Virata v Ochoa No. L-46179; 31 January 1978; Fernandez, J.

Digest prepared by Gertrude Gamonnac Appeal by Certiorari of the defendants to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. Doctrine In negligence cases, the aggrieved parties may choose between an action under the RPC or for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the NCC. What is prohibited by Article 2177 is to recover twice for the same negligent act. I. Facts On September 24, 1975, Arsenio Virata, while walking along Taft Avenue, Pasay City, was hit by a passenger jeepney driven by Maximo Borilla. The passenger jeepney was registered in the name of Victorio Ochoa and Borilla is his employee-driver. Arsenio Virata died as a result of the accident. A criminal action for homicide through reckless imprudence was instituted on September 25, 1975 against Maximo Borilla. While the case was being tried, the heirs of Virata, through their private prosecutor, reserved their right to institute a separate civil action. On September 8, 1976 the CFI of Cavite rendered a decision in the criminal case acquitting the accused, Borilla, on the ground that he caused an injury by mere accident. On July 19, 1977, the heirs of Virata commenced a civil case for damages based on quasi-delict against the driver Borilla and the registered owner Ochoa. Issue WON the heirs of Virata can prosecute a separate civil action for damages based on quasi-delict against Maximo Borilla and Victor Ochoa YES

II.

III. Held WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE and the civil case is reinstated and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, with costs against the private respondents. IV. Ratio Based on Article 2177 of the NCC, acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action for damages due to a quasi-delict. But said article forestalls a DOUBLE RECOVERY. The preliminary chapter on human relations of the NCC definitely establishes the separability and independence of liability in a civil action for acts criminal in character (Articles 29 to 32 of the NCC) from the civil responsibility arising from crimes fixed by Article 100 of the RPC. The RULES OF COURT under Rule 111 also contemplates the same separability. Elcano v Hill: The extinction of civil liability referred to in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the RPC, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused . Rakes v Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co: We do hold, that Article 2176, where it refers to fault or negligence covers not only acts not punishable by law but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent TO SUM IT UP: The petitioners are not seeking to recover twice for the same negligent act. Before the criminal case was decided, they already manifested that they were filing a separate civil action for damages based on quasi-delict. The acquittal of the driver Borilla of the crime charged in the criminal case is not a bar to the prosecution of the civil case for damages based on quasi-delict. Under Article 1157 of the NCC, quasi-delict and an act or omission punishable by law are two different sources of obligation.