Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Yakult Phils. Vs CA Case Digest
Yakult Phils. Vs CA Case Digest
Doctrine:
(Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:
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.
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:
Held/Actions/Rulings:
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.