YAKULT PHILIPPINES AND LARRY SALVADO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, WENCESLAO M. POLO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BR. 19 OF THE RTC OF MANILA, AND ROY CAMASO, RES…

Can a civil action instituted after the criminal action was filed
prosper even if there was no reservation to file a separate civil action?  This is the issue in this petition.

On December 24, 1982,
a five-year old boy, Roy Camaso, while standing on the
sidewalk of M. de la Fuente
Street, Sampaloc, Manila,
was sideswiped by a Yamaha motorcycle owned by Yakult Philippines
and driven by its employee, Larry Salvado.

Salvado was charged with the crime of
reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries in an information
that was filed on January 6, 1983 with the then City Court of Manila, docketed
as Criminal Case No. 027184.  On October
19, 1984 a complaint for damages was filed by Roy Camaso
represented by his father, David Camaso, against
Yakult Philippines and Larry Salvado in the Regional
Trial Court of Manila docketed as Civil Case No. 84-27317.

In due course a decision was rendered in the civil case on May 26, 1989 ordering defendants to
pay jointly and severally the plaintiff the sum of P13,006.30
for actual expenses for medical services and hospital bills; P3,000.00
attorney’s fees and the costs of the suit. 
Although said defendants appealed the judgment, they nevertheless filed
a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals challenging the
jurisdiction of the trial court over said civil case.

Petitioners’ thesis is that the civil action for damages for
injuries arising from alleged criminal negligence of Salvado,
being without malice, cannot be filed independently of the criminal action under
Article 33 of the Civil Code.  Further,
it is contended that under Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure such a separate civil action may not be filed unless reservation
thereof is expressly made.

In a decision dated November
3, 1989, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.^[1]
A motion for reconsideration thereof filed by petitioners was denied on January 30, 1990.  Hence this petition.

The petition is devoid of merit.

Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure provides
as follows:

“SECTION 1.  Institution of criminal
and civil actions. – When a criminal action is instituted, the civil
action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended
party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately,
or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised
Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines
arising from the same act or omission of the accused.

A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others.  The institution of, or the reservation of the
right to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the others.

The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil
actions shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and
under circumstances affording the offended
party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.

In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the
same act or omission of the accused.

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against
the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the
filing fees for such civil action as provided in these Rules shall constitute a
first lien on the judgment except in an
award for actual damages.

In cases wherein the amount of damages, other than actual, is
alleged in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be
paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for trial.  (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]

Under the aforecited provisions of the
rule, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly
instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves his right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action.

Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the
Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines
arising from the same act or omission of the accused.

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 opportunity to make such reservation.

In this case, the offended party has not waived the civil action,
nor reserved the right to institute it separately.  Neither has the offended party instituted the
civil action prior to the criminal action. 
However, the civil action in this case was filed in court before the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution in the criminal action of
which the judge presiding on the criminal case was duly informed, so that in the
disposition of the criminal action no damages was awarded.

The civil liability sought arising from the act or omission of
the accused in this case is a quasi delict
as defined under Article 2176 of the Civil Code as follows:

“ART. 2176.  Whoever by
act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done.  Such
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi–delict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.”

The aforecited revised rule requiring
such previous reservation also covers quasi-delict
as defined under Article 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or
omission of the accused.

Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without
previous reservation in the criminal case, nevertheless since it was instituted
before the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action, and the judge
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
prosecution presents its evidence.

The purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the
offended party from recovering damages twice for the same act or omission.

Thus, the Court finds and so holds that the trial court had
jurisdiction over the separate civil action brought before it.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.  The questioned decision of the Court of
Appeals dated November 3, 1989
and its resolution dated January 30,
1990 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Fernan, C.J., and Paras, J., on leave.

^[1]
Justice Luis L. Victor was the ponente
concurred in by Justices Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. and
Felipe B. Kalalo.

^[2]
People vs. Sumilang, 77
Phil. 764 (1946).