FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-32599. June 29, 1979.]

EDGARDO E. MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. HON. ABUNDIO Z.

ARRIETA, Presiding Judge of Branch VIII, Court of First Instance
of Manila, FELINO TIMBOL, and RODOLFO SALAZAR, respondents.

David G. Nitafan for petitioner.

Arsenio R. Reyes for respondent Timbol.
Armando M. Pulgado for respondent Salazar.

DECISION

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J : p

Petitioner, Edgardo Mendoza, seeks a review on Certiorari of the

Orders of respondent Judge in Civil Case No. 80803 dismissing his Complaint
for Damages based on quasi-delict against respondents Felino Timbol and
Rodolfo Salazar.
The facts which spawned the present controversy may be summarized
as follows:
On October 22, 1969, at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, a three-
way vehicular accident occurred along Mac-Arthur Highway, Marilao,
Bulacan, involving a Mercedes Benz owned and driven by petitioner; a
private jeep owned and driven by respondent Rodolfo Salazar; and a gravel
and sand truck owned by respondent Felipino Timbol and driven by Freddie
Montoya. As a consequence of said mishap, two separate Informations for
Reckless Imprudence Causing Damage to Property were filed against Rodolfo
Salazar and Freddie Montoya with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. The
case against truck-driver Montoya, docketed as Criminal Case No. SM-227,
was for causing damage to the jeep owned by Salazar, in the amount of
P1,604.00, by hitting it at the right rear portion thereby causing said jeep to
hit and bump an oncoming car, which happened to be petitioner's Mercedes
Benz. The case against jeep-owner-driver Salazar, docketed as Criminal Case
No. SM-228, was for causing damage to the Mercedes Benz of petitioner in
the amount of P8,890.00.
At the joint trial of the above cases, petitioner testified that jeep-
owner-driver Salazar overtook the truck driven by Montoya, swerved to the
left going towards the poblacion of Marilao, and hit his car which was bound
for Manila. Petitioner further testified that before the impact, Salazar had
jumped from the jeep and that he was not aware that Salazar's jeep was
bumped from behind by the truck driven by Montoya. Petitioner's version of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the accident was adopted by truck-driver Montoya. Jeep-owner-driver
Salazar, on the other hand, tried to show that, after overtaking the truck
driven by Montoya, he flashed a signal indicating his intention to turn left
towards the poblacion of Marilao but was stopped at the intersection by a
policeman who was directing traffic; that while he was at a stop position, his
jeep was bumped at the rear by the truck driven by Montoya causing him to
be thrown out of the jeep, which then swerved to the left and hit petitioner's
car, which was coming from the opposite direction.
On July 31, 1970, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch V, Sta.
Maria, rendered judgment, stating in its decretal portion: LLpr

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court finds the accused

Freddie Montoya GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
damage to property thru reckless imprudence in Crim. Case No. SM-
227, and hereby sentences him to pay a fine of P972.50 and to
indemnify Rodolfo Salazar in the same amount of P972.50 as actual
damages, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, both as
to fine and indemnity, with costs.

"Accused Rodolfo Salazar is hereby ACQUITTED from the offense

charged in Crim. Case No. SM-228, with costs de oficio, and his bond is
ordered cancelled.

"SO ORDERED." 1

Thus, the trial Court absolved jeep-owner-driver Salazar of any liability,

civil and criminal, in view of its findings that the collision between Salazar's
jeep and petitioner's car was the result of the former having been bumped
from behind by the truck driven by Montoya. Neither was petitioner awarded
damages as he was not a complainant against truck-driver Montoya but only
against jeep-owner-driver Salazar.
On August 22, 1970, or after the termination of the criminal cases,
petitioner filed Civil Case No. 80803 with the Court of First Instance of Manila
against respondents jeep-owner-driver Salazar and Felino Timbol, the latter
being the owner of the gravel and sand truck driven by Montoya, for
indemnification for the damages sustained by his car as a result of the
collision involving their vehicles. Jeep-owner-driver Salazar and truck-owner
Timbol were joined as defendants, either in the alternative or in solidum,
allegedly for the reason that petitioner was uncertain as to whether he was
entitled to relief against both on only one of them.
On September 9, 1970, truck-owner Timbol filed a Motion to Dismiss
Civil Case No. 80803 on the grounds that the Complaint is barred by a prior
judgment in the criminal cases and that it fails to state a cause of action. An
Opposition thereto was filed by petitioner.
In an Order dated September 12, 1970, respondent Judge dismissed
the Complaint against truck-owner Timbol for reasons stated in the afore-
mentioned Motion to Dismiss. On September 30, 1970, petitioner sought
before this Court the review of that dismissal, to which petition we gave due
course. prcd

