28 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Casupananvs.Laroya
*
G.R.No.145391.August26,2002.

AVELINOCASUPANANandROBERTOCAPITULO,petitioners,
vs.MARIOLLAVORELAROYA,respondent.

Remedial Law Actions Dismissals Under Administrative Circular

No. 0494 the order of dismissal is without prejudice to refiling the
complaint,unlesstheorderofdismissalexpresslystatesitiswithprejudice.
The MCTC dismissed the civil action for quasidelict on the ground of
forumshopping under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 0494.
TheMCTCdidnotstateinitsorderofdismissalthatthedismissalwaswith
prejudice. Under the Administrative Circular, the order of dismissal is
without prejudice to refiling the complaint, unless the order of dismissal
expressly states it is with prejudice. Absent a declaration that the dismissal
iswithprejudice,thesameisdeemedwithoutprejudice.Thus,the

_______________

*THIRDDIVISION.

29

VOL.388,AUGUST26,2002 29

Casupananvs.Laroya

MCTCs dismissal, being silent on the matter, is a dismissal without

prejudice.
SameSameSameAnorderdismissinganactionwithoutprejudiceis
notappealable.Section1ofRule41providesthatanorderdismissingan
actionwithoutprejudiceisnotappealable.Theremedyoftheaggrievedparty
istofileaspecialcivilactionunderRule65.Section1ofRule41expressly
statesthatwherethejudgmentorfinalorderisnotappealable,theaggrieved
partymayfileanappropriatespecialcivilactionunderRule65.Clearly,the
CapasRTCsorderdismissingthepetitionforcertiorari,onthegroundthat
theproperremedyisanordinaryappeal,iserroneous.
Same Same Forumshopping Essence of forumshopping.The
essenceofforumshoppingisthefilingofmultiplesuitsinvolvingthesame
partiesforthesamecauseofaction,eithersimultaneouslyorsuccessively,to
secureafavorablejudgment.Forumshoppingispresentwheninthetwoor
more cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights of action and reliefs
sought.However,thereisnoforumshoppingintheinstantcasebecausethe
law and the rules expressly allow the filing of a separate civil action which
canproceedindependentlyofthecriminalaction.
Same Same Same Since the present Rules require the accused in a
criminal action to file his counterclaim in a separate civil action, there can
be no forumshopping if the accused files such separate civil action.
Moreover,paragraph6,Section1,Rule111ofthe2000RulesonCriminal
Procedure (2000 Rules for brevity) expressly requires the accused to
litigate his counterclaim in a separate civil action, to wit: SECTION 1.
Institution of criminal and civil actions.(a) x x x. No counterclaim,
crossclaim or thirdparty complaint may be filed by the accused in the
criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject
thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. (Emphasis supplied)
Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal action to file his
counterclaiminaseparatecivilaction,therecanbenoforumshoppingifthe
accusedfilessuchseparatecivilaction.
Same Same Independent Civil Actions To file a separate and
independent civil action for quasidelict under the 1985 Rules, the offended
partyhadtoreserveinthecriminalactiontherighttobringsuchaction.
Section1,Rule111ofthe1985RulesonCriminalProcedure(1985Rules
forbrevity),asamendedin1988,allowedthefilingofaseparatecivilaction
independentlyofthecriminalactionprovidedtheoffendedpartyreservedthe
right to file such civil action. Unless the offended party reserved the civil
action before the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, all civil
actionsarisingfromthesameactoromissionwere

30

30 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Casupananvs.Laroya

deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal case. These civil actions

