Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Institution of Civil Action YAKULT vs.

CA Facts: A five year old boy Roy Camaso, while standing on the sidewalk of M. de la Fuente Street Sampaloc, Manila, was sideswiped by a Yamah motorcylce owned by Yakult Philippines and driven by its employee, Larry Salvado. Salvado was then charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries in information filed with the City Court of Manila docketed as Criminal Case No. 027184. Then later on, a complaint for damages was filed by Roy Camaso represented by his father, David Camaso, against Yakult Philippines and Salvado in the RTC of Manila Docketed as Civil Case No. 84-26317. The RTC decided in favor of the Camaso's and ruled that the defendants (herein petitioners) jpintly and severally liable for the damages which then moved said defendants to appeal the judgment. They also filed a petition for certiorari in the CA challenging the RTC's jurisdiction over the civil case. They argued that the civil action for damages for injuries arising from alleged criminal negligence of Salvado, there being no malice, cannot be filed independently of the criminal action under Art. 33 of the Civil Code. Moreover, that under Rule 111 Sec. 1 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a separate civil action may not be filed unless reservation thereof is expressly made. CA dismissed the petition and also denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Issue: WON a civil action instituted after a criminal action was filed can prosper even if there was no reservation to file a separate civil action. Held: YES. Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in the criminal case, it was nevertheless instituted before the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action, and the presiding judge handling the criminal action was duly informed thereof, such that no damages was awarded in the disposition of the criminal action. ReasoningUnder the aforecited provisions of the rule, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.- Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. It is also provided that the reservation of the right to institute the separate civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to

make such reservation.** The SC considered the actual filing of the civil action far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express reservation that should be made by the offended party before the prosecution presents its evidence. It added that the purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the offended party from recovering damages twice for the same act or omission. Dispositive: Petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED.