G.R. No. L-4160 July 29, 1952
Anita Tan, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Co., Julito Sto Domingo, Igmidio Rico, and Rural Transit Co., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Anita Tan owned a house in Manila. On May 3, 1949, Standard Vacuum Oil Company delivered gasoline to Rural Transit Company using a tank-truck trailer driven by Julito Sto. Domingo, assisted by Igmidio Rico. During the discharge of gasoline, a fire started. Sto. Domingo drove the burning truck across Rizal Avenue Extension, abandoned it, and it continued moving, causing buildings, including Tan’s house, to burn. Tan spent P12,000 for repairs. Sto. Domingo and Rico were criminally charged with arson through reckless imprudence but were acquitted by the Court of First Instance of Manila, which found the fire was an “unfortunate accident” and their negligence not proven. Tan then filed a civil action for damages against Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Rural Transit Company, and the two employees. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing the action was barred by prior judgment and the complaint stated no cause of action. The lower court dismissed the case, citing the acquittal and Tan’s failure to reserve her right to file a separate civil action in the criminal case.

ISSUE

Whether the civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal in the criminal case against the employees, and whether the complaint states a cause of action against the corporate defendants.

RULING

The order of dismissal is modified.
1. As to Julito Sto. Domingo and Igmidio Rico: The dismissal is affirmed. Their acquittal in the criminal case included a declaration that the fire was an “unfortunate accident” for which they were not responsible. Under Rule 107, section 1-d of the Rules of Court, extinction of the penal action does not extinguish the civil liability unless the judgment declares that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Here, the court’s finding that the fire was accidental and that the evidence showed no cause of the fire constitutes such a declaration, exempting them from civil liability.
2. As to Standard Vacuum Oil Company and Rural Transit Company: The dismissal is reversed. The principle of res judicata does not apply to them as they were not parties to the criminal case. Their civil liability is based on separate grounds:
– For Standard Vacuum Oil Company, the complaint alleges independent negligent acts attributable to the company itself (e.g., failure to take necessary safety precautions), which constitute a cause of action under culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict) under the Old Civil Code. No reservation of the right to file a separate civil action is required for such an action.
– For Rural Transit Company, its liability is predicated on Article 101, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, which imposes civil liability on persons who benefit from an act done to prevent a greater harm. The criminal court found Sto. Domingo acted to avoid a greater evil (a larger conflagration) under Article 11(4) of the Revised Penal Code, benefiting Rural Transit. Thus, a civil action against it is separate from the criminal liability of the accused, and no reservation is needed.
The case is remanded for further proceedings against Standard Vacuum Oil Company and Rural Transit Company. Costs are awarded.