referredtotherecoveryofcivilliabilityexdelicto,therecoveryofdamages
forquasidelict,andtherecoveryofdamagesforviolationofArticles32,33
and 34 of the Civil Code on Human Relations. Thus, to file a separate and
independent civil action for quasidelict under the 1985 Rules, the offended
party had to reserve in the criminal action the right to bring such action.
Otherwise, such civil action was deemed impliedly instituted in the
criminalaction.
SameSame Same Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111 what is
deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the action to recover
civil liability arising from the crime or exdelicto.Under Section 1 of the
present Rule 111, what is deemed instituted with the criminal action is
onlytheactiontorecovercivilliabilityarisingfromthecrimeorexdelicto.
All the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Code are no longer deemed instituted, and may be filed separately and
prosecutedindependentlyevenwithoutanyreservationinthecriminalaction.
Thefailuretomakeareservationinthecriminalactionisnotawaiverofthe
righttofileaseparateandindependentcivilactionbasedonthesearticlesof
theCivilCode.
SameSameSameSection3ofRule111referstotheoffendedpartyin
thecriminalaction,nottotheaccused.Section3ofthepresentRule111,
like its counterpart in the amended 1985 Rules, expressly allows the
offended party to bring an independent civil action under Articles 32, 33,
34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. As stated in Section 3 of the present Rule
111, this civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action and
shallrequireonlyapreponderanceofevidence.Innocase,however,maythe
offendedpartyrecoverdamagestwiceforthesameactoromissioncharged
in the criminal action. There is no question that the offended party in the
criminalactioncanfileanindependentcivilactionforquasidelictagainstthe
accused.Section3ofthepresentRule111expresslystatesthattheoffended
party may bring such an action but the offended party may not recover
damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.
Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the offended party in the criminal
action,nottotheaccused.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorarioftheresolutionsofthe
RegionalTrialCourtofCapas,Tarlac,Br.66.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
YolandaC.Castroforpetitioners.
PabloOlarteforprivaterespondent.

31

VOL.388,AUGUST26,2002 31
Casupananvs.Laroya

CARPIO,J.:

TheCase

1
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertioraritosetasidetheResolution
 1
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertioraritosetasidetheResolution
dated December 2
28, 1999 dismissing the petition for certiorari and
the Resolution dated August 24, 2000 denying the motion for
reconsideration, both issued by the Regional Trial Court of Capas,
Tarlac,Branch66,inSpecialCivilActionNo.17C(99).

TheFacts

Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Mario Llavore Laroya

(Laroya for brevity) and the other owned by petitioner Roberto
Capitulo (Capitulo for brevity) and driven by petitioner Avelino
Casupanan (Casupanan for brevity), figured in an accident. As a
result, two cases were filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
(MCTCforbrevity)ofCapas,Tarlac.Laroyafiledacriminalcase
against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
property,docketedasCriminalCaseNo.00299.Ontheotherhand,
CasupananandCapitulofiledacivilcaseagainstLaroyaforquasi
delict,docketedasCivilCaseNo.2089.
When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was then at its
preliminaryinvestigationstage.Laroya,defendantinthecivilcase,
filed a motion to dismiss the civil case on the ground of forum
shoppingconsideringthependencyofthecriminalcase.TheMCTC
granted the motion in the Order of March 26, 1999 and dismissed
thecivilcase.
OnMotionforReconsideration,CasupananandCapituloinsisted
that the civil case is a separate civil action which can proceed
independently of the criminal case. The MCTC denied the motion
for reconsideration in the Order of May 7, 1999. Casupanan and
Capitulo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the
Regional Trial
3
Court (Capas RTC for brevity) of Capas, Tarlac,
Branch66, assailingtheMCTCsOrderofdismissal.

_______________

1PennedbyJudgeJosefinaD.Ceballos.

2PennedbyJudgeCesarM.Sotero.

3DocketedasSpecialCivilActionNo.17C(99).

32

32 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Casupananvs.Laroya

TheTrialCourtsRuling
The Capas RTC rendered judgment on December 28, 1999
dismissing the petition for certiorari for lack of merit. The Capas
RTCruledthattheorderofdismissalissuedbytheMCTCisafinal
order which disposes of the case and therefore the proper remedy
should have been an appeal. The Capas RTC further held that a
specialcivilactionforcertiorariisnotasubstituteforalostappeal.
Finally, the Capas RTC declared that even on the premise that the
MCTCerredindismissingthecivilcase,sucherrorisapureerrorof
judgmentandnotanabuseofdiscretion.
Casupanan and Capitulo filed a Motion for Reconsideration but
the Capas RTC denied the same in the Resolution of August 24,
2000.
Hence,thispetition.

TheIssue

Thepetitionpremisesthelegalissueinthiswise:

Inacertainvehicularaccidentinvolvingtwoparties,eachoneofthemmay
thinkandbelievethattheaccidentwascausedbythefaultoftheother,xxx
[T]hefirstparty,believinghimselftobetheaggrievedparty,optedtofilea
criminalcaseforrecklessimprudenceagainstthesecondparty.Ontheother
hand,thesecondparty,togetherwithhisoperator,believingthemselvestobe
the real aggrieved parties, opted in turn to file a civil case for quasidelict
against
4
the first party who is the very private complainant in the criminal
case.

