G.R. No.

L-37733 September 30, 1982 performance of this particular duty, he is supposed to exercise care and prudence,
and with utmost diligence, observe the policies, rules and regulations of the bank.
ALMARIO T. SALTA, petitioner,
vs. In disregard of the pertinent rules, regulations and policies of the respondent bank,
HON. JUDGE JESUS DE VEYRA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the CFI petitioner indiscriminately granted certain loans mentioned in the complaints filed by
of Manila, Branch XIV and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, respondents. PNB, in a manner characterized by negligence, fraud and manifest partiality, and
upon securities not commensurate with the amount of the loans. This is how the
G.R. No. L-38035 September 30, 1982 respondent bank found petitioner to have discharged his duties as branch manager of
the bank, and so it filed a civil action in the CFI of Manila (Civil Case No. 79583,
Branch XIV) on April 22, 1970, and another case (Civil Case No. 88343, Branch VII)
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, on September 23, 1972, to recover losses the bank suffered. At the same time the
vs. bank caused to be filed, based on the same acts, a criminal case with the Circuit
HON. AMANTE P. PURISIMA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Criminal Court of the Fifth Judicial District at San Fernando, Pampanga, Criminal
Branch VII and ALMARIO SALTA, respondents. Case No. CCCV-668, for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Dakila F. Castro & Associates for petitioner. In the criminal case, the Court, on motion to dismiss filed by the defense, after the
prosecution has rested, granted the motion in a 64-page Resolution, the dispositive
Nestor L. Kalaw, Edgardo M. Magtalas and Juan C. Gatmaitan for respondents, portion of which reads:

CONFORMABLY WITH ALL THE FOREGOING, therefore, the

Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer) to Evidence) should be as it is hereby
DE CASTRO, J.: granted and accused ALMARIO T. SALTA ACQUITTED of the
offense charged in the Information the prosecution having failed to
prove the essential ingredience and/or elements of the crime
In these two cases, the only issue to be resolved is whether a decision of acquittal in charged,. with costs de oficio. 1
a criminal case operates to dismiss a separate civil action filed on the basis of the
same facts as alleged in the criminal case, which is for violation of Republic Act No.
3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. With his acquittal in the criminal case, petitioner filed Motions to Dismiss in each of
the two civil cases, based on Section 3(c), Rule I I I of the Revised Rules of Court
which provides:
The petitioner, Almario T. Salta, in G.R. No. L-37733, takes the affirmative stand on
the issue as above indicated, as he made manifest in his motion to dismiss Civil Case
No. 79583, of the CFI of Manila, Branch XIV, which was, however, denied by Hon. (c) extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of
Jesus de Veyra, presiding. In a similar motion, aforementioned petitioner sought to the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final
dismiss another civil case (Civil Case No. 88343), pending before Branch VII of the judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
... 2
same CFI of Manila, presided over by Hon. Amante Purisima who granted the motion
to dismiss.
It is in the resolution of the motions to dismiss that Judges de Veyra and Purisima of
We have, therefore, the unedifying spectacle of two cases involving the same issue the CFI of Manila took diametrically opposing views, the former denying the motion,
disposed of by two judges in a manner directly in opposition of each other. For a the latter granting it.
uniform ruling that would authoritatively settle this regrettable conflict of opinion, the
two cases have been consolidated for a single decision. For purposes of We sustain the order denying the motion to dismiss as issued by Judge de Veyra,
convenience, however, although the petitioner in G.R. No. L-37733, Almario T. Salta, which, for its brevity, but clear and convincing, We quote as follows:
is the private respondent in the other case, G.R. No. L-38035, in which the petitioner
is the Philippine National Bank, We shall refer in this decision to Salta as "petitioner," Having been acquitted by the Circuit Court of the charges of
and the PNB, as respondent bank." violation of the Anti-Graft Law, Defendant now seeks the dismissal
of the civil case which arose from the same set of facts. The motion
Petitioner was an employee of the PNB assigned as Manager of the Malolos' branch. to dismiss must be denied for the reason that acquittal in the
As such, his duty was, among others, to himself grant loans, or only to recommend criminal case will not be an obstacle for the civil case to prosper
the granting of loans, depending on the amount of the loan applied for. In the unless in the criminal case the Court makes a finding that even
civilly the accused would not be liable-there is no such a finding.
 Apart from this, Plaintiff in this present civil case bases its case If petitioner's civil liability is, as alleged in the complaint, based on negligence, apart
either on fraud or negligence-evidence that only requires a from the averment of fraud, then on the strength of the aforesaid ruling, the civil action
preponderance, unlike beyond reasonable doubt which is the can be maintained regardless of the outcome of the criminal action.
requisite in criminal cases.
The opinion of former Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Dionisio vs. Alvendia 9 is not only
The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied for lack of merit. 3 enlightening, but authoritative. Thus —

To begin with, the filing in this case of a civil action separate from the criminal action . . . in the case of an independent civil actions under the Civil Code,
is fully warranted under the provision of Article 33 of the New Civil Code. 4 The the result of the criminal case, whether acquittal or conviction,
criminal case is for the prosecution of an offense the main element of which is fraud, would be entirety irrelevant to the civil action. This seems to be the
one of the kinds of crime mentioned in the aforecited provision. Based on the same spirit of the law when it decided to make these actions 'entirely
acts for which the criminal action was filed, the civil actions very clearly alleged fraud separate and distinct' from the criminal action (Articles 22, 33, 34
and negligence as having given rise to the cause of action averred in the complaints. and 2177). Hence in these cases, I think Rule 107 Sec. l(d) does
It needs hardly any showing to demonstrate this fact, which petitioner disputes, not apply. 10
particularly as to the sufficiency of the allegation of fraud in the civil complaints.
Definitely, We hold that the following allegation in the complaints unmistakably shows It is significant to note that under Article 31 11 of the New Civil Code, it is made clear
that the complaints do contain sufficient averment of fraud: that the civil action permitted therein to be filed separately from the criminal action
may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings "regardless of the result of
13. That there was fraud committed by the defendant in granting the latter." It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that the civil actions mentioned
the aforesaid loans which rendered him liable for his acts, which in Article 33, permitted in the same manner to be filed separately from the criminal
fraud is positively and easily Identifiable in the manner and scheme case, may proceed similarly regardless of the result of the criminal case.
aforementioned. 5
Indeed, when the law has allowed a civil case related to a criminal case, to be filed
That there is allegation of negligence is also unmistakably shown when the complaint separately and to proceed independently even during the pendency of the latter case,
states that "the defendant as manager of Malolos Branch, in gross violation of the the intention is patent to make the court's disposition of the criminal case of no effect
bank rules and regulations, and without exercising necessary prudence, ... extended whatsoever on the separate civil case. This must be so because the offenses
a number of credit accommodations . . ." 6 On this allegation of negligence alone, the specified in Article 33 are of such a nature, unlike other offenses not mentioned, that
civil case may be maintained as an entirely independent action from the criminal they may be made the subject of a separate civil action because of the distinct
case. Consequently, Section 3(c), Rule III of the Revised Rules of Court has no separability of their respective juridical cause or basis of action. This is clearly
application thereto. illustrated in the case of swindling, a specie of an offense committed by means of
fraud, where the civil case may be filed separately and proceed independently of the
The ruling in the case of PNB vs. Bagamaspad, 7 involving the same respondent criminal case, regardless of the result of the latter.
herein, and also against its branch manager, unherringly charts the course to be
followed in the final resolution of these cases. Thus - The wisdom of the provision of Article 33 of the New Civil Code is to be found in the
fact that when the civil action is reserved to be filed separately, the criminal case is
The trial court based in the civil liability the appellants herein on the prosecuted by the prosecuting officer alone without intervention from a private
provisions of Article 1718 and 1719 of the Civil Code, defining and counsel representing the interest of the offended party. It is but just that when, as in
enumerating the duties and obligations of an agent and his liability the present instance, the prosecution of the criminal case is left to the government
for failure to comply with such duty.. . . A careful study and prosecutor to undertake, any mistake or mishanding of the case committed by the
consideration of the record, however, convinces us and we agree latter should not work to the prejudice of the offended party whose interest would thus
with the trial court that the defendants-appellants have not only be protected by the measure contemplated by Article 33 and Article 2177 12 of the
violated instructions of the plaintiff Bank, including things which the New Civil Code.
bank wanted done or not done, all of which were fully understood
by them but they (appellants) also violated standing regulations Prescinding from the foregoing, it should be stated with emphasis, for its decisive
regarding the granting of loans; and what is more, thru their effect on how the issue raised in this case should be disposed of, that in no manner
carelessness, laxity and negligence, they allowed bans to be may the resolution of the Circuit Criminal Court be read as positively stating that the
granted to persons who were not entitled to secure loans. 8 fact from which the civil action might arise did not exist, as required in the provision
relied upon by petitioner, Section 3(c), Rule III of the Revised Rules of Court. As
Judge de Veyra put it, "acquittal in the criminal case will not be an obstacle for the
civil case to prosper unless in the criminal case the Court makes a finding that even
civilly, the accused would not be liable-there is no such finding." There, indeed, could
not be such finding because the criminal court, aware that the civil case is not before
it, would be acting in excess of jurisdiction if it were to make any pronouncement in
effect disposing of a case pending before another court, over which it had not
acquired jurisdiction. Even if this were authorized by the Rules of Court, the validity of
such rule would be open to serious doubt as it would be affecting a matter of
jurisdiction, which is substantive in character, considering the constitutional limitation
of the rule-making power of the Supreme Court, that said rules should not increase or
diminish substantive rights.

WHEREFORE, the order denying the motion to dismiss issued in Civil Case No.
79583 of the Court of First Instance of Manila (G. R. No. L-37733) is affirmed, while
the order granting a similar motion in Civil Case No. 88343 of the same court (G. R.
No. L-38035) is reversed. Let the records of these two (2) cases be remanded to their
respective courts of origin for proper further proceedings. No costs.

SO ORDERED.
AVELINO CASUPANAN and ROBERTO CAPITULO, petitioners, vs. MARIO action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Finally, the Capas RTC declared
LLAVORE LAROYA, respondent. that even on the premise that the MCTC erred in dismissing the civil case, such error
is a pure error of judgment and not an abuse of discretion.
DECISION Casupanan and Capitulo filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the Capas RTC
CARPIO, J.: denied the same in the Resolution of August 24, 2000.
Hence, this petition.

The Case
The Issue

This is a petition for review on certiorari to set aside the Resolution [1] dated
December 28, 1999 dismissing the petition for certiorari and the Resolution [2] dated The petition premises the legal issue in this wise:
August 24, 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration, both issued by the Regional
Trial Court of Capas, Tarlac, Branch 66, in Special Civil Action No. 17-C (99).
In a certain vehicular accident involving two parties, each one of them may think and
believe that the accident was caused by the fault of the other. x x x [T]he first party,
believing himself to be the aggrieved party, opted to file a criminal case for reckless
The Facts imprudence against the second party. On the other hand, the second party, together
with his operator, believing themselves to be the real aggrieved parties, opted in turn
to file a civil case for quasi-delict against the first party who is the very private
Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Mario Llavore Laroya (Laroya for brevity) complainant in the criminal case.[4]
and the other owned by petitioner Roberto Capitulo (Capitulo for brevity) and driven by
petitioner Avelino Casupanan (Casupanan for brevity), figured in an accident. As a Thus, the issue raised is whether an accused in a pending criminal case for
result, two cases were filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC for brevity) of reckless imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and independently, a separate civil
Capas, Tarlac. Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case.
resulting in damage to property, docketed as Criminal Case No. 002-99. On the other
hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict,
docketed as Civil Case No. 2089.
The Courts Ruling
When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was then at its preliminary
investigation stage. Laroya, defendant in the civil case, filed a motion to dismiss the
civil case on the ground of forum-shopping considering the pendency of the criminal Casupanan and Capitulo assert that Civil Case No. 2089, which the MCTC
case. The MCTC granted the motion in the Order of March 26, 1999 and dismissed the dismissed on the ground of forum-shopping, constitutes a counterclaim in the criminal
civil case. case. Casupanan and Capitulo argue that if the accused in a criminal case has a
On Motion for Reconsideration, Casupanan and Capitulo insisted that the civil counterclaim against the private complainant, he may file the counterclaim in a
case is a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal case. separate civil action at the proper time. They contend that an action on quasi-delict is
The MCTC denied the motion for reconsideration in the Order of May 7, different from an action resulting from the crime of reckless imprudence, and an
1999. Casupanan and Capitulo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the accused in a criminal case can be an aggrieved party in a civil case arising from the
Regional Trial Court (Capas RTC for brevity) of Capas, Tarlac, Branch 66, [3] assailing same incident. They maintain that under Articles 31 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the
the MCTCs Order of dismissal. civil case can proceed independently of the criminal action. Finally, they point out that
Casupanan was not the only one who filed the independent civil action based on quasi-
delict but also Capitulo, the owner-operator of the vehicle, who was not a party in the
criminal case.
The Trial Courts Ruling
In his Comment, Laroya claims that the petition is fatally defective as it does not
state the real antecedents. Laroya further alleges that Casupanan and Capitulo
forfeited their right to question the order of dismissal when they failed to avail of the
The Capas RTC rendered judgment on December 28, 1999 dismissing the
proper remedy of appeal. Laroya argues that there is no question of law to be resolved
petition for certiorari for lack of merit. The Capas RTC ruled that the order of dismissal
as the order of dismissal is already final and a petition for certiorari is not a substitute
issued by the MCTC is a final order which disposes of the case and therefore the proper
for a lapsed appeal.
remedy should have been an appeal. The Capas RTC further held that a special civil
 In their Reply, Casupanan and Capitulo contend that the petition raises the legal negligence of another. Either the private complainant or the accused can file a separate
question of whether there is forum-shopping since they filed only one action - the civil action under these articles. There is nothing in the law or rules that state only the
independent civil action for quasi-delict against Laroya. private complainant in a criminal case may invoke these articles.
Nature of the Order of Dismissal Moreover, paragraph 6, Section 1, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure (2000 Rules for brevity) expressly requires the accused to litigate his
The MCTC dismissed the civil action for quasi-delict on the ground of forum- counterclaim in a separate civil action, to wit:
shopping under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The MCTC did not
state in its order of dismissal[5] that the dismissal was with prejudice. Under the
Administrative Circular, the order of dismissal is without prejudice to refiling the SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) x x x.
complaint, unless the order of dismissal expressly states it is with prejudice. [6] Absent
a declaration that the dismissal is with prejudice, the same is deemed without No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in
prejudice. Thus, the MCTCs dismissal, being silent on the matter, is a dismissal without the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof
prejudice. may be litigated in a separate civil action. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 1 of Rule 41[7] provides that an order dismissing an action without
prejudice is not appealable. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a special civil Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal action to file his counterclaim
action under Rule 65.Section 1 of Rule 41 expressly states that where the judgment or in a separate civil action, there can be no forum-shopping if the accused files such
final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil separate civil action.
action under Rule 65. Clearly, the Capas RTCs order dismissing the petition for Filing of a separate civil action
certiorari, on the ground that the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal, is erroneous.
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (1985 Rules for
Forum-Shopping brevity), as amended in 1988, allowed the filing of a separate civil action independently
The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same of the criminal action provided the offended party reserved the right to file such civil
parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to secure action. Unless the offended party reserved the civil action before the presentation of
a favorable judgment.[8] Forum-shopping is present when in the two or more cases the evidence for the prosecution, all civil actions arising from the same act or omission
pending, there is identity of parties, rights of action and reliefs sought. [9] However, there were deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal case. These civil actions referred to
is no forum-shopping in the instant case because the law and the rules expressly allow the recovery of civil liability ex-delicto, the recovery of damages for quasi-delict, and
the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal the recovery of damages for violation of Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code on
action. Human Relations.