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 On January 30, 1971, upon motion of jeep-owner-driver Salazar,
respondent Judge also dismissed the case as against the former. Respondent
Judge reasoned out that "while it is true that an independent civil action for
liability under Article 2177 of the Civil Code could be prosecuted
independently of the criminal action for the offense from which it arose, the
New Rules of Court, which took effect on January 1, 1964, requires an
express reservation of the civil action to be made in the criminal action;
otherwise, the same would be barred pursuant to Section 2, Rule 111 . . ." 2
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration thereof was denied in the order dated
February 23, 1971, with respondent Judge suggesting that the issue be
raised to a higher Court "for a more decisive interpretation of the rule." 3
On March 25, 1971, petitioner then filed a Supplemental Petition before
us, also to review the last two mentioned Orders, to which we required jeep-
owner-driver Salazar to file an Answer.
The Complaint against truck-owner Timbol
We shall first discuss the validity of the Order, dated September 12,
1970, dismissing petitioner's Complaint against truck-owner Timbol.
In dismissing the Complaint against the truck-owner, respondent Judge
sustained Timbol's allegations that the civil suit is barred by the prior joint
judgment in Criminal Cases Nos. SM-227 and SM-228, wherein no reservation
to file a separate civil case was made by petitioner and where the latter
actively participated in the trial and tried to prove damages against jeep-
driver Salazar only; and that the Complaint does not state a cause of action
against truck-owner Timbol inasmuch as petitioner prosecuted jeep-owner-
driver Salazar as the one solely responsible for the damage suffered by his
car.
Well-settled is the rule that for a prior judgment to constitute a bar to a
subsequent case, the following requisites must concur: (1) it must be a final
judgment; (2) it must have been rendered by a Court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and over the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the
merit; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity
of parties, identity of subject matter and identity of cause of action.
It is conceded that the first three requisites of res judicata are present.
However, we agree with petitioner that there is no identity of cause of action
between Criminal Case No. SM-227 and Civil Case No. 80803. Obvious is the
fact that in said criminal case truck-driver Montoya was not prosecuted for
damage to petitioner's car but for damage to the jeep. Neither was truck-
owner Timbol a party in said case. In fact as the trial Court had put it "the
owner of the Mercedes Benz cannot recover any damages from the accused
Freddie Montoya, he (Mendoza) being a complainant only against Rodolfo
Salazar in Criminal Case No. SM-228." 4 And more importantly, in the
criminal cases, the cause of action was the enforcement of the civil liability
arising from criminal negligence under Article 100 of the Revised Penal
Code, whereas Civil Case No. 80803 is based on quasi-delict under Article
2180, in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code. As held in Barredo vs.
Garcia, et al.: 5
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 "The foregoing authorities clearly demonstrate the separate
individuality of cuasi-delitos o r culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code.
Specifically they show that there is a distinction between civil liability
arising from criminal negligence (governed by the Penal Code) and
responsibility for fault or negligence under articles 1902 to 1910 of the
Civil Code, and that the same negligent act may produce either a civil
liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or a separate
responsibility for fault or negligence under articles 1902 to 1910 of the
Civil Code. Still more concretely, the authorities above cited render it
inescapable to conclude that the employer in this case the defendant
petitioner is primarily and directly liable under article 1903 of the Civil
Code."

That petitioner's cause of action against Timbol in the civil case is

based on quasi-delict is evident from the recitals in the complaint, to wit:
that while petitioner was driving his car along MacArthur Highway at Marilao,
Bulacan, a jeep owned and driven by Salazar suddenly swerved to his
(petitioner's) lane and collided with his car; That the sudden swerving of
Salazar's jeep was caused either by the negligence and lack of skill of
Freddie Montoya, Timbol's employee, who was then driving a gravel and
sand truck in the same direction as Salazar's jeep; and that as a
consequence of the collision, petitioner's car suffered extensive damage
amounting to P12,248.20 and that he likewise incurred actual and moral
damages, litigation expenses and attorney's fees. Clearly, therefore, the two
factors that a cause of action must consist of, namely: (1) plaintiff's primary
right, i.e., that he is the owner of a Mercedes Benz, and (2) defendant's
delict or wrongful act or omission which violated plaintiff's primary right, i.e.,
the negligence or lack of skill either of jeep-owner Salazar or of Timbol's
employee, Montoya, in driving the truck, causing Salazar's jeep to swerve
and collide with petitioner's car, were alleged in the Complaint. 6
Consequently, petitioner's cause of action being based on quasi-delict ,
respondent Judge committed reversible error when he dismissed the civil suit
against the truck-owner, as said case may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. prcd

"Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not

arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil
action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and
regardless of the result of the latter."

But it is truck-owner Timbol's submission (as well as that of jeep-

owner-driver Salazar) that petitioner's failure to make a reservation in the
criminal action of his right to file an independent civil action bars the
institution of such separate civil action, invoking section 2, Rule 111, Rules
of Court, which says:
"Section 2. — Independent civil action. — In the cases provided
for in Articles 31, 32, 33, 34 and 2177 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct
from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party during
the pendency of the criminal case, provided the right is reserved as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 required in the preceding section. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence."