Thus, the issue raised is whether an accused in a pending criminal

case for reckless imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and
independently, a separate civil action for quasidelict against the
privatecomplainantinthecriminalcase.

_______________

4PetitionforReviewonCertioraridatedOctober27,2000,pp.1&2Rollo,pp.9

&10.

33

VOL.388,AUGUST26,2002 33
Casupananvs.Laroya

TheCourtsRuling

CasupananandCapituloassertthatCivilCaseNo.2089,whichthe
MCTC dismissed on the ground of forumshopping, constitutes a
counterclaim in the criminal case. Casupanan and Capitulo argue
thatiftheaccusedinacriminalcasehasacounterclaimagainstthe
privatecomplainant,hemayfilethecounterclaiminaseparatecivil
actionatthepropertime.Theycontendthatanactiononquasidelict
is different from an action resulting from the crime of reckless
imprudence,andanaccusedinacriminalcasecanbeanaggrieved
party in a civil case arising from the same incident. They maintain
thatunderArticles31and2176oftheCivilCode,thecivilcasecan
proceedindependentlyofthecriminalaction.Finally,theypointout
thatCasupananwasnottheonlyonewhofiledtheindependentcivil
actionbasedonquasidelictbutalsoCapitulo,theowneroperatorof
thevehicle,whowasnotapartyinthecriminalcase.
In his Comment, Laroya claims that the petition is fatally
defective as it does not state the real antecedents. Laroya further
allegesthatCasupananandCapituloforfeitedtheirrighttoquestion
theorderofdismissalwhentheyfailedtoavailoftheproperremedy
of appeal. Laroya argues that there is no question of law to be
resolvedastheorderofdismissalisalreadyfinalandapetitionfor
certiorariisnotasubstituteforalapsedappeal.
IntheirReply,CasupananandCapitulocontendthatthepetition
raises the legal question of whether there is forumshopping since
they filed only one actionthe independent civil action for quasi
delictagainstLaroya.

NatureoftheOrderofDismissal
TheMCTCdismissedthecivilactionforquasidelictontheground
of forumshopping under Supreme Court Administrative5Circular
No.0494.TheMCTCdidnotstateinitsorderofdismissal thatthe
dismissalwaswithprejudice.UndertheAdministrativeCircular,the
orderofdismissaliswithoutprejudicetore

_______________

5RecordsofSpecialCivilActionNo.17C99,OrderofMarch26,1999,pp.1214.

34

34 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Casupananvs.Laroya

filingthecomplaint,unlesstheorderofdismissalexpresslystatesit
6
is with prejudice. Absent a declaration that the dismissal is with
prejudice,thesameisdeemedwithoutprejudice.Thus,theMCTCs
dismissal, being silent on the matter, is a dismissal without
prejudice. 7
SectionIofRule41 providesthatanorderdismissinganaction
without prejudice is not appealable. The remedy of the aggrieved
partyistofileaspecialcivilactionunderRule65.Section1ofRule
41 expressly states that where the judgment or final order is not
appealable,theaggrievedpartymayfileanappropriatespecialcivil
action under Rule 65. Clearly, the Capas RTCs order dismissing
thepetitionforcertiorari,onthegroundthattheproperremedyisan
ordinaryappeal,iserroneous.

ForumShopping
The essence of forumshopping is the filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either8
simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment.
Forumshoppingispresentwheninthetwoormorecasespending,9
there is identity of parties, rights of action and reliefs sought.
However,thereisnoforumshoppingintheinstantcasebecausethe
lawandtherulesexpresslyallowthefilingofaseparatecivilaction
whichcanproceedindependentlyofthecriminalaction.
Laroyafiledthecriminalcaseforrecklessimprudenceresulting
in damage to property based on the Revised Penal Code while
CasupananandCapitulofiledthecivilactionfordamagesbasedon
Article2176oftheCivilCode.Althoughthesetwoactionsarose

_______________

6Sto.DomingoDavidvs.Guerrero,296SCRA277(1998).

