G.R. No. L-19331; April 30, 1965
Victoria G. Capuno and Josephine G. Capuno, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines and Jon Elordi, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On January 3, 1953, a vehicular collision in Apalit, Pampanga, between a Pepsi-Cola delivery truck driven by Jon Elordi and a private car driven by Cipriano Capuno resulted in the deaths of Capuno and his passengers, spouses Florencio Buan and Rizalina Paras. On January 5, 1953, Elordi was charged with triple homicide through reckless imprudence (Criminal Case No. 1591). The information was later amended to include claims for damages by the heirs of the victims. The heirs of Capuno (appellants) and the Estate of Buan were represented by private prosecutors in the criminal case. On October 1, 1953, the Intestate Estate of the Buan spouses filed a separate civil action for damages against Pepsi-Cola and Elordi (Civil Case No. 838), which included a claim for indemnity of P2,623.00 allegedly paid by the Estate to the Capuno heirs under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In the criminal case, the court disallowed the appearances of the private prosecutors for both the Capuno heirs and the Buan Estate in orders dated September 23, 1953, and October 23, 1954, respectively, from which no appeal was taken. On June 11, 1958, the parties in Civil Case No. 838 entered into a compromise settlement for P290,000.00, wherein the Buan Estate gave up its claims, including the reimbursement for the sum paid to the Capuno heirs. The court approved the compromise and dismissed the case on June 17, 1958. The criminal case remained pending until Elordi’s acquittal on April 15, 1959. Prior to that, on September 26, 1958, the Capuno heirs commenced the present civil action for damages against Pepsi-Cola and Elordi. The trial court dismissed the complaint on February 29, 1960, on grounds of prescription and release from claim due to the Workmen’s Compensation payment and subsequent compromise.

ISSUE

Whether the civil action for damages filed by the appellants on September 26, 1958, based on quasi-delict, had already prescribed.

RULING

Yes, the action had prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The action is one for recovery of damages based on a quasi-delict, which must be instituted within four years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code. The prescriptive period began to run from the day the quasi-delict occurred, which was on or about January 3, 1953. The complaint was filed only on September 26, 1958, more than five years later, thus barred by prescription. The Court held that the institution of the criminal action did not interrupt the prescriptive period for the separate civil action based on quasi-delict, as such civil action could proceed independently under Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Code (with “physical injuries” including bodily injuries causing death). The appellants’ original intervention in the criminal case to enforce their claim ex-delicto was disallowed, and they did not appeal. When they filed the civil action while the criminal case was still pending, they correctly pursued it as an independent action, but it was filed beyond the four-year period. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the other issues raised, given the dispositive finding on prescription.