Rafael Reyes v. People
Rafael Reyes v. People
- Seated at the front right seat beside him was Ferdinand Domingo, his truck ISSUES:
helper. At around 4:00 o’clock that same morning while the truck was
descending at a slight downgrade along the national road at Tagaran, Cauayan, a. Whether or not petitioner as owner of the truck involved in the accident may be
Isabela, it approached a damaged portion of the road covering the full width of held subsidiarily liable for the damages awarded to the offended parties in the
the truck’s right lane going south and about six meters in length. These made criminal action against the truck driver despite the filing of a separate civil action by
the surface of the road uneven because the potholes were about five to six the offended parties against the employer of the truck driver; and
inches deep. The left lane parallel to this damaged portion is smooth.
b. Whether or not the Court may award damages to the offended parties in the
- As narrated by Ferdinand Domingo, before approaching the potholes, he and criminal case despite the filing of a civil action against the employer of the truck
driver.
Dunca saw the Nissan with its headlights on coming from the opposite direction.
They used to evade this damaged road by taking the left lance but at that
HELD:
particular moment, because of the incoming vehicle, they had to run over it.
This caused the truck to bounce wildly.
No. In negligence cases, the aggrieved party has the choice between (1) an action
to enforce civil liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal
- Dunca lost control of the wheels and the truck swerved to the left invading the Code; and (2) a separate action for quasi delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code
lane of the Nissan. As a result, Dunca’s vehicle rammed the incoming Nissan of the Philippines. Once the choice is made, the injured party can not avail himself
dragging it to the left shoulder of the road and climbed a ridge above said
of any other remedy because he may not recover damages twice for the same
negligent act or omission of the accused. This is the rule against double recovery.In
other words, “the same act or omission can create two kinds of liability on the part
of the offender, that is, civil liability ex delicto, and civil liability quasi delicto” either
of which “may be enforced against the culprit, subject to the caveat under Article
2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party can not recover damages under both
types of liability.” In the instant case, the offended parties elected to file a separate
civil action for damages against petitioner as employer of the accused, based on
quasi delict, under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Petitioner, as
employer of the accused who has been adjudged guilty in the criminal case for
reckless imprudence, cannot be held subsidiarily liable because of the filing of the
separate civil action based on quasi delict against it. In view of the reservation to
file, and the subsequent filing of the civil action for recovery of civil liability, the
same was not instituted with the criminal action. Such separate civil action was for
recovery of damages under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, arising from the same act
or omission of the accused.
b. No. The award of damages in the criminal case was improper because the civil
action for the recovery of civil liability was waived in the criminal action by the
filing of a separate civil action against the employer. The only issue brought before
the trial court in the criminal action is whether accused Dunca is guilty of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property. The action for recovery
of civil liability is not included therein, but is covered by the separate civil action
filed against the petitioner as employer of the accused truck-driver. The policy
against double recovery requires that only one action be maintained for the same
act or omission whether the action is brought against the employee or against his
employer. The injured party must choose which of the available causes of action for
damages he will bring.