1/29/2017

G.R.No.80194

TodayisSunday,January29,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.80194March21,1989
EDGARJARANTILLA,petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSandJOSEKUANSING,respondents.
CorazonMirafloresandVicenteP.Billenaforpetitioner.
ManuelS.Gemarinoforprivaterespondent.

REGALADO,J.:
TherecordsshowthatprivaterespondentJoseKuanSingwas"sideswipedbyavehicleintheeveningofJuly7,
1971inlznartStreet,IloiloCity" 1 The respondent Court of Appeals concurred in the findings of the court a quo that the said vehicle which

figuredinthemishap,aVolkswagen(Beetletype)car,wasthendrivenbypetitionerEdgarJarantillaalongsaidstreettowardthedirectionoftheprovincial
capitol,andthatprivaterespondentsustainedphysicalinjuriesasaconsequence.2

Petitioner was accordingly charged before the then City Court of Iloilo for serious physical injuries thru reckless
imprudenceinCriminalCaseNo.47207thereof. 3 Private respondent, as the complaining witness therein, did not reserve his right to
instituteaseparatecivilactionandheintervenedintheprosecutionofsaidcriminalcasethroughaprivateprosecutor.4 Petitioner was acquitted in said
criminalcase"onreasonabledoubt".5

On October 30, 1974, private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the former Court of First
Instance of Iloilo, Branch IV, 6 docketed therein as Civil Case No. 9976, and which civil action involved the same subject matter and act
complained of in Criminal Case No. 47027. 7 In his answer filed therein, the petitioner alleged as special and affirmative detenses that the private
respondent had no cause of action and, additionally, that the latter's cause of action, if any, is barred by the prior judgment in Criminal Case No. 47207
inasmuchaswhensaidcriminalcasewasinstitutedthecivilliabilitywasalsodeemedinstitutedsincethereinplaintifffailedtoreservethecivilaspectand
activelyparticipatedinthecriminalcase.8

Thereafter,actingonamotiontodismissofthereindefendant,thetrialcourtissuedonApril3,1975anorderof
denial,withthesuggestionthat"(t)oenrichourjurisprudence,itissuggestedthatthedefendantbrings(sic)this
rulingtotheSupremeCourtbycertiorariorotherappropriateremedy,toreviewtherulingofthecourt".9
On June 17, 1975, petitioner filed in this Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, which was
docketedasG.R.No.L40992, 10 assailing the aforesaid order of the trial court. Said petition was dismissed for lack of merit in the Court's
resolutionofJuly23,1975,andamotionforreconsiderationthereofwasdeniedforthesamereasoninaresolutionofOctober28,1975.11

After trial, the court below rendered judgment on May 23, 1977 in favor of the herein private respondent and
ordering herein petitioner to pay the former the sum of P 6,920.00 for hospitalization, medicines and so forth,
P2,000.00forotheractualexpenses,P25,000.00formoraldamages,P5,000.00forattorney'sfees,andcosts.12
OnJuly29,1987,therespondentCourtofAppeals13affirmedthedecisionofthelowercourtexceptastotheawardformoraldamages
whichitreducedfromP25,000.00toP18,000.00.AmotionforreconsiderationwasdeniedbyrespondentcourtonSeptember18,1987.14

The main issue for resolution by Us in the present recourse is whether the private respondent, who was the
complainant in the criminal action for physical injuries thru reckless imprudence and who participated in the
prosecution thereof without reserving the civil action arising from the act or omission complained of, can file a
separateactionforcivilliabilityarisingfromthesameactoromissionwherethehereinpetitionerwasacquittedin
the criminal action on reasonable doubt and no civil liability was adjudicated or awarded in the judgment of
acquittal.
Prefatorily,Wenotethatpetitionerraisesacollateralissuebyfaultingtherespondentcourtforrefusingtoresolve
anassignmentoferrorinhisappealtherein,saidrespondentcourtholdingthatthemainissuehadbeenpassed
uponbythisCourtinG.R.No.L40992hereinbeforementioned.Itispetitioner'spositionthattheaforesaidtwo
resolutions of the Court in said case, the first dismissing the petition and the second denying the motion for
reconsideration,donotconstitutethe"lawofthecase'whichwouldcontrolthesubsequentproceedingsinthis
controversy.
1.Weinclinefavorablytopetitioner'ssubmissiononthisscore.
The"doctrineofthelawofthecase"hasnoapplicationattheaforesaidpostureoftheproceedingswhenthetwo
resolutionswerehandeddown.WhileitmaybetruethatG.R.No.L40992mayhaveinvolvedsomeoftheissues
which were thereafter submitted for resolution on the merits by the two lower courts, the proceedings involved
there was one for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing an interlocutory order of the court a quo,
specifically, its order denying therein defendants motion to dismiss. This Court, without rendering a specific
opinion or explanation as to the legal and factual bases on which its two resolutions were predicated, simply
dismissed the special civil action on that incident for lack of merit. It may very well be that such resolution was
premisedonthefactthattheCourt,atthatstageandonthebasisofthefactsthenpresented,didnotconsider
that the denial order of the court aquo was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. 15 To repeat, no rationale for such
resolutionshavingbeenexpoundedonthemeritsofthataction,nolawofthecasemaybesaidtohavebeenlaiddowninG.R.No.L40992tojustifythe
respondentcourt'srefusaltoconsiderpetitioner'sclaimthathisformeracquittalbarredtheseparateaction.

