SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation vs. People

.R. No. !"#$"#. April %& "$$$.'
RA(AE) RE*ES TRUC+,N CORPORAT,ON& petitioner& vs. PEOP)E O( T-E
P-,),PP,NES an. ROSAR,O P. D* /for 0erself an. on 1e0alf of t0e 2inors Maria
)uisa& (rancis E.3ar.& (rancis Mark an. (rancis Rafael& all surna2e. Dy4&
respon.ents.
Civil Law; Negligence; Damages; In negligence cases, the same act or omission can
create two kinds of liability on the part of the offender, that is, civil liability ex delicto,
and civil liability qasi delicto bt the offended party can not recover damages nder both
types of liability!"In negligence cases, the aggrieved party has the choice between #$% an
action to enforce civil liability arising from crime nder &rticle $'' of the (evised )enal
Code; and #*% a separate action for qasi delict nder &rticle *$+, of the Civil Code of
the )hilippines! -nce the choice is made, the in.red party can not avail himself of any
other remedy becase he may not recover damages twice for the same negligent act or
omission of the accsed! /his is the rle against doble recovery! In other words, 0the
same act or omission can create two kinds of liability on the part of the offender, that is,
civil liability ex delicto, and civil liability qasi delicto1 either of which 0may be
enforced against the clprit, sb.ect to the caveat nder &rticle *$++ of the Civil Code
that the offended party can not recover damages nder both types of liability!1
222222222222222
3 4N 5&NC!
,'$
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,'$
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
9ame; 9ame; 9ame; 6icarios liability of the employee is fonded in &rticle *$+, in
relation to &rticle *$:' of the Civil Code and on &rticle $'7 of the (evised )enal Code;
;nder &rticle *$+, the liability of the employer for the negligent condct of the
sbordinate is direct and primary, sb.ect to the defense of de diligence in the selection
and spervision of the employee; 4nforcement of the .dgment against the employer does
not reqire the employee to be insolvent since the natre of the liability of the employer
with that of the employee, the two being stattorily considered .oint tortfeasors, is
solidary!")rivate respondents sed petitioner (afael (eyes /rcking Corporation, as the
employer of the accsed, to be vicariosly liable for the falt or negligence of the latter!
;nder the law, this vicarios liability of the employer is fonded on at least two specific
provisions of law! /he first is expressed in &rticle *$+, in relation to &rticle *$:' of the
Civil Code, which wold allow an action predicated on qasi<delict to be institted by the
in.red party against the employer for an act or omission of the employee and wold
necessitate only a preponderance of evidence to prevail! =ere, the liability of the
employer for the negligent condct of the sbordinate is direct and primary, sb.ect to the
defense of de diligence in the selection and spervision of the employee! /he
enforcement of the .dgment against the employer in an action based on &rticle *$+,
does not reqire the employee to be insolvent since the natre of the liability of the
employer with that of the employee, the two being stattorily considered .oint tortfeasors,
is solidary! /he second, predicated on &rticle $'7 of the (evised )enal Code, provides
that an employer may be held sbsidiarily civilly liable for a felony committed by his
employee in the discharge of his dty! /his liability attaches when the employee is
convicted of a crime done in the performance of his work and is fond to be insolvent
that renders him nable to properly respond to the civil liability ad.dged!
9ame; 9ame; 9ame; (eservation of the right to file the separate civil action waives other
available civil actions predicated on the same act or omission of the accsed<driver!"
)rsant to the provision of (le $$$, 9ection $, paragraph 7 of the $8:> (les on
Criminal )rocedre, when private respondents, as complainants in the criminal action,
reserved the right to file the separate civil action, they waived other available civil actions
predicated on the same act or omission of the accsed<driver! 9ch civil action incldes
the recovery of indemnity nder the (evised )enal Code, and damages nder &rticles 7*,
77, and 7? of the Civil Code of the )hilippines arising from the same act or omission of
the accsed!
,'*
,'*
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
9ame; 9ame; 9ame; &ward of damages in the criminal case was improper becase the
civil action for the recovery of civil liability was waived in the criminal action by the
filing of a separate civil action against the employer!"Aith regard to the second isse,
the award of damages in the criminal case was improper becase the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability was waived in the criminal action by the filing of a separate
civil action against the employer! &s ennciated in (amos vs! Bonong, 0civil indemnity
is not part of the penalty for the crime committed!1 /he only isse broght before the trial
cort in the criminal action is whether accsed (omeo Dnca y de /mol is gilty of
reckless imprdence reslting in homicide and damage to property! /he action for
recovery of civil liability is not inclded therein, bt is covered by the separate civil
action filed against the petitioner as employer of the accsed trckdriver!
Criminal Law; Information; )enalty; No offense of Doble =omicide /hrogh (eckless
Imprdence with violation of the @otor 6ehicle Law nder the (evised )enal Code; In
reckless imprdence cases, the actal penalty for criminal negligence bears no relation to
the individal willfl crime or crimes committed, bt is set in relation to a whole class, or
series of crimes!")arenthetically, the trial cort fond the accsed 0gilty beyond
reasonable dobt of the crime of Doble =omicide /hrogh (eckless Imprdence with
violation of the @otor 6ehicle Law #(ep! &ct No! ?$7,%!1 /here is no sch nomenclatre
of an offense nder the (evised )enal Code! /hs, the trial cort was misled to sentence
the accsed 0to sffer two #*% indeterminate penalties of for #?% months and one #$% day
of arresto mayor, as minimm, to three #7% years, six #,% months and twenty #*'% days of
prision correccional, as maximm!1 /his is erroneos becase in reckless imprdence
cases, the actal penalty for criminal negligence bears no relation to the individal willfl
crime or crimes committed, bt is set in relation to a whole class, or series of crimes!
6I/;B, C!, 9eparate -pinionD
Civil Law; Negligence; Damages; Notwithstanding the independent natre of civil
actions falling nder &rticles 7*, 77, 7? and *$+, of the Civil Code, the right to institte
the action mst still have to be reserved!"In the recently decided case of 9an Ildefonso
Lines, Inc! vs! Cort of &ppeals, et al!, the 9preme Cort has rled that, notwithstanding
the independent natre of civil actions falling
,'7
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,'7
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
nder &rticles 7*, 77, 7? and *$+, of the Civil Code, the right to institte the action mst
still have to be reserved! In the stern words of the CortD /he 0past prononcements that
view the reservation reqirement as an nathoriEed amendment to sbstantive law, i!e!,
the Civil Code, shold no longer be controlling!1
9ame; 9ame; 9ame; /he reqirement of reservation is not incompatible with the distinct
and separate character of independent civil actions!"In @aniago vs! Cort of &ppeals,
the Cort has said that the reqirement of reservation is not incompatible with the distinct
and separate character of independent civil actions! Indeed, there is no incongrence
between allowing the trial of civil actions to proceed independently of the criminal
prosection and mandating that, before so proceeding, a reservation to do so shold first
be made!
9ame; 9ame; 9ame; (eservation shold be made at the instittion of the criminal case!"
/he civil action is deemed institted together with the criminal case except when the civil
action is reserved! /he reservation shold be made at the instittion of the criminal case!
In independent civil actions, not being dependent op the criminal case, sch reservation
wold be reqired not for preserving the case of action bt in order to allow the civil
action to proceed separately from the criminal case in interest of good order and
procedre! Indeed, independent civil actions already filed and pending may still be soght
to be consolidated in the criminal case before final .dgment is rendered in the latter case!
Ahen no criminal proceedings are institted, a separate civil action may be broght to
demand the civil liability, and a preponderance of evidence is sfficient to warrant a
favorable .dgment therefor! /he same rle applies if the information were to be
dismissed pon motion of the fiscal!
@4ND-F&, C!, Dissenting -pinionD
Civil Law; Negligence; Damages; /he reservation of the right to file a separate civil
action ex delicto against the driver was a waiver of the offended partiesG right to institte
a civil action based on qasi delict against petitioner!"Hollowing (le $$$, I$, the
reservation of the right to file a separate civil action ex delioto against the driver was a
waiver of the offended partiesG right to institte a civil action based on qasi delict
against petitioner! /he filing of Civil Case No! 5r! $8<?*? against petitioner was,
therefore, withot basis, and its
,'?
,'?
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
dismissal by the trial cort in its decision was in order! -n the other hand, as the offended
parties had withdrawn their reservation of the right to file a separate civil action against
the driver so that they can prse their action in the criminal case, the trial cort correctly
determined petitionerGs sbsidiary civil liability for its driverGs negligence in the criminal
case!
