Professional Documents
Culture Documents
02 Dulay v. CA G.R. No. 108017, 3 April 1995
02 Dulay v. CA G.R. No. 108017, 3 April 1995
Marianne Beltran-Angeles
Petitioners prayed for actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
damages, and attorney's fees. The said Civil Case No. Q-89-1751 was employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
raffled to Branch 84 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, presided their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
by respondent Judge Teodoro Regino. engaged in any business or an industry.
On March 2, 1989, private respondent SUPERGUARD filed a Motion to xxx xxx xxx
Dismiss on the ground that the complaint does not state a valid cause of
action. SUPERGUARD claimed that Torzuela's act of shooting Dulay was (Emphasis supplied)
beyond the scope of his duties, and that since the alleged act of shooting
was committed with deliberate intent (dolo), the civil liability therefor is Petitioners contended that a suit against alternative defendants is allowed
governed by Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, which states: under Rule 3, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the inclusion of
private respondents as alternative defendants in the complaint is justified
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of a felony. — by the following: the Initial Investigation Report prepared by Pat. Mario
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly Tubon showing that Torzuela is an employee of SAFEGUARD; and
liable. through overt acts, SUPERGUARD extended its sympathies to petitioners
(Rollo, pp. 64 and 98).
Respondent SUPERGUARD further alleged that a complaint for damages
based on negligence under Article 2176 of the New Civil Code, such as the Meanwhile, an Information dated March 21, 1989 charging Benigno
one filed by petitioners, cannot lie, since the civil liability under Article Torzuela with homicide was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati
2176 applies only to quasi-offenses under Article 365 of the Revised Penal and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 89-1896.
Code. In addition, the private respondent argued that petitioners' filing of
the complaint is premature considering that the conviction of Torzuela in On April 13, 1989, respondent Judge Regino issued an order granting
a criminal case is a condition sine qua non for the employer's subsidiary SUPERGUARD'S motion to dismiss and SAFEGUARD'S motion for
liability (Rollo, p. 55-59). exclusion as defendant. The respondent judge held that the complaint did
not state facts necessary or sufficient to constitute a quasi-delict since it
Respondent SAFEGUARD also filed a motion praying that it be excluded does not mention any negligence on the part of Torzuela in shooting
as defendant on the ground that defendant Torzuela is not one of its Napoleon Dulay or that the same was done in the performance of his duties.
employees (Rollo, p. 96). Respondent judge ruled that mere allegations of the concurring negligence
of the defendants (private respondents herein) without stating the facts
Petitioners opposed both motions, stating that their cause of action against showing such negligence are mere conclusions of law (Rollo, p. 106).
the private respondents is based on their liability under Article 2180 of the Respondent judge also declared that the complaint was one for damages
New Civil Code, which provides: founded on crimes punishable under Articles 100 and 103 of the Revised
Penal Code as distinguished from those arising from, quasi-delict. The
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is dispositive portion of the order dated April 13, 1989 states:
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but
also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. WHEREFORE, this Court holds that in view of the
material and ultimate facts alleged in the verified
complaint and in accordance with the applicable law on the In the same vein, petitioners cite Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court
matter as well as precedents laid down by the Supreme which provides:
Court, the complaint against the alternative defendants
Superguard Security Corporation and Safeguard Rule 111. . . . .
Investigation and Security Co., Inc., must be and (sic) it is
hereby dismissed. (Rollo, p. 110) Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently — In
the cases provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the
The above order was affirmed by the respondent court and petitioners' Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action
motion for reconsideration thereof was denied. which has been reserved may be brought by the offended
party, shall proceed independently of the criminal action,
Petitioners take exception to the assailed decision and insist that quasi- and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
delicts are not limited to acts of negligence but also cover acts that are (Emphasis supplied)
intentional and voluntary, citing Andamo v. IAC (191 SCRA 195 [1990]).
Thus, petitioners insist that Torzuela' s act of shooting Napoleon Dulay The term "physical injuries" under Article 33 has been held to include
constitutes a quasi-delict actionable under Article 2176 of the New Civil consummated, frustrated and attempted homicide. Thus, petitioners
Code. maintain that Torzuela's prior conviction is unnecessary since the civil
action can proceed independently of the criminal action. On the other hand,
Petitioners further contend that under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, it is the private respondents' argument that since the act was not
private respondents are primarily liable for their negligence either in the committed with negligence, the petitioners have no cause of action under
selection or supervision of their employees. This liability is independent of Articles 2116 and 2177 of the New Civil Code. The civil action
the employee's own liability for fault or negligence and is distinct from the contemplated in Article 2177 is not applicable to acts committed with
subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The deliberate intent, but only applies to quasi-offenses under Article 365 of
civil action against the employer may therefore proceed independently of the Revised Penal Code. Torzuela's act of shooting Atty. Dulay to death,
the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111 Section 3 of the Rules of Court. aside from being purely personal, was done with deliberate intent and
Petitioners submit that the question of whether Torzuela is an employee of could not have been part of his duties as security guard. And since Article
respondent SUPERGUARD or SAFEGUARD would be better resolved 2180 of the New Civil Code covers only: acts done within the scope of the
after trial. employee's assigned tasks, the private respondents cannot be held liable
for damages.
Moreover, petitioners argue that Torzuela's act of shooting Dulay is also
actionable under Article 33 of the New Civil Code, to wit: We find for petitioners.
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical It is undisputed that Benigno Torzuela is being prosecuted for homicide for
injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and the fatal shooting of Napoleon Dulay. Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal
distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the Procedure provides:
injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently
of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a
preponderance of evidence. (Emphasis supplied) 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 called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. this Chapter.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Contrary to the theory of private respondents, there is no justification for
Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, limiting the scope of Article 2176 of the Civil Code to acts or omissions
34, and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising resulting from negligence. Well-entrenched is the doctrine that article 2176
from the same act or omission of the accused. (Emphasis covers not only acts committed with negligence, but also acts which are
supplied) voluntary and intentional. As far back as the definitive case of Elcano v.