'Lawofthecase'hasbeendefinedastheopiniondeliveredonaformerappeal.Morespecifically,it
meansthatwhateverisonceirrevocablyestablished,asthecontrollinglegalruleofdecisionbetween
thesamepartiesinthesamecasecontinuestobethelawofthecase,whethercorrectongeneral
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/mar1989/gr_80194_1989.html

1/4

1/29/2017

G.R.No.80194

principlesornot,solongasthefactsonwhichsuchdecisionwaspredicatedcontinuetobethefacts
ofthecasebeforethecourt(21C.J.S.330).(Emphasissupplied).16
ItneednotbestatedthattheSupremeCourtbeingthecourtoflastresort,isthefinalarbiterofalllegalquestionsproperlybroughtbefore
itandthatitsdecisioninanygivencaseconstitutesthelawofthatparticularcase...(Emphasissupplied).17

It is a rule of general application that the decision of an appellate court in a case is the law of the
caseonthepointspresentedthroughoutallthesubsequentproceedingsinthecaseinboththetrial
and the appellate courts, and no question necessarily involved and decided on that appeal will be
consideredonasecondappealorwritoferrorinthesamecase,providedthefactsandissuesare
substantiallythesameasthoseonwhichthefirstquestionrestedand,accordingtosomeauthorities,
providedthedecisionisonthemerits...18
2.Withtheforegoingancillaryissueoutoftheway,Wenowconsidertheprincipalplaintofpetitioner.
Apropostosuchresolutionisthesettledrulethatthesameactoromission(inthiscase,thenegligentsideswiping
ofprivaterespondent)cancreatetwokindsofliabilityonthepartoftheoffender,thatis,civilliabilityexdelictoand
civilliabilityexquasidelicto.Sincethesamenegligencecangiveriseeithertoadelictorcrimeortoaquasidelict
ortort,eitherofthesetwotypesofcivilliabilitymaybeenforcedagainsttheculprit,subjecttothecaveatunder
Article2177oftheCivilCodethattheoffendedpartycannotrecoverdamagesunderbothtypesofliability.19
WealsonotethereminderofpetitionerthatinRoavs.DelaCruz,etal.,20itwasheldthatwheretheoffendedpartyelectedto

claimdamagesarisingfromtheoffensechargedinthecriminalcasethroughherinterventionasaprivateprosecutor,thefinaljudgmentrenderedtherein
constituted a bar to the subsequent civil action based upon the same cause. It is meet, however, not to lose sight of the fact that the criminal action
involved therein was for serious oral defamation which, while within the contemplation of an independent civil action under Article 33 of the Civil Code,
constitutesonlyapenalomenandcannototherwisebeconsideredasaquasidelictorculpaaquilianaunderArticles2176and2177oftheCivilCode.And
while petitioner draws attention to the supposed reiteration of the Roa doctrine in the later case of Azucenavs.Potenciano,etal., 21 this time involving
damagetopropertythroughnegligenceastomakeoutacaseofquasidelictunderArticles2176and2180oftheCivilCode,suchsecondaryrelianceis
misplacedsincethethereinplaintiffAzucenadidnotinterveneinthecriminalactionagainstdefendantPotenciano.ThecitationofRoainthelatercaseof
Azucenawas,therefore,clearlyobiterandaffordsnocomforttopetitioner.

Theseareasidefromthefactthattherehavebeendoctrinal,andevenstatutory, 22 changes on the matter of civil actions

arisingfromcriminaloffensesandquasidelicts.Wewillreserveourdiscussiononthestatutoryaspectsforanothercaseandtimeand,forthenonce,Wewill
considerthedoctrinaldevelopmentsonthisissue.

