OBLICON Doctrine: Independent civil actions require prior reservation

GR Nos. 119771

San Ildefonso Lines vs CA Date: April 28, 1998

Ponente: MARTINEZ, J.
SAN ILDEFONSO LINES, INC., and EDUARDO JAVIER COURT OF APPEALS (Thirteenth Division) and PIONEER
INSURANCE and SURETY CORPORATION

Nature of the case: APPEAL from the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of
the RTC, dismissing the motion of petitioners to suspend the civil proceedings filed by private
respondent on the ground that to such motion would render the independent character of the civil
action meaningless.

FACTS

A Toyota Lite Ace Van being driven by its owner Annie U. Jao and a passenger bus of herein petitioner
San Ildefonso Lines, Inc. (hereafter, SILI) figured in a vehicular mishap totally wrecking wrecking the
Toyota van and injuring Ms. Jao and her two (2) passengers in the process.

A criminal case was thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig charging the driver of the bus,
herein petitioner Eduardo Javier, with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with
multiple physical injuries.

About four (4) months later, herein private respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation (PISC),
as insurer of the van and subrogee, filed a case for damages against petitioner SILI with the RTC, seeking
to recover the sums it paid the assured under a motor vehicle insurance policy as well as other damages.

In response, petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion to Suspend Civil Proceedings grounded on the
pendency of the criminal case against petitioner Javier in the RTC and the failure of respondent PISC to
make a reservation to file a separate damage suit in said criminal action. This was denied by the RTC and
was elevated to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the lower court’s decision. CA rules thus:

"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 the
tortfeasor is actually charged also criminally), to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled
only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.

"To subordinate the civil action contemplated in the said articles to the result of the criminal prosecution
- whether it be conviction or acquittal - would render meaningless the independent character of the civil
action and the clear injunction in Art. 31, that this action may proceed independently of the criminal
proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.”

ISSUE/S

1) WON an independent civil action based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code can be
filed if no reservation was made in the said criminal case

2) WON a subrogee of an offended party can maintain an independent civil action during the pendency
of a criminal action when no reservation of the right to file an independent civil action was made in the
criminal action

RATIO

1. NO. On the chief issue of "reservation", at the fore is Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which
reads:

"Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. -- In the cases provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34
and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action which has been reserved may
be brought by the offended party, shall proceed independently of the criminal action, and shall require
only a preponderance of evidence."

It is easily deducible from the present wording of Section 3 as brought about by the 1988 amendments
to the Rules on Criminal Procedure -- particularly the phrase " which has been reserved" -- that the
"independent" character of these civil actions does not do away with the reservation requirement. In
other words, prior reservation is a condition sine qua non before any of these independent civil
actions can be instituted.

Justice Jose Y. Feria, remedial law expert and a member of the committee which drafted the 1988
amendments, whose learned explanation on the matter was aptly pointed out by petitioners, to wit:

"The 1988 amendment expands the scope of the civil action which is deemed impliedly instituted with
the criminal action unless waived, reserved or previously instituted xxx.

Under the present Rule as amended, such a civil action includes not only recovery of indemnity under
the Revised Penal Code and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, but
also damages under Article 2176 of the said code. xxxxxxxx In any event, the offended party is not
precluded from filing a civil action to recover damages arising from quasi-delict before the
institution of the criminal action, or from reserving his right to file such a separate civil action, just
as he is not precluded from filing a civil action for damages under Articles 32, 33 and 34 before the
institution of the criminal action, or from reserving his right to file such a separate civil action.

Sharing the same view on the indispensability of a prior reservation is Mr. Justice Florenz D. Regalado,
whose analysis of the historical changes in Rule 111 since the 1964 Rules of Court is equally illuminating:

“The independent civil actions contemplated in the present Rule 111 include the quasi-delicts provided
for in Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, in addition to the cases provided in Arts. 32, 33 and 34 thereof. It is
necessary, however, that the civil liability under all the said articles arise 'from the same act or
omission of the accused.' Furthermore, a reservation of the right to institute these separate civil
actions is again required, otherwise, said civil actions are impliedly instituted with the criminal
action, unless the former are waived or filed ahead of the criminal action."

A deeper reading of the "Yakult Phils. vs. CA" case relied upon by respondent court reveals an
acknowledgement of the reservation requirement.:

"Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in the criminal
case, nevertheless since it was instituted before the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal
action, and the judge handling the criminal case was informed thereof, then the actual filing of the civil
action is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express reservation that should
be made by the offended party before the prosecution presents its evidence"

The distinct factual scenario in "Yakult" simply does not obtain in this case. No satisfactory proof exists
to show that private respondent PISC's damage suit was instituted before the prosecution presented its
evidence in the criminal case pending in the Pasig Regional Trial Court. Neither is there any indication
that the judge presiding over the criminal action has been made aware of the civil case. It is in this light
that reliance on the "Yakult" case is indeed misplaced.

2. NO. Private respondent PISC, as subrogee under Article 2207 of the Civil Code, is not exempt from the
reservation requirement with respect to its damages suit based on quasi-delict arising from the same act
or omission of petitioner Javier complained of in the criminal case. As private respondent PISC merely
stepped into the shoes of Ms. Jao (as owner of the insured Toyota van), then it is bound to observe the
procedural requirements which Ms. Jao ought to follow had she herself instituted the civil case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 24,
1995 and the Resolution dated April 3, 1995 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof are hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The "MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO SUSPEND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS" filed
by petitioners is GRANTED.

Notes

1-C 2015-16 (ABUZO)