7 DMPI Employees vs. Velez Metal-NAFLU| PARDO, J.

G.R. No. 129282, November 29, 2001

FACTS
An information for estafa was filed against Carmen Mandawe for alleged failure to
account to respondent Eriberta Villegas the amount of P608,532.46.
Respondent Villegas entrusted this amount to Carmen Mandawe, an employee of
petitioner DMPI-ECCI, for deposit with the teller of petitioner.
Subsequently, on March 29, 1994, respondent Eriberta Villegas filed with the
Regional
Trial Court, a complaint against Carmen Mandawe and petitioner DMPI-ECCI for a
sum
of money and damages with preliminary attachment arising out of the same
transaction.
In time, petitioner sought the dismissal of the civil case on the ground that there is
a
pending criminal case in RTC Branch 37, arising from the same facts,
Trial court issued an order dismissing the case. However upon respondents motion
for
reconsideration, the order of dismissal was recalled On Feb. 21 1997.
ISSUE
Whether or not the civil case could proceed independently of the criminal case for
estafa without the necessary reservation exercised by the party
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI
YES
As a general rule, an offense causes two (2) classes of injuries. The first is the
social
injury produced by the criminal act which is sought to be repaired thru the
imposition of the corresponding penalty, and the second is the personal injury
caused to the victim of the crime which injury is sought to be compensated through

indemnity which is civil in nature.

Thus, "every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable." This is the
law
governing the recovery of civil liability arising from the commission of an offense.
Civil liability includes restitution, reparation for damage caused, and
indemnification
of consequential damages
The offended party may prove the civil liability of an accused arising from the
commission of the offense in the criminal case since the civil action is either
deemed
instituted with the criminal action or is separately instituted.
Rule 111, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which became
effective on December 1, 2000, provides that:
"(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability
arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action
unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately
or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action."
Rule 111, Section 2 further provides that
"After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising
therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal
action."
However, with respect to civil actions for recovery of civil liability under Articles
32,
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or omission, the rule
has been changed. Under the present rule, only the civil liability arising from the
offense charged is deemed 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.

17
There is no more need for a reservation of the right to file the independent civil
actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. "The
reservation and waiver referred to refers only to the civil action for the recovery of
the civil liability arising from the offense charged. This does not include recovery of
civil liability under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
arising from the same act or omission which may be prosecuted separately even
without a reservation.
The changes in the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure pertaining to independent
civil actions which became effective on December 1, 2000 are applicable to this
case.
Procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage. There are no vested rights in the rules of
procedure. Thus, Civil Case No. CV-94-214, an independent civil action for
damages on account of the fraud committed against respondent Villegas under
Article 33 of the Civil Code, may proceed independently even if there was no
reservation as to its filing.

294 Cojuangco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals | Davide, Jr.

G.R. No. 37404 November 18, 1991| 203 SCRA 619
FACTS
In 1972, Graphic, a weekly magazine of general circulation in the Philippines
published a blind item under the column entitled Social Climbing by one Conde de
Makati, later identified as George Sison.
The blind item talked about a certain Blue Lady which was frequenting the office
of an Honorable Sir. It further said that the said Blue Lady was following up on
her loan and even said expletives such as ang mahal naman ng kanyang [pussycat
doll]!
Claiming that the item alludes to petitioners-spouses, and that it is false,
malicious,
and constitutes a vicious attack on petitioner-wifes virtue as it imputes to her not
only the corrupt and immoral act of following up on an alleged loan, but also the
commission of corrupt and immoral acts of adultery and/or prostitution, petitioners
filed a CIVIL case for damages based on Libel against Graphic Publishing Co., and
its owner Araneta,, GM and editor Mauricio, and writer Sison.
Later on, the City Fiscal of QC filed a CRIMINAL case for libel against the same
defendants in the civil case.
Thereafter, petitioners filed separate motions to consolidate the criminal case with
the civil case, alleging that the evidence to be presented in both cases would be the
same and that much valuable time and effort of the court and of the parties would
be saved by such consolidation, and Art.360 of the RPC states that in libel, the civil