Laroya filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to Thus, to file a separate and independent civil action for quasi-delict under the
property based on the Revised Penal Code while Casupanan and Capitulo filed the 1985 Rules, the offended party had to reserve in the criminal action the right to bring
civil action for damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Although these two such action.Otherwise, such civil action was deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal
actions arose from the same act or omission, they have different causes of action. The action. Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules provided as follows:
criminal case is based on culpa criminal punishable under the Revised Penal Code
while the civil case is based on culpa aquiliana actionable under Articles 2176 and 2177 Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a criminal action is instituted,
of the Civil Code. These articles on culpa aquiliana read: the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal
action, unless the offended party waives the action, reserves his right to institute it
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
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 Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code,
is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. 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. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The institution of, or the
Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of reservation of the right to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the others.
the defendant.
The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shall be made before
Any aggrieved person can invoke these articles provided he proves, by the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the
preponderance of evidence, that he has suffered damage because of the fault or offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or Suspension of the Separate Civil Action
omission of the accused.
Under Section 2, Rule 111 of the amended 1985 Rules, a separate civil action, if
reserved in the criminal action, could not be filed until after final judgment was rendered
x x x. (Emphasis supplied) in the criminal action. If the separate civil action was filed before the commencement
of the criminal action, the civil action, if still pending, was suspended upon the filing of
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules was amended on December 1, 2000 and the criminal action until final judgment was rendered in the criminal action. This rule
now provides as follows: applied only to the separate civil action filed to recover liability ex-delicto. The rule did
not apply to independent civil actions based on Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) When a criminal action is Code, which could proceed independently regardless of the filing of the criminal action.
instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the The amended provision of Section 2, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules continues this
offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the procedure, to wit:
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
SEC. 2. When separate civil action is suspended. After the criminal action has been
commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before judgment has been entered in the criminal action.
the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the
offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been
instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found
xxx before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is
rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is
(b) x x x rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be
consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed
commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the
court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the offended party in the
proceed in accordance with section 2 of this rule governing consolidation of the civil criminal case and of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated
and criminal actions. (Emphasis supplied) criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly.

Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is deemed instituted with the During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period of prescription of
criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex- the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been
delicto. All the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code suspended shall be tolled.
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 x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
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 Thus, Section 2, Rule 111 of the present Rules did not change the rule that the separate
period on the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code continues to run civil action, filed to recover damages ex-delicto, is suspended upon the filing of the
even with the filing of the criminal action. Verily, the civil actions based on these articles criminal action.Section 2 of the present Rule 111 also prohibits the filing, after
of the Civil Code are separate, distinct and independent of the civil action deemed commencement of the criminal action, of a separate civil action to recover damages ex-
instituted in the criminal action.[10] delicto.
Under the present Rule 111, the offended party is still given the option to file a When civil action may proceed independently
separate civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto by reserving such right in the
criminal action before the prosecution presents its evidence. Also, the offended party The crucial question now is whether Casupanan and Capitulo, who are not the
is deemed to make such reservation if he files a separate civil action before filing the offended parties in the criminal case, can file a separate civil action against the offended
criminal action. If the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is filed separately but party in the criminal case. Section 3, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules provides as follows:
its trial has not yet commenced, the civil action may be consolidated with the criminal
action. The consolidation under this Rule does not apply to separate civil actions arising SEC 3. When civil action may proceed independently. - In the cases provided in
from the same act or omission filed under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil
Code.[11] action may be brought by the offendedparty. It shall proceed independently of the
criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or
however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission omission. The first a criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-
charged in the criminal action. (Emphasis supplied) delicto is deemed instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi-delict - without violating
the rule on non-forum shopping. The two cases can proceed simultaneously and
Section 3 of the present Rule 111, like its counterpart in the amended 1985 Rules, independently of each other. The commencement or prosecution of the criminal action
expressly allows the offended party to bring an independent civil action under Articles will not suspend the civil action for quasi-delict. The only limitation is that the offended
32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. As stated in Section 3 of the present Rule 111, party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. In
this civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only most cases, the offended party will have no reason to file a second civil action since he
a preponderance of evidence.In no case, however, may the offended party recover cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused. In some
damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. instances, the accused may be insolvent, necessitating the filing of another case
against his employer or guardians.
There is no question that the offended party in the criminal action can file an
independent civil action for quasi-delict against the accused. Section 3 of the present Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or
Rule 111 expressly states that the offended party may bring such an action but the omission he is accused of in the criminal case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph
offended party may not recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which states that the counterclaim of the
in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the offended party in the accused may be litigated in a separate civil action. This is only fair for two
criminal action, not to the accused. reasons. First, the accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in the civil
aspect that is deemed instituted in the criminal case. The accused is therefore forced
Casupanan and Capitulo, however, invoke the ruling in Cabaero vs. to litigate separately his counterclaim against the offended party. If the accused does
Cantos[12] where the Court held that the accused therein could validly institute a not file a separate civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptive period may set in since
separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal the period continues to run until the civil action for quasi-delict is filed.
