Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Torts No. 3
Torts No. 3
David Tuazon
G.R. No. 141538
March 23, 2004
CARPIO, J.
Facts: A County Bus Lines passenger bus, owned
by Mrs. Cerezo and driven by Foronda, collided
with a tricycle driven by Tuazon. Because of this,
Tuazon filed a complaint for damages on the basis
of quasi-delict against Mrs. Cerezo and Foronda.
Summons were served to Mrs. Cerezo but not to
Foronda.
The trial court then rendered a decision finding
Mrs. Cerezo liable for damages. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence,
the current petition.
It is the contention of Mrs. Cerezo that the trial
court cannot validly render judgment as against
her because Foronda, an indispensable party, was
not served with summons. In addition, Tuazon has
failed to reserve his right to file a separate civil
action.
Issue: Whether or not the judgment of the trial
court is binding upon Mrs. Cerezo despite the
failure of Tuazon to reserve his right to file a
separate civil action.
Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the
judgment as against Mrs. Cerezo is valid and
binding because the civil case that was filed is
based on quasi-delict (Article 2176 of the Civil
Code) and therefore there is no more need to
reserve the right to file a separate civil action.
To clarify, the Court stated that the same
negligent act may give rise to a civil liability
arising from a delict under Article 103 of the RPC
or a quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code. The choice falls upon the petitioner which
of the two he would utilize to prosecute his claim.
If he chooses to file his claim under Article 2176,
then such case shall proceed independently of
the civil action.
It is also important to note that there is a
distinction between the civil liability ex delicto