Scribd
Upload
288 views1 page

HAMBON V CA

The petitioner filed a complaint for damages against the respondent after being injured in a truck accident. The respondent argued the case should be dismissed as the criminal case arising from the same incident was dismissed due to lack of interest from the petitioner. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the Court of Appeals dismissed, saying no reservation was made to file a separate civil case as required. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting a separate civil action can be dismissed if no reservation was made to file it separately from the criminal case arising from the same act.

Uploaded by

Caroline A. Legaspino
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
288 views1 page

HAMBON V CA

The petitioner filed a complaint for damages against the respondent after being injured in a truck accident. The respondent argued the case should be dismissed as the criminal case arising from the same incident was dismissed due to lack of interest from the petitioner. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the Court of Appeals dismissed, saying no reservation was made to file a separate civil case as required. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting a separate civil action can be dismissed if no reservation was made to file it separately from the criminal case arising from the same act.

Uploaded by

Caroline A. Legaspino
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Hambon vs.

CA
G.R. No. 122150, March 17, 2003

FACTS
Herein petitioner lodged before the RTC of Baguio a complaint for damages against
herein private respondent for the injuries and expenses he sustained after the truck driven by
the latter has bumped him. In private respondent’s defense however, he argues that the
criminal case arising from the same incident has already been dismissed owing to the
petitioner’s lack of interest and that the criminal and civil liabilities were also instituted with
it. Post-trial, the RTC of Baguio ruled that the petitioner is entitled to damages, ratiocinating
that the civil case was not barred by the dismissal of the criminal case. Only however for the
Court of Appeals to refuse in affirming the RTC ruling, henceforth dismissing the petitioner’s
claim for damages based on Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. As
per the CA, since the petitioner did not make any reservation to institute a separate civil
action for damages, it was impliedly instituted with the criminal case.
ISSUE
Whether a civil case for damages based on an independent civil action can be
dismissed due to failure in making a reservation to file a separate civil action in a criminal
case filed arising from the same act or omission of the accused
RULING
Yes. The SC ruled that as a requisite for a reservation to be made in instituting
separately all civil actions for the recovery of civil liability, otherwise they will be deemed to
have been instituted with the criminal case. Thus, the right of the injured party to sue
separately for the recovery of the civil liability whether arising from crimes or quasi-delicts
must be reserved.

You might also like