EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4160. July 29, 1952.]

ANITA TAN , plaintiff-appellant, vs. STANDARD VACUUM OIL

CO., JULITO STO. DOMINGO, IGMIDIO RICO, and RURAL
TRANSIT CO., defendants-appellees.

Alberto R. de Joya for appellant.

Ross, Selph, Carrascoso & Janda for appellees Standard Vacuum Oil
Company, Sto. Domingo and Rico.
Arnaldo J. Guzman for appellee Rural Transit Co.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; CIVIL ACTIONS ARISING FROM OFFENSES.

— Rule 107, section 1(d) means that the acquittal of the accused from the
criminal charge will not necessarily extinguish the civil liability unless the
court declares in the judgment that the fact from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist. Where the court states "that the evidence throws
no light on the cause of fire and that it was an unfortunate accident for
which the accused cannot be held responsible," this declaration fits well into
the exception of the rule which exempts the accused, from civil liability.
2. ID.; ID.; RES JUDICATA. — The principle of res judicata cannot
apply to the employer of the accused driver for the simple reason that it was
not included as co-accused in the criminal case. It cannot therefore enjoy
the benefit resulting from the acquittal of the driver. This benefit can be
claimed by the latter, if a subsequent action is later taken against him under
the Revised Penal Code. And this action can only be maintained if proper
reservation is made and there is no express declaration that the basis of the
civil action has not existed. The case against the employer should not be
dismissed, more so when its civil liability is predicated on facts other than
those attributed to the driver in the criminal case.
3. ID.; ID.; NEED FOR RESERVATION OF A CIVIL ACTION; CULPA
AQUILIANA. — There is no need for the owner of the burned house to make a
reservation of her right to file a separate civil action inasmuch as the civil
action contemplated is not derived from the criminal liability but one based
on culpa aquiliana under the old Civil Code. (Arts. 1902 to 1910). Parker vs.
Panlilio, supra, p. 1.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CIVIL ACTION BASED ON PREVENTION OF A GREATER
HARM. — Where the damage caused to the plaintiff's house was brought
about mainly because of the driver's desire to avoid a greater evil or harm,
and where the defendant company is one of those for whose benefit a
greater harm has been prevented, the case comes within the purview of
article 101, Rule 2, of the revised Penal Code. The acquittal of the driver
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 cannot, therefore, be deemed a bar to a civil action against this company
because its civil liability is completely divorced from the criminal liability of
the accused. And the rule regarding reservation of the right to file a separate
civil action does not apply to it.