9ame; 9ame; 9ame; /he award of damages by the trial cort simply constittes an error
of .dgment!"4ven assming that the right of the offended parties to recover damages
ex delicto had been waived, the award of sch damages by the trial cort simply
constittes an error of .dgment! =ence, the award of damages ex delicto to the offended
parties is not void and is now final! /he Cort has not only set aside a final disposition by
declaring it void; it has likewise ordered the reopening of a case already dismissed with
finality on the simplistic reasoning that rles of procedre may be relaxed 0in order to
promote their ob.ectives and assist the parties in obtaining .st, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action or proceedings!1 /here is no reason for doing so in this
case since, as already stated, all the parties herein had been dly heard before the trial
cort rendered its decision!
)4/I/I-N for review on certiorari of a decision of the Cort of &ppeals!
/he facts are stated in the opinion of the Cort!
)erpeto B! )aner for petitioner!
Law Hirm of (eyes, @artineE J &ssociates for private respondents!
)&(D-, C!D
/he case is an appeal via certiorari from the amended decision$ of the Cort of &ppeals*
affirming the decision and spplemental decision of the trial cort,7 as followsD
22222222222222222
$ In C&<B!(! C( No! $???:, promlgated on Canary ,, $88+!
* Ibay<9omera, C!, ponente, Lipana<(eyes and 6asqeE, CC!, concrring!
7 Dated Cne ,, $88*, and -ctober *,, $88*, respectively, in Consolidated Criminal Case
No! 5r! $8<7$$ and Civil Case No! 5r!
,'>
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,'>
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
0IN 6I4A -H /=4 H-(4B-INB, .dgment is hereby rendered dismissing the appeals
interposed by both accsed and (eyes /rcking Corporation and affirming the Decision
and 9pplemental Decision dated Cne ,, $88* and -ctober *,, $88* respectively!
09- -(D4(4D!1?
/he facts are as followsD
-n -ctober $', $8:8, )rovincial )rosector )atricio /! Drian of Isabela filed with the
(egional /rial Cort, Isabela, 5ranch $8, Caayan an amended information charging
(omeo Dnca y de /mol with reckless imprdence reslting in doble homicide and
damage to property, reading as followsD
0/hat on or abot the *'th day of Cne, $8:8, in the @nicipality of Caayan, )rovince
of Isabela, )hilippines, and within the .risdiction of this =onorable Cort, the said
accsed being the driver and person<in<charge of a /railer /rck /ractor bearing )late
No! N*&<:,+ registered in the name of (afael (eyes /rcking Corporation, with a load
of *,''' cases of empty bottles of beer grande, willflly, nlawflly and feloniosly
drove and operated the same while along the National =ighway of 5arangay /agaran, in
said @nicipality, in a negligent, careless and imprdent manner, withot de regard to
traffic laws, rles and ordinances and withot taking the necessary precations to prevent
in.ries to persons and damage to property, casing by sch negligence, carelessness and
imprdence the said trailer trck to hit and bmp a Nissan )ick<p bearing )late No!
55B<8>+ driven by Heliciano 5alcita and Hrancisco Dy, Cr!, K )acqing, de to
irreversible shock, internal and external hemorrhage and mltiple in.ries, open wonds,
abrasions, and frther casing damages to the heirs of Heliciano 5alcita in the amont of
)$'','''!'' and to the death of Hrancisco Dy, Cr!; K )acqing and damages to his
Nissan )ick<;p bearing )late No! 55B<8>+ in the total amont of )*,''','''!''!
0C-N/(&(L /- L&A!
0Caayan, Isabela, -ctober $', $8:8!
2222222222222
$8<?*?, (egional /rial Cort, Caayan, Isabela, Cdge &rtemio (! &livia, presiding!
? (ollo, pp! 7><?7!
,',
,',
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
0#9gd!% H&;9/- C! C&5&N/&C
0/hird &ssistant )rovincial )rosector1
;pon arraignment on -ctober *7, $8:8, the accsed entered a plea of not gilty! -n the
same occasion, the offended parties #(osario )! Dy and minor children and &ngelina @!
5alcita and minor son )aolo% made a reservation to file a separate civil action against the
accsed arising from the offence charged!> -n November *8, $8:8, the offended parties
actally filed with the (egional /rial Cort, Isabela, 5ranch $8, Caayan a complaint
against petitioner (afael (eyes /rcking Corporation, as employer of driver (omeo
Dnca y de /mol, based on qasi delict! /he petitioner settled the claim of the heirs of
Heliciano 5alcita #the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident%! /he private
respondents opted to prse the criminal action bt did not withdraw the civil case qasi
ex delicto they filed against petitioner! -n December $>, $8:8, private respondents
withdrew the reservation to file a separate civil action against the accsed and manifested
that they wold prosecte the civil aspect ex delicto in the criminal action!, =owever,
they did not withdraw the separate civil action based on qasi delict against petitioner as
employer arising from the same act or omission of the accsed driver!+
;pon agreement of the parties, the trial cort consolidated both criminal and civil cases
and condcted a .oint trial of the same!
/he facts, as fond by the trial cort, which appear to be ndispted, are as followsD
0/he defendant (afael (eyes /rcking Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in
the bsiness of transporting beer prodcts for the 9an @igel Corporation #9@C for
short% from the latterGs 9an Hernando, )ampanga plant to its varios sales otlets in
LEon! &mong its fleets of vehicles for hire is the white trck trailer de<
222222222222222
> 9ee @anifestation, (ollo, p! >>!
, Ibid!, pp! >><>,!
+ Civil Case No! 5r! $8<?*?!
,'+
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,'+
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
scribed above driven by (omeo Dnca y /mol, a dly licensed driver! &side from the
CorporationGs memorandm to all its drivers and helpers to physically inspect their
vehicles before each trip #4xh! $>, pars! ? J >%, the 9@CGs /raffic Investigator<Inspector
certified the roadworthiness of this Ahite /rck trailer prior to Cne *', $8:8 #4xh! $+%!
In addition to a professional driverGs license, it also condcts a rigid examination of all
driver applicants before they are hired!
0In the early morning of Cne *', $8:8, the Ahite /rck driven by Dnca left
/gegarao, Cagayan bond to 9an Hernando, )ampanga loaded with *,''' cases of
empty beer 0Brande1 bottles! 9eated at the front right seat beside him was Herdinand
Domingo, his trck helper #0pahinante1 in )ilipino%! &t arond ?D'' oGclock that same
morning while the trck was descending at a slight downgrade along the national road at
/agaran, Caayan, Isabela, it approached a damaged portion of the road covering the fll
width of the trckGs right lane going soth and abot six meters in length! /hese made the
srface of the road neven becase the potholes were abot five to six inches deep! /he
left lane parallel to this damaged portion is smooth! &s narrated by Herdinand Domingo,
before approaching the potholes, he and Dnca saw the Nissan with its headlights on
coming from the opposite direction! /hey sed to evade this damaged road by taking the
left lance bt at that particlar moment, becase of the incoming vehicle, they had to rn
over it! /his cased the trck to bonce wildly! Dnca lost control of the wheels and the
trck swerved to the left invading the lane of the Nissan! &s a reslt, DncaGs vehicle
rammed the incoming Nissan dragging it to the left sholder of the road and climbed a
ridge above said sholder where it finally stopped, #see 4xh! &<>, p! :, record%! /he
Nissan was severely damaged #4xhs! &<+, &<:, &<8 and &<$?, pp! 8<$$, record%, and its
two passengers, namelyD Heliciano 5alcita and Hrancisco Dy, Cr! died instantly #4xh! &<
$8% from external and internal hemorrhage and mltiple fractres #pp! $> and $,, record%!
0Hor the fneral expenses of Hrancisco Dy, Cr! her widow spent ),>$,7,'!'' #4xh! $<7%!
&t the time of his death he was ?> years old! =e was the )resident and Chairman of the
5oard of the Dynamic Aood )rodcts and Development Corporation #DA)C%, a wood
processing establishment, from which he was receiving an income of )$','''!'' a month
#4xh! D%! In the &rticles of Incorporation of the DA)C,G the sposes Hrancisco Dy, Cr!
and (osario )ereE Dy appear to be stockholders of $',''' shares each with par vale of
)$''!'' per share ot of its otstanding and sbscribed capital stock of
,':
,':
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
,',''' shares valed at ),,''','''!'' #4xhs! M<$ J $'<5%! ;nder its $8:: Income /ax
(etrns #4xh! C% the DA)C had a taxable net income of )+:,?88!7' #4xh! C%! Hrancisco
Dy, Cr! was a La 9alle ;niversity gradate in 5siness &dministration, past president of
the )asay Caycees, National /reasrer and )resident of the )hilippine Caycees in $8+$ and
$8+,, respectively, and Aorld 6ice)resident of Caycees International in $8+8! =e was
also the recipient of nmeros awards as a civic leader #4xh! C%! =is children were all
stdying in prestigios schools and spent abot )$:','''!'' for their edcation in $8::
alone #4xh! =<?%!
0&s stated earlier, the plaintiffsG procrement of a writ of attachment of the properties of
the Corporation was declared illegal by the Cort of &ppeals! It was shown that on
December *,, $8:8, Depty 9heriff 4dgardo Fabat of the (/C at 9an Hernando,
)ampanga, attached six nits of /rck /ractors and trailers of the Corporation at its
garage at 9an Hernando, )ampanga! /hese vehicles were kept nder )C gard by the
plaintiffs in said garage ths preventing the Corporation to operate them! =owever, on
December *:, $8:8, the Cort of &ppeals dissolved the writ #p! 7', record% and on
December *8, $8:8, said 9heriff reported to this Cort that the attached vehicles were
taken by the defendantGs representative, @elita @anapil #4xh! -, p! 7$, record%! /he
defendantGs general @anager declared that it lost )*$,'''!'' per day for the nonoperation
of the six nits dring their attachment #p! 7$, t!s!n!, Natividad C! 5abaran, proceedings
on December $', $88'%!1 :
-n Cne ,, $88*, the trial cort rendered a .oint decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads as followsD
0A=4(4H-(4, in view of the foregoing considerations .dgment is hereby renderedD
0$! Hinding the accsed (omeo Dnca y de /mol gilty beyond reasonable dobt of the
crime of Doble =omicide throgh (eckless Imprdence with violation of the @otor
6ehicle Law #(ep! &ct No! ?$7,%, and appreciating in his favor the mitigating
circmstance of volntary srrender withot any aggravating circmstance to offset the
same, the Cort hereby sentences him to sffer two #*% indeterminate penalties of for
months and one day of arresto mayor as minimm to three years, six months and twenty
days as
22222222222222
: )etition, &nnex 0H,1 (ollo, pp! ,?<:', at pp! ,+<,8!
,'8
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,'8
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
maximm; to indemnify the =eirs of Hrancisco Dy, Cr! in the amont of )7,''','''!'' as
compensatory damages, )$,''','''!'' as moral damages, and )$,'7','''!'' as fneral
expenses;
0*! -rdering the plaintiff in Civil Case No! 5r! $8<?*? to pay the defendant therein actal
damages in the amont of ):?,'''!''; and
07! -rdering the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No! 5r! $8<?*?!
0No prononcement as to costs!
09- -(D4(4D!
0Caayan, Isabela, Cne ,, $88*!
0#9gd!% &(/4@I- (! &LI6I&
0(egional /rial Cdge18
-n 9eptember 7, $88*, petitioner and the accsed filed a notice of appeal from the .oint
decision!1$'
-n the other hand, private respondents moved for amendment of the dispositive portion
of the .oint decision so as to hold petitioner sbsidiarily liable for the damages awarded
to the private respondents in the event of insolvency of the accsed!$$
-n -ctober *,, $88*, the trial cort rendered a spplemental decision amending the
dispositive portion by inserting an additional paragraph reading as followsD
0*D&"-rdering the defendant (eyes /rcking Corporation sbsidiarily liable for all the
damages awarded to the heirs of Hrancisco Dy, Cr!, in the event of insolvency of the
accsed bt dedcting therefrom the damages of ):?,'''!'' awarded to said defendant in
the next preceding paragraph; and x x x1$*
222222222222222
8 )etition, &nnex 0H,1 (ollo, pp! ,?<:'!
$' (ollo, pp! :$<:*!
$$ It is not indicated when the motion for amendment of the trial cortGs decision was
filed, bt this fact is mentioned in the trial cortGs spplemental decision of -ctober *,,
$88*!
$* (ollo, pp! :7<:?!
,$'
,$'
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
-n November $*, $88*, petitioner filed with the trial cort a spplemental notice of
appeal from the spplemental decision!$7
Dring the pendency of the appeal, the accsed .mped bail and fled to a foreign contry!
5y resoltion dated December *8, $88?, the Cort of &ppeals dismissed the appeal of the
accsed in the criminal case!$?
-n Canary ,, $88+, the Cort of &ppeals rendered an amended decision affirming that of
the trial cort, as set ot in the opening paragraph of this decision!$>
-n Canary 7$, $88+, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the amended
decision!$,
-n &pril *$, $88+, the Cort of &ppeals denied petitionerGs motion for reconsideration
for lack of merit! $+
=ence, this petition for review!$:
-n Cly *$, $88+, the Cort reqired respondents to comment on the petition within ten
#$'% days from notice!$8
-n Canary *+, $88:, the 9olicitor Beneral filed his comment!*' -n &pril $7, $88:, the
Cort granted leave to petitioner to file a reply and noted the reply it filed on @arch $$,
$88:!*$
Ae now resolve to give de corse to the petition and decide the case!
)etitioner raises three #7% gronds for allowance of the petition, which, however, boil
down to two #*% basic isses, namelyD
22222222222222
$7 (ollo, pp! :><:,!
$? C& (ecord, pp! 8*<8?!
$> (ollo, pp! 7><?7!
$, )etition, &nnex 0C,1 (ollo, pp! :+<8$!
$+ (ollo, p! ?>!
$: Hiled on Cne $7, $88+, (ollo, pp! $$<77!
$8 (ollo, p! 8,!
*' (ollo, pp! $$?<$*'!
*$ (ollo, p! $77!
,$$
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,$$
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
$! @ay petitioner as owner of the trck involved in the accident be held sbsidiarily liable
for the damages awarded to the offended parties in the criminal action against the trck
driver despite the filing of a separate civil action by the offended parties against the
employer of the trck driverN
*! @ay the Cort award damages to the offended parties in the criminal case despite the
filing of a civil action against the employer of the trck driver; and in amonts exceeding
that alleged in the information for reckless imprdence reslting in homicide and damage
to propertyN**
Ae grant the petition, resolving nder the circmstances pro hac vice to remand the cases
to the trial cort for determination of the civil liability of petitioner as employer of the
accsed driver in the civil action qasi ex delicto re<opened for the prpose!
In negligence cases, the aggrieved party has the choice between #$% an action to enforce
civil liability arising from crime nder &rticle $'' of the (evised )enal Code; and #*% a
separate action for qasi delict nder &rticle *$+, of the Civil Code of the )hilippines!
-nce the choice is made, the in.red party can not avail himself of any other remedy
becase he may not recover damages twice for the same negligent act or omission of the
accsed!*7 /his is the rle against doble recovery!
In other words, 0the same act or omission can create two kinds of liability on the part of
the offender, that is, civil liability ex delicto, and civil liability qasi delicto1 either of
which 0may be enforced against the clprit, sb.ect to the caveat nder &rticle *$++ of
the Civil Code that the offended party can not recover damages nder both types of
liability!1*?
22222222222222222
** )etition, par! 6, (ollo, pp! $$<77, at p! $8!
*7 (le $$$, 9ection $, paragraph >, $8:> (les on Criminal )rocedre; &rticle *$++,
Civil Code; 6irata vs! -choa, :$ 9C(& ?+* O$8+:P!
*? Carantilla vs! Cort of &ppeals, $+$ 9C(& ?*8, ?7, O$8:8P!
,$*
,$*
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
In the instant case, the offended parties elected to file a separate civil action for damages
against petitioner as employer of the accsed, based on qasi delict, nder &rticle *$+, of
the Civil Code of the )hilippines! )rivate respondents sed petitioner (afael (eyes
/rcking Corporation, as the employer of the accsed, to be vicariosly liable for the
falt or negligence of the latter! ;nder the law, this vicarios liability of the employer is
fonded on at least two specific provisions of law!
/he first is expressed in &rticle *$+, in relation to &rticle *$:' of the Civil Code, which
wold allow an action predicated on qasi<delict to be institted by the in.red party
against the employer for an act or omission of the employee and wold necessitate only a
preponderance of evidence to prevail! =ere, the liability of the employer for the negligent
condct of the sbordinate is direct and primary, sb.ect to the defense of de diligence
in the selection and spervision of the employee! /he enforcement of the .dgment
against the employer in an action based on &rticle *$+, does not reqire the employee to
be insolvent since the natre of the liability of the employer with that of the employee,
the two being stattorily considered .oint tortfeasors, is solidary!*> /he second,
predicated on &rticle $'7 of the (evised )enal Code, provides that an employer may be
held sbsidiarily civilly liable for a felony committed by his employee in the discharge of
his dty! /his liability attaches when the employee is convicted of a crime done in the
performance of his work and is fond to be insolvent that renders him nable to properly
respond to the civil liability ad.dged!*,
&s regards the first isse, the answer is in the negative! (afael (eyes /rcking
Corporation, as employer of the accsed who has been ad.dged gilty in the criminal
case for reckless imprdence, can not be held sbsidiarily liable be case of the filing of
the separate civil action based on qasi
22222222222222
*> &rticle *$8?, Civil Code of the )hilippines!
