GR L 4920; (June, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4920 June 29, 1953
FRANCISCO DIANA and SOLEDAD DIANA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO., defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiffs-appellants Francisco Diana and Soledad Diana, heirs of the deceased Florenio Diana, filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 9221) on October 19, 1948, against defendant-appellee Batangas Transportation Co. to enforce its subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. This arose from a criminal case where the defendant’s driver, Vivencio Bristol, was convicted of multiple homicide through reckless imprudence for an accident on June 21, 1945, that caused Florenio Diana’s death. The criminal court ordered Bristol to indemnify the heirs P2,000, but a writ of execution returned unsatisfied as Bristol had no leviable property. The defendant moved to dismiss this complaint on December 13, 1948, on the ground of litis pendentia under Rule 8, Section 1(d) of the Rules of Court, citing another pending action (Civil Case No. 8023) between the same parties for damages based on culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict) arising from the same accident. The lower court granted the motion to dismiss on February 3, 1949, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint in Civil Case No. 9221 on the ground that there was another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that the two actions do not involve the same cause and thus do not fall under Rule 8, Section 1(d). While there is identity of parties, there is no identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the reliefs are founded on different facts and legal bases. Civil Case No. 9221 is an action to enforce subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code arising from a criminal conviction, whereas Civil Case No. 8023 is an action for damages based on culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict) under Articles 1902-1910 of the old Civil Code. These involve two distinct remedies: one from civil liability arising from a crime, and the other from extra-contractual fault or negligence. A judgment in one would not constitute res judicata in the other. The Court emphasized that depriving the plaintiffs of the remedy under Article 103, after the driver’s conviction, would unjustly deny them the indemnity awarded by the criminal court.