DECISION

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J : p

Anita Tan is the owner of a house of strong materials located in the

City of Manila, Philippines. On May 3, 1949, the Standard Vacuum Oil
Company ordered the delivery to the Rural Transit Company at its garage at
Rizal Avenue Extension, City of Manila, of 1,925 gallons of gasoline using a
gasoline tank-truck trailer. The truck was driven by Julito Sto. Domingo, who
was helped by Igmidio Rico. While the gasoline was being discharged to the
underground tank, it caught fire, whereupon Julito Sto. Domingo drove the
truck across the Rizal Avenue Extension and upon reaching the middle of the
street he abandoned the truck which continued moving to the opposite side
of the street causing the buildings on that side to be burned and destroyed.
The house of Anita Tan was among those destroyed and for its repair she
spent P12,000.
As an aftermath of the fire, Julito Sto. Domingo and Igmidio Rico were
charged with arson through reckless imprudence in the Court of First
Instance of Manila where, after trial, both were acquitted, the court holding
that their negligence was not proven and the fire was due to an unfortunate
accident.
Anita Tan then brought this action against the Standard Vacuum Oil
Company and the Rural Transit Company, including the two employees,
seeking to recover the damages she has suffered for the destruction of her
house.
Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss alleging in substance that
(a) plaintiff's action is barred by a prior judgment and (b) plaintiff's
complaint states no cause of action; and this motion having been sustained,
plaintiff elevated the case to this Court imputing eight errors to the court a
quo.
The record discloses that the lower court dismissed this case in view of
the acquittal of the two employees of defendant Standard Vacuum Oil
Company who were charged with arson through reckless imprudence in the
Court of First Instance of Manila. In concluding that the accused were not
guilty of the acts charged because the fire was accidental, the court made
the following findings: "the accused Igmidio Rico cannot in any manner be
held responsible for the fire to the three houses and goods therein above
mentioned. He was not the cause of it, and he took all the necessary
precautions against such contingency as he was confronted with. The
evidence throws no light on the cause of the fire. The witnesses for the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 prosecution and for the defense testified that they did not know what caused
the fire. It was an unfortunate accident for which the accused Igmidio Rico
cannot be held responsible." And a similar finding was made with respect to
the other accused Julito Sto. Domingo. The record also discloses that the
information filed against the accused by the Fiscal contains an itemized
statement of the damages suffered by the victims, including the one
suffered by Anita Tan, thereby indicating the intention of the prosecution to
demand indemnity from the accused in the same action, but that
notwithstanding this statement with respect to damages, Anita Tan did not
make any reservation of her right to file a separate civil action against the
accused as required by the Rules of Court Rule 107, section 1-(a). As Anita
Tan failed to make reservation, and the accused were acquitted, the lower
court ruled that she is now barred from filing this action against the
defendants.
This ruling in so far as defendants Julito Sto. Domingo and Igmidio Rico
are concerned is correct. The rule is that "extinction of the penal action does
not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a
declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise
did not exist" (Rule 107, section 1-d, Rules of Court). This provision means
that the acquittal of the accused from the criminal charge will not necessarily
extinguish the civil liability unless the court declares in the judgment that
the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Here it is true
that Julito Sto. Domingo and Igmidio Rico were acquitted, the court holding
that they were not responsible for the fire that destroyed the house of the
plaintiff, — which as a rule will not necessarily extinguish their civil liability,
— but the court went further by stating that the evidence throws no light on
the cause of fire and that it was an unfortunate accident for which the
accused cannot be held responsible. In our opinion, this declaration fits well
into the exception of the rule which exempts the two accused from civil
liability. When the court acquitted the accused because the fire was due to
an unfortunate accident it actually said that the fire was due to a fortuitous
event for which the accused are not to blame. It actually exonerated them
from civil liability.
But the case takes on a different aspect with respect to the other
defendants. For one thing, the principle of res judicata cannot apply to them
for the simple reason that they were not included as co-accused in the
criminal case. Not having been included in the criminal case they cannot
enjoy the benefit resulting from the acquittal of the accused. This benefit can
only be claimed by the accused if a subsequent action is later taken against
them under the Revised Penal Code. And this action can only be maintained
if proper reservation is made and there is no express declaration that the
basis of the civil action has not existed. It is, therefore, an error for the lower
court to dismiss the case against these two defendants more so when their
civil liability is predicated on facts other than those attributed to the two
employees in the criminal case.
Take, for instance, the case of the Standard Vacuum Oil Company. This
company is sued not precisely because of supposed negligent acts of its two
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 employees Julito Sto. Domingo and Igmidio Rico but because of acts of its
own which might have contributed to the fire that destroyed the house of
the plaintiff. The complaint contains definite allegations of negligent acts
properly attributable to the company which if proven and not refuted may
serve as basis of its civil liability. Thus, in paragraph 5 of the first cause of
action, it is expressly alleged that this company, through its employees,
failed to take the necessary precautions or measures to insure safety and
avoid harm to person and damage to property as well as to observe that
degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly
demanded, thereby causing the gasoline they were unloading to catch fire.
The precautions or measures which this company has allegedly failed to take
to prevent fire are not clearly stated, but they are matters of evidence which
need not now be determined. Suffice it to say that such allegation furnishes
enough basis for a cause of action against this company. There is no need
for the plaintiff to make a reservation of her right to file a separate civil
action, for as this court already held in a number of cases, such reservation
is not necessary when the civil action contemplated is not derived from the
criminal liability but one based on culpa aquiliana under the old Civil Code
(articles 1902 to 1910). These two acts are separate and distinct and should
not be confused one with the other. Plaintiff can choose either (Asuncion
Parker vs. Hon. A. J. Panlilio supra, p. 1.).

The case of the Rural Transit Co. is even more different as it is

predicated on a special provision of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, article
101, Rule 2, of said Code provides:
"Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases . —
The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3,
5 and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does
not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced
subject to the following rules:
xxx xxx xxx
"Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the
persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly
liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.".
And on this point, the complaint contains the following averments:
"3. That after the corresponding trial the said defendants
were acquitted and defendant Julito Sto. Domingo was acquitted, on
the ground that he so acted causing damage to another in order to
avoid a greater evil or injury, under article 11, paragraph 4 of the
Revised Penal Code, as shown by the pertinent portion of the decision
of this Honorable Court in said case, dated October 28, 1949, which
reads as follows:
'Under the foregoing facts, there can be no doubt that had the
accused Julito Sto. Domingo not taken the gasoline tank-truck trailer
out in the street, a bigger conflagration would have occurred in Rizal
Avenue Extension, and, perhaps, there might have been several deaths
and bearing in mind the provisions of Article 11, paragraph 4 of the
Revised Penal Code the accused Julito Sto. Domingo incurred no
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 criminal liability.'
"4. That it was consequently the defendant Rural Transit Co.,
from whose premises the burning gasoline tank-truck trailer was driven
out by defendant Julito Sto. Domingo in order to avoid a greater evil or
injury, for whose benefit the harm has been prevented under article
101, second subsection of the Revised Penal Code."
Considering the above quoted law and facts, the cause of action
against the Rural Transit Company can hardly be disputed, it appearing that
the damage caused to the plaintiff was brought about mainly because of the
desire of driver Julito Sto. Domingo to avoid greater evil or harm, which
would have been the case had he not brought the tank-truck trailer to the
middle of the street, for then the fire would have caused the explosion of the
gasoline deposit of the company which would have resulted in a
conflagration of much greater proportion and consequences to the houses
nearby or surrounding it. It cannot be denied that this company is one of
those for whose benefit a greater harm has been prevented, and as such it
comes within the purview of said penal provision. The acquittal of the
accused cannot, therefore, be deemed a bar to a civil action against this
company because its civil liability is completely divorced from the criminal
liability of the accused. The rule regarding reservation of the right to file a
separate civil action does not apply to it.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby modified as follows: it is
affirmed with regard to defendants Julito Sto. Domingo and Igmidio Rico; but
it is reversed with regard to defendants Standard Vacuum Oil Company and
Rural Transit Company, with costs.
Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason and Labrador, JJ., concur.
Paras, C.J., concurs in the result.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com