G.R. No. 127934 ; August 23, 2000
Ace Haulers Corporation, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Ederlinda Abiva, respondents.

FACTS

A vehicular accident on June 1, 1984, involving a truck owned by petitioner Ace Haulers and a jeepney, resulted in the death of motorcycle rider Fidel Abiva. A criminal case for reckless imprudence was filed against the drivers. Subsequently, the victim’s widow, respondent Ederlinda Abiva, filed a separate civil action for damages based on quasi-delict against the drivers and their employers, including petitioner. The trial court initially dismissed this civil action, ruling it could not proceed independently of the criminal prosecution.
The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in a 1988 resolution. The civil case was remanded for trial. Meanwhile, the criminal case concluded with the conviction of the drivers and an order for them to pay civil indemnity. During the pre-trial of the civil case, petitioner failed to appear despite notice and was declared in default. The trial court then rendered a decision solely against petitioner, awarding actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether a separate civil action for quasi-delict can proceed despite a prior criminal conviction for the same act; (2) whether the default declaration was proper; and (3) whether the awarded damages were justified.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the separate civil action’s validity. The legal logic is that a quasi-delict under the Civil Code provides an independent and separate cause of action from the criminal negligence. This civil liability exists independently of the criminal prosecution. The acquittal or conviction in the criminal case does not extinguish this separate civil responsibility, especially when the action is against the employer under Article 2180, who is not a party to the criminal case. The respondent could recover under either proceeding but could not obtain double recovery; she was entitled to the greater award.
On the second issue, the Court upheld the default declaration as a factual matter resolved by the Court of Appeals, which is binding. Regarding damages, the award of actual damages was sustained as supported by evidence. However, the award of moral damages was deleted for lack of clear proof of bad faith or ill motive on petitioner’s part. Attorney’s fees were reduced to ten percent of the actual damages. The decision of the Court of Appeals was thus affirmed with these modifications.