BERNABE CASTILLO (IN HIS OWN BEHALF, AND IN BEHALF OF
SERAPION CASTILLO, WHO HAS SINCE THEN BECOME DECEASED,
AND EULOGIO CASTILLO, HIS MINOR CHILD) AND GENEROSA
GALANG CASTILLO, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS,
VS
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JUANITO ROSARIO AND
CRESENCIA ROSARIO, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
G.R. NO. L-48541
Facts:
A vehicular accident happened on May 2,1965 at Bagac,
Villasis Pangasinan. The parties have conflicting versions as to
what actually transpired on that fateful day. Petitioner, Bernabe
Castillo is driving a jeep when he notice a car from the distance
overtaking a cargo truck ahead of it. Castillo switch on his
headlights to signal the car to return to its own lane as the way
was not clear for it to overtake but his signal is disregarded and
the car proceeded on its direction. In order to evade the
impending collision he swerved his jeep to the right towards the
shoulder and applied the brakes leaving his feet on it, even
immediately after the impact. The jeep suffered shattered
radiator, bumper badly dented, flat tire and the driver and the
passenger of the jeep suffered serious physical injuries in other
parts of the body. Respondent, Juanito on the other side is driving
his car and a truck ahead of them is moving very slow due of its
heavy load so he decided to overtake it. But before doing so he
saw that the road is clear and as additional precautionary
measure, he blew his horn several times at the time he was
overtaking the truck. Then as the car was about to overtake the
slow moving cargo truck, the car’s front left tire suddenly burst
due to pressure causing the car to swerve to the left and naturally
making the steering and control difficult. Because of the tendency
of the car to veer towards the left due to the blown out tire, he
steered the car towards the direction where he could find a safe
place to park and fix the tire. He parked the car at the left
shoulder of the road and as he was about to get foo to fix the flat
tire, the car was suddenly bumped by the jeep driven by Castillo
which came from the opposite side direction. Both vehicles were
damaged, the car suffering the heaving damage.
Castillo filed a civil case for the recovery of damages in the First
Instance of Manila, while the case is pending the Provincial Fiscal
of Pangasinan filed an information against Rosario for double
physical injuries, double less injuries and damage to property thru
reckless imprudence in the court of First Instance of Urdaneta.
Rosario was prosecuted and convicted by the trial court in the
criminal case. He appealed to the Court of Appeals which
rendered a decision acquitting him from the crime charged on the
ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
Issue;
Whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeals, which
acquitted Juanito Rosario in the criminal case, final and conclusive
in the civil action for damages based on the quasi-delict
Held:
Yes, the decision of the Court of Appeals is final and conclusive
and not reviewable by the Supreme Court. Rosario is not civilly
liable despite being acquitted from criminal charges for negligent
being the source and foundation of actions of quasi-delict, is the
basis for the recovery of damages. There is no negligence
committed by Juanito Rosario to warrant an award of damages to
Castillo. The collision was not due to the negligence of Juanito
Rosario but rather it was Castillo’s own act of driving the jeep to
the shoulder of the road where the car was, which was actually
the proximate cause of the collision.
There is no dispute that the subject action for damages, being
civil in nature, is separate and distinct from the criminal aspects,
necessitating only a preponderance of evidence. A quasi -delict
or culpa aquilana is a separate legal institution under the civil
code, with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is
entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime. A
distinction exists between the civil liability arising from a crime
and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual.
The same negligence causing damages may produce civil liability
arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or create an action for
quasi-delictos or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code.
Therefore, the acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is
entirely irrelevant in the civil case. Section 2 (c) of Rule 111 of the
Rules of Court provides:
"Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of
the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration from a
final judgment that the fact from which the civil action might
arise did not exist."