7 Section 9, Rule 40 (Appeal from Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial

Courts)provides:

SEC. 9. Applicability of Rule 41.The other provisions of Rule 41 shall apply to appeals
provided for herein insofar as they are not inconsistent with or may serve to supplement the
provisionsofthisRule.

8Melovs.CourtofAppeals,318SCRA94(1999).

9InternationalSchool,Inc.(Manila)vs.CourtofAppeals,309SCRA474(1999).

35

VOL.388,AUGUST26,2002 35
Casupananvs.Laroya

fromthesameactoromission,theyhavedifferentcausesofaction.
The criminal case is based on culpa criminal punishable under the
RevisedPenalCodewhilethecivilcaseisbasedonculpaaquiliana
actionable under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code. These
articlesonculpaaquilianaread:

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there

beingfaultornegligence,isobligedtopayforthedamagedone.Suchfault
or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasidelict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.
 Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding
article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from
negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twiceforthesameactoromissionofthedefendant.

Anyaggrievedpersoncaninvokethesearticlesprovidedheproves,
bypreponderanceofevidence,thathehassuffereddamagebecause
ofthefaultornegligenceofanother.Eithertheprivatecomplainant
or the accused can file a separate civil action under these articles.
There is nothing in the law or rules that state only the private
complainantinacriminalcasemayinvokethesearticles.
Moreover,paragraph6,Section1,Rule111ofthe2000Ruleson
Criminal Procedure (2000 Rules for brevity) expressly requires
theaccusedtolitigatehiscounterclaiminaseparatecivilaction,to
wit:

SECTION1.Institutionofcriminalandcivilactions.(a)xxx.
Nocounterclaim,crossclaimorthirdpartycomplaintmaybefiledbythe
accusedinthecriminalcase,butanycauseofactionwhichcouldhavebeen
the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. (Emphasis
supplied)

Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal action to

file his counterclaim in a separate civil action, there can be no
forumshoppingiftheaccusedfilessuchseparatecivilaction.

36

36 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Casupananvs.Laroya

Filingofaseparatecivilaction
Section1,Rule111ofthe1985RulesonCriminalProcedure(1985
Rules for brevity), as amended in 1988, allowed the filing of a
separate civil action independently of the criminal action provided
theoffendedpartyreservedtherighttofilesuchcivilaction.Unless
the offended party reserved the civil action before the presentation
oftheevidencefortheprosecution,allcivilactionsarisingfromthe
same act or omission were deemed impliedly instituted in the
criminal case. These civil actions referred to the recovery of civil
liabilityexdelicto,therecoveryofdamagesforquasidelict,andthe
recovery of damages for violation of Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the
CivilCodeonHumanRelations.
Thus, to file a separate and independent civil action for
quasidelictunderthe1985Rules,theoffendedpartyhadtoreserve
inthecriminalactiontherighttobringsuchaction.Otherwise,such
civilactionwasdeemedimpliedlyinstitutedinthecriminalaction.
Section1,Rule111ofthe1985Rulesprovidedasfollows:

Section 1.Institution of criminal and civil actions.When a criminal

action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is
impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party
waivestheaction,reserveshisrighttoinstituteitseparately,orinstitutesthe
civilactionpriortothecriminalaction.
SuchcivilactionincludesrecoveryofindemnityundertheRevisedPenal
Code,anddamagesunderArticles32,33,34and2176oftheCivilCodeof
thePhilippinesarisingfromthesameactoromissionoftheaccused.
A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The
institutionof,orthereservationoftherighttofile,anyofsaidcivilactions
separatelywaivestheothers.
Thereservationoftherighttoinstitutetheseparatecivilactionsshallbe
made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under
circumstancesaffordingtheoffendedpartyareasonableopportunitytomake
suchreservation.
Innocasemaytheoffendedpartyrecoverdamagestwiceforthesameact
oromissionoftheaccused.
xxx.(Emphasissupplied)

37

VOL.388,AUGUST26,2002 37
Casupananvs.Laroya

Section1,Rule111ofthe1985RuleswasamendedonDecember1,
2000andnowprovidesasfollows:

SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.(a) When a

criminalactionisinstituted,thecivilactionfortherecoveryofcivilliability
arisingfromtheoffensechargedshallbedeemedinstitutedwiththecriminal
actionunlesstheoffendedpartywaivesthecivilaction,reservestherightto
instituteitseparatelyorinstitutesthecivilactionpriortothecriminalaction.
Thereservationoftherighttoinstituteseparatelythecivilactionshallbe
made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under
circumstancesaffordingtheoffendedpartyareasonableopportunitytomake
suchreservation.
xxx
(b)xxx
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not
yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon
applicationwiththecourttryingthelattercase.Iftheapplicationisgranted,
the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this
rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions. (Emphasis
supplied)
UnderSection1ofthepresentRule111,whatisdeemedinstituted
with the criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability
arisingfromthecrimeorexdelicto.Alltheothercivilactionsunder
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are no longer
deemed instituted, and may be filed separately and prosecuted
independently even without any reservation in the criminal action.
The failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a
waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil action
basedonthesearticlesoftheCivilCode.Theprescriptiveperiodon
thecivilactionsbasedonthesearticlesoftheCivilCodecontinues
to run even with the filing of the criminal action. Verily, the civil
actions based on these articles of the Civil Code are separate,
distinct and independent
10
of the civil action deemed instituted in
thecriminalaction.

_______________

10Neplum,Inc.vs.EvelynV.Orbeso,G.R.No.141986,prom.July11,2002,atpp.

1112,384SCRA466.

38

38 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Casupananvs.Laroya

Under the present Rule 111, the offended party is still given the
option to file a separate civil action to recover civil liability
exdelicto by reserving such right in the criminal action before the
prosecution presents its evidence. Also, the offended party is
deemed to make such reservation if he files a separate civil action
before filing the criminal action. If the civil action to recover civil
liability exdelicto is filed separately but its trial has not yet
commenced,thecivilactionmaybeconsolidatedwiththecriminal
action.TheconsolidationunderthisRuledoesnotapplytoseparate
civil actions arising from the same act or 11omission filed under
Articles32,33,34and2176oftheCivilCode.

SuspensionoftheSeparateCivilAction
Under Section 2, Rule 111 of the amended 1985 Rules, a separate
civilaction,ifreservedinthecriminalaction,couldnotbefileduntil
after final judgment was rendered in the criminal action. If the
separate civil action was filed before the commencement of the
criminalaction,thecivilaction,ifstillpending,wassuspendedupon
thefilingofthecriminalactionuntilfinaljudgmentwasrenderedin
thecriminalaction.Thisruleappliedonlytotheseparatecivilaction
filed to recover liability exdelicto. The rule did not apply to
independent civil actions based on Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
theCivilCode,whichcouldproceedindependentlyregardlessofthe
filingofthecriminalaction.
TheamendedprovisionofSection2,Rule111ofthe2000Rules
continuesthisprocedure,towit:

SEC. 2. When separate civil action is suspended.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.

_______________

11Section1ofRule31,however,allowsconsolidation,inthediscretionofthetrial

court,ofactionsinvolvingcommonquestionsoflaworfactpendingbeforethesame
court(Cojuangco,Jr.vs.CourtofAppeals,(203SCRA619[1991]),orpendingevenin
different branches of the same regional trial court if one of the cases has not been
partiallytried(Raymundovs.Felipe,42SCRA615[1971]).

39

VOL.388,AUGUST26,2002 39
Casupananvs.Laroya

If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been
instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found
beforejudgmentonthemerits.Thesuspensionshalllastuntilfinaljudgment
is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the
merits is rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the
offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying
thecriminalaction.Incaseofconsolidation,theevidencealreadyadducedin
the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal
actionwithoutprejudicetotherightoftheprosecutiontocrossexaminethe
witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the
parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil
actionsshallbetriedanddecidedjointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period of
prescriptionofthecivilactionwhichcannotbeinstitutedseparatelyorwhose
proceedinghasbeensuspendedshallbetolled.
xxx.(Emphasissupplied)

Thus, Section 2, Rule 111 of the present Rules did not change the
rulethattheseparatecivilaction,filedtorecoverdamagesexdelicto,
issuspendeduponthefilingofthecriminalaction.Section2ofthe
present Rule 111 also prohibits the filing, after commencement of
thecriminalaction,ofaseparatecivilactiontorecoverdamagesex
delicto.