action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and
viceversa,
provided, however, that the court where the criminal action or civil action for
damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.
Defendants opposed such motions.
RTC issued an order allowing the consolidation. CA set aside such order.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTS
W/N the criminal case and the separate and independent civil action to
enforce the civil liability arising from the former, filed pursuant to Art.33 of
the Civil Code, may be consolidated for joint trial.
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI
IT MAY BE CONSOLIDATED.
A court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where
they
arise from the same act, event, or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and
depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has
jurisdiction over the case to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one
party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.
Consolidation of actions is expressly authorized under Sec.1, Rule31 of the Rules
of
Court. The obvious purpose of the above rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits, to
guard against oppression and abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets,
to
simplify the work of the trial court; in short, the attainment of justice with the least
expense and vexation to the parties litigants.
If the court referred to is a multi-sala court (as in this case, the QC RTC), it may
happen that the criminal and civil actions are raffled or assigned to different salas.
In

this situation, consolidation of one with another earlier filed would not only be
practical and economical it would subserve the very purpose of the law.
Consolidation of cases assigned to different branches of a court has already been
recognized.
It is self-evident that the CIVIL and CRIMINAL cases in question involve common
or identical questions of fact and law, and that they would even have the same
witnesses. These considerations alone justify the exercise by the court of its
discretion to consolidate the cases for joint hearing to attain the salutary purpose of
consolidation.
Moreover, what is involved in this case is the crime of libel. As correctly stated by
the petitioners, Art.360 of the RPC states that that the criminal case for libel and the
civil action for damages arising therefrom must be filed in the same court.

307 Castillo vs. CA | Fernan C.J.

G.R. No. 48541 August 21, 1989| 176 SCRA 591
FACTS
Petitioner Castillo was driving his jeep on the right lane of the McArthur
Highway with his wife, father and a minor child, as passengers. Just past San
Nicolas bridge he noticed, a speeding oncoming car along the same lane he was
driving, overtaking a cargo truck ahead of it. He switched on his headlights to
signal the car to return to its own right lane as the way was not clear for it to
overtake the truck.
The car, driven by private respondent Rosario, didnt stop so Castillo swerved
his jeep to the right towards the shoulder, because of the impact, the car was
badly damaged and the passengers were injured.
Private respondent Rosario had a different account of what actually happened.
He alleged that because of the slow moving truck in front of him, he tried to
overtake it but he first made sure that it the road was clear and he even blew his
horn. While in the process of overtaking, the cars front left tire suddenly burst
due to pressure. Because of this, the car veered towards the left side so private
respondent just drove it to that direction to find a safe place to park the car and
fix it.
But barely had the said private respondent parked his car on the left shoulder of
the road and just as he was about to get off to fix the flat tire, the car was
suddenly bumped by the jeep driven by Castillo which came from the opposite

direction.
A civil case for the recovery of damages was instituted by the petitioners. While
this case was pending, the provincial fiscal filed an information against Rosario,
for double physical injuries; double less serious physical injuries; and damage to
property thru reckless imprudence. RTC convicted him. But he was acquitted
by the CA on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTS
W/N an action for damages based on quasi-delict is barred by a decision of the
appellate
court acquitting the accused, the body of which lays the blame on the plaintiff but in
its
dispositive part, declares the guilt of the accused not proved beyond reasonable
doubt.
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI
Yes.
There is no dispute that the subject action for damages, being civil in nature, is
separate and distinct from the criminal aspect, necessitating only a
preponderance of evidence
Therefore, the acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant
in the civil case.
But this rule is not without exception. Thus, Section 2 (c) of Rule 111 of the
Rules of Court provides:
Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the
civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration from a final
judgment that the fact from which the civil action might arise did not
exist

 Negligence, being the source and foundation of actions of quasi-delict, is the

basis for the recovery of damages. In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals
found that no negligence was committed by Juanito Rosario to warrant an
award of damages to the petitioners.
It was the Court of Appeals findings that the collision was not due to the
negligence of Juanita Rosario but rather it was Castillo's own act of driving the
jeep to the shoulder of the road where the car was, which was actually the
proximate cause of the collision. With this findings, the Court of Appeals
exonerated Juanito Rosario from civil liability on the ground that the alleged
negligence did not exis