*, Hranco vs! Intermediate &ppellate Cort, $+: 9C(& 77$, 77: O$8:8P!
,$7
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,$7
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
delict against it! In view of the reservation to file, and the sbseqent filing of the civil
action for recovery of civil liability, the same was not institted with the criminal action!
9ch separate civil action was for recovery of damages nder &rticle *$+, of the Civil
Code, arising from the same act or omission of the accsed!*+
)rsant to the provision of (le $$$, 9ection $, paragraph 7 of the $8:> (les on
Criminal )rocedre, when private respondents, as complainants in the criminal action,
reserved the right to file the separate civil action, they waived other available civil actions
predicated on the same act or omission of the accsed<driver! 9ch civil action incldes
the recovery of indemnity nder the (evised )enal Code, and damages nder &rticles 7*,
77, and 7? of the Civil Code of the )hilippines arising from the same act or omission of
the accsed!*:
/he intention of private respondents to proceed primarily and directly against petitioner
as employer of accsed trck driver became clearer when they did not ask for the
dismissal of the civil action against the latter based on qasi delict!
Conseqently, the Cort of &ppeals and the trial cort erred in holding the accsed
civilly liable, and petitioneremployer of the accsed sbsidiarily liable for damages
arising from crime #ex delicto% in the criminal action as the offended parties in fact filed a
separate civil action against the employer based on qasi delict reslting in the waiver of
the civil action ex delicto!
It might be arged that private respondents as complainants in the criminal case withdrew
the reservation to file a civil action against the driver #accsed% and manifested that they
wold prse the civil liability of the driver in the criminal action! =owever, the
withdrawal is ineffective to reverse the effect of the reservation earlier made becase
private respondents did not withdraw the civil action against peti<
222222222222222
*+ @aniago vs! Cort of &ppeals, *>7 9C(& ,+?, ,:$ O$88,P!
*: (le $$$, 9ection $, paragraph *, $8:> (les on Criminal )rocedre!
,$?
,$?
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
tioner based on qasi delict! In sch a case, the provision of (le $$$, 9ection $,
paragraph 7 of the $8:> (les on Criminal )rocedre is clear that the reservation to file
or the filing of a separate civil action reslts in a waiver of other available civil actions
arising from the same act or omission of the accsed! (le $$$, 9ection $, paragraph *
enmerated what are the civil actions deemed waived pon sch reservation or filing, and
one of which is the civil indemnity nder the (evised )enal Code! (le $$$, 9ection $,
paragraph 7 of the $8:> (les on Criminal )rocedre specifically providesD
0& waiver of any of the civil actions extingishes the others! /he instittion of, or the
reservation of the right to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the others!1
/he rationale behind this rle is the avoidance of mltiple sits between the same
litigants arising ot of the same act or omission of the offender! /he restrictive
phraseology of the section nder consideration is meant to cover all kinds of civil actions,
regardless of their sorce in law, provided that the action has for its basis the same act or
omission of the offender!*8
=owever, petitioner as defendant in the separate civil action for damages filed against it,
based on qasi delict, may be held liable thereon! /hs, the trial cort grievosly erred in
dismissing plaintiffs civil complaint! &nd the Cort of &ppeals erred in affirming the trial
cortGs decision! ;nfortnately private respondents did not appeal from sch dismissal
and cold not be granted affirmative relief!7'
/he Cort, however, in exceptional cases has relaxed the rles 0in order to promote their
ob.ectives and assist the parties in obtaining .st, speedy, and inexpensive determination
222222222222222
*8 )amaran, /he $8:> (les on Criminal )rocedre &nnotated, $8 8: edition, pp! $*:<
$*8!
7' )olicarpio vs! Cort of &ppeals, *,8 9C(& 7??, 7>+ O$88+P!
,$>
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,$>
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
of every action or proceeding17$ or exempted 0a particlar case from the operation of the
rles!17*
Invoking this principle, we rle that the trial cort erred in awarding civil damages in the
criminal case and in dismissing the civil action! &pparently satisfied with sch award,
private respondent did not appeal from the dismissal of the civil case! =owever,
petitioner did appeal! =ence, this case shold be remanded to the trial cort so that it may
render decision in the civil case awarding damages as may be warranted by the evidence!
77
Aith regard to the second isse, the award of damages in the criminal case was improper
becase the civil action for the recovery of civil liability was waived in the criminal
action by the filing of a separate civil action against the employer! &s ennciated in
(amos vs! Bonong,7? 0civil indemnity is not part of the penalty for the crime
committed!1 /he only isse broght before the trial cort in the criminal action is
whether accsed (omeo Dnca y de /mol is gilty of reckless imprdence reslting in
homicide and damage to property! /he action for recovery of civil liability is not inclded
therein, bt is covered by the separate civil action filed against the petitioner as employer
of the accsed trck<driver!
In this case, accsed<driver .mped bail pending his appeal from his conviction! /hs, the
.dgment convicting the accsed became final and exectory, bt only insofar as the
penalty in the criminal action is concerned! /he damages awarded in the criminal action
was invalid becase of its effective waiver! /he prononcement was void becase the
action for recovery of the civil liability arising from the crime has been waived in said
criminal action!
Aith respect to the isse that the award of damages in the criminal action exceeded the
amont of damages alleged in
222222222222222222
7$ Nerves vs! Civil 9ervice Commission, *+, 9C(& ,$', ,$+ O$88+$!
7* 5lanco vs! 5ernabe, ,7 )hil! $*? O$87,$!
77 Baring, Cr! vs! Cort of &ppeals, 77, )hil! *+?, *:7 O$88+P!
7? +* 9C(& >,*, >,, O$8+,P!
,$,
,$,
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
the amended information, the isse is de minimis! &t any rate, the trial cort erred in
awarding damages in the criminal case becase by virte of the reservation of the right to
bring a separate civil action or the filing thereof, 0there wold be no possibility that the
employer wold be held liable becase in sch a case there wold be no prononcement
as to the civil liability of the accsed!7>
&s a final note, we reiterate that 0the policy against doble recovery reqires that only
one action be maintained for the same act or omission whether the action is broght
against the employee or against his employer!7, /he in.red party mst choose which of
the available cases of action for damages he will bring!7+
)arenthetically, the trial cort fond the accsed 0gilty beyond reasonable dobt of the
crime of Doble =omicide /hrogh (eckless Imprdence with violation of the @otor
6ehicle Law #(ep! &ct No! ?$7,%!1 /here is no sch nomenclatre of an offense nder
the (evised )enal Code! /hs, the trial cort was misled to sentence the accsed 0to
sffer two #*% indeterminate penalties of for #?% months and one #$% day of arresto
mayor, as minimm, to three #7% years, six #,% months and twenty #*'% days of prision
correccional, as maximm!1 /his is erroneos becase in reckless imprdence cases, the
actal penalty for criminal negligence bears no relation to the individal willfl crime or
crimes committed, bt is set in relation to a whole class, or series of crimes!7:
;nfortnately, we can no longer correct this .dgment even if erroneos, as it is, becase
it has become final and exectory!
;nder &rticle 7,> of the (evised )enal Code, criminal negligence 0is treated as a mere
qasi offense, and dealt with
222222222222222
7> @aniago vs! Cort of &ppeals, spra, at p! ,:,!
7, @aniago vs! Cort of &ppeals, spra, at p! ,:+!
7+ 5arredo vs! Barcia, +7 )hil! ,'+ O$8?*P, reiter ted in @aniago vs! Cort of &ppeals,
spra!
7: QiEon vs! /he Cstice of the )eace of )ampanga, 8+ )hil! 7?*, 7?, O$8>>P!
,$+
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,$+
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
separately from willfl offenses! It is not a qestion of classification or terminology! In
intentional crimes, the act itself is pnished; in negligence or imprdence, what is
principally penaliEed is the mental attitde or condition behind the act, the dangeros
recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the imprdencia pnible! @ch of the confsion
has arisen from the common se of sch descriptive phrase as Rhomicide throgh reckless
imprdence,G and the like; when the strict technical sense is, more accrately, Rreckless
imprdence reslting in homicideG; or Rsimple imprdence casing damages to property!G
078
/here is need, therefore, to rectify the designation of the offense withot distrbing the
imposed penalty for the gidance of bench and bar in strict adherence to precedent!
