Case No.

11

Avelino Casupanan and Roberto Capitulo,

petitioners, vs. Mario Llavore Laroya,
respondent.
G.R. No. 145391, August 26, 2002

Presented by: Rheza Mae A. Pontillo

 Casupanan et al., vs. Laroya
• Facts:
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 the MCTC of Capas, Tarlac. Laroya filed
a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property. On
the other hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed a
civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict.
• 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.

• Ruling:
Yes, and because 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 will not
suspend the civil action for quasi-delict.
Here, Laroya filed a criminal case for reckless
imprudence resulting to damage to property
based on the RPC while Casupanan and Capitulo
filed the civil action for damages based on
Article 2176 of the civil code which states that,
“Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by this Chapter”. Although the two actions arose
from the same act or omission, they have
different causes of action. The only limitation is
that the offended party cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the
defendant.
Therefore, the civil action based on quasi-
delict filed separately by Casupanan and
Capitulo is proper.