Professional Documents
Culture Documents
L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador: - Second Division
L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador: - Second Division
*
G.R. No. 158995. September 26, 2006.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
171
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0fb777f16f4b4faf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/14
2/19/22, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503
172
GARCIA, J.:
_______________
173
2
(CA), as reiterated in its Resolution of July 10, 2003, in
CA-G.R. SP No. 67600, affirming an earlier Order of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 43,
which denied the petitioners’ motion to dismiss in Civil
Case No. 99-10845, an action for damages arising from a
vehicular accident thereat instituted by the herein private
respondents—the spouses Florentino Vallejera and
Theresa Vallejera—against the petitioners.
The antecedent facts may be briefly stated as follows:
On February 26, 1996, Charles Vallereja, a 7-year old
son of the spouses Florentino Vallejera and Theresa
Vallejera, was hit by a Ford Fiera van owned by the
petitioners and driven at the time by their employee,
Vincent Norman Yeneza y Ferrer. Charles died as a result
of the accident.
In time, an Information for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Homicide was filed against the driver before
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bacolod City,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 67787, entitled People of the
Philippines v. Vincent Norman Yeneza.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0fb777f16f4b4faf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/14
2/19/22, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503
_______________
2 Id., at p. 23.
3 Id., at pp. 93-98.
4 Id., at pp. 85-91.
174
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0fb777f16f4b4faf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/14
2/19/22, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503
_______________
175
8
In the herein assailed decision dated April 25, 2003, the
CA denied the petition and upheld the trial court. Partly
says the CA in its challenged issuance:
“x x x x x x x x x
It is clear that the complaint neither represents nor implies
that the responsibility charged was the petitioner’s subsidiary
liability under Art. 103, Revised Penal Code. As pointed out [by
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0fb777f16f4b4faf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/14
2/19/22, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503
_______________
8 Supra note 1.
9 Rollo, p. 23.
10 Article 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.
x x x x x x x x x
176
“x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0fb777f16f4b4faf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/14
2/19/22, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503
x x x x x x x x x
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage (1903a).
177
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0fb777f16f4b4faf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/14
2/19/22, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503
_______________
178
20
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0fb777f16f4b4faf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/14
2/19/22, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503
20
by penal laws subject to the provision of Article 2177 and
of the pertinent provision of Chapter 2,
_______________
179
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0fb777f16f4b4faf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/14
2/19/22, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503
_______________
arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. (n)
21 Section 3, Rule 6, 1997 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
22 Kapalaran Bus Lines v. Coronado, G.R. No. 85331, August 25, 1989,
176 SCRA 792.
23 Article 100, Revised Penal Code.
180
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0fb777f16f4b4faf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/14
2/19/22, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503
_______________
24 Supra note 4.
25 G.R. 104392, February 20, 1996, 253 SCRA 674.
181
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0fb777f16f4b4faf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/14
2/19/22, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503
the first place. And for the petitioners to insist for the
conviction of their driver as a condition sine qua non to
hold them liable for damages is to ask for the impossible.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is DENIED
for lack of merit.
Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Petition denied.
——o0o——
182
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0fb777f16f4b4faf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/14