A=4(4H-(4, the Cort B(&N/9 the petition and 94/9 &9ID4 the amended decision
and resoltion of the Cort of &ppeals in C&<B!(! C( No! $???:, promlgated on
Canary ,, $88+, and the .oint decision of the (egional /rial Cort, Isabela, 5ranch $8,
Caayan, in Criminal Case No! 5r! $8<7$$ and Civil Case No! 5r! $8<?*?, dated Cne ,,
$88*!
IN LI4; /=4(4-H, the Cort renders .dgment as followsD
#$% In Criminal Case No! 5r! $8<7$$, the Cort declares the accsed (omeo Dnca y de
/mol gilty beyond reasonable dobt of reckless imprdence reslting in homicide and
damage to property, defined and penaliEed nder &rticle 7,>, paragraph * of the (evised
)enal Code, with violation of the atomobile law #(!&! No! ?$7,, as amended%, and
sentences him to sffer two #*% indeterminate penalties of for #?% months and one #$%
day of arrest o mayor, as minimm, to three #7% years, six #,% months and twenty #*'%
days of prision correccional, as maximm,?' withot indemnity, and to pay the costs, and
222222222222222
78 QiEon vs! /he Cstice of the )eace of )ampanga, spra, at p! 7?>!
?' /his was the penalty imposed by the trial cort, which has become final and
exectory!
,$:
,$:
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
#*% In Civil Case No! 5r! $8<?*?, the Cort orders the case reopened to determine the
liability of the defendant (afael (eyes /rcking Corporation to plaintiffs and that of
plaintiffs on defendantGs conterclaim!
No costs in this instance!
9- -(D4(4D!
5ellosillo, @elo, Mapnan, 5ena, BonEaga<(eyes, Lnares<9antiago and De Leon,
Cr!, CC!, concr!
Davide, Cr! #C!C!%, )lease see dissenting opinion!
)no, C!, I concr bt pro hac vice!
6itg, C!, )lease see separate opinion!
@endoEa, C!, )lease see my dissent!
)anganiban, C!, In the reslt!
Qismbing, C!, Concrs in separate opinion of C! 6itg!
)risima, C!, I .oin in the dissent of @r! Cstice @endoEa!
DI994N/INB -)INI-N
D&6ID4, C(!, C!C!!
I nderstand that this is an appeal by an employer from a decision holding it sbsidiarily
liable with the driver! /he driverGs appeal from the .dgment of conviction was dismissed
becase the driver .mped bail! =ence, the decision in the criminal case insofar as the
criminal liability is concerned is already firm and final! &ccordingly, for this reason alone
we cannot modify the decision as to him! /he modifications introdced in the ponencia is
very sbstantial for it deletes the award of indemnity!
&lso, the plaintiff in Civil Case No! 5r! $8<?*?"the action for damages based on qasi<
delict"did not appeal from the
,$8
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,$8
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
decision of the (egional /rial Cort dismissing the case! /hat decision had long become
final and exectory!
9ince there was no appeal from the dismissal of the civil case to the Cort of &ppeals, it
logically follows that it was not broght to that Cort! -bviosly, too, it was never
broght to or .risdiction! &ccordingly, there is nothing to remand to the cort of origin
for frther proceedings!
I believe that we cannot even sspend the rles to accommodate the plaintiffs in Civil
Case No! 5r! $8<?*?! 9ch sspension wold do mch violence to the rles and open
floodgates to dangeros precedents!
/he simple soltion in this case is to sstain the .dgment of the trial cort, affirmed by
the Cort of &ppeals, holding petitioner, as employer of the offending driver, sbsidiarily
liable for the damages ad.dged!
It is settled that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable! #&rticle
$'', (evised )enal Code%! 4mployers are sbsidiarily civilly liable for felonies
committed by their employees! #&rticle $'7, id!%!
/he aggrieved parties in criminal cases may prse their claims for damages either as
delictal damages, or qasidelictal damages nder &rticle *$+, of the Civil Code, which
the Code considers as 0entirely distinct and separate from the civil liability arising from
negligence nder the (evised )enal Code!1 =owever, &rticle *$++ of the Civil Code
expressly provides that 0the plaintiffs cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant!1
/he offended parties filed a separate action for damages nder &rticle *$+,! It mst,
however, be pointed ot that, as can be gathered from the ponencia, only petitioner was
made as defendant in that civil case! )art of the first paragraph of page three of the
ponencia readsD
-n November *8, $8:8, the offended parties actally filed with the (egional /rial Cort,
Isabela, 5ranch $8, Caayan, a complaint against petitioner (afael (eyes /rcking
Corporation, as employer of driver (omeo Dnca y de /mol, based on qasi<delicts!
,*'
,*'
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
-bviosly then there was no separate civil action for damages arising from the felony! It
was then deemed impliedly institted in the criminal action against the driver!
/he civil case against petitioner alone was consolidated with the criminal case where the
civil aspect arising from the delict was impliedly institted against the driver! =ence,
there was no legal obstacle for the trial cort to award damages therein, sch as
indemnity for the death, etc! and prsant to &rticle $'7 of the (evised )enal Code, to
make petitioner sbsidiarily liable for the awards! Considering, however, the abovestated
proscription in &rticle *$++ of the Civil Code, the trial cort had dismissed the civil case
for damages against petitioner, which was already made sbsidiarily liable for the
damages in the criminal case!
/o recapitlate, both the trial cort and the Cort of &ppeals committed no error!
I vote to D4NL the petition!
94)&(&/4 -)INI-N
6I/;B, C!D
&n early established rle nder or law is that an act or omission, extra<contractal in
natre, casing damage to another, there being falt or negligence can create two separate
civil liabilities on the part of the offender, i!e!, civil liability ex delicto and civil liability
ex qasi delicto! 4ither one of these two possible liabilities may be soght to be enforced
against the offender sb.ect, however, to the caveat nder &rticle *$++ of the Civil Code
that the offended party cannot 0recover damages twice for the same act or omission1 or
nder both cases!$ -tside of this proscription, the two civil liabilities are distinct and
independent of each other; ths, and conversely against the rle on doble recovery, the
failre of
22222222222222
$ 5arredo vs! Barcia, +7 )hil! ,'+; @endoEa vs! &rrieta, 8$ 9C(& $$7; )adilla vs! Cort
of &ppeals, $*8 9C(& >>:!
,*$
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,*$
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
recovery in one will not necessarily preclde recovery in the other!
)rocedrally, the (evised (les on Criminal )rocedre, while reiterating that a civil
action nder the Civil Code may be broght separately from the criminal action,
provides, nevertheless, that the right to bring it mst be reserved! (le $$$ reads in fllD
09ection $! Instittion of criminal and civil actions!"Ahen a criminal action is
institted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly institted with the
criminal action, nless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to
institte it separately, or instittes the civil action prior to the criminal action!
09ch civil action incldes recovery of indemnity nder the (evised )enal Code, and
damages nder &rticles 7*, 77, 7? and *$+, of the Civil Code of the )hilippines arising
from the same act or omission of the accsed!
0& waiver of any of the civil actions extingishes the others! /he instittion of, or the
reservation of the right to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the others!
/he reservation of the right to institte the separate civil actions shall be made before the
prosection starts to present its evidence and nder circmstances affording the offended
party a reasonable opportnity to make sch reservation!
In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission of
the accsed!
Ahen the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accsed by way of
moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the filing fees for sch civil action as
provided in these (les shall constitte a first lien on the .dgment except in an award for
actal damages!
In cases wherein the amont of damages, other than actal, is alleged in the complaint or
information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party pon the
filing thereof in cort for trial!
09ec! *! Instittion of separate civil action!"4xcept in the cases provided for in 9ection 7
hereof, after the criminal action has been commenced, the civil action which has been
reserved cannot be
,**
,**
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
institted ntil final .dgment has been rendered in the criminal action!
0#a% Ahenever the offended party shall have institted the civil action as provided for in
the first paragraph of 9ection $ hereof before the filing of the criminal action and the
criminal action is sbseqently commenced, the pending civil action shall be sspended,
in whatever stage before final .dgment it may be fond, ntil final .dgment in the
criminal action has been rendered! =owever, if no final .dgment has been rendered by
the trial cort in the civil action, the same may be consolidated with the criminal action
pon application with the cort trying the! criminal action! If the application is granted,
the evidence presented and admitted in the civil action shall be deemed atomatically
reprodced in the criminal action, withot pre.dice to the admission of additional
evidence that any party may wish to present! In case of consolidation, both the criminal
and the civil actions shall be tried and decided .ointly!
0#b% 4xtinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, nless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final .dgment that the fact from which the
civil might arise did not exist!