Inthecaseunderconsideration,privaterespondentparticipatedandintervenedintheprosecutionofthecriminal
suit against petitioner. Under the present jurisprudential milieu, where the trial court acquits the accused on
reasonabledoubt,itcouldverywellmakeapronouncementonthecivilliabilityoftheaccused 23andthecomplainant
couldfileapetitionformandamustocompelthetrialcourttoincludesuchcivilliabilityinthejudgmentofacquittal.24

Private respondent, as already stated, filed a separate civil aciton after such acquittal. This is allowed under
Article29oftheCivilCode.WehaveruledintherelativelyrecentcaseofLontocvs.MDTransit&TaxiCo.,Inc.,
etal.25that:
InviewofthefactthatthedefendantappelleedelaCruzwasacquittedonthegroundthat'hisguilt
wasnotprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt'theplaintiffappellanthastherighttoinstituteaseparate
civilactiontorecoverdamagesfromthedefendantsappellants(SeeMendozavs.Arrieta,91SCRA
113). The wellsettled doctrine is that a person, while not criminally liable may still be civilly liable.
'The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the civil liability of the accused only when it includes a
declaration that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not exist'. (Padilla vs. Court of
Appeals, 129 SCRA 558 cited in People vs. Rogelio Ligon y Tria, et al., G.R. No. 74041, July 29,
1987 Filomeno Urbano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72964, January 7, 1988). The
rulingisbasedonArticle29oftheCivilCodewhichprovides:
Whentheaccusedinacriminalprosecutionisacquittedonthegroundthathisguilthas
notbeenprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt,acivilactionfordamagesforthesameact
oromissionmaybeinstituted.Suchactionrequiresonlyapreponderanceofevidence...
26

Another consideration in favor of private respondent is the doctrine that the failure of the court to make any
pronouncement, favorable or unfavorable, as to the civil liability of the accused amounts to a reservation of the
righttohavethecivilliabilitylitigatedanddeterminedinaseparateaction.Therulesnowhereprovidethatifthe
courtfailstodeterminethecivilliabilityitbecomesnolongerenforceable.27
Furthermore,inthepresentcasethecivilliabilitysoughttoberecoveredthroughtheapplicationofArticle29isno
longerthatbasedonorarisingfromthecriminaloffense.Thereispersuasivelogicintheviewthat,undersuch
circumstances,theacquittaloftheaccusedforeclosedthecivilliabilitybasedonArticle100oftheRevisedPenal
Code which presupposes the existence of criminal liability or requires a conviction of the offense charged.
Divested of its penal element by such acquittal, the causative act or omission becomes in effect a quasidelict,
henceonlyacivilactionbasedthereonmaybeinstitutedorprosecutedthereafter,whichactioncanbeprovedby
merepreponderanceofevidence. 28 Complementary to such considerations, Article 29 enunciates the rule, as already stated, that a civil
actionfordamagesisnotprecludedbyanacquittalonreasonabledoubtforthesamecriminalactoromission.

Theallegationsofthecomplaintfiledbytheprivaterespondentsupportsandisconstitutiveofacaseforaquasi
delictcommittedbythepetitioner,thus:
3. That in the evening of July 7, 197l at about 7:00 o'clock, the plaintiff crossed Iznart
Streetfromhisrestaurantsituatedat220lznartSt.,IloiloCity,Philippines,onhiswayto
a meeting of the Cantonese Club at Aldeguer Street, Iloilo City and while he was
standingonthemiddleofthestreetastherewerevehiclescomingfromtheProvincial
Building towards Plazoleta Gay, Iloilo City, he was bumped and sideswiped by
Volkswagen car with plate No. B2508 W which was on its way from Plazoleta Gay
towardstheProvincialCapitol,IloiloCity,whichcarwasbeingdrivenbythedefendantin
a reckless and negligent manner, at an excessive rate of speed and in violation of the
provisions of the Revised Motor Vehicle (sic) as amended, in relation to the Land
TransportationandTrafficCodeaswellasinviolationofexistingcityordinances,andby
reasonofhisinexcusablelackofprecautionandfailuretoactwithduenegligenceand
by failing to take into consideration (sic) his degree of intelligence, the atmospheric
conditionsoftheplaceaswellasthewidth,traffic,visibilityandotherconditionsoflznart
Street29

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/mar1989/gr_80194_1989.html

2/4

1/29/2017

G.R.No.80194

Sincethisactionisbasedonaquasidelict,thefailureoftherespondenttoreservehisrighttofileaseparatecivil
caseandhisinterventioninthecriminalcasedidnotbarhimfromfilingsuchseparatecivilactionfordamages.30
TheCourthasalsoheretoforeruledinElcanovs.Hill31that

