5.

August 15, 2018 G.R. No. 200444

Facts:

Belchez was driving a passenger bus, Mabel Tours Bus owned by [respondent] Antonio San Andres,
along Maharlika Highway going towards the direction of Manila. While traversing Maharlika Highway,
the Mabel Tours Bus sideswiped a Toyota Revo it was overtaking. The Mabel Tours Bus immediately
swerved to the left lane but in the process, it hit head-on the Supreme Bus owned and registered in the
name of [petitioner] Supreme Bus Transportation Line, Inc., and driven by [petitioner] Felix G. Ruz, that
was negotiating in the opposite lane. Because of the strong impact of the incident, the Supreme Bus was
pushed to the side of the road and the Mabel Tour Bus continuously moved until it hit a passenger
jeepney that was parked on the side of the road which later on fell on the canal. Nobody died but all the
vehicles were damaged.

On December 12, 2002, a complaint for damages before the Court a quo was instituted by [respondent]
Antonio San Andres against [petitioners] alleging actual damage to Mabel Tours Bus and unrealized
profits for the non-use of the Mabel Tours Bus.

Subsequently, [petitioners] filed their Answer with Counterclaim. They alleged among others that
plaintiff has no cause of action against them; the proximate cause of the vehicular accident is the
reckless imprudence of the [respondent's] driver, Ernesto Belchez operated the Mabel Tours Bus
recklessly and in violation of traffic laws and regulations in negotiating the overtaking of another vehicle
without regard to the rightful vehicle occupying the right lane coming from the opposite direction
resulting to head on collision on the lane of defendant Supreme Bus and, at the time of the accident,
[respondent] operated the Mabel Tours Bus outside his franchise and without a registered plate.

[Respondent] presented himself and Ernesto Belchez who later became a hostile witness. On the part of
[petitioner and Ruz], Felix Ruz, SPOl Rafael B. Ausa and Assistant for Operations of [petitioner] Supreme
Transportation Liner, Inc., Jessi Alvarez, were presented.

In the course of trial, Jessi Alvarez stated that he filed a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence
resulting to damage to property against Ernesto Belchez before the Court in Candelaria, Quezon. The
case is now terminated and the accused was convicted because of his admission of the crime charged. In
the said criminal complaint, he did not reserve their civil claim or asked (sic) the fiscal to reserve it,
which, if itemized, would also be the amount of their counterclaim in the present civil action filed by
[respondent]. He added that they did not receive any compensation for the civil aspect of the criminal
case, and although the Supreme Bus was covered by insurance, they did not claim for any
reimbursement in connection with the subject incident.

Issue:
Whether or not despite the absence of reservation, private respondent may nonetheless bring an action
for damages against the plaintiff under the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code

Held:

YES

The question is whether despite the absence of such reservation, private respondent may nonetheless
bring an action for damages against the plaintiff under the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code, to wit:

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.

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

xxxx

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned task, even though the former are not engaged in any business or
industry.

Art. 2177 states that responsibility for fault or negligence under the above-quoted provisions is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Revised Penal Code.

However, Rule III of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, while reiterating that a civil action under
the above quoted provisions of the New Civil Code may be brought separately from the criminal action,
provides that the right to bring it must be reserved. 24

Yet, the RTC likewise erred on its outcome because its ratiocination was founded on the obsolete
version of the Rules of Court. By the time when the RTC rendered judgment on November 24, 2008,
the revised relevant rule of procedure had already been promulgated and taken effect, 25 and it had
specifically deleted the erstwhile reservation requirement vis-a-vis the independent civil actions, as
follows:

Section 1. Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions. - (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil
action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with
the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution
starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable
opportunity to make such reservation.

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal,
temperate, or exemplary dan1ages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or
information, the filing fees therefore shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such
damages.

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the
corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages.

No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case,
but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil
action. (la)

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing
fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages
claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal,
temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the
amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently
awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the
judgment.

Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be
consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule
governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.1awp++i1

The error committed by the CA emanated from its failure to take into consideration that the omission of
the driver in violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code could give rise not only to the
obligation ex delicto,26 but also to the obligation based on culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code. Under the factual antecedents herein, both obligations rested on the common element of
negligence. Article 217727 of the Civil Code and Section 3,28 Rule 111 of the Rules of Court allow the
injured party to prosecute both criminal and civil actions simultaneously. As clarified
in Casupanan v. Laroya:29

Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is "deemed instituted" with the criminal action is only the
action to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delicto. All the other civil actions under
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are no longer "deemed instituted," and may be filed
separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. The
failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and
independent civil action based on these articles of the Civil Code. The prescriptive period on the civil
actions based on these articles of the Civil Code continues to run even with the filing of the criminal
action. Verily, the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code are separate, distinct and
independent of the civil action "deemed instituted" in the criminal action. (Bold emphasis supplied)
The foregoing notwithstanding, the petitioners as the injured parties have to choose the remedy by
which to enforce their claim in the event of favorable decisions in both actions. This is because Article
2177 of the Civil Code bars them from recovering damages twice upon the same act or omission. As
ruled in Safeguard Security Agency, Inc. v. Tangco: 30

An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of
the offender, i.e., ( 1) civil liability ex delicto, under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; and (2)
independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as a
felony, e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code,
intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34, and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code; or (b)
where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal
action under Article 33 of the Civil Code. Either of these liabilities may be enforced against the offender
subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission or under both causes.

As can be seen, the latest iteration of Rule III, unlike the predecessor, no longer includes the
independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code as requiring prior
reservation to be made in a previously instituted criminal action. Had it been cautious and circumspect,
the RTC could have avoided the error.