GR 48977; (February, 1944) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48977 ; February 23, 1944
CONCEPCION SUDARIO, et al., represented by FELISA SUDARIO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ACRO TAXICAB CO., INC., and LAMBERTO YUSON, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The minor children of the late Agapito Sudario, through their guardian, filed a civil action for damages against Acro Taxicab Co., Inc., and its driver, Lamberto Yuson. They alleged that on April 5, 1939, due to Yuson’s gross negligence while driving a company taxi, Agapito Sudario was hit, hurled against a tree, and died. The plaintiffs prayed for solidary damages. Prior to this civil action, a criminal information for homicide through reckless negligence was filed against Yuson. After his arraignment and plea of not guilty, the Provincial Fiscal moved for the dismissal of the criminal case, stating he had no evidence to secure a conviction without the testimonies of eye-witnesses. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case. No reservation to file a separate civil action was made. In the subsequent civil case, the Court of First Instance of Leyte dismissed the complaint on a question of law, ruling that the dismissal of the criminal case, which it deemed equivalent to an acquittal, barred the civil action arising from the crime. The plaintiffs appealed.
ISSUE
Does the definitive dismissal of a criminal information for homicide through reckless negligence, after arraignment and without the accused’s consent, bar a subsequent civil action for damages based on culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict) under Articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court held that while the dismissal of the criminal case extinguished the civil liability arising exclusively from the crime (ex delicto), it did not preclude a separate civil action for damages based on culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict. The Court clarified the distinction between civil liability arising from a crime (governed by the Penal Code) and civil liability arising from a quasi-delict (governed by Articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code). The plaintiffs’ complaint, by demanding solidary liability from the employer corporation, was grounded in the theory of culpa aquiliana. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint without examining the evidence on the merits of the quasi-delict claim. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for a decision based on the evidence already presented by both parties regarding potential liability under Articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code.