No Double Recovery Rule (Article 2177, CC)

Joseph v. Bautista
Truck engaged in transporting cargoes and passengers oned by !atrocino
!ere", driven by Do#ingo $illa as %orced to veer toards t&e s&oulder o%
t&e road and to ra# a #ango tree, causing a %racture to paying passenger,
livestock'oner (osep&
T&e accident &appened as a pickup truck oned by Antonio )ioson and
(acinto !agarigan, driven by *a"aro $illanueva tried to overtake t&e truck
+,-*. t&e truck as in t&e process o% overtaking a tricycle
(osep& %iled a co#plaint against
1/ !ere" (truck oner)0 breac& o% contract o% carriage
2/ )ioson and $illanueva (pickup truck oner and driver)0 1uasi'delict
a/ )ioson denied oners&ip
(osep& a#ended co#plaint i#pleading !agarigan and a certain Rosario
$argas as alternative de%endants as (osep& could not ascertain &o t&e
oner o% t&e pickup as
!ere" %iled cross'clai# against co'de%endants and i#pleaded Alberto
Cardeno
1,233 Clai# as paid by $illanueva, Cardeno, )ioson and !agarigan via
t&eir insurer, -nsurance corporation o% t&e !&ilippines 4 (osep& e5ecutes
release o% clai#
$illanueva, Cardeno, and -C! also paid !ere" da#ages to &is truck 7,623/71
)ioson, !agarigan, Cardeno and $illanueva %iled a #otion to e5clude
t&e#selves
!ere" opposed 4 alleging t&at t&e release o% &is co'de%endants absolved &i#
o% liability as ell, t&eir liability being solidary
8otion as granted and (udge dis#issed t&e case9 Release inured to t&e
bene%it o% !ere"
Appeal0 to causes o% action e#bodied in co#plaint, C:A under
co#pro#ise agree#ent not a bar to C:A %or ;:C
+:N dis#issal as proper
1/ <es/ :nly one cause o% action as involved, alt&oug& t&e bases o%
recovery ere not necessarily identical/
2/ C:A is understood to be t&e delict or rong%ul act or o#ission
co##iteed by t&e de%endant in violation o% t&e pri#ary rig&ts o% t&e
plainti%%/ +&ere t&ere is only one delict or rong, t&ere is but a single
C:A regardless o% t&e nu#ber o% rig&ts t&at #ay &ave been violated
belonging to one person 4 singleness o% C:A lies in t&e singleness
o% t&e delict or rong/
2/ (osep& sustained a single in=ury, &ence t&at vested in &i# a single
cause o% action albeit t&e correlative rig&ts o% action against t&e
di%%erent respondents/
6/ (osep&>s a#ended co#plaint prayed t&e trial court &old respondents
(:-NT*< and ).$.RA**< *-A;*., allegations i#pleaded
respondents as solidary debtors
?/ :blicon rule0 %ull pay#ent #ade by so#e o% t&e solidary debtors 555
7/ Agree#ent during t&e pre'trial order ine5istent
Bermudez, Sr. v. Herrera
Cargo truck oned by Cordova Ng )un @an, driven by Do#ingo !ontino,
bu#ped a =eep on &ic& Rogelio ;er#ude" (A), a si5'year old, as riding
Cri#inal case %or ,o#icide t&ru reckless i#prudence as %iled against
!ontino as %iled it& t&e %iling o% t&e separate civil action reserved
!arents t&en %iled a civil case %or da#ages against !ontino AND @an on
t&e basis o% 1uasi'delict
Trial court dis#issed t&e civil action as t&e parents &ad already Belected to
trea t&e accident as a cri#e by reserving t&eir rig&t to %ile a separate civil
action in t&e cri#inal caseC
Case against @an dis#issed
Case against !ontino suspended til ter#ination o% cri# case
+:N civil action %iled by parents is %ounded on a cri#e or 1uasi'delict
1/ Action %iled by t&e appellant as an action %or da#ages based on
DEA)-'D.*-CT/ T&e %act t&at t&ey #ade a reservation D-D N:T
!R.C*ED. t&e# %ro# c&oosing to %ile a civil action %or 1uasi'delict
2/ Cite )ection 1 and 2 o% Rule 111, Article 1171 o% t&e Civil Code,
Article 133 o% t&e R!C, Article 2177 o% t&e Civil Code
2/ Case re#anded %or %urt&er proceedings
Singson v. Bank of PI
)ingson>s bank account in ;!- as garnis&ed pursuant to an order in a civil
case &ere &e as involved
T&e clerk o% t&e bank, &oever, inadvertently caused t&e %ree"ing o% all o%
)ingson>s accounts even i% t&e account relating to $illa'Abrille Co/ as t&e
only one covered by t&e rit
C&ecks subse1uently issued to ot&er clients (;/8/ Flass )ervice), t&ere%ore,
bounced, causing t&e latter to close &is accounts
