Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Yakult Phils. Vs CA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jansen Villanera
    145 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's claim and affirmed the lower courts' rulings. It held that the trial court had jurisdiction over the separate civil action even though the plaintiff did not expressly reserve the right to file it, because the civil action was instituted before evidence was presented in the criminal case and the criminal court judge was informed of the civil action. The purpose of requiring reservation is to prevent double recovery, and this purpose was still achieved since no damages were awarded in the criminal case. The provisions of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure allowing this outcome could be applied retrospectively since they are procedural in nature.

    Original Description:

    Case Digests

    Original Title

    Yakult Phils. vs CA Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's claim and affirmed the lower courts' rulings. It held that the trial court had jurisdiction over the separate civil action even though the plaintiff did not expressly reserve the right to file it, because the civil action was instituted before evidence was presented in the criminal case and the criminal court judge was informed of the civil action. The purpose of requiring reservation is to prevent double recovery, and this purpose was still achieved since no damages were awarded in the criminal case. The provisions of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure allowing this outcome could be applied retrospectively since they are procedural in nature.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    145 views3 pages

    Yakult Phils. Vs CA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jansen Villanera
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's claim and affirmed the lower courts' rulings. It held that the trial court had jurisdiction over the separate civil action even though the plaintiff did not expressly reserve the right to file it, because the civil action was instituted before evidence was presented in the criminal case and the criminal court judge was informed of the civil action. The purpose of requiring reservation is to prevent double recovery, and this purpose was still achieved since no damages were awarded in the criminal case. The provisions of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure allowing this outcome could be applied retrospectively since they are procedural in nature.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    StatCon Case # 58, Topic: Prospective/Retroactive and Conflicting Statutes

    YAKULT PHILIPPINES AND LARRY SALVADO (petitioner)


    vs.
    COURT OF APPEALS, WENCESLAO M. POLO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge
    of Br. 19 of the RTC of Manila, and ROY CAMASO (respondents)

    G.R. No. 91856, October 5, 1990

    Ponente: JUSTICE GANCAYCO

    Doctrine:

    1. Retroactive application of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure (Article


    111, Section 01) and;
    2. Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising
    from the same act or omission of the accused.

    (Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:

    SEC. 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 waives the
    civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the
    civil action prior to the criminal action.

    Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal
    Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code
    of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused.)

    ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
    or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there
    is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
    governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

    Case Subject: Petitioner contends to dismiss the separate civil action filed by the
    Respondents in this case for reasons that the Respondents have not made prior
    reservation before the start of criminal action, therefore independent civil lawsuit should
    not be granted before the RTC.

    Facts and Sequence:

    A. On December 24, 1982, a five-year old boy, Roy Camaso, was sideswiped by
    a Yamaha motorcycle owned by Yakult Philippines and driven by its
    employee, Larry Salvado.
    B. Salvado was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to
    slight physical injuries that was filed on January 6, 1983 with the then City
    Court of Manila.
    C. On October 19, 1984 a complaint for damages was filed by Roy Camaso
    represented by his father, David Camaso, against Yakult Philippines and Larry
    Salvado in the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
    D. In due course a decision was rendered in the civil case on May 26, 1989
    ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff the sum of
    P13,006.30 for actual expenses for medical services and hospital bills;
    P3,000.00 attorney's fees and the costs of the suit. Although said
    defendants appealed the judgment, they nevertheless filed a petition
    for certiorari in the Court of Appeals challenging the jurisdiction of the trial
    court over said civil case.
    E. In a decision dated November 3, 1989, the Court of Appeals dismissed
    the petition. A motion for reconsideration thereof filed by petitioners was
    denied on January 30, 1990. Hence this petition to SC.

    Issue: Can a civil action instituted after the criminal action was filed prosper even if
    there was no reservation to file a separate civil action?

    Contention/Parties:

    Yakult Phils. / Larry Salvado RTC of Manila and Roy Camaso


    (Petitioner) (Respondent)***
    Separate civil action may not be filed unless No definite contention for the
    reservation thereof is expressly made. Respondent Camaso and RTC, just an
    emphasis on the Ratio of SC.
    The separate civil actions shall be made
    before the prosecution.
    (Respondent won on all three Courts)
    In no case may the offended party recover
    damages twice for the same act or omission
    of the accused.
    *RTC Manila (Camaso won suit)
    **CA (Petition/Motion denied)
    ***SC (Petition denied)

    Held/Actions/Rulings:

    The petition is devoid of merit.


    The Supreme Court holds that the trial court had jurisdiction over the separate civil
    action brought before it.
    The petition is DENIED. The questioned decision of the Court of Appeals dated
    November 3, 1989 and its resolution dated January 30, 1990 are hereby AFFIRMED.
    SC Ratio Decidendi:

    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 purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the offended party from
    recovering damages twice for the same act or omission.

    Although the incident in question and the actions arising therefrom were instituted
    before the promulgation of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, its provisions
    which are procedural may apply retrospectively to the present case.

    It is also provided that the reservation of the right to institute the separate civil action
    shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under
    circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such
    reservation.

    In this case, the offended party has not waived the civil action, nor reserved
    the right to institute it separately. Neither has the offended party instituted
    the civil action prior to the criminal action. However, the civil action in this case
    was filed in court before the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution in the
    criminal action of which the judge presiding on the criminal case was duly informed, so
    that in the disposition of the criminal action no damages was awarded.

    You might also like