Hill (77 SCRA 98 [1977]), this Court already held that:
It is well-settled that the filing of an independent civil action before the
prosecution in the criminal action presents evidence is even far better than . . . Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence,"
a compliance with the requirement of express reservation (Yakult covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 357 [1990]). This is precisely criminal in character; whether intentional and voluntary or
what the petitioners opted to do in this case. However, the private negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action against the
respondents opposed the civil action on the ground that the same is offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally
founded on a delict and not on a quasi-delict as the shooting was not prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the
attended by negligence. What is in dispute therefore is the nature of the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also
petitioner's cause of action. criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be
entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the
The nature of a cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In
complaint as constituting the cause of action (Republic v. Estenzo, 158 other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in
SCRA 282 [1988]). The purpose of an action or suit and the law to govern Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil
it is to be determined not by the claim of the party filing the action, made liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code,
in his argument or brief, but rather by the complaint itself, its allegations whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as
and prayer for relief. (De Tavera v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, 112 quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished
SCRA 243 [1982]). An examination of the complaint in the present case even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal
would show that the plaintiffs, petitioners herein, are invoking their right act charged has not happened or has not been committed
to recover damages against the private respondents for their vicarious by the accused. Briefly stated, We here hold, in reiteration
responsibility for the injury caused by Benigno Torzuela's act of shooting of Garcia, that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and
and killing Napoleon Dulay, as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the negligent acts which may be punishable by law. (Emphasis
complaint. supplied)
Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides: The same doctrine was echoed in the case of Andamo v. Intermediate
Appellate Court (191 SCRA 195 [1990]), wherein the Court held:
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay Article 2176, whenever it refers to "fault or negligence,"
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no covers not only acts criminal in character, whether
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties is intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a
civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act,
whether or not he is prosecuted or found guilty or
Andrei Da Jose | Page 4|6
5 Torts and Damages | Atty. Marianne Beltran-Angeles
acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, [1988]). The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is direct and
(if the tortfeasor is actually also charged criminally), to immediate; it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent
recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of such employee
such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, (Kapalaran Bus Lines v. Coronado, 176 SCRA 792 [1989]). Therefore, it is
assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. [citing incumbent upon the private respondents to prove that they exercised the
Virata v. Ochoa, 81 SCRA 472] (Emphasis supplied) diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of
their employee.
Private respondents submit that the word "intentional" in
the Andamo case is inaccurate obiter, and should be read as "voluntary" Since Article 2176 covers not only acts of negligence but also acts which
since intent cannot be coupled with negligence as defined by Article 365 of are intentional and voluntary, it was therefore erroneous on the part of the
the Revised Penal Code. In the absence of more substantial reasons, this trial court to dismiss petitioner's complaint simply because it failed to
Court will not disturb the above doctrine on the coverage of Article 2176. make allegations of attendant negligence attributable to private
respondents.
Private respondents further aver that Article 33 of the New Civil Code
applies only to injuries intentionally committed pursuant to the ruling in With respect to the issue of whether the complaint at hand states a
Marcia v. CA (120 SCRA 193 [1983]), and that the actions for damages sufficient cause of action, the general rule is that the allegations in a
allowed thereunder are ex-delicto. However, the term "physical injuries" in complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the
Article 33 has already been construed to include bodily injuries causing defendants if, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid
death (Capuno v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Philippines, 121 Phil. 638 judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer therein. A cause of
[1965); Carandang v. Santiago, 97 Phil. 94 [1955]). It is not the crime of action exist if the following elements are present, namely: (1) a right in
physical injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code. It includes not only favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises
physical injuries but also consummated, frustrated, and attempted or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect
homicide (Madeja v. Caro, 126 SCRA 293 [1983]). Although in the Marcia or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such
case (supra), it was held that no independent civil action may be filed under defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of
Article 33 where the crime is the result of criminal negligence, it must be the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may
noted however, that Torzuela, the accused in the case at bar, is charged maintain an action for recovery of damages (Del Bros Hotel Corporation v.
with homicide, not with reckless imprudence, whereas the defendant CA, 210 SCRA 33 [1992]); Development Bank of the Philippines v.
in Marcia was charged with reckless imprudence. Therefore, in this case, Pundogar, 218 SCRA 118 [1993])
a civil action based on Article 33 lies.
This Court finds, under the foregoing premises, that the complaint
Private respondents also contend that their liability is subsidiary under sufficiently alleged an actionable breach on the part of the defendant
the Revised Penal Code; and that they are not liable for Torzuela's act Torzuela and respondents SUPERGUARD and/or SAFEGUARD. It is
which is beyond the scope of his duties as a security guard. It having been enough that the complaint alleged that Benigno Torzuela shot Napoleon
established that the instant action is not ex-delicto, petitioners may Dulay resulting in the latter's death; that the shooting occurred while
proceed directly against Torzuela and the private respondents. Under Torzuela was on duty; and that either SUPERGUARD and/or
Article 2180 of the New Civil Code as aforequoted, when an injury is caused SAFEGUARD was Torzuela's employer and responsible for his acts. This
by the negligence of the employee, there instantly arises a presumption of does not operate however, to establish that the defendants below are liable.
law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either Whether or not the shooting was actually reckless and wanton or attended
in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after by negligence and whether it was actually done within the scope of
selection or both (Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 167 SCRA 363 Torzuela's duties; whether the private respondents SUPERGUARD and/or
Andrei Da Jose | Page 5|6
6 Torts and Damages | Atty. Marianne Beltran-Angeles
SO ORDERED.