Kug AU
Kug AU
Kug AU
HELD:
NO. In the instant case the criminal action against
defendant Luat did not proceed to trial, as he
pleaded guilty upon arraignment. The mere
appearance of private counsel in representation of
the offended party did not constitute such active
intervention as could only import an intention to
press a claim for damages in the same action. It is
as reasonable to indulge the possibility that the
private prosecutors appeared precisely to be able
to make a seasonable reservation of the right to file
a separate civil action which, even if unnecessary
at the time would nevertheless have been the
prudent and practical thing to do for the purpose of
better protecting the interest of their clients. But as
matters turned out, the accused pleaded guilty
upon arraignment and was immediately sentenced.
Thereafter there was no chance to enter such a
reservation in the record.
We do not believe that plaintiffs' substantive right to
claim damages should necessarily be foreclosed by
the fact at best equivocal as to its purpose that
private prosecutors entered their appearance at the
very inception of the proceeding, which was then
cut short at that stage. It cannot be said with any
reasonable certainty that plaintiffs had thereby
committed themselves to the submission of their
action for damages in that action. The rule laid
3) Castillo v. CA
(**J.C.Sangco)
In the case of Castillo vs. Court of Appeals, this
Court held that a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a
separate legal institution under the Civil Code with
a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is
entirely apart and independent from a delict or
crime a distinction exists between the civil
liability arising from a crime and the responsibility
for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual. The
same negligence causing damages may produce
civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal
Code, or create an action for quasi-delicts or culpa
extra-contractual under the Civil Code. Therefore,
the acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is
entirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless, of
course, in the event of an acquittal where the court
has declared that the fact from which the civil
action arose did not exist, in which case the
extinction of the criminal liability would carry with it
the extinction of the civil liability.
Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari
where petitioners seek for the renewal of the Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------(**full-text)
FERNAN, C.J.:
In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners
seek the reversal of the February 13, 1978 decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 52567-R,
entitled "Bernabe Castillo, et al. v. Juanita Rosario,
et al," affirming the dismissal by the Court of First
Instance of Manila of the complaint for damages
filed by petitioners against private respondents.
Said dismissal was decreed on the basis of the
evidence before the trial court as well as the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.
07684-CR, entitled "People v. Juanito Rosario."
Hence,
the
present
petition
for
review
8
on certiorari. The petitioners-appellants raise in
issue before Us the following questions, to wit:
1) Is the decision of the Court of Appeals, where its
dispositive part, or "fallo", states that the guilt of the
(appellant) accused was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt final and conclusive, on an action
for damages based on quasi-delict?;
2) Are the testimonies given in a criminal case,
without strict compliance with Section 41 Rule 130
and without opportunity to cross examine the
witnesses who made these testimonies, admissible
evidence in a subsequent case and can be the
basis of a valid decision?;
3) Is an action for damages based on quasi-delict
barred by a decision of the appellate court
acquitting the accused, the body of which lays the
blame on the plaintiff but in its dispositive part,
declares the guilt of the accused not proved beyond
reasonable doubt ? 9
The main thrust of this petition for review which
stems from a cause of action based on quasi-delict
or culpa aquiliana (being a recovery for damages
arising from the vehicular accident), is that
petitioners were deprived of due process because
their civil action was decided on the basis of private
respondent Juanita Rosario's acquittal in the
criminal case for reckless imprudence.
There is no dispute that the subject action for
damages, being civil in nature, is separate and
distinct from the criminal aspect, necessitating only
a preponderance of evidence. According to a
number of cases, 10 a quasi-delict or culpa
aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the
Civil Code, with a substantively all its own, and
individuality that is entirely apart and independent
from a delict or crime. A distinction exists between
the civil liability arising from a crime and the
responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extracontractual. The same negligence causing
damages may produce civil liability arising from a
crime under the Penal Code, or create an action for
quasidelictos or culpa extra-contractual under the
Civil Code. Therefore, the acquittal or conviction in
the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil
case. 11
4) Azucena v. Potenciano
(**J. Cesar Sangco)
In Azucena vs. Potenciano, the Court declared that
in quasi-delicts, (t)he civil action is entirely
independent of the criminal case according to
Articles 33 and 2177 of the Civil Code. There can
be no logical conclusion than this, for to
subordinate the civil action contemplated in the said
articles to the result of the criminal prosecution
whether it be conviction or acquittal would
render meaningless the independent character of
the civil action and the clear injunction in Article 31,
that his action may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of
the latter.
If the civil action for damages based on quasi-delict
is entirely independent of the criminal case and
may proceed regardless of the result of the latter,
what justification is there for the provision in Sec 1,
Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure
mandating the implied institution of such civil action
with the criminal case and requiring that the right to
institute it separately be reserved in violation of that
provision of law? The Court may thus ignore
substantive provisions of law, but such violation
does not become lawful because it did so for that
would be vesting in itself legistlative power to
repeal or modify existing laws.
-----------------------------------------------------------------(**full-text)
G.R. No. L-14028
NEMESIO
AZUCENA, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
SEVERINO
POTENCIANO
AND
LAGUNA
TRANSPORTATION CO., defendants-appellees.
SO ORDERED.
MAKALINTAL, J.:
5) People v. Ligon