GR 46179; (January, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-46179 January 31, 1978
CANDIDA VIRATA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. VICTORIO OCHOA, MAXIMO BORILLA and THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, respondents.
FACTS
Arsenio Virata died on September 24, 1975, after being struck by a passenger jeepney driven by Maximo Borilla and registered in the name of Victorio Ochoa. A criminal case for homicide through reckless imprudence was filed against Borilla. During its pendency, the heirs of Virata (petitioners) initially reserved their right to file a separate civil action, later withdrew this reservation to actively participate in the criminal case by presenting evidence on damages, and then again reserved the right to institute a separate civil action on June 29, 1976.
Subsequently, on July 19, 1976, the petitioners filed a separate civil case for damages based on quasi-delict against both Borilla and Ochoa in the Court of First Instance of Cavite. The defendants moved to dismiss this civil case, arguing that another action (the criminal case) was pending between the same parties for the same cause. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Meanwhile, the criminal case concluded with the acquittal of Borilla on the ground that he caused the injury by mere accident.
ISSUE
Whether the heirs of the deceased can prosecute a separate civil action for damages based on quasi-delict against the driver and owner of the vehicle, notwithstanding the driver’s prior acquittal in the criminal case for the same incident.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and reinstated the civil case. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct and independent nature of civil liability arising from quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) under the Civil Code, as opposed to civil liability arising from a crime under the Revised Penal Code. Article 2177 of the Civil Code explicitly allows an injured party to elect between an action under the Penal Code and one for quasi-delict. The prohibition is only against recovering twice for the same act.
The Court, citing Elcano v. Hill, reiterated that acquittal in a criminal case, whether on reasonable doubt or because the act was a mere accident, does not extinguish the liability for quasi-delict. The sources of obligation are different: one springs from a crime, the other from a quasi-delict under Article 1157. The civil case based on quasi-delict requires only a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Since the petitioners had reserved their right to file this separate action and are not seeking double recovery, the acquittal in the criminal case is not a bar to the pursuit of their claim under the Civil Code. The case was remanded for further proceedings.