ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11219 May 7, 1958 - PACITA SALABARIA VDA. DE SUATARON v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

    103 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-11580 May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    103 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-11231 May 12, 1958 - ROSARIO CARBONNEL v. JOSE PONCIO

    103 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. L-9531 May 14, 1958 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. GUILLERMO C. REYES

    103 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-11578 May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. L-11629 May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

    103 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-10559 May 16, 1958 - IN RE: YU NEAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-10657 May 16, 1958 - NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION KERR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-11285 May 16, 1958 - VICENTE SAPTO v. APOLONIA FABIANA

    103 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-11924 May 16, 1958 - ISIDORO CEBRERO v. JOSE TALAMAN

    103 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-8776 May 19, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CRUZ

    103 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-11539 May 19, 1958 - ARING BAGOBA v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ

    103 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11305 May 21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-12375 May 21, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-8317 May 23, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUAN ABAD, ET AL.

    103 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-10286 May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-10704 May 23, 1958 - SIMEON TAN LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-11036 May 23, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO TOLENTINO

    103 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-11060 May 23, 1958 - A. U. VALENCIA & Co. v. HERMINIA C. LAYUG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-11152 May 23, 1958 - BENITO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-11442 May 23, 1958 - MANUELA T. VDA. DE SALVATIERRA v. LORENZO C. GARLITOS

    103 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-11504 May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-7451 May 26, 1958 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    103 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-10610 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SILVELA

    103 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX SEMAÑADA

    103 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-8190 May 28, 1958 - GONZALO GARCIA v. CONSOLACION MANZANO

    103 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-9328 May 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO PAUNIL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-10322 May 28, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTA ALVAREZ

    103 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-10574 May 28, 1958 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-10931 May 28, 1958 - FLORENClA R. SORIANO v. ONG HOO

    103 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-10972 May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-10989 May 28, 1958 - PONCIANO GACHO v. SERGIO OSMEÑA

    103 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-11112 May 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY

    103 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-11271 May 28, 1958 - PAZ TY SIN TEI v. JOSE LEE DY PIAO

    103 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. L-11311 May 28, 1958 - MARTA C. ORTEGA v. DANIEL LEONARDO

    103 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-11412 May 28, 1958 - MAURICIA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    103 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11427 May 28, 1958 - DIMAS REYES v. FIDEL D. DONES

    103 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-11491 May 28, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. BIENVENIDA JOCSON LAGNITON

    103 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11538 May 28, 1958 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. JEA COMMERCIAL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. L-11640 May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI

    103 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11744 May 28, 1958 - PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    103 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12196 May 28, 1958 - ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATAAN v. AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    103 Phil 914

  • G.R. Nos. L-12214-17 May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)

    103 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-12222 May 28, 1958 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    103 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12289 May 28, 1958 - LIM SIOK HUEY v. ALFREDO LAPIZ

    103 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-12348 May 28, 1958 - MARIANO CORDOVA v. GREGORIO NARVASA

    103 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. L-13069 May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-12287 May 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-7955 May 30, 1958 - JOAQUIN LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE P. OCHOA