)ingson rote a letter and co#plained and t&e bank, upon veri%ying t&e
in%or#ation, pro#ptly apologi"ed
T&e )ingsons, t&en co##enced an action %or da#ages against t&e bank
CG- 8anila &eld t&at )ingsons cannot recover because a contract e5isted,
AD not covered by 221H and t&e a#ounts &ave not been establis&ed
CG- in error' according to t&e Air Grance case, t&e act t&at breaks a contract
#ay be a tort
;ut rong done to plainti%%s as re#edied as soon as t&e !resident o% t&e
bank reali"ed t&e #istake &e and &is subordinate e#ployee &ad co##itted,
t&e court %inds t&at an aard or N:8-NA* da#ages in t&e a#ount o% 1,333
plus attys %ees
Rafael Reyes Truking v. People
RRT is involved in t&e business o% transporting e#pty )8C beer bottles
:ne o% its trucks driven by Ro#eo Dunca y Tu#ol ca#e into collision it& a
Nissan pickup truck on its ay %ro# Tuguegarao to !a#panga, due to a ?'7
inc& deep pot&ole on t&e national &ig&ay
Driver and passenger o% t&e Nissan corp pres Geliciano ;alcita and %or#er
#odel student Grancisco Dy, (r/ died instantly due to internal and e5ternal
&e#orr&age and #ultiple %ractures
,eirs %iled a cri#inal co#plaint against Dunca %or reckless i#prudence
resulting in double &o#icide and da#age to property
,eirs #ade a reservation to %ile a separate civil action during t&e arraign#ent
o% t&e accused
,eirs t&erea%ter %iled a civil action against Dunca AND RRT based on 1uasi
delict
;alcita &eirs clai# settled
,eirs later, &oever, #ani%ested t&at t&e civil aspect e5 delicto ould be
prosecuted in t&e sa#e cri#inal case +-T,:ET +-T,DRA+-NF t&e
separate civil action based on DD against t&e e#ployer, arising %ro# t&e act
or o#ission o% t&e driver
RTC consolidated t&e civil and cri#inal cases and &eld t&at Duncan as
guilty beyond reasonable doubt o% t&e cri#e o% double &o#icide t&roug&
reckless i#prudence it& violation o% t&e 8otor $e&icle la, civil case based
on DD D-)8-)).D and &eirs to pay RRT %or t&e earlier illegal attac&#ent
,eirs #oved %or t&e a#end#ent o% t&e dispositive portion0 RRT>s subsidiary
liability in case o% Duncan>s insolvency &ile RRT and Duncan appealed
;ut Duncan %led t&e country, &ence &is appeal as dis#issed
CA AGG-R8.D T,. )E!!*.8.NTA* decision o% t&e RTC
+:N RRT could be &eld subsidiarily liable %or t&e da#ages despite t&e %iling
o% t&e separate civil action %iled against it
+:N t&e court could aard da#ages in t&e cri#inal case despite t&e
e5istence o% t&e separate civil action %iled
Ruling pro &ac vice, case is re#anded to t&e trial court %or t&e deter#ination
o% t&e civil liability o% RRT as Duncan>s e#ployer
RTC and CA as in error in &olding RRT as subsidiarily liable
$alid reservation' aard o% da#ages in cri#inal action as invalid because
o% t&e e%%ective aiver
RRT CANN:T be &eld )E;)-D-AR-*< liable under t&e Article 132 o% t&e
R!C by virtue o% t&e earlier reservation and t&e %iling o% t&e separate civil
action based on 1uasi delict by t&e co#plainants
+&en t&e &eirs %iled reserved t&eir rig&t to %ile a separate civil action, t&ey
aived ot&er available civil actions predicated on t&e sa#e act or o#ission o%
t&e accused driver/ )uc& civil action includes t&e recovery o% inde#nity under
t&e R!C AND da#ages under Articles 22, 22, and 26 o% t&e Civil Code
-ntention o% t&e &eirs to proceed pri#arily and directly against RRT as
e#ployer beca#e clearer &en t&ey did not ask %or t&e dis#issal o% t&e civil
action against RRT based on 1uasi delict
-nvalid it&draal o% t&e reservation
T&e restrictive p&raseology o% t&e section under consideration is #eant to
cover all kinds o% civil actions, regardless o% t&eir source in la, provided t&at
t&e action &as its basis t&e sa#e act or o#ission o% t&e o%%ender
RRT can be &eld liable in t&e separate civil action %or da#ages %iled against it
based on DEA)-'D.*-CT
CA grievously erred in dis#issing t&e DD co#plaint
(arco #arketing v/ CA
)ar#iento v/ )un'Cabrido
Taylor v/ 8anila .lectric
;ataclan vs 8edina
Gernando v/ CA
Erbano v/ -AC
;ernal v/ ,ouse and Tacloban .lectric
Fabeto v/ Araneta
8c@ee v/ -AC