GR 145391; (August, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145391 ; August 26, 2002
AVELINO CASUPANAN and ROBERTO CAPITULO, petitioners, vs. MARIO LLAVORE LAROYA, respondent.
FACTS
Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Mario Llavore Laroya and the other owned by petitioner Roberto Capitulo and driven by petitioner Avelino Casupanan, figured in an accident. Laroya filed a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property against Casupanan. Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case for quasi-delict against Laroya. When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was at its preliminary investigation stage. Laroya moved to dismiss the civil case on the ground of forum-shopping. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) granted the motion and dismissed the civil case. Casupanan and Capitulo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which dismissed the petition, ruling that the proper remedy was an appeal and that the MCTC’s error was one of judgment, not an abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the RTC Resolutions, and reinstated the civil case. The Court ruled that:
1. The MCTC’s order of dismissal was without prejudice, as it did not expressly state it was with prejudice. Under Rule 41, an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable; the proper remedy is a special civil action under Rule 65. Thus, the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that the proper remedy was an appeal.
2. There was no forum-shopping. Forum-shopping requires identity of parties, rights of action, and reliefs sought. Here, the criminal case (based on culpa criminal under the Revised Penal Code) and the civil case (based on culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code) have different causes of action. The law allows a separate civil action for quasi-delict to proceed independently.
3. Under the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rule 111, Section 1), an accused is required to litigate a counterclaim in a separate civil action. Therefore, filing such a separate civil action cannot constitute forum-shopping.
4. The separate civil action for quasi-delict is expressly allowed by Articles 31, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code and can be filed independently of the criminal action, regardless of the reservation of the right to file it. The accused, as an aggrieved party, can invoke these articles.
5. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, are given retroactive application to this case as procedural laws are generally retroactive.