09ec! 7! Ahen civil action may proceed independently!"In the cases provided for in
articles 7*, 77, 7?, and *$+, of the Civil Code of the )hilippines, the independent civil
action which has been reserved may be broght by the offended party, shall proceed
independently of the criminal action, and shall reqire only a preponderance of
evidence!1
In the recently decided case of 9an Ildefonso Lines, Inc! vs! Cort of &ppeals, et al!,* the
9preme Cort has rled that, notwithstanding the independent natre of civil actions
falling nder &rticles 7*, 77, 7? and *$+, of the Civil Code, the right to institte the
action mst still have to be reserved! In the stern words of the CortD /he 0past
prononcements that view the reservation reqirement as an nathoriEed amendment to
sbstantive law, i!e!, the Civil Code, shold no longer be controlling!1 4ssentially, I share
this view althogh I also nderstand 9an Ildefonso as merely fortifying a procedral rle
that nless a reservation is made, the cort trying the
22222222222222
* *:8 9C(& >,:!
,*7
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,*7
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
criminal case wold not, for instance, be preclded from taking cogniEance of the civil
aspect of the litigation and that, pon the other hand, the other cort in the civil case
might, mot proprio or at the instance of a party, hold in abeyance the consideration
thereof pending the otcome of the criminal case! In @aniago vs! Cort of &ppeals,7 the
Cort has said that the reqirement of reservation is not incompatible with the distinct
and separate character of independent civil actions! Indeed, there is no incongrence
between allowing the trial of civil actions to proceed independently of the criminal
prosection and mandating that, before so proceeding, a reservation to do so shold first
be made!
In fine"
Hirst"/he civil action is deemed institted together with the criminal case except when
the civil action is reserved!? /he reservation shold be made at the instittion of the
criminal case!> In independent civil actions, not being dependent on the criminal case,
sch reservation wold be reqired not for preserving the case of action bt in order to
allow the civil action to proceed separately from the criminal case in interest of good
order and procedre!, Indeed, independent civil actions already filed and pending may
still be soght to be consolidated in the criminal case before final .dgment is rendered in
the latter case!+ Ahen no criminal proceedings are institted, a separate civil action may
be broght to demand the civil liability, and a preponderance of evidence is sfficient to
warrant a favorable .dgment therefor!: /he
22222222222222222
7 *>7 9C(& ,+?; 4merencia vs! BonEales, $'? )hil! $'>8!
? 9ec! $, (le $$$, (evised (les of Cort; see also &rt! $'', (evised )enal Code!
> &bellana vs! @arave, >+ 9C(& $',!
, 9ee (eyes vs! 9empio<Diy, $?$ 9C(& *':; Carantilla vs! Cort of &ppeals, $+$ 9C(&
?*8; Castillo vs! Cort of &ppeals, $+, 9C(& >8$!
+ Co.angco, Cr! vs! C&, *'7 9C(& ,$8!
: &rt! 7'! Ahen a separate civil action is broght to demand civil liability arising from a
criminal offense, and no criminal pro<
,*?
,*?
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
same rle applies if the information were to be dismissed pon motion of the fiscal!8
9econd"/he pendency of the criminal case sspends the civil action, except"
#$% Ahen properly reserved, in independent civil actions, sch as those cases #a% not
arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony #e!g! clpa contractal nder
&rt! 7$,$' intentional torts nder &rts! 7*$$
222222222222222
ceedings are institted dring the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence
shall likewise be sfficient to prove the act complaint of!
8 9ee Calalang vs! I&C, $8? 9C(& >$?!
$' &(/! 7$! Ahen the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or
omission complained of as a felony, sch civil action may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the reslt of the latter!
$$ &(/! 7*! &ny pblic officer or employee, or any private individal, who directly or
indirectly obstrcts, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damagesD
#$% Hreedom of religion;
#*% Hreedom of speech;
#7% Hreedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical pblication;
#?% Hreedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
#>% Hreedom of sffrage;
#,% /he right against deprivation of property withot de process of law;
#+% /he right to a .st compensation when private property is taken for pblic se;
#:% /he right to the eqal protection of the laws;
#8% /he right to be secre in oneGs person, hose, papers, and effects against nreasonable
searches and seiEres;
#$'% /he liberty of abode and of changing the same;
#$$% /he privacy of commnication and correspondence;
#$*% /he right to become a member of associations or societies for prposes not contrary
to law;
#$7% /he right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Bovernment for redress
of grievances;
,*>
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,*>
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
and 7?,$* and clpa acqiliana nder &rt! *$+,$7 of the Civil Code%; or
222222222222222
#$?% /he right to be free from involntary servitde in any form;
#$>% /he right of the accsed against excessive bail;
#$,% /he right of the accsed to be heard by himself and consel, to be informed of the
natre and case of the accsation against him, to have a speedy and pblic trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, and to have complsory process to secre the attendance of
witness in his behalf;
#$+% Hreedom from being compelled to be a witness against oneGs self, or from being
forced to confess gilt, or from being indced by a promise of immnity or reward to
make sch confession, except when the person confessing becomes a 9tate witness;
#$:% HreedomG from excessive fines, or crel and nsal pnishment, nless the same is
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statte which has not been .dicially declared
nconstittional; and
#$8% Hreedom of access to the corts!
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendantGs act or
omission constittes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an
entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief! 9ch civil
action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosection #if the latter be institted%,
and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence!
/he indemnity shall inclde moral damages! 4xemplary damages may also be
ad.dicated!
/he responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a .dge nless his act or
omission constittes a 6iolation of the )enal Code or the penal statte!
$* &(/! 7?! Ahen a member of a city or mnicipal police force refses or fails to render
aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, sch peace officer
shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or mnicipality shall be sbsidiarily
responsible therefor! /he civil action herein recogniEed shall be independent of any
criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall sffice to spport sch
action!
$7 &(/! *$+,! Ahoever by act or omission cases damage to another, there being falt
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
,*,
,*,
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
#b% where the in.red party is granted a right to file an action independent and separate
from the criminal action #e!g! &rt! 77,$? Civil Code%; and
#*% In the case of pre<.dicial qestions which mst be decided before any criminal
prosection may be institted or may proceed #&rt! 7,, Civil Code%! In the above
instances, the civil case may proceed independently and regardless of the otcome of the
criminal case!
/hird"&n acqittal in the criminal case may bar any frther separate civil action, except
"
#$% In independent civil actions, nless the complainant, not having reserved a separate
action, has actively participated and intervened in the criminal case!$> 9ch active
participation and intervention can only be deemed to be an neqivocal election by the
complainant to se nder ex<delict rather than on another case of action #arising from
the same act or omission complained of as being ex<delict%! If, however, the acqittal is
predicated on the grond that gilt has not been proven beyond reasonable dobt, and not
pon a finding that the 0fact from which the civil #action% might arise did not exist,1 an
action for damages can still be institted!$,
222222222222222
damage done! 9ch falt or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractal relation
between the parties, is called a qasi<delict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter!
$? &(/! 77! In cases of defamation, frad, and physical in.ries, a civil action for
damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be broght by the
in.red party! 9ch civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosection,
and shall reqire only a preponderance of evidence!
$> @endoEa vs! &rrieta, 8$ 9C(& $$7; (iE vs! ;col, $>7 9C(& $?; see also Diong 5i
Ch vs! C&, $8* 9C(& >>?!
$, &(/! *8! Ahen the accsed in a criminal prosection is acqitted on the grond that
his gilt has not been proved beyond reasonable dobt, a civil action for damages for the
same act or omission may be institted! 9ch action reqires only a preponderance of
evidence! ;pon motion of the defendant, the cort may reqire the plaintiff to file a bond
to answer for damages in case the complaint shold be fond to be malicios!
,*+
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,*+
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
#*% In dependent civil actions where the acqittal is premised on a failre of proof beyond
reasonable dobt, which the cort shall so declare as its basis, a civil action for damages
for the same act or omission may be institted! 9ch action reqires only a preponderance
of evidence! Ahere acqittal is ths based on the fact that the crime did not exist or that
the offender did not commit the crime, and not on mere qantm of proof, a civil action
based on sch ex delict of which the accsed is already acqitted wold be improper!$+
/he vicarios liability of an employer for the falt or negligence of an employee is
fonded on at least two specific provisions of law! /he first is expressed in &rticle *$+,,
in relation to &rticle *$:', of the Civil Code which wold allow an action predicated on
qasi<delict to be institted by the in.red party against the employer for an act or
omission of the employee and wold necessitate only a preponderance of evidence in
order to prevail! =ere, the liability of the employer for the negligent condct of the
sbordinate is direct and primary sb.ect to the defense of de diligence in the selection
and spervision of the employee! /he enforcement of the .dgment against the employer
for an action based on &rticle *$+, does not reqire the employee to be insolvent since
the natre of the liability of the employer with that of the employee, the two being
stattorily considered .oint tortfeasors, is solidary!$: /he second, predicated on &rticle
$'7 of the (evised )enal Code, provides that an employer may be held sbsidiarily liable
for a felony committed by his employee in the discharge of his dty! /his liability
attaches when the employee is convicted of a crime done in the performance of his work
and is
22222222222222222
If in a criminal case the .dgment of acqittal is based pon reasonable dobt, the cort
shall so declare! In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from
the text of the decision whether or not the acqittal is de to that grond! 9ee also &rt! 7$,
Civil Code; Bia vs! Dianala, et al!, $7* 9C(& *?>!