Interpreting the above provision, this Court, in Garcia vs. Florido, 7 said:
"As we have stated at the outset, the same negligent act causing
damages may produce a civil liability arising from crime or create an
action for quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual. The former is a
violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a distinct and
independent negligence, having always had its own foundation and
individuality. Some legal writers are of the view that in accordance with
Article 31, the civil action based upon quasi-delict may proceed
independently of the criminal proceeding for criminal negligence and
regardless of the result of the latter. Hence, 'the proviso in Section 2 of
Rule 111 with reference to . . . Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code
is contrary to the letter and spirit of the said articles, for these articles
were drafted . . . and are intended to constitute as exceptions to the
general rule stated in what is now Section 1 of Rule 111. The proviso,
which is procedural, may also be regarded as an unauthorized
amendment of substantive law, Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code,
which do not provide for the reservation required in the proviso.' . . ."

In his concurring opinion in the above case, Mr. Justice Antonio Barredo
further observed that inasmuch as Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code
create a civil liability distinct and different from the civil action arising from
the offense of negligence under the Revised Penal Code, no reservation,
therefore, need be made in the criminal case; that Section 2 of Rule 111 is
inoperative, "it being substantive in character and is not within the power of
the Supreme Court to promulgate; and even if it were not substantive but
adjective, it cannot stand because of its inconsistency with Article 2177, an
enactment of the legislature superseding the Rules of 1940."
We declare, therefore, that in so far as truck-owner Timbol is
concerned, Civil Case No. 80803 is not barred by the fact that petitioner
failed to reserve, in the criminal action, his right to file an independent civil
action based on quasi-delict. LibLex

The suit against jeep-owner-driver Salazar

The case as against jeep-owner-driver Salazar, who was acquitted in
Criminal Case No. SM-228, presents a different picture altogether.
At the outset it should be clarified that inasmuch as civil liability
coexists with criminal responsibility in negligence cases, the offended party
has the option between an action for enforcement of civil liability based on
culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an action for
recovery of damages based on culpa aquiliana under Article 2177 of the Civil
Code. The action for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal
under section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court is deemed simultaneously
instituted with the criminal action, unless expressly waived or reserved for
separate application by the offended party. 8
The circumstances attendant to the criminal case yields the conclusion
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 that petitioner had opted to base his cause of action against jeep-owner-
driver Salazar on culpa criminal and not on culpa aquiliana, as evidenced by
his active participation and intervention in the prosecution of the criminal
suit against said Salazar. The latter's civil liability continued to be involved in
the criminal action until its termination. Such being the case, there was no
need for petitioner to have reserved his right to file a separate civil action as
his action for civil liability was deemed impliedly instituted in Criminal Case
No. SM-228.
Neither would an independent civil action be. Noteworthy is the basis
of the acquittal of jeep-owner-driver Salazar in the criminal case, expounded
by the trial Court in this wise:
"In view of what has been proven and established during the
trial, accused Freddie Montoya would be held liable for having bumped
and hit the rear portion of the jeep driven by the accused Rodolfo
Salazar.

"Considering that the collision between the jeep driven by

Rodolfo Salazar and the car owned and driven by Edgardo Mendoza
was the result of the hitting on the rear of the jeep by the truck driven
by Freddie Montoya, this Court believes that accused Rodolfo Salazar
cannot be held liable for the damages sustained by Edgardo Mendoza's
car." 9

Crystal clear is the trial Court's pronouncement that under the facts of
the case, jeep-owner driver Salazar cannot be held liable for the damages
sustained by petitioner's car. In other words, "the fact from which the civil
might arise did not exist." Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner's cause of
action as against jeep-owner-driver Salazar is ex-delictu, founded on Article
100 of the Revised Penal Code, the civil action must be held to have been
extinguished in consonance with Section 3(c), Rule 111 of t he Rules of Court
10 which provides:

"Sec. 3. Other civil actions arising from offenses. — In all

cases not included in the preceding section the following rules shall be
observed:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a
declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might
arise did not exist. . . ."

And even if petitioner's cause of action as against jeep-owner-driver

Salazar were not ex-delictu, the end result would be the same, it being clear
from the judgment in the criminal case that Salazar's acquittal was not
based upon reasonable doubt, consequently, a civil action for damages can
no longer be instituted. This is explicitly provided for in Article 29 of the Civil
Code quoted hereunder:
"Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or
omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance
of evidence. . . .
"If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon
reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any
declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground."

In so far as the suit against jeep-owner-driver Salazar is concerned,

therefore, we sustain respondent Judge's Order dated January 30, 1971
dismissing the complaint, albeit on different grounds. LLphil

WHEREFORE, 1) the Order dated September 12, 1970 dismissing Civil

Case No. 80803 against private respondent Felino Timbol is set aside, and
respondent Judge, or his successor, hereby ordered to proceed with the
hearing on the merits; 2) but the Orders dated January 30, 1971 and
February 23, 1971 dismissing the Complaint in Civil Case No. 80803 against
respondent Rodolfo Salazar are hereby upheld.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and De Castro,
JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. p. 26, Rollo.
2. pp. 147-149, ibid.
3. pp. 138-139, ibid.
4. Decision, p. 26, ibid.

5. 73 Phil. 607, 620 (1942).

6. Racoma vs. Fortich, 39 SCRA 521 (1971).
7. 52 SCRA 420 (1973).
8. Padua vs. Robles, 66 SCRA 485 (1975).
9. pp. 25-26, Rollo.

10. Elcano Hill, 77 SCRA 98 (1977).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com