10/11/2015

G.R. No. 91856

TodayisSunday,October11,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.91856October5,1990
YAKULTPHILIPPINESANDLARRYSALVADO,petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALS,WENCESLAOM.POLO,inhiscapacityasPresidingJudgeofBr.19oftheRTCof
Manila,andROYCAMASO,respondents.
TomasR.Leonidasforpetitioners.
DavidB.Agoncilloforprivaterespondent.

GANCAYCO,J.:
Can a civil action instituted after the criminal action was filed prosper even if there was no reservation to file a
separatecivilaction?Thisistheissueinthispetition.
OnDecember24,1982,afiveyearoldboy,RoyCamaso,whilestandingonthesidewalkofM.delaFuenteStreet,
Sampaloc, Manila, was sideswiped by a Yamaha motorcycle owned by Yakult Philippines and driven by its
employee,LarrySalvado.
Salvadowaschargedwiththecrimeofrecklessimprudenceresultingtoslightphysicalinjuriesinaninformationthat
wasfiledonJanuary6,1983withthethenCityCourtofManila,docketedasCriminalCaseNo.027184.OnOctober
19, 1984 a complaint for damages was filed by Roy Camaso represented by his father, David Camaso, against
YakultPhilippinesandLarrySalvadointheRegionalTrialCourtofManiladocketedasCivilCaseNo.8427317.
In due course a decision was rendered in the civil case on May 26, 1989 ordering defendants to pay jointly and
severallytheplaintiffthesumofP13,006.30foractualexpensesformedicalservicesandhospitalbillsP3,000.00
attorney'sfeesandthecostsofthesuit.Althoughsaiddefendantsappealedthejudgment,theyneverthelessfileda
petitionforcertiorariintheCourtofAppealschallengingthejurisdictionofthetrialcourtoversaidcivilcase.
Petitioners'thesisisthatthecivilactionfordamagesforinjuriesarisingfromallegedcriminalnegligenceofSalvado,
beingwithoutmalice,cannotbefiledindependentlyofthecriminalactionunderArticle33oftheCivilCode.Further,
itiscontendedthatunderSection1,Rule111ofthe1985RulesonCriminalProceduresuchaseparatecivilaction
maynotbefiledunlessreservationthereofisexpresslymade.
In a decision dated November 3, 1989, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.1 A motion for reconsideration
thereoffiledbypetitionerswasdeniedonJanuary30,1990.Hencethispetition.

Thepetitionisdevoidofmerit.
Section1,Rule111ofthe1985RulesofCriminalProcedureprovidesasfollows:
SEC.1.Institutionofcriminalandcivilactions.Whenacriminalactionisinstituted,thecivilactionfor
the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party
waivesthecivilaction,reserveshisrighttoinstituteitseparately,orinstitutesthecivilactionpriortothe
criminalaction.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under
Articles32,33,34and2176oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippinesarisingfromthesameactoromission
oftheaccused.
Awaiverofanyofthecivilactionsextinguishestheothers.Theinstitutionof,orthereservationofthe
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/oct1990/gr_91856_1990.html

1/3

10/11/2015

G.R. No. 91856

righttofile,anyofsaidcivilactionsseparatelywaivestheothers.
Thereservationoftherighttoinstitutetheseparatecivilactionsshallbemadebeforetheprosecution
starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable
opportunitytomakesuchreservation.
Innocasemaytheoffendedpartyrecoverdamagestwiceforthesameactoromissionoftheaccused.
Whentheoffendedpartyseekstoenforcecivilliabilityagainsttheaccusedbywayofmoral,nominal,
temperateorexemplarydamages,thefilingfeesforsuchcivilactionasprovidedintheseRulesshall
constituteafirstlienonthejudgmentexceptinanawardforactualdamages.
Incaseswhereintheamountofdamages,otherthanactual,isallegedinthecomplaintorinformation,
thecorrespondingfilingfeesshallbepaidbytheoffendedpartyuponthefilingthereofincourtfortrial.
(1a)
Although the incident in question and the actions arising therefrom were instituted before the promulgation of the
1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, its provisions which are procedural may apply retrospectively to the present
case.2
Undertheaforecitedprovisionsoftherule,thecivilactionfortherecoveryofcivilliabilityisimpliedlyinstitutedwith
the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately or
institutesthecivilactionpriortothecriminalaction.
SuchcivilactionincludesrecoveryofindemnityundertheRevisedPenalCode,anddamagesunderArticles32,33,
34and2176oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippinesarisingfromthesameactoromissionoftheaccused.
It is also provided that the reservation of the right to institute the separate civil action shall be made before the
prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable
opportunitytomakesuchreservation.
In this case, the offended party has not waived the civil action, nor reserved the right to institute it separately.
Neitherhastheoffendedpartyinstitutedthecivilactionpriortothecriminalaction.However,thecivilactioninthis
casewasfiledincourtbeforethepresentationoftheevidencefortheprosecutioninthecriminalactionofwhichthe
judgepresidingonthecriminalcasewasdulyinformed,sothatinthedispositionofthecriminalactionnodamages
wasawarded.
Thecivilliabilitysoughtarisingfromtheactoromissionoftheaccusedinthiscaseisaquasidelictasdefinedunder
Article2176oftheCivilCodeasfollows:
ART.2176.Whoeverbyactoromissioncausesdamagetoanother,therebeingfaultornegligence,is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual
relationbetweentheparties,iscalledaquasidelictandisgovernedbytheprovisionsofthisChapter.
The aforecited revised rule requiring such previous reservation also covers quasidelict as defined under Article
2176oftheCivilCodearisingfromthesameactoromissionoftheaccused.
Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in the criminal case,
neverthelesssinceitwasinstitutedbeforetheprosecutionpresentedevidenceinthecriminalaction,andthejudge
handling the criminal case was informed thereof, then the actual filing of the civil action is even far better than a
compliance with the requirement of an express reservation that should be made by the offended party before the
prosecutionpresentsitsevidence.
Thepurposeofthisrulerequiringreservationistopreventtheoffendedpartyfromrecoveringdamagestwiceforthe
sameactoromission.
Thus,theCourtfindsandsoholdsthatthetrialcourthadjurisdictionovertheseparatecivilactionbroughtbeforeit.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.ThequestioneddecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedNovember3,1989
anditsresolutiondatedJanuary30,1990areherebyAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa, MelencioHerrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, GrioAquino,
MedialdeaandRegalado,JJ.,concur.
Fernan,C.J.andParas,J.,areonleave.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/oct1990/gr_91856_1990.html

2/3

10/11/2015

G.R. No. 91856

Footnotes
1JusticeLuisL.VictorwastheponenteconcurredinbyJusticesRicardoL.Pronove,Jr.andFelipeB.
Kalalo.
2Peoplevs.Sumilang,77Phil.764(1946).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/oct1990/gr_91856_1990.html

3/3