Whencivilactionmayproceedindependently
ThecrucialquestionnowiswhetherCasupananandCapitulo,who
arenottheoffendedpartiesinthecriminalcase,canfileaseparate
civilactionagainsttheoffendedpartyinthecriminalcase.Section
3,Rule111ofthe2000Rulesprovidesasfollows:

SEC. 3. When civil action may proceed independently.In the cases

provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended
party.Itshallproceedindependentlyofthecriminalactionandshallrequire
only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended
party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the
criminalaction.(Emphasissupplied)

Section3ofthepresentRule111,likeitscounterpartintheamended
1985 Rules, expressly allows the offended party to bring an
independentcivilactionunderArticles32,33,34and2176of

40

40 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Casupananvs.Laroya

theCivilCode.AsstatedinSection3ofthepresentRule111,this
civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action and
shallrequireonlyapreponderanceofevidence.Innocase,however,
maytheoffendedpartyrecoverdamagestwiceforthesameactor
omissionchargedinthecriminalaction.
Thereisnoquestionthattheoffendedpartyinthecriminalaction
can file an independent civil action for quasidelict against the
accused.Section3ofthepresentRule111expresslystatesthatthe
offendedpartymaybringsuchanactionbuttheoffendedparty
maynotrecoverdamagestwiceforthesameactoromissioncharged
in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the
offendedpartyinthecriminalaction,nottotheaccused.
CasupananandCapitulo,however,invoketherulinginCabaero
12
vs. Cantos where the Court held that the accused therein could
validly institute a separate civil action for quasidelict against the
privatecomplainantinthecriminalcase.InCabaero,theaccusedin
thecriminalcasefiledhisAnswerwithCounterclaimformalicious
prosecution. At that time the Court noted the absence of clearcut
rulesgoverningtheprosecutiononimpliedlyinstitutedcivilactions
andthenecessaryconsequencesandimplicationsthereof.Thus,the
Court ruled that the trial court should confine itself to the criminal
aspectofthecaseanddisregardanycounterclaimforcivilliability.
The Court further ruled that the accused may file a separate civil
caseagainsttheoffendedpartyafterthecriminalcaseisterminated
and/or in accordance with the new Rules which may be
promulgated.TheCourtexplainedthatacrossclaim,counterclaim
or thirdparty complaint on the civil aspect will only unnecessarily
complicatetheproceedingsanddelaytheresolutionofthecriminal
case.
Paragraph6,Section1ofthepresentRule111wasincorporated
in the 2000 Rules precisely to address the lacuna mentioned in
Cabaero. Under this provision, the accused is barred from filing a
counterclaim, crossclaim or thirdparty complaint in the criminal
case. However, the same provision states that any cause of action
whichcouldhavebeenthesubject(ofthecounterclaim,crossclaim
orthirdpartycomplaint)maybelitigatedinaseparatecivilac

_______________

12271SCRA391(1997).

41

VOL.388,AUGUST26,2002 41
Casupananvs.Laroya

tion. The present Rule 111 mandates the accused to file his
counterclaim in a separate civil action which shall proceed
independentlyofthecriminalaction,evenasthecivilactionofthe
offendedpartyislitigatedinthecriminalaction.

Conclusion
UnderSection1ofthepresentRule111,theindependentcivilaction
in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed
institutedwiththecriminalactionbutmaybefiledseparatelybythe
offendedpartyevenwithoutreservation.Thecommencementofthe
criminalactiondoesnotsuspendtheprosecutionoftheindependent
civilactionunderthesearticlesoftheCivilCode.Thesuspensionin
Section 2 of the present Rule 111 refers only to the civil action
arisingfromthecrime,ifsuchcivilactionisreservedorfiledbefore
thecommencementofthecriminalaction.
Thus,theoffendedpartycanfiletwoseparatesuitsforthesame
act or omission. The first a criminal case where the civil action to
recovercivilliabilityexdelictoisdeemedinstituted,andtheothera
civilcaseforquasidelictwithoutviolatingtheruleonnonforum
shopping. The two cases can proceed simultaneously and
independently of each other. The commencement or prosecution of
thecriminalactionwillnotsuspendthecivilactionforquasidelict.
The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. In
mostcases,theoffendedpartywillhavenoreasontofileasecond
civilactionsincehecannotrecoverdamagestwiceforthesameact
oromissionoftheaccused.Insomeinstances,theaccusedmaybe
insolvent, necessitating the filing of another case against his
employerorguardians.
Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasidelict for
thesameactoromissionheisaccusedofinthecriminalcase.This
is expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule
111 which states that the counterclaim of the accused may be
litigatedinaseparatecivilaction.Thisisonlyfairfortworeasons.
First,theaccusedisprohibitedfromsettingupanycounterclaimin
the civil aspect that is deemed instituted in the criminal case. The
accused is therefore forced to litigate separately his counterclaim
againsttheoffendedparty.Iftheaccuseddoesnotfilea

42

42 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Casupananvs.Laroya

separatecivilactionforquasidelict,theprescriptiveperiodmayset
insincetheperiodcontinuestorununtilthecivilactionforquasi
delictisfiled.
Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to
invoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code, in the same way that the
offendedpartycanavailofthisremedywhichisindependentofthe
criminalaction.Todisallowtheaccusedfromfilingaseparatecivil
actionforquasidelict,whilerefusingtorecognizehiscounterclaim
inthecriminalcase,istodenyhimdueprocessoflaw,accesstothe
courts,andequalprotectionofthelaw.
Thus, the civil action based on quasidelict filed separately by
Casupanan and Capitulo is proper. The order of dismissal by the
MCTCofCivilCaseNo.2089onthegroundofforumshoppingis
erroneous.
Wemakethisrulingawareofthepossibilitythatthedecisionof
thetrialcourtinthecriminalcasemayvarywiththedecisionofthe
trialcourtintheindependentcivilaction.Thispossibilityhasalways
been recognized ever since the Civil Code introduced in 1950 the
conceptofanindependentcivilactionunderArticles32,33,34and
2176 of the Code. But the law itself, in Article 31 of the Code,
expressly provides that the independent civil action may proceed
independently of the criminal proceedings and 13
regardless of the
resultofthelatter.InAzucenavs.Potenciano, theCourtdeclared:

x x x. There can indeed be no other logical conclusion than this, for to

subordinate the civil action contemplated in the said articles to the result of
the criminal prosecutionwhether it be conviction or acquittalwould
rendermeaninglesstheindependentcharacterofthecivilactionandtheclear
injunction in Article 31 that this action may proceed independently of the
criminalproceedingsandregardlessoftheresultofthelatter.
MorethanhalfacenturyhaspassedsincetheCivilCodeintroduced
the concept of a civil action separate and independent from the
criminalactionalthougharisingfromthesameactoromission.The
Court, however, has yet to encounter a case of conflicting and
irreconcilabledecisionsoftrialcourts,onehearingthecriminal

_______________

135SCRA468(1962).

43

VOL.388,AUGUST26,2002 43
Casupananvs.Laroya

case and the other the civil action for quasidelict. The fear of
conflictingandirreconcilabledecisionsmaybemoreapparentthan
real.Inanyevent,therearesufficientremediesundertheRulesof
Courttodealwithsuchremotepossibilities.
Onefinalpoint.TheRevisedRulesonCriminalProceduretook
effect on December 1, 2000 while the MCTC issued the order of
dismissal on December 28, 1999 or before the amendment of the
rules. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure must be given
retroactiveeffectconsideringthewellsettledrulethat

x x x statutes regulating the procedure of the court will be construed as

applicabletoactionspendingandundeterminedatthetimeoftheirpassage.
14
Procedurallawsareretroactiveinthatsenseandtothatextent.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby

GRANTED.TheResolutionsdatedDecember28,1999andAugust
24, 2000 in Special Civil Action No. 17C (99) are ANNULLED
andCivilCaseNo.2089isREINSTATED.
SOORDERED.
Puno(Chairman)andPanganiban,JJ.,concur.
SandovalGutierrez,J.,Onleave.
Petitiongranted,resolutionsannulled.

Note.Forumshopping exists where the elements of litis

pendencia are present or where a final judgment in one case will
amounttoresjudicataintheother.(Cruzvs.CourtofAppeals, 309
SCRA784[1999])

o0o

_______________

14Peoplevs.Arrojado,350SCRA679(2001)citingOcampovs.CourtofAppeals,

180 SCRA 27 (1989), Alday vs. Camilon, 120 SCRA 521 (1983) & People vs.
 Sumilang,77Phil.764(1946).

44

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.