Abellana v.

Marava [GR L-27760, 29 May 1974]

STATCON CASE

Second Division, Fernando (p): 4 concur, 1 concur based on paragraph 2 & 3 of opinio

Facts: Francisco Abellana was charged with the City Court of Ozamis City with the crime of
physical injuries through reckless imprudence in driving his cargo truck, hitting a motorized
pedicab resulting in injuries to its passengers, namely, Marcelo Lamason, Maria Gurrea,
Pacienciosa Flores, and Estelita Nemeo. Abellana was found guilty as charged, damages in favor
of the offended parties likewise being awarded.
Abellana appealed such decision to the CFI. At this stage, Lamason et.al. filed with another branch
of the CFI of Misamis Occidental a separate and independent civil action for damages allegedly
suffered by them from the reckless driving of Abellana. In such complaint, Crispin Abellana, the
alleged employer, was included as defendant. Both of them then sought the dismissal of such
action principally on the ground that there was no reservation for the filing thereof in the City Court
of Ozamis. It was argued by them that it was not allowable at the stage where the criminal case
was already on appeal. The judge in the latter CFI ordered on 28 April 1967 that the City Court
judgment is vacated and a trail de novo be conducted. He noted that the offended parties failed to
expressly waive the civil action or reserved their right to institute it separately in the City Court; but
which they filed in the CFI. In view of the waiver and reservation, the Court would be precluded
from judging civil damages against the accused and in favor of the offended parties. the motion to
dismiss is denied. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, the petition.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition with costs against petitioners.
1. Appeal of judgment in municipal trial court, new trial as if originally instituted in the CFI
The rule in the jurisdiction of the Court is that upon appeal by the defendant from a judgment of
conviction by the municipal court, the appealed decision is vacated and the appealed case shall be
tried in all respects anew in the CFI as if it had been originally instituted in that court (Section 7 of
Rule 123, People v. Jamisola). So it is in civil cases under Section 9 of Rule 40. An interpretation
that an independent civil action is barred absent a reservation under Section 1 of Rule 111 is a
non-sequitur, as the inference does not per se arise from the wordings of the rule and ignores what
is explicitly provided in Section 7, Rule 123.
2. A statute must not be construed in a manner giving rise to a constitutional doubt
A court is to avoid construing a statute or legal norm in such a manner as would give rise to a
constitutional doubt. The grant of power to the Court, both in the present Constitution and under
the 1935 Charter, does not extend to any diminution, increase or modification of substantive right.
Thus, substantive right cannot to be frittered away by a construction that could render it nugatory,
if through oversight, the offended parties failed at the initial stage to seek recovery for damages in
a civil suit. Article 33 of the Civil Code is quite clear when it provides that in cases of . physical
injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be
brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution,
and
shall
require
only
a
preponderance
of
evidence.
3. Assurance of parties justice according to law must not be ignored in the pursuit of
serving the interest of a client; Construction should be based on legal norm, not literalness
A counsel must not ignore the basic purpose of a litigation, which is to assure parties justice
according to law, in serving the interest of his client. He is not to fall prey to the vice of literalness.
The law as an instrument of social control will fail in its function if through an ingenious
construction sought to be fastened on a legal norm, particularly a procedural rule, there is placed
an impediment to a litigant being given an opportunity of vindicating an alleged right.