case. In Cabaero, the accused in the criminal case filed his Answer with Counterclaim
for malicious prosecution. At that time the Court noted the absence of clear-cut rules Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to invoke Article
governing the prosecution on impliedly instituted civil actions and the necessary 2177 of the Civil Code, in the same way that the offended party can avail of this remedy
consequences and implications thereof. Thus, the Court ruled that the trial court which is independent of the criminal action. To disallow the accused from filing a
should confine itself to the criminal aspect of the case and disregard any counterclaim separate civil action for quasi-delict, while refusing to recognize his counterclaim in the
for civil liability. The Court further ruled that the accused may file a separate civil case criminal case, is to deny him due process of law, access to the courts, and equal
against the offended party after the criminal case is terminated and/or in accordance protection of the law.
with the new Rules which may be promulgated. The Court explained that a cross-claim, Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Casupanan and
counterclaim or third-party complaint on the civil aspect will only unnecessarily Capitulo is proper. The order of dismissal by the MCTC of Civil Case No. 2089 on the
complicate the proceedings and delay the resolution of the criminal case. ground of forum-shopping is erroneous.
Paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 was incorporated in the 2000 We make this ruling aware of the possibility that the decision of the trial court in
Rules precisely to address the lacuna mentioned in Cabaero. Under this provision, the the criminal case may vary with the decision of the trial court in the independent civil
accused is barred from filing a counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint in the action. This possibility has always been recognized ever since the Civil Code
criminal case. However, the same provision states that any cause of action which could introduced in 1950 the concept of an independent civil action under Articles 32, 33, 34
have been the subject (of the counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint) may and 2176 of the Code. But the law itself, in Article 31 of the Code, expressly provides
be litigated in a separate civil action. The present Rule 111 mandates the accused to that the independent civil action may proceed independently of the criminal
file his counterclaim in a separate civil action which shall proceed independently of the proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. In Azucena vs.
criminal action, even as the civil action of the offended party is litigated in the criminal Potenciano,[13] the Court declared:
action.
Conclusion x x x. There can indeed be no other logical conclusion than this, for to subordinate the
civil action contemplated in the said articles to the result of the criminal prosecution
Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent civil action in Articles whether it be conviction or acquittal would render meaningless the independent
32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal action character of the civil action and the clear injunction in Article 31 that this action 'may
but may be filed separately by the offended party even without reservation. The proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the
commencement of the criminal action does not suspend the prosecution of the latter.
independent civil action under these articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in
Section 2 of the present Rule 111 refers only to the civil action arising from the crime,
if such civil action is reserved or filed before the commencement of the criminal action. More than half a century has passed since the Civil Code introduced the concept
of a civil action separate and independent from the criminal action although arising from
the same act or omission. The Court, however, has yet to encounter a case of
conflicting and irreconcilable decisions of trial courts, one hearing the criminal case and
the other the civil action for quasi-delict. The fear of conflicting and irreconcilable
decisions may be more apparent than real. In any event, there are sufficient remedies
under the Rules of Court to deal with such remote possibilities.
One final point. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure took effect on
December 1, 2000 while the MCTC issued the order of dismissal on December 28,
1999 or before the amendment of the rules. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
must be given retroactive effect considering the well-settled rule that -

x x x statutes regulating the procedure of the court will be construed as applicable to

actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are
retroactive in that sense and to that extent.[14]

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The

Resolutions dated December 28, 1999 and August 24, 2000 in Special Civil Action No.
17-C (99) are ANNULLED and Civil Case No. 2089 is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.