GR L 11640; (May, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-11640; May 28, 1958
CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LI CHUI alias ONG PONG, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On September 29, 1949, plaintiff-appellant Claudio Degollacion, his employer Chua Leh, and Filemon Legaspina were riding in Leh’s delivery truck when it was bumped from behind by a truck owned by defendant-appellee Li Chui alias Ong Pong and driven by his employee, Telesforo Sagayno. The accident caused physical injuries to the occupants. On December 13, 1949, Sagayno was charged with less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence in the Justice of the Peace Court of Carcar, Cebu (Criminal Case No. 304). He was found guilty, appealed to the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and the case was dismissed without prejudice on February 16, 1954, due to the alleged failure of a prosecution witness to appear. After failing to have the criminal case reinstated, Degollacion filed a civil action for damages against Ong Pong on May 14, 1955. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, holding that the four-year prescriptive period began to run from the date of the accident (September 29, 1949) and had expired by 1955. Degollacion appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the filing of the criminal action interrupted the running of the prescriptive period for the civil action for damages arising from the same offense, such that the civil action filed in 1955 was not yet barred by prescription.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal. Under Rule 107 (a) of the Rules of Court, when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party expressly waives it or reserves the right to institute it separately. In this case, Degollacion, the offended party, did neither; thus, the civil action was deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal case. Pursuant to Article 1973 of the Old Civil Code and Article 1155 of the New Civil Code, the institution of the criminal action interrupted the running of the prescriptive period. The interruption lasted from December 13, 1949 (filing of the criminal charge) to February 16, 1954 (dismissal of the criminal case). Therefore, the four-year prescriptive period, which started on September 29, 1949, had not yet expired when the civil action was filed on May 14, 1955. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.