$+ )eople vs! &mistad, $': 9C(& ,'$!
$: &rticle *$8?, Civil Code of the )hilippines!
,*:
,*:
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
fond to be insolvent that renders him nable to properly respond to the civil liability
ad.dged!$8
Normally, the .dgment in the criminal case concldes the employer not only with regard
to the civil liability bt likewise with regard to its amont since the liability of an
employer follows that of the employee!*' Nevertheless, de process demands that the
employer be accorded fll opportnity to be heard to dispte the basic thesis pon which
that liability is premised, i!e!, the existence of an employer<employee relationship
engagement in an indstry by the employer, and commission of the felony by the
employee in carrying on his tasks! In highly meritorios cases, the extent of the liability
of the employer himself, inclding the amont of damages, althogh final and conclsive
on the accsed, may be shown by the employer to be clearly nwarranted or
nconscionable to be a valid measre of his own sbsidiary liability! In sch an instance,
there is little excse for not allowing the employer de process and to be given a chance
to be heard thereon! /he right of the employer to his own day in cort, in no way, wold
amend or nllify the final .dgment rendered by the cort which stands naffected insofar
as the accsed himself is concerned! It bears stressing that the employer takes no active
role in the criminal proceedings, nor entitled to take sch role, p ntil he sddenly finds
himself open to a possible sbsidiary liability following the .dgment of conviction!
Hinally, it may not be amiss to repeat that in independent civil actions only a sccessfl
recorse in one wold foreclose recovery in the other!
I concr, therefore, with the ma.ority in remanding the case to the cort a qo for the
determination and extent of the sbsidiary liability of the employer conformably with the
foregoing opinion!
22222222222222
$8 Hranco vs! Intermediate &ppellate Cort, $+: 9C(& 777!
*' @iranda vs! @alate Barage and /axicab, Inc!, 88 )hil! ,+'!
,*8
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,*8
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
DI994N/INB -)INI-N
@4ND-F&, C!D
/he qestion in this case is whether petitioner, as employer of the driver fond gilty of
reckless imprdence reslting in homicide and damage to property, can be held
sbsidiarily liable for damages awarded in the criminal case considering that a separate
civil action for qasi<delict had been filed against said petitioner, althogh the case was
later dismissed! 5ased on the facts as stated in the ma.ority opinion, the answer is yes!
@y reasons are twofoldD first, becase the filing of the case for qasi<delict against
petitioner was withot basis, the same being contrary to the reservation earlier made by
the offended parties of their right to file a separate civil action arising from the crime
against the driver, and, second, becase the action for qasi<delict against petitioner was
dismissed precisely becase the civil action against petitionerGs driver had been
reinstitted in the criminal case against him! Let me explain!
&s the records show, at the arraignment on -ctober *7, $8:8 of the driver (omeo Dnca,
the heirs of Hrancisco Dy, Cr! and Heliciano 5alcita reserved in Criminal Case No! 5r! $8<
7$$ their right 0to institte a separate civil action arising from the offense charged against
the herein accsed!1$ In accordance with (le $$$, I$ of the $8:> (les on Criminal
)rocedre,* sch reservation of the right to file a civil action
22222222222222
$ (ollo, p! >>!
* (le $$$, I$ provides in pertinent partsD Instittion of criminal and civil actions,"
Ahen a criminal action is institted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is
impliedly institted with the criminal action, nless the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves his right to institte it separately, or instittes the civil action prior to the
criminal action! 9ch civil action incldes recovery of indemnity nder the (evised )enal
Code, and damages nder &rticles 7*, 77, 7? and *$+, of the Civil Code of the
)hilippines arising from the same act or omission of the accsed!
,7'
,7'
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
ex delicto was a waiver of the right to file any other civil action nder &rts! 7*, 77, 7?
and *$+, of the Civil Code for recovery of damages for the same act or omission of the
accsed! =ence, the sbseqent filing by private respondent (osario )! Dy of a civil
action for qasi<delict, based on &rts! *$+, and *$:' of the Civil Code, against petitioner
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation was withot any basis, the same having been waived
by the reservation earlier made by her of the right to file a separate civil action arising
from crime!
5e that as it may, the records frther show that on December $>, $8:8, private respondent
filed a manifestation in the criminal case that she was withdrawing the previos
reservation made by her to institte a separate civil action and that she was instead going
to prosecte the civil action in the criminal case! =ence, she prayed 0that the reservation
to institte separate civil action in this case be ordered withdrawn and the =eirs of the
victims be allowed to present evidence in spport of the civil liability to the accsed in
this case!17 /he trial cort granted private respondentGs motion and allowed her to
intervene in the criminal case! Conseqently, the civil action ex delicto was merged with
the criminal prosection!
/he civil action for qasi<delict against petitioner, which had been docketed as Civil Case
No! 5r! $8<?*?, was sbseqently consolidated and .ointly tried with the criminal case
#Criminal Case No! 5r! $8<7$$% against the driver! /hen, on Cne ,, $88*, the trial cort
rendered .dgment, which was amended on -ctober *,, $88*"
#$% finding the driver (omeo Dnca gilty of doble homicide throgh reckless
imprdence and violation of the @otor 6ehicle Law and sentencing him to two
indeterminate penalties of ? months and $ day of arresto mayor to 7 years, ,
222222222222222
& waiver of any of the civil actions extingishes the others! /he instittion of, or the
reservation of the right to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the others ! ! ! !
7 (ollo, p! >>!
,7$
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,7$
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
months and *' days and to pay the heirs of Hrancisco Dy, Cr! in the total amont of
)>,'7','''!'';
#*% ordering private respondent to pay ):?,'''!'' as damages for wrongfl attachment of
petitionerGs trcks; and
#7% dismissing Civil Case No! 5r! $8<?*? bt declaring petitioner sbsidiarily liable to
private respondent heirs of Hrancisco Dy, Cr! in the event of insolvency of the accsed
driver!
It is contended that, as the trial cort had dismissed the action for qasi<delict #Civil Case
No! 5r! $8<?*?% and private respondent did not appeal, no award of damages can be made
in her favor! /his contention has no merit! /he civil action for qasi<delict was dismissed
precisely so that petitionerGs liability for its driverGs negligence cold be determined in
the criminal case! /hs, the trial cort statedD
9ince Civil Case No! 5r! $8<?*? was admittedly institted after the criminal case was
filed, the Cort believes that the waiver made by the =eirs of Hrancisco Dy, Cr! on
December $>, $8,8 inclded their right to file a separate civil action against the (afael
(eyes /rcking Corporation, the accsedGs employer, for the reason that nder 9ection $,
(le $$$, actions arising from &rticle *$+, of the Civil Code or qasi<delicts are deemed
inclded in the waiver! &s sch, since the latter raised as an affirmative defense the
defense that the plaintiffs cannot maintain Civil Case No! O5r!P $8<?*?, this Cort mst
have to rle that the filing of said case was not proper! Nevertheless, inasmch as the
plaintiffs cannot recover damages twice for the offense committed by the accsed, nder
&rticle $'7 of the (evised )enal Code, in the event the accsed will be insolvent, the
Corporation cold be held sbsidiarily liable for the same damages!?
-n the other hand, becase of the sbseqent withdrawal of the reservation to file a
separate civil action the same was reinstitted in the criminal case, as thogh no
reservation to file it separately had ever been made! /he trial cort, therefore, properly
inclded in its decision in the criminal case a
2222222222222
? 4mphasis added!
,7*
,7*
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
finding of the driverGs civil liability, in addition to his criminal liability!
)etitioner and its driver, (omeo Dnca, appealed to the Cort of &ppeals! =owever,
while the appeal was ths pending, Dnca .mped bail! /he decision convicting him and
imposing on him civil liability ex delicto thereby became final and exectory! /his
circmstance allows for the application of &rt! $'7 of the (evised )enal Code, which
providesD
9bsidiary civil liability of other persons!"/he sbsidiary liability established in the
next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
engaged in any kind of indstry for felonies committed by their servants, ppils,
workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their dties!
