GR 20865; (December, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20865, December 29, 1967
Asela P. Tactaquin, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Jose B. Palileo, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiff-appellant Asela P. Tactaquin filed a civil action (Civil Case No. Q-6601) in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to recover damages from defendant-appellee Jose B. Palileo for the death of her daughter and serious physical injuries inflicted upon her in a car accident on June 16, 1961, caused by appellee’s reckless driving. In connection with the same accident, appellee was criminally charged (Criminal Case No. 4736) in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, where he was found guilty of homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay P4,000 as damages to appellant. Appellee moved to dismiss the civil case on the ground of res judicata, arguing it was barred by the final judgment in the criminal case. The lower court sustained the motion and dismissed the case. Appellant appealed, and the Supreme Court initially affirmed the dismissal. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that a reservation to file a separate civil action was timely made during the criminal trial.
ISSUE
Whether the doctrine of res judicata bars the separate civil action for damages filed by the appellant, considering the reservation of the right to institute such an action made during the criminal proceedings.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration and set aside its original decision. The Court found that during the trial of Criminal Case No. 4736, after the appellee changed his plea to guilty, the private prosecutor, Atty. Sundiam, expressly reserved the right to civil liability on behalf of the offended party, which reservation was recorded by order of the Court. This reservation was made before the rendition of judgment, making it timely and legally effective. Consequently, the civil liability was automatically taken out of the criminal case, and the portion of the criminal court’s decision concerning civil indemnity was a nullity and could not have the authority of res judicata. The Court ruled that once such a reservation is made, the offended party loses the right to intervene in the criminal prosecution regarding civil liability. Therefore, the civil action was not barred. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.