... a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act whether or not he is criminally
prosecutedandfoundguiltyoracquitted,providedthattheoffendedpartyisnotallowed,ifheisalso
actually charged criminally, to recover damages on both scores and would be entitled in such
eventualityonlytothebiggerawardofthetwo,assumingtheawardsmadeinthetwocasesvary.In
otherwords,theextinctionofcivilliabilityreferredtoinPar.(c)ofSec.3Rule111,refersexclusively
to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code whereas the civil liability for the
same act considered as a quasidelict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a
declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been
committedbytheaccused...
TheaforecitedcaseofLontocvs.MDTransit&TaxiCo.,Inc.,etal.involvedvirtuallythesamefactualsituation.
The Court, in arriving at the conclusion hereinbefore quoted, expressly declared that the failure of the therein
plaintifftoreservehisrighttofileaseparatecivilcaseisnotfatalthathisinterventioninthecriminalcasedidnot
bar him from filing a separate civil action for damages, especially considering that the accused therein was
acquittedbecausehisguiltwasnotprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthetwocaseswereanchoredontwo
differentcausesofaction,thecriminalcasebeingonaviolationofArticle365oftheRevisedPenalCodewhile
thesubsequentcomplaintfordamageswasbasedonaquasidelictandthatinthejudgmentinthecriminalcase
the aspect of civil liability was not passed upon and resolved. Consequently, said civil case may proceed as
authorizedbyArticle29oftheCivilCode.
Ourinitialadverseobservationonaportionofthedecisionofrespondentcourtaside,Weholdthatontheissues
decisiveofthiscaseitdidnoterrinsustainingthedecisionaquo.
WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is hereby DENIED and the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED,withoutcosts.
SOORDERED.
MelencioHerrera,Paras,PadillaandSarmiento,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Rollo,24.
2Ibid2223.
3Ibid.,41.
4Ibid.,2324.
5Ibid.,49.
6PresidedoverbyJudgeValerieV.Rovira.
7Rollo,56,50.
8Ibid.,6,51.
9Ibid.,51.
10EdgarJarantilla,Petitionervs.HonorableValeriov.Rovira,etal.,Respondents.
11Rollo,52.
12Ibid.,57.
13FourteenthDivision,JusticeJesusM.Elbinias,ponente,JusticesFidelP.PurisimaandEmeterio
C.Cui,concurring.
14Rollo,32,3436.
15SeeMorenovs.Macadaeg,7SCRA700(1963)Espiritu,etal.vs.Solidum,etal.,52SCRA131
(1973).
16Peoplevs.Olarte19SCRA494(1967),citingPeoplevs.Pinuila,55O.G.4228(1958).
17Kabigtingvs.ActingDirectorofPrisons,G.R.No.L15548,Oct.20,1962,citedinGokongwei,Jr.
vs.SecuritiesandExchangeCommission,etal.,89SCRA336(1979).
18Trinidadvs.RomanCatholicArchbishopofManila,63Phil.881,913(1924),citing4C.J.1093
1096,sec.8075.
19Barredovs.Garcia,etal.,73Phil.607(1942)Mendozavs.Arrieta,91SCRA113(1979)Padilla
vs.CourtofAppeals,etal.129SCRA558(1984).
20107Phil.8(1960).
215SCRA468(1962).
22TheoriginalprovisionsthereoninSec.1,Rule107ofthe1940RulesofCourtwererevisedin
Secs.1to5,Rule111ofthe1964RulesofCourt.AmendmentswerethereafterintroducedbySecs.
1to6,Rule111ofthe1985RulesonCriminalProcedurewhichwerefurtheramendedin1988(see
Footnote26,infra).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/mar1989/gr_80194_1989.html

3/4

1/29/2017

G.R.No.80194

23Padillavs.CourtofAppeals,etal.,supra,Peoplevs.Jalandoni,131SCRA454(1984)
24Maximovs.GerochiJr.,144SCRA325(1986).24Maximovs.GerochiJr.,supraseealsoSec.2,
Rule120,RulesofCourt.
25G.R.No.L48949,April15,1988.
26ThesamerulewasprovidedinSec.3(c)Rule111ofthe1964RulesofCourt,reproducedinSec.
3(b),Rule111ofthe1985RulesonCriminalProcedure,andisnowfoundinSec.2(b),Rule111,
undertheamendmentslastapprovedintheresolutionoftheCourtonJuly7,1988.
27BachrachMotorsCo.vs.Gamboa,101Phil.1219(1957)Bernaldezvs.BoholLand
TransportationCo.,7SCRA276(1963).
28SeeSangco,PhilippineLawonTortsandDamages,1984Ed,555.
29RecordonAppeal,12.
30Dula,etal.vs.Dianalaetal.,132SCRA245(1984).
3177SCRA98(1977).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/mar1989/gr_80194_1989.html

4/4