RULE 111

Amado Nicomedes and Albert Taguines, petitioners,

vs.
Christer Ramos Aquino, respondent.

G.R. No. 145391 August 26, 2002

FACTS:
Two Cases were filed before the MCTC of Guiguinto Bulacan as a result of a vehicular
accident involving two vehicles, one driven by Christer Ramos Aquino and the other
owned by Albert Taguines and driven by Amado Nicomedes. Aquino filed a criminal case
against Amado Nicomedes for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property.
While on the other hand, Nicomedes and Taguines filed a civil case against Aquino for
quasi-delict. The criminal case was on its preliminary investigation stage when the civil
case was filed. Upon motion of Aquino on the ground of forum-shopping, the MCTC
dismissed the civil case. Nicomedes and Taguines filed Motion for Reconsideration
insisting that the civil case is a separate civil action which can proceed independently of
the criminal case. MCTC Denied the Motion. Nicomedes and Taguines filed a petition for
certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guiguinto, Bulacan and the RTC ruled
that the order of dismissal issued by the MCTC is a final order which disposes of the case
and therefore, the proper remedy should have been an appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not 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

HELD: YES

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. The commencement
of the criminal action does not suspend the prosecution of the independent civil action
under these articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in Section 2 of the present Rule
111 refers only to the civil action arising from the crime, if such civil action is reserved or
filed before the commencement of the criminal action.

Aquino filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property
based on the Revised Penal Code while Nicomedes and Taguines filed the civil action for
damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code. These two actions arose from the same
act or omission but have different causes of action. The first a criminal case where the
civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted, and the other a civil
case for quasi-delict—without violating the rule on non-forum shopping. The two cases
can proceed simultaneously and independently of each other and the civil action requires
only preponderance of evidence. What is prohibited is for a party to recover damages
twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action as clearly stated in
Section 3 Rule 111.

The accused in the criminal case can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or
omission he is accused of in the said criminal case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph
6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which states that the counterclaim of the accused
"may be litigated in a separate civil action." This is only fair for two reasons. First, the
accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in the civil aspect that is deemed
instituted in the criminal case. The accused is therefore forced to litigate separately his
counterclaim against the offended party. If the accused does not file a separate civil action
for quasi-delict, the prescriptive period may set in since the period continues to run until
the civil action for quasi-delict is filed.

Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Nicomedes and Taguines
is proper. The order of dismissal by the MCTC of the Civil Case on the ground of forum-
shopping is erroneous.