CASE DIGEST- 3 CASUPANAN et al, VS. LAROYA for the same act or omission.

for the same act or omission. The first a criminal case where the civil action
to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted, and the other a civil
[G.R. No. 145391. August 26, 2002] case for quasi-delict – without violating the rule on non-forum shopping.
The two cases can proceed simultaneously and independently of each
other.
AVELINO CASUPANAN and ROBERTO CAPITULO, petitioners, vs. MARIO
LLAVORE LAROYA, respondent.
Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act
or omission he is accused of in the criminal case.
CARPIO, J.:

To disallow the accused from filing a separate civil action for quasi-delict,
while refusing to recognize his counterclaim in the criminal case, is to deny
FACTS him due process of law, access to the courts, and equal protection of the
law.
The two vehicle, driven by the respondent Laroya and the petitioner
Capitulo and Avelino had an accident. As a result two cases were filed with
Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Casupanan
the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Laroya filed a criminal case against
and Capitulo is proper. The order of dismissal on the ground of forum-
Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. On the
shopping is erroneous.
other hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for
quasi-delict.

ISSUE

Whether an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can

validly file, simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action for
quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case.

RULING

Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent civil action in
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with
the criminal action but may be filed separately by the offended party even
without reservation. Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits