ANDAMO vs. IAC

ANDAMO
vs. IAC
G.R. No. 74761. November 6, 1990
FACTS: 1. Petitioners: Natividad V. Andamo and Emmanuel R. Andamo
2. Respondents: Intermediate Appellate Court and Missionaries of our lady of la salette

Inc.
3. Action: Petitioners filed an action for damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ
of preliminary injunction against respondent Missionaries of our lady of la
salette Inc. in the RTC of Cavite, Branch 4 (Tagaytay City).
4. - Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette, Inc., a religious corporation, built through its
agents, waterpaths, water conductors and contrivances including an artificial lake
within its land
- Inundated and eroded the spouses Emmanuel and Natividad Andamo's land,
caused a young man to drown, damaged petitioners' crops and plants, washed
away costly fences, endangered the lives of petitioners and their laborers during
rainy and stormy seasons, and exposed plants and other improvements to
destruction
- Petitioners instituted a criminal action against respondent Missionaries of our lady

of la salette Inc. in the same court.
- Petitioner its answer to the complaint and opposition to the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction.
5. RTC: Suspending further hearings of the civil case until after judgment in the related
criminal case. Dismissed the civil case for lack of jurisdiction, as the criminal
case which was instituted ahead of the civil case was still unresolved. The
order was anchored on the provision of Section 3 (a), Rule III of the Rules of
Court which provides that "criminal and civil actions arising from the same
offense may be instituted separately, but after the criminal action has been
commenced the civil action cannot be instituted until final judgment has been
rendered in the criminal action."
6. CA: Affirmed the trial court’s order.
7. Contention of the Petitioner: That the trial court and the appellate court erred in
dismissing the civil case since it is predicated on a
quasi-delict.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court and the appellate court erred in dismissing the civil case
since it is predicated on a quasi delict.
HELD: Yes. While the property involved in the cited case belonged to the public domain and the
property subject of the instant case is privately owned, the fact remains that petitioners’
complaint sufficiently alleges that petitioners have sustained and will continue to
sustain damage due to the waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent
corporation. Indeed, the recitals of the complaint, the alleged presence of damage to
the petitioners, the act or omission of respondent corporation supposedly constituting
fault or negligence, and the causal connection between the act and the damage, with
no pre-existing contractual obligation between the parties make a clear case of a quasi-
delict or culpa aquiliana.
It must be stressed that the use of one’s property is not without limitations. Article 431
of the Civil Code provides that "the owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a
manner as to injure the rights of a third person." SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON
LAEDAS. Moreover, adjoining landowners have mutual and reciprocal duties which
require that each must use his own land in a reasonable manner so as not to infringe
upon the rights and interests of others. Although we recognize the right of an owner to
build structures on his land, such structures must be so constructed and maintained
using all reasonable care so that they cannot be dangerous to adjoining landowners
and can withstand the usual and expected forces of nature. If the structures cause
injury or damage to an adjoining landowner or a third person, the latter can claim
indemnification for the injury or damage suffered.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code imposes a civil liability on a person for damage caused
by his act or omission constituting fault or negligence, thus:
"Article 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 is governed by the provisions
of this chapter."
Article 2176, whenever it refers to "fault or negligence", covers not only

acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether
intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action
lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally
prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party
is not allowed, (if the tortfeasor is actually charged also criminally), to
recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality
only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two
cases vary.
The distinctness of quasi-delicts is shown in Article 2177 of the Civil Code, which
states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Article 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 Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the defendant."\
According to the Report of the Code Commission "the foregoing provision

though at first sight startling, is not so novel or extraordinary when we consider
the exact nature of criminal and civil negligence. The former is a violation of the
criminal law, while the latter is a distinct and independent negligence, which is a
"culpa aquiliana" or quasi-delict, of ancient origin, having always had its own
foundation and individuality, separate from criminal negligence. Such distinction
between criminal negligence and "culpa extra-contractual" or "cuasi-delito" has
been sustained by decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain . . ."
In the case of Castillo v. Court of Appeals, 15 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.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law
library
In Azucena v. Potenciano, 16 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."cralaw virtua1aw
libr

ANDAMO vs. IAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANDAMO vs. IAC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANDAMO vs. IAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANDAMO

G.R. No. 74761. November 6, 1990

FACTS: 1. Petitioners: Natividad V. Andamo and Emmanuel R. Andamo

2. Respondents: Intermediate Appellate Court and Missionaries of our lady of la salette

- Petitioners instituted a criminal action against respondent Missionaries of our lady

6. CA: Affirmed the trial court’s order.

"Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,

Article 2176, whenever it refers to "fault or negligence", covers not only

"Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding

According to the Report of the Code Commission "the foregoing provision

In Azucena v. Potenciano, 16 the Court declared that in quasi-delicts," (t)he

You might also like