Carlitos Bautista".
Article 2176 says that obligations arising from
quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-
contractual obligations, arise only between the
parties not otherwise bound by contract,
whether express or implied.
Is there an exception to the rule that mere
existence of the contract negates the existence
of a quasi-delict?
Yes. These exceptions are further elucidated in:
Singson vs. BSP, Air France vs. Carrascoso and
PSBA vs. Thomas
Singson vs. BSP 23 scra 1117
The existence of a contract between the parties
does not bar the commission of a tort by one
against the other and the consequent recovery
of damages therefor.
Air France v. Carrascoso 18 scra 155
This case involves an airplane passenger, who,
despite his first-class ticket, had been illegally
ousted from his first-class accommodation and
compelled to take a seat in the tourist
compartment, was held entitled to recover
damages from the air-carrier.
The SC in this case ruled that "although the
relation between the passenger and carrier is
contractual both in origin and nature, the act
that breaks the contract may also be a tort
What is the difference between culpa
contractual and culpa aquiliana as to the
amount of negligence?
In culpa aquiliana, culpa is substantive and
independent which of itself constitutes the
source of an obligation between persons not
formerly connected by any legal tie.
two persons not formally bound by any other
obligation.
In culpa contractual, is the liability from an
existing obligation increased?
Yes. Culpa contractual, which is the fault or
negligence incident in the performance of an
obligation which already existed, increases the
liability from such already existing obligation.
What provisions govern culpa aquiliana?
Culpa aquiliana is governed by Articles 2176 of
the Civil Code.
What provisions govern culpa contractual?
Culpa contractual is governed by Articles 1170
to 1174 of the same Code.
In quasi-delict, should the negligence or fault
be clearly established?
Yes. In quasi-delict, the negligence or fault
should be clearly established because it is the
basis of the action.
In breach of contract, what must be clearly
proven?
In breach of contract, the action can be
prosecuted merely by proving the existence of
the contract and the fact that the obligor failed
to acted or omitted to do an act out of the
contract.
LRTA vs. Navidad, 397 scra 75
When an act which constitutes breach of
contract would have itself constituted the
source of a quasi-delictual liability, the
contract can be said to have been breached by
tort, thereby allowing rules on tort to apply.

While in culpa contractual, culpa is considered

as an accident in performance of an obligation
already existing.

Is negligence in culpa contractual only

incidental to the performance of the
obligation?
Yes. Negligence in culpa contractual is only
incidental to the performance of the obligation.

Is negligence in culpa aquiliana direct and

primary?
Yes. Negligence in culpa aquiliana is direct and
primary.

Is juridical tie or vinculum juris created in

culpa aquiliana?
Yes. Culpa aquiliana, which is the wrongful or
negligent act or omission, creates a vinculum
juris and gives rise to an obligation between