G.R. No. 91856 October 5, 1990
YAKULT PHILIPPINES AND LARRY SALVADO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, WENCESLAO M. POLO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Br. 19 of the RTC of Manila, and ROY CAMASO, respondents.

FACTS

On December 24, 1982, private respondent Roy Camaso, a minor, was sideswiped by a motorcycle owned by petitioner Yakult Philippines and driven by its employee, petitioner Larry Salvado. Salvado was subsequently charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries in Criminal Case No. 027184 before the City Court of Manila, filed on January 6, 1983. Subsequently, on October 19, 1984, a complaint for damages was filed by Camaso against Yakult and Salvado in the Regional Trial Court, docketed as Civil Case No. 84-27317. The RTC rendered a decision on May 26, 1989, ordering the petitioners to pay damages.
Petitioners appealed but also filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction over the civil case. They argued that the civil action for damages arising from alleged criminal negligence, being a quasi-delict, could not be filed independently of the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code, which applies only to specific intentional torts. They further contended that under Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a separate civil action may not be filed unless a reservation to do so is expressly made in the criminal case, which was not done here. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether a separate civil action for damages based on quasi-delict (Article 2176 of the Civil Code) can prosper despite the prior filing of a criminal action and the absence of a formal reservation to file such civil action separately.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the separate civil action. Applying Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure retroactively, as procedural rules may be applied retrospectively, the Court explained that the rule provides the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the same act or omission is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives it, reserves the right to file it separately, or institutes it prior to the criminal action. This civil liability includes damages under Article 2176 (quasi-delict) of the Civil Code.
The Court ruled that while the offended party here did not make a formal reservation, the separate civil action was instituted before the prosecution started to present its evidence in the criminal case, and the judge presiding over the criminal case was duly informed. This actual filing of the civil action constitutes a substantial compliance that is even more definitive than a mere reservation. The purpose of the reservation requirement is to prevent double recovery for the same act or omission. Since the civil case was filed ahead of the criminal trial’s evidentiary stage and the criminal court was notified, this objective was satisfied, and there was no risk of duplicate damages. Consequently, the RTC correctly exercised jurisdiction.