CASES Criminal case for reckless imprudence; separate civil case

CASE NO/DATE G.R. No. 129029; April 3, 2000

CASE TITLE Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation (Trailer Truck) v People and Rosario Dy (Pick-up)(for herself
and on behalf of 4 minors all surnamed Dy)
SUBJECTS 1. In negligence cases, the aggrieved party has the choice between (1) an action to enforce
civil liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the RPC; or (2) a separate action for
quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code1
2. In an action for quasi-delict under Article 2176, the liability of the employer for the
negligenct conduct of the employee is direct, primary, and solidary, being considered joint
torfeasors.

FACTS
1. While truck was loaded with 2,000 cases of empty beer bottles, it hit and bump a pick-up driven by Feliciano
Balcita and Francisco Dy, who both died.
3. Case Proceedings:
Criminal Case Civil Case
 In October 1989, the prosecutor filed Reckless Imprudence resulting  In November 1989, offended parties filed
to double homicide and damage a complaint for quasi-delict against the
 Made reservation to file a separate civil action driver and his employer trucking
 These cases were consolidated for a joint trial  Petitioner settled the claim of the heirs of
Balcita
 RTC 3 years later on a joint decision: found driver Romeo guilty
beyond reasonable doubt with mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender and
 ordered the driver to indemnify the heirs of Dy of P3M as
compensatory damages, P1M as moral damages and P1M as
funeral expenses
 In the civil case P84,000 for actual damages
 the trucking subsidiarilly liable
 CA: accused jumped bail so his case was dismissed
 CA: affirmed the RTC and MR was denied

4. While the cases were pending, the RTC of Pampanga attached 6 units of trucks at its garage. However, the CA
dissolved the writ.
5. Hence, this petition for review

ISSUE 1 Whether or not aggrieved party may file for a separate action for quasi delict.

RULING Yes. The same act or omission can create 2 kinds of liability on the part of the offender, civil liability ex
delicto and civil liability quasi delicto either of which may be enforced against the culprit subject to
the caveat under Article 2177 for double recovery of damages.

In the instant case, the offended parties elected to file a separate civil action for damages against
petitioner as employer of the accused, based on quasi delict. When private respondents in the
criminal case reserved the right to file the separate civil action, they waived other available civil
actions predicated on the same act or omission of the accused-driver. The rationale behind this is the
avoidance of multiple suits between the same litigants arising out of the same act or omission of the
offender.

ISSUE 2 Whether or not a quasi-delict can be instituted against the employer for an act or omission of the
employee.

RULING Yes. Article 2180 (4) states that employers are liable for the damages caused by their employees.

Here the liability of the employer for the negligent conduct of the subordinate is direct and primary,
subject to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee. The
enforcement of the judgment against the employer in an action based on Article 2176 does not
require the employee to be insolvent since the nature of the liability of the employer with that of the
employee, the two being statutorily considered joint tortfeasors, is solidary. However, if it is founded

1
Once the choice is made, the injured party can not avail himself of any other remedy because he may not recover damages twice
for the same negligent act or omission of the accused. This is the rule against double recovery. In other words, "the same act or omission
can create two kinds of liability on the part of the offender, that is, civil liability ex delicto, and civil liability quasi delicto" either of which
"may be enforced against the culprit, subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party can not recover
damages under both types of liability."
 on Article 103 of the RPC, the employer may be held subsidiarilly civilly liable if the employee is
found to be insolvent.

Here, Rafael Trucking cannot be held subsidiarilly liable because of the filing of the separate civil
action based on quasi delict against it.

ISSUE 2 Whether or not the award of damages in the criminal case was improper because the civil action ex
delicto was waived in the criminal action by the filing of the separate civil action ex quasi delicto.

RULING Yes, the award was improper. In Ramos v Gonong, the action for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is
not included but is covered by the separate civil action filed against the petitioner as employer of the
accused truck-driver.

In this case, accused-driver jumped bail pending his appeal from his conviction. Thus, the judgment
convicting the accused became final and executory, but only insofar as the penalty in the criminal
action is concerned. The damages awarded in the criminal action was invalid because of its effective
waiver. The pronouncement was void because the action for recovery of the civil liability arising from
the crime has been waived in said criminal action.

FALLO COURT GRANTS the petition and sets aside the decision and resolution of the CA:
1. Accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and
damage to property
2. In the Civil Case, the Court orders the case re-opened to determine the liability of the defendant
Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation to plaintiff and that of plaintiffs on defendant’s counterclaim.