/o establish the sbsidiary civil liability of the petitioner, the following mst be shownD
#$% that petitioner is engaged in an indstry; #*% that its employee #(omeo Dnca%
committed the offense in the discharge of his dties; and #7% that the employee is
insolvent!>
/he first reqisite has already been established considering that petitioner admitted in its
answer in the trial cort that it is engaged in an indstry and that Dnca was its employee
at the time of the accident!,
/he second reqisite mst likewise be deemed to have been established since it is settled
that, in the absence of any collsion between the accsed employee and the offended
party, a .dgment convicting the former is conclsive pon the party sbsidiarily liable!+
)etitioner cannot claim that he has been deprived of de process on the grond that it was
not a party to the sit! Hor as held in @iranda v! @alate Barage J /axicab, Inc!D
22222222222222
> 5aEa @arketing Corp! v! 5olinao 9ecrity and Investigation 9ervice, Inc!, $$+ 9C(&
$>, #$8:*%!
, (ollo, p! >+!
+ @analo v! (obles /rans! Co!, Inc!, 88 )hil! +*8 #$8>,%!
,77
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,77
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
It is tre that an employer, strictly speaking, is not a party to the criminal case institted
against his employee bt in sbstance and in effect he is, considering the sbsidiary
liability imposed pon him by law! It is his concern, as well as of his employee, to see to
it that his interest be protected in the criminal case by taking virtal participation in the
defense of his employee! =e cannot leave him to his own fate becase his failre is also
his! &nd if becase of his indifference or inaction the employee is convicted and damages
are awarded against him, he cannot later be heard to complain, if broght to cort for the
enforcement of his sbsidiary liability, that he was not given his day in cort! ! ! !:
Indeed, Civil Case No! 5r! $8<?*? and Criminal Case No! 5r! $8<7$$ were .ointly tried!
&ll the parties in the two cases"the prosection and the defense in the criminal case, and
the Dys and petitioner (afael (eyes /rcking Corporation in the civil case"were dly
heard before the trial cort, in its .oint decision, rendered .dgment dismissing the civil
action for qasi delict against petitioner and finding it instead sbsidiarily liable in the
criminal case! )etitioner and its driver were in fact represented by the same consel, who
raised all possible defenses that petitioner cold raise!8 /he remand of this case to the
trial cort shold, therefore, be solely for the prpose of determining, in the exection of
the decision, whether Dnca, the accsed driver, is insolvent!
/he Cort holds, however, that petitioner cannot be held liable in the criminal case on the
grond that the right to file a civil action ex delicto has been waived and that instead its
liability for its driverGs negligence mst be determined nder &rts! *$+, and *$:' of the
Civil Code! Hor this prpose, the Cort orders the reopening of the action for qasi delict
#Civil Case No! 5r! $8<?*?%! &s basis for its decision, the Cort statesD
In the instant case, the offended parties elected to file a separate civil action for damages
against petitioner as employer of the
2222222222222
: 88 )hil! ,+', ,+> #$8>,%!
8 (ollo, p! ,8!
,7?
,7?
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
accsed, based on qasi delict, nder &rticle *$+, of the Civil Code of the
)hilippines ! ! ! (afael (eyes /rcking Corporation, as employer of the accsed who has
been ad.dged gilty in the criminal case for reckless imprdence, can not be held
sbsidiarily liable becase of the filing of the separate civil action based on qasi delict
against it! In view of the reservation to file, and the sbseqent filing of the civil action
for recovery of civil liability, the same was not institted with the criminal action! 9ch
separate civil action was for recovery of damages nder &rticle *$+, of the Civil Code,
arising from the same act or omission of the accsed!$'
Aith de respect, it is not tre that private respondent reserved the right to file a separate
civil action based on qasi delict and thereby waived the right to recover from petitioner
civil liability ex delicto in the event of the insolvency of the driver! /he offended parties
stated very clearly that what they were reserving was the right 0to institte a separate
civil action arising from the offense charged against the herein accsed!1 It is, therefore,
error to say that what was reserved was the right to bring a civil action based on qasi
delict!
Hollowing (le $$$, I$, the reservation of the right to file a separate civil action ex
delicto against the driver was a waiver of the offended partiesG right to institte a civil
action based on qasi delict against petitioner! /he filing of Civil Case No! 5r! $8<?*?
against petitioner was, therefore, withot basis, and its dismissal by the trial cort in its
decision was in order! -n the other hand, as the offended parties had withdrawn their
reservation of the right to file a separate civil action against the driver so that they can
prse their action in the criminal case, the trial cort correctly determined petitionerGs
sbsidiary civil liability for its driverGs negligence in the criminal case!
It is contended that the offended parties did not appeal from the decision of the trial cort
insofar as it dismissed their complaint for qasi delict! /hat is becase, as they had
previosly manifested in withdrawing their reservation of the
22222222222222
$' Citing @aniago v! Cort of &ppeals, *>7 9C(& ,+? #$88,%!
,7>
6-L! 7*8, &)(IL 7, *'''
,7>
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
right to file a separate civil action against the driver, they intended to prse their action
in the criminal case! /hat inclded the action to enforce the sbsidiary civil liability of
petitioner, as employer, in the event of the driverGs insolvency!
/o relieve petitioner from its sbsidiary liability, the Cort has to declare the award of
damages ex delicto void becase, by filing a civil action based on qasi delict, the
offended parties allegedly waived the right to bring action ex delicto! &s already stated, it
was the right to bring an action for qasi delict which was waived as a reslt of the
reservation to file a civil action ex delicto! =ence, as a conseqence of the driverGs
.mping bail, the .dgment finding him liable not only criminally bt also civilly became
final! &s nder &rt! $'7 of the (evised )enal Code the employer is sbsidiarily liable,
there is no way by which petitioner may be absolved from sch liability except pon a
showing that the driver is not insolvent!
4ven assming that the right of the offended parties to recover damages ex delicto had
been waived, the award of sch damages by the trial cort simply constittes an error of
.dgment! =ence, the award of damages ex delicto to the offended parties is not void and
is now final! /he Cort has not only set aside a final disposition by declaring it void; it
has likewise ordered the reopening of a case already dismissed with finality on the
simplistic reasoning that rles of procedre may be relaxed 0in order to promote their
ob.ectives and assist the parties in obtaining .st, speedy, and inexpensive determination
of every action or proceedings!1 /here is no reason for doing so in this case since, as
already stated, all the parties herein had been dly heard before the trial cort rendered its
decision!
Indeed, for what prpose is this case to be remanded to the trial cortN 9o that petitioner
can present evidence in its defenseN 5t it has already done so! Hor the trial cort to
redetermine the amont of damagesN 5t even nder &rts! *$+, and *$:', the employer
is liable for the same amont the employee is liable, as the only difference between its
liability
,7,
,7,
9;)(4@4 C-;(/ (4)-(/9 &NN-/&/4D
(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople
ex delicto and its liability based on qasi delict is that the former is sbsidiary or
secondary to that of the driver while its liability for qasi delict is primary!
I do not think it is worth sacrificing legal rles to reach the .dgment the ma.ority arrives
at in this case! /he award of damages ex delicto in the decision of the trial cort is final,
.st as the dismissal of the case for qasi delict is final! /o ignore this fact is to set at
naght the policy behind the finality of .dicial decisions and deprive ad.dication of
stability!
&pparently realiEing the cost to basic rles of its decision today, the ma.ority says that it
is ordering the determination of petitionerGs liability for qasi delict only pro hac vice!
&pparently, the ma.ority is not willing to apply its rling in this case to similar sitations
shold they arise in the ftre! Hor that is what pro hac vice means"1for this trn; for
this one particlar occasion1 only!$$ 5t ad.dication cannot be limited to the immediate
parties and declared to have no precedential vale! &d.dication, sch as this, is like a
restricted or oneway railroad ticket, good for this day and train only!$*
Hor the foregoing reasons, I dissent and vote to affirm the decision of the Cort of
&ppeals with the modification that this case shold be remanded to the trial cort for the
sole prpose of determining the sbsidiary civil liability of petitioner in the event of
insolvency of its driver, the accsed (omeo Dnca!
)etition granted, amended .dgment and resoltion set aside!
Note!"/he liability of the registered owner of a pblic service vehicle like petitioner
)hiltranco for damages arising from the tortios acts of the driver is primary, direct and
.oint
222222222222222
$$ 5L&CMG9 L&A DIC/I-N&(L $*$* #,th ed!, $88'%!
$* Compare CI6IL C-D4, &(/! :D Cdicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws
or the Constittion shall form part of the legal system of the )hilippines!
,7+ O(afael (eyes /rcking Corporation vs! )eople, 7*8 9C(& ,''#*'''%P