SITUATION:

A collision occurred between a passenger jeepney driven by Von Erick Salazar and owned by Rigel Villacarlos, and a Honda
CRV driven and owned by John Henry Tamayo at the junction of Gil Puyat Sr. Avenue and Chino Roces Avenue. As a
consequence of said collision, John Henry was seriously injured.

Question 1:
A criminal case for reckless imprudence with serious physical injuries and damage to property was filed
by Honda CRV driver John Henry Tamayo against the jeepney driver Von Erick Salazar in the MTC-Makati.
May John Henry Tamayo implead the jeepney owner Rigel Villacarlos? Why or why not? Cite law and/or
jurisprudence to support your answer.

ANSWER: No. Because criminal liability is personal to the offender.

In this case, Rigel Villacarlos is not the person who committed the criminal act. Therefore, Rigel Villacarlos
cannot be impleaded.

Question 2:
Assume that in the same criminal case filed by Honda CRV driver John Henry Tamayo against the jeepney
driver Von Erick Salazar, John Henry Tamayo did NOT make any reservation of the right to file a separate
civil action.

Assume that the MTC-Makati acquits Von Erick Salazar on account of the justifying circumstance of
accident.

Assume further that Von Erick Salazar filed a civil case of quasi-delict against John Henry Tamayo in
relation to the same vehicular incident in the RTC of Manila, where Von Erick Salazar resides.

MTC-Makati acquits Von Erick Salazar on the ground that prosecution failed to prove the elements of the
crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, RTC-Manila decides in favor of Von Erick Salazar, and orders John Henry Tamayo to
pay actual and moral damages to Von Erick Salazar.

Reeling from the double whammy, John Henry Tamayo seeks your help as a lawyer and asks if, under the
circumstances, he may still file a separate civil action ex delito against Von Erick Salazar. How would you
advise him? What remedies can he still have? Cite law and/or jurisprudence to support your answer.

ANSWER:

I would advise John Henry Tamayo that he may no longer file a separate action arising from the crime.

In the case of Hambon v. Carantes, the Court ruled that the right to bring an action for damages under the
Civil Code must be reserved, as required by Rules on Criminal Procedure, otherwise it should be dismissed;
and that the reservation requirement does not impair, diminish or defeat substantive rights, but only
regulates their exercise in the general interest of orderly procedure.

Therefore, John Henry Tamayo should have reserved his right to separately institute the civil action for
damages in Criminal Case.

I will advise John Henry Tamayo that he may file a case for quasi-delict. Filing a
civil action for
damages based on quasidelict under Art. 2180 liability of the employer is primary, direct and
solidary.

Question 3:
 Assume that in the same criminal case filed by Honda CRV driver John Henry Tamayo against the jeepney
driver Von Erick Salazar, John Henry Tamayo formally manifested his right to file a separate civil action
prior to the presentation of the prosecutions evidence.

Assume further that John Henry Tamayo filed a separate civil case for damages (under torts) in the RTC-
Quezon City, impleading both Von Erick Salazar, as well as Rigel Kent Villacarlos on account of its vicarious
liability as owner of the jeepney and employer of Von Erick Salazar.

Assume further that Rigel Kent Villacarlos had successfully used the defense of a good father of the family
in the selection and supervision of his employee, for which reason, Rigel was absolved of liability in the
civil case.

Assume however that in the criminal case pending before MTC-Makati, Von Erick Salazar was found to be
criminally negligent by the criminal court and ordered to pay damages in the total amount of P100,000.00
to John Henry Tamayo, but that Von Erick had declared himself to be insolvent. Under the circumstances,
may Rigel Kent Villacarlos be held subsidiarily liable in the criminal case, despite having been absolved in
the civil case? Cite law and/or jurisprudence to support your answer.

ANSWER: YES. Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, a person is not only liable for torts committed
by him, but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a certain relation or for whom he is
responsible. His liability is primary and direct, not subsidiary. He is solidarily liable with the tortfeasor. His
responsibility is not conditioned upon the insolvency of or prior recourse against the negligent tortfeasor.

In this case, Rigel Kent Villacarlos may be held subsidiarily liable in the criminal case, despite having been
absolved in the civil case because his responsibility is not conditioned upon the insolvency of or prior
recourse against the negligent tortfeasor.

Question 4:
Assume on the other hand that in the same criminal case filed by Honda CRV driver John Henry Tamayo
against the jeepney driver Von Erick Salazar, John Henry Tamayo formally manifested his right to file a
separate civil action prior to the presentation of the prosecutions evidence.

May John Henry Tamayo opt to file a separate case on the civil aspect of the crime (ex delito), instead of a
separate civil action based on tort/culpa aquiliana?

If so, may the civil case (ex delito) be prosecuted simultaneously with the criminal case? Cite law and/or
jurisprudence to support your answer.

ANSWER: YES. Under Rule 111 of the ROC Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has
not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter
case.