Week 3 Case 5 G.R. No. 200444 Flashcards
Respondent filed a complaint for damages, even though the proximate cause of the accident was respondent driver’s reckless imprudence.
Petitioner filed counterclaim, but was denied on the RTC and CA.
Respondent driver was convicted criminally for his admission of the crime.
Criminal aspect is now terminated, but civil claim is not reserved.
Was the petitioner’s counterclaim correctly denied by the RTC?
No.
The petitioners’ counterclaim is allowed and should not have been dismissed by the RTC and the CA despite their failure to reserve the right to file a separate civil action in the criminal case they had brought against respondent’s driver. However, whether or not they could recover damages upon their counterclaim presents a different story, as they should first show that they will not recover damages twice for the same incident.
What was the Courts ruling on Petitioners’ counterclaim and its need for prior reservation?
Petitioners’ counterclaim, being in the nature of an independent civil action, required no prior reservation.
How is the purpose of an action or suit and the law to govern the suit determined?
The purpose of an action or suit and the law to govern the suit are to be determined not by the claim of the party filing the action, made in his argument or brief, but rather by the complaint itself, its allegations and prayer for relief.
What was the petitioner’s cause of action based upon?
The petitioners’ cause of action was based upon a quasi-delict. As such, their counterclaim against the respondent was based on Article 2184, in relation to Article 2180 and Article 2176, all of the Civil Code.
What are the rules and articles that served as basis for the Court’s judgment on granting petitioner’s prayer?
The bases are the following:
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code could give rise not only to the obligation ex delicto, but also to the obligation based on culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Under the factual antecedents herein, both obligations rested on the common element of negligence.
Article 2177 of the Civil Code and Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court allow the injured party to prosecute both criminal and civil actions simultaneously.
What is the significance of Casupanan v. Laroya (G.R. No. 145391, August 26, 2002)?
It reconciled Article 365 of the RPC, Article 2177 of the NCCP, and Rule 11, Section 3 of the ROC-CrimPro.
“Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is “deemed instituted” with the criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delicto. All the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are no longer “deemed instituted,” and may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. The failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil action based on these articles of the Civil Code. The prescriptive period on the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code continues to run even with the filing of the criminal action. Verily, the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code are separate, distinct and independent of the civil action “deemed instituted” in the criminal action.”
What is the significance of Article 2177 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines?
Article 2177 of the Civil Code bars injured parties from recovering damages twice upon the same act or omission, if they have to choose the remedy by which to enforce their claim in the event of favorable decisions in both actions.
What is the significance of Safeguard Security Agency, Inc. v. Tangco (G.R. No. 165732, December 14, 2006)?
It clarified the concept of double recovery of damages.
“An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., ( 1) civil liability ex delicto, under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; and (2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as a felony, e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code, intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34, and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code; or (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code. Either of these liabilities may be enforced against the offender subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission or under both causes.”
Were the petitioners able to perform double recovery? Why?
No.
The petitioners’ allegation that they had not yet recovered damages from the respondent was not controlling considering that the criminal case against the respondent’s driver had already been concluded. It remains for the petitioners to still demonstrate that the RTC as the trial court did not award civil damages in the criminal case. Consequently, Civil Case No. T-2240 should be remanded to the RTC for further proceedings, if only to afford to the petitioners the opportunity to present evidence on their counterclaim subject to the prohibition against double recovery of damages.
