77 SCRA 100 May 26, 1977

Torts and Damages Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes
Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito (son of Elcano). Elcano filed a criminal case
against Reginald but Reginald was acquitted for lack of intent coupled with mistake. Elcano
then filed a civil action against Reginald and his dad (Marvin Hill) for damages based on Article
2180 of the Civil Code. Hill argued that the civil action is barred by his sons acquittal in the
criminal case; and that if ever, his civil liability as a parent has been extinguished by the fact that
his son is already an emancipated minor by reason of his marriage.
ISSUE: Whether or not Marvin Hill may be held civilly liable under Article 2180.
HELD: Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case does not bar the filing of a separate
civil action. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is
criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not
allowed, if accused is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and
would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards
made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e)
of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised
Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not
as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act
charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. Briefly stated, culpa
aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.
While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327,
Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place by the marriage of the minor
child, it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage of the
minor is not really full or absolute. Thus Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession
shall terminate parental authority over the childs person. It shall enable the minor to administer
his property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real
property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court
only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian. Therefore, Article 2180 is applicable
to Marvin Hill the SC however ruled since at the time of the decision, Reginald is already of
age, Marvins liability should be subsidiary only as a matter of equity.

VILLEGAS VS. CA
March 28, 2013 ~ vbdiaz
G.R. No. 82562 April 11, 1997
LYDIA VILLEGAS, MA TERESITA VILLEGAS, ANTONIO VILLEGAS, JR., and

ANTONIETTE VILLEGAS vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES and ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA
G.R. No. 82592 April 11, 1997
ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, LYDIA A. VILLEGAS, ANTONIO
VILLEGAS, JR., MA. ANTONETTE VILLEGAS, MA. LYDIA VILLEGAS and ESTATE
OF ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS
FACTS: This case originated from a libel suit filed by then Assemblyman Antonio V. Raquiza
against then Manila Mayor Antonio J. Villegas, who allegedly publicly imputed to him acts
constituting violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. He did this on several
occasions in August 1968 xxx
An Information for libel was filed against Villegas who denied the charge. After losing in the
1971 elections, Villegas left for the United States where he stayed until his death. Nevertheless,
trial proceeded on absentia. Two months after the prosecution rested its case, the court issued an
order dismissing the criminal aspect of the case but reserving the right to resolve its civil aspect.
Subsequently the Court awarded Raquiza actual, moral, exemplary damages and cost of suit. On
appeal, the CA affirmed but reduced the amount of damages. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: (related to the subject matter) did the death of the accused before final judgment
extinguish his civil liability?
HELD: NO (Guys, take note of Article 33 of the Civil Code. Raquizas right to recover damages
arose from this article not from delict)
Fortunately, this Court has already settled this issue with the promulgation of the case of People
v. Bayotas (G.R. No. 102007) on September 2, 1994, 4 viz.:
1 Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability xxx
2 Corollarily the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of (the) accused, if
the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the
Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise
as a result of the same act or omission:
a) Law
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) x x x x x x x x x
e) Quasi-delicts
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery
therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1,
Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. 8 This separate civil action may
be enforced either against the executor/administrator o(f) the estate of the accused, depending on
the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.

4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate
civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and
prior to its extinction, the private offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In
such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the
pendency of the criminal case (Art. 1155)
The source of Villegas civil liability in the present case is the felonious act of libel he allegedly
committed. Yet, this act could also be deemed a quasi-delict within the purview of Article 33 9 in
relation to Article 1157 of the Civil Code.
The Bayotas ruling, however, makes the enforcement of a deceased accuseds civil liability
dependent on two factors, namely, that it be pursued by filing a separate civil action and that it be
made subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended.
Obviously, in the case at bar, the civil action was deemed instituted with the criminal. There was
no waiver of the civil action and no reservation of the right to institute the same, nor was it
instituted prior to the criminal action. What then is the recourse of the private offended party in a
criminal case such as this which must be dismissed in accordance with the Bayotas doctrine.
Now, where the civil action was impliedly instituted with it?
The answer is likewise provided in Bayatas, thus:
Assuming that for lack of express reservation, Belamalas civil civil for damages was to be
considered instituted together with the criminal action still, since both proceedings were
terminated without finals adjudication, the civil action of the offended party under Article 33
may yet be enforced separately
The resolution of the civil aspect of the case after the dismissal of the main criminal action by the
trial court was technically defective. There was no proper substitution of parties, as correctly
pointed out by the Heirs and repeatedly put in issue by Atty. Quisumbing. What should have
been followed by the court a quo was the procedure laid down in the Rules of Court, specifically,
Section 17, Rule 3, in connection with Section 1, Rule 87.
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 82562 is GRANTED and the petition in G.R. No. 82592
is DENIED xxx without prejudice to the right of the private offended party Antonio V. Raquiza,
to file the appropriate civil action for damages against the executor or administrator of the estate
or the heirs of the late Antonto J. Villegas in accordance with the foregoing procedure.

LIGHT
RAIL
TRANSIT
AUTHORITY
&
RODOLFO
ROMAN,
versus
MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY
AGENCY
FACTS:

Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a token
(representing payment of the fare). While Navidad was standing on the platform near the LRT
tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security guard assigned to the area approached him. A
misunderstanding or an altercation between the two apparently ensued that led to a fist fight. No
evidence, however, was adduced to indicate how the fight started or who, between the two,
delivered the first blow or how Navidad later fell on the LRT tracks. At the exact moment that
Navidad fell, an LRT train, operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in. Navidad was
struck by the moving train, and he was killed instantaneously. The widow of Nicanor, Marjorie
Navidad, along with her children, filed a complaint for damages against Junelito Escartin,
Rodolfo Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro Transit), and Prudent for
the death of her husband. Trial court ruled in favor Navidads wife and against the defendants
Prudent Security and Junelito Escartin . LRTA and Rodolfo Roman were dismissed for lack of
merit. CA held LRTA and Roman liable, hence the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a perfected contract of carriage between Navidad and LRTA
HELD:
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION but only in that (a) the award of nominal damages is
DELETED and (b) petitioner Rodolfo Roman is absolved from liability
Contract of carriage was deemed created from the moment Navidad paid the fare at the LRT
station and entered the premises of the latter, entitling Navidad to all the rights and protection
under a contractual relation. The appellate court had correctly held LRTA and Roman liable for
the death of Navidad in failing to exercise