G.R. No. L-26442 August 29, 1969
MANUELA S. FORMENTO and RODOLFO L. FORMENTO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO HERAS, doing business in the name and style JD TRANSIT, GRACIANO GUARIÑO and the FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Manuela S. Formento and Rodolfo L. Formento were injured and their motorcycle damaged when it was hit by a JD passenger bus driven by respondent Graciano Guariño and owned by respondent Antonio Heras on September 5, 1962. Guariño was criminally charged (Criminal Case No. 67117) for damage to property and serious physical injuries through reckless negligence. On January 28, 1963, Guariño pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment and to indemnify the offended parties in the sum of P163 for the motorcycle damage. The petitioners did not reserve the right to file a separate civil action in the criminal case. On March 29, 1963, the petitioners filed the present civil action for damages against Heras and Guariño, which included a third-party complaint against Fieldmen’s Insurance Company. The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of the petitioners. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and absolved the respondents, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the present civil action for damages based on quasi-delict is barred by the decision in the prior criminal case where the petitioners did not reserve their right to institute a separate civil action.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The Court held that the civil action was based on a quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from the crime under the Revised Penal Code. The Rules of Court on the implied institution and reservation of the civil action (Sections 1 and 2, Rule 111) were inapplicable as they took effect on January 1, 1964, after the civil action was filed on March 29, 1963. Applying Article 33 of the Civil Code and consistent jurisprudence (e.g., Reyes v. De la Rosa, Ortaliz v. Echarri, Parker v. Panlilio, Azucena v. Potenciano, Meneses v. Luat), the Court ruled that the failure to make a reservation in the criminal case does not bar a separate civil action for quasi-delict, provided the injured party did not actively intervene in the criminal prosecution. The petitioners here did not so intervene. The employer’s (Heras) liability under quasi-delict is solidary, unlike the merely subsidiary liability under the Penal Code. The plea of res judicata was therefore untenable.