GR 21950; (December, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21950 December 28, 1966
AMBROCIO DE LA CRUZ and PAULINA SIGURADO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PRIMITIVA BERROYA and ELISA MANALO, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiffs-appellants Ambrocio de la Cruz and Paulina Sigurado filed a civil case to enforce the subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code against defendants-appellees Primitiva Berroya and Elisa Manalo. The claim arose from a January 6, 1960 accident where a jeepney, allegedly owned/operated by the appellees and driven by Igmidio Senin, hit and killed the appellants’ child. Senin was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence in Criminal Case No. 50955 and ordered to indemnify the appellants P6,000.00. After the decision became final, a writ of execution against Senin was returned unsatisfied. The appellees moved to dismiss the complaint on two grounds: (1) the appellants had executed a “Release of Claim” document, receiving P750.00 and releasing Igmidio Senin and “E.N.P Berroya Trans., Inc.” from all claims arising from the accident; and (2) the cause of action did not accrue against them as the owner/operator was the corporation, and they were merely its officers. The appellants opposed, arguing the release could not be raised as it was not set up as a compulsory counterclaim in the criminal case and sought to amend the complaint. The lower court granted the motion to dismiss.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint based on the “Release of Claim” executed by the appellants.
RULING
Yes, the dismissal was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order. First, a release of the claim is a proper ground for a motion to dismiss under Rule 16, Section 1(h) of the Rules of Court. The appellees attached the written release to their motion, and the appellants did not contest its genuineness as required by the rules. Second, the release, while naming the driver Senin and “E.N.P Berroya Trans., Inc.,” also operated to release those subsidiarily liable, including the appellees. Third, the release is a matter of defense, not a compulsory counterclaim. Therefore, the appellants’ argument that it was barred for not being raised in the criminal case was without merit. The order of dismissal was in accordance with law.