Case Digest no.3

Case Digest

[G.R. No. 145391. August 26, 2002] AVELINO CASUPANAN and ROBERTO CAPITULO, petitioners, vs. MARIO LLAVORE LAROYA, respondent.

 CARPIO, J.: 

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 Municipal Circuit Trial Court, 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 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:

Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, 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. Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or omission. The first a criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi-delict - without violating the rule on non-forum shopping. The two cases can proceed simultaneously and independently of each other.

Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he is accused of in the criminal case. 

To disallow the accused from filing a separate civil action for quasi-delict, while refusing to recognize his counterclaim in the criminal case, is to deny him due process of law, access to the courts, and equal protection of the law. 

Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Casupanan and Capitulo is proper. The order of dismissal on the ground of forum-shopping is erroneous.

Related to : Art. 33


Mga Komento

Mag-post ng isang Komento

Mga sikat na post sa blog na ito

Report no 5 - ARTICLE 16 of the FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

The FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES Title I – MARRIAGE Chapter 1 – REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE ARTICLE 16 Reported by: Mary Grace De Lumban Joy G. De Loyola In the cases where parental consent or parental advice is needed, the party or parties concerned shall, in addition to the requirements of the preceding articles, attach a certificate issued by a priest, imam or minister authorized to solemnize marriage under Article 7 of this code or a marriage counselor duly accredited by the proper government agency to the effect that the contracting parties have undergone marriage counseling. Failure to attach said certificate of marriage counseling shall suspend the issuance of the marriage license for a period of three months from the completion of the publication of the application. Issuance of the marriage license within the prohibited period shall subject the issuing officer to administrative sanctions but shall not affect the validity of the marriage. Should only one of the con...
Magbasa nang higit pa

Report article no. 3 - The CIVIL CODE of the Philippines - ARTICLE 35

The CIVIL CODE R.A. No. 386 ARTICLE 35 Reported by: JOY G DE LOYOLA MARY GRACE DE LUMBAN ARTICLE 35 When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complainant may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offended. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant’s motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings. RESERVATIO...
Magbasa nang higit pa

Report no 10 - Article 96 of the FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FAMILY CODE of the PHILIPPINES Title IV – PROPERTY RELATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE Section 4. ARTICLE 96 Reported by: Mary Grace De Lumban Joy G. De Loyola The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of dis agreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision . In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the common properties , the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration . These powers do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent , the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the...
Magbasa nang higit pa