LAW 101: OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS DANZUKA, Miyuki C.

PROF. GENTUGAYA

Hambon v. CA
CASE NO. | DATE 122150 | Mar. 17, 2003 PONENTE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

PARTIES GEORGE (CULHI) HAMBON, petitioner, was hit by the truck driven by private
respondent (he’s literally me fr except I got hit by a bus fr HAHA)

COURT OF APPEALS AND VALENTINO U. CARANTES, respondents, private

respondent hit petitioner

TOPIC Sources of Obligations

DECISION + RULED IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT because the petitioner failed to reserve his right to
DOCTRINE separately institute the civil action for damages in Criminal Case No. 2049. Hence, the
Civil Case filed by petitioner without prior reservation should be dismissed.

QUASI-DELICT - the obligation arises ONLY when there is a violation. Without the
violation, there is no obligation.
● Civil action to cover liability that arises from QUASI-DELICT are deemed
IMPLIEDLY INSTITUTED with the criminal action, unless the petitioner waives,
reserves, or previously institutes the civil action for damages.

RECIT READY SUMMARY

Facts. The petitioner wants to file a civil case complaint for damages as he has sustained injuries and
expenses after the truck driven by respondent bumped him, without reserving the right to bring an
action for damages independently of the criminal case.

Issue. W/N the right to bring an action for damages under the Civil Code need not be reserved for it to
proceed independently of the criminal action.

Ruling. NO. When filing an action for damages arising from crime (delict) or quasi-delict, the petitioner
must reserve the right to file a separate action. Otherwise, civil action is deemed impliedly instituted
WITH the criminal action. Hence, consequently, when the criminal action is dismissed, the civil action is
also dismissed.

FACTS

PRE-SC PROCEEDINGS

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT → AFFIRMED, IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER

● June 6, 1989 - Petitioner files a CIVIL CASE complaint for damages for the injuries and expenses he
sustained after the truck driven by the respondent bumped him on the night of December 9, 1985.
● RESPONDENT ARGUES: the criminal case from the same incident has been provisionally dismissed by
the Municipal Trial Court because of petitioner’s lack of interest.
○ Dismissal of criminal liability = dismissal of civil liability.

COURT OF APPEALS → REVERSES RTC DECISION, IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT

● GROUNDS:
○ Petitioner did not make any reservation to institute a separate civil action for damages, which
automatically instituted it with the criminal case.
○ Consequently, the dismissal of the criminal case carried with it the dismissal of the suit for
damages, even if the dismissal was provisional as it amounted to an acquittal and had the effect of
 an adjudication on merits.

FILING IN THE SUPREME COURT

A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 WAS INSTITUTED BY THE PETITIONER, ARGUING
BASED ON THE CASE OF ABELLANA V. MARAVE:
1. Civil action for damages may be filed and proceed independently even without reservation to file the
same has been made. - di daw niya kailangan mag reserve ng right to file bago mag file ng civil action for
damages kasi dasorb daw niya yon.
2. The requirement of reservation violates petitioner’s substantial rights.

OVERVIEW OF ISSUES

W/N the right to bring an action for damages under the Civil Code need not be reserved for it to
proceed independently of the criminal action.

ISSUES AND RULING

(1) W/N the right to Held: NO

bring an action for
damages under the Civil actions to cover liability that arises from crime (ex delicto) and under Art. 32, 33,
Civil Code need 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code (quasi-delict) are deemed IMPLIEDLY INSTITUTED with
not be reserved for the criminal action unless waived, reserved or previously instituted.
it to proceed
independently of If there is no reservation, as required by Section 1, Rule 111, it will be dismissed. Nor
the criminal action. does this requirement impair substantive rights, as the requirement is merely
procedural in nature.

PETITIONER ARGUES: Civil action for damages may be filed and proceed
independently even without reservation to file the same has been made.

SC: NO

SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — When a criminal action is

instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted
with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to
the criminal action.

Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code,
and damages under Article 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused.
● Civil actions to recover liability arising from crime (ex delicto) and under Article
32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code (quasi-delict) are deemed IMPLIEDLY
INSTITUTED with the criminal action unless waived, reserved, or previously
instituted.
● MANIAGO v. COURT OF APPEALS - The right to bring an action for damages
under the Civil Code must be reserved, as required by Section 1, Rule 111,
OTHERWISE, it should be dismissed.
○ The reservation does not impair, diminish, or defeat substantive rights,
but only regulates their exercise in the general interest of orderly
procedure. → the requirement is procedural in nature.
● ABELLANA V. MARAVE, AS CITED BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT APPLICABLE
IN THIS CASE → THERE HAS BEEN AN AMENDMENT OF THE RULE
○ The amendment explicitly requires reservation of civil action.
DISPOSITION

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, and the decision of
the Court of Appeals dated March 8, 1995, is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.