G.R. No. L-32055. February 26, 1988.
REYNALDO BERMUDEZ, SR. and ADONITA YABUT BERMUDEZ, petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. JUDGE A. MELENCIO-HERRERA, DOMINGO PONTINO y TACORDA and CORDOVA NG SUN KWAN, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners Reynaldo and Adonita Bermudez filed a civil case for damages against Domingo Pontino, the driver, and Cordova Ng Sun Kwan, the owner of a cargo truck. The action arose from a vehicular accident where the truck, driven by Pontino, bumped a jeep, causing fatal injuries to the Bermudezes’ six-year-old son. A criminal case for Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence was filed against Pontino. Prior to filing the civil suit, the petitioners filed a “Reservation to File Separate Civil Action” in the pending criminal case.
The trial court, presided over by Judge Melencio-Herrera, dismissed the civil complaint. It ruled that by reserving their right to file a separate civil action in the criminal case, the petitioners had elected to treat the act as a crime. Consequently, the court dismissed the case against the employer, Cordova Ng Sun Kwan, and suspended the proceedings against the driver, Pontino, pending the final outcome of the criminal case. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this direct appeal on pure questions of law.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the civil action for damages filed by the petitioners is based on quasi-delict under the Civil Code, which can proceed independently of the criminal case, or whether it is deemed an action based on the crime due to the reservation made in the criminal proceeding.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed the trial court’s orders, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court clarified that the reservation to file a separate civil action in the criminal case does not preclude the injured party from instituting a civil action based on quasi-delict. The trial court erred in applying the doctrine from Joaquin vs. Aniceto, which involved an action to enforce civil liability arising from crime, where an employer’s subsidiary liability requires prior conviction of the employee.
The legal logic is anchored on the distinct nature of civil liabilities. Under the law, obligations can arise from crime or from quasi-delict, which are separate sources. Articles 2176-2194 of the Civil Code govern quasi-delict. Rule 111, Section 2 of the Rules of Court explicitly allows an independent civil action for quasi-delict, as provided in Article 2177 of the Civil Code, to proceed independently of any criminal prosecution. Article 2177 states that responsibility from fault or negligence under the Civil Code is entirely separate from civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code.
Therefore, the petitioners’ reservation in the criminal case was a procedural step that did not constitute an irrevocable election of remedy. They retained the option to sue under Article 2176 for quasi-delict, where an employer may be held solidarily liable with the employee, subject to the defense of exercising the diligence of a good father of the family. This action requires only a preponderance of evidence, unlike criminal liability which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that a civil action for quasi-delict is independent and distinct, and its prosecution is not barred by the pendency of a criminal case arising from the same act.