Torts Case no. 9 - Tayag, Sr. vs. Alcantara No.

50959 July 23, 1980 Heirs of Pedro Tayag, Sr. vs. Honorable Fernando S. Alcantara, Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and Romeo Villa y Cunanan Doctrine: Acquittal in a criminal case is not a bar to prosecution in a civil action for damages based on quasi-delict against the driver and the operator. Facts: On Sept. 2, 1974, Pedro Tayag, Sr. was bumped and hit by a Philippine Rabbit Bus bearing Body No. 1107 and Plate No. YL 604 PUB 74 and as a result of which he was physically injured causing his instantaneous death as well as destroying the bike he was riding. The bus was being driven by defendant, Romeo Villa y Cunanan, at the times of the accident in a faster and greater speed than what was reasonable and proper and in a grossly negligent, careless, reckless and imprudent manner. The heirs of Pedro Tayag, Sr., petitioners, filed with the Court of First Instance a complaint for damages against Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and Romeo Villa y Cunanan, private respondents, on Sept. 25, 1974. The private respondents admitted some and denied the other allegations in the complaints; thereafter, file a motion to suspend trial on the ground of a pending criminal case against the driver of the bus, Romeo Villa y Cunanan. The respondent Judge granted the motion and subsequently suspended the hearing of the Civil Case. The respondent judge acquitted the accused, Romeo Villa, of the crime of homicide on the ground of reasonable doubt in the criminal case filed against him. The private respondents then filed a motion to dismiss the civil case on the ground that petitioners have no cause of action on the basis of the drivers acquittal in the related criminal case. The petitioners then opposed the motion alleging that their cause of action is based on a quasi-delict, not on a crime, but the respondent Judge dismissed the complaint and denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners. Hence, this petition for certiorari, to annul and set aside the order of the respondent Judge was filed. Issue: Whether or not the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the civil case? Held: Yes, the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the civil case. In this case, the allegations in the complaint show that petitioners cause of action was based upon a quasi delict. The essential averments for a quasi delictual action are present, namely: 1) 2) 3) 4) An act or omission constituting fault or negligence on the part of private respondent: Damage caused by the said act or omission; Direct causal relation between the damage and the act or omission; No pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.

As stated in the case of Elcano vs. Hill, the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasidelict only and not as a crime is not extinguished by the acquittal of the accused in the criminal action arising from the same act. The petitioners cause of action is based on a quasi-delict, therefore, the acquittal of the driver, Romeo Villa, in the criminal case is not a bar to the prosecution in the civil case for damages based on a quasi-delict. The petition is granted and the order of dismissal rendered by the respondent Judge is set aside and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.