Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Casupanan and Capitulo vs Laroya (2002) Civil action may proceed independently

FACTS:
Under Section 1 of Rule 111, what is "deemed instituted" with the criminal action
 This is a petition for review on certiorari to set aside the resolution is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delicto. All
dismissing the petition for certiorari and the resolution denying the motion the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are no
for reconsideration, both issued by the Regional Trial Court. longer "deemed instituted," and may be filed separately and prosecuted
independently even without any reservation in the criminal action.
MCTC Ruling: Motion to dismiss civil case granted, denies Motion for
Reconsideration The offended party is still given the option to file a separate civil action to
recover civil liability ex-delicto by reserving such right in the criminal action
 Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Laroya and the other owned by before the prosecution presents its evidence. Also, the offended party is deemed
Capitulo and driven by petitioner Casupanan, figured in an accident. to make such reservation if he files a separate civil action before filing the
 As a result, two cases were filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. criminal action.
o Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property If the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is filed separately but its trial
o Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi- has not yet commenced, the civil action may be consolidated with the criminal
delict. action. The consolidation under this Rule does not apply to separate civil actions
 When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was then at its preliminary arising from the same act or omission filed under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
investigation stage. Laroya, defendant in the civil case, filed a motion to the Civil Code.
dismiss the civil case on the ground of forum-shopping considering the
pendency of the criminal case. Under Section 2, Rule 111 of the amended 1985 Rules, a separate civil action, if
 The MCTC granted the motion and dismissed the civil case. reserved in the criminal action, could not be filed until after final judgment was
 On Motion for Reconsideration, Casupanan and Capitulo insisted that rendered in the criminal action. If the separate civil action was filed before the
the civil case is a separate civil action which can proceed independently of commencement of the criminal action, the civil action, if still pending, was
the criminal case. It was denied. suspended upon the filing of the criminal action until final judgment was
rendered in the criminal action. This rule applied only to the separate civil action
RTC Ruling: RTC dismisses petition for certiorari, denies Motion for filed to recover liability ex-delicto.
Reconsideration
The rule did not apply to independent civil actions based on Articles 32, 33, 34
 Casupanan and Capitulo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before and 2176 of the Civil Code, which could proceed independently regardless of the
the Regional Trial Court assailing the MCTC’s Order of dismissal. filing of the criminal action. This is retained by the 2000 Rules.
 It ruled that the order of dismissal issued by the MCTC is a final order
which disposes of the case and therefore the proper remedy should have Section 3, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules provides:
been an appeal. The RTC further held that a special civil action for
certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. “SEC 3. When civil action may proceed independently. - In the cases
 It further declared that even on the premise that the MCTC erred in provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
dismissing the civil case, such error is a pure error of judgment and not an Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the
abuse of discretion. offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action
 Casupanan and Capitulo filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
denied. Hence current petition. however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the
same act or omission charged in the criminal action.”
ISSUE + RULING: Whether or not an accused (petitioner) in a pending criminal
case for reckless imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and independently, There is no question that the offended party in the criminal action can file an
a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant independent civil action for quasi-delict against the accused. Section 3 of the
(respondent) in the criminal case - YES present Rule 111 expressly states that the "offended party" may bring such an
action but the "offended party" may not recover damages twice for the same act
Petitioners did not commit forum shopping or omission charged in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers
to the offended party in the criminal action, not to the accused.
The MCTC did not state in its order of dismissal that the dismissal was with
prejudice. Under Administrative Circular No. 04-94, the order of dismissal is In sum, while the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or
without prejudice to refiling the complaint, unless the order of dismissal omission (the first a criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability
expressly states it is with prejudice. Absent a declaration that the dismissal is ex-delicto is deemed instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi-delict -
with prejudice, the same is deemed without prejudice. without violating the rule on non-forum shopping), similarly, the accused can file
a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he is accused of in the
Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that an order dismissing an criminal case.
action without prejudice is not appealable. The remedy of the aggrieved party is
to file a special civil action under Rule 65. Section 1 of Rule 41 expressly states This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which
that "where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party states that the counterclaim of the accused "may be litigated in a separate civil
may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65." Clearly, the RTC’s action." This is only fair for two reasons:
order dismissing the petition for certiorari, on the ground that the proper remedy
is an ordinary appeal, is erroneous. First, the accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in the civil
aspect that is deemed instituted in the criminal case. The accused is therefore
The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same forced to litigate separately his counterclaim against the offended party. If the
parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to accused does not file a separate civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptive
secure a favorable judgment. Forum-shopping is present when in the two or period may set in since the period continues to run until the civil action for quasi-
more cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights of action and reliefs delict is filed.
sought. However, there is no forum-shopping in the instant case because the law
and the rules expressly allow the filing of a separate civil action which can Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to invoke Article
proceed independently of the criminal action. 2177 of the Civil Code, in the same way that the offended party can avail of this
remedy which is independent of the criminal action. To disallow the accused
Here, Laroya filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage from filing a separate civil action for quasi-delict, while refusing to recognize his
to property based on the Revised Penal Code while Casupanan and Capitulo filed counterclaim in the criminal case, is to deny him due process of law, access to
the civil action for damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Although the courts, and equal protection of the law.
these two actions arose from the same act or omission, they have different
causes of action. Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Casupanan and
Capitulo is proper. The order of dismissal by the MCTC on the ground of forum-
Since paragraph 6, Section 1, Rule 111 require the accused in a criminal action shopping is erroneous.
to file his counterclaim in a separate civil action, there can be no forum-shopping
if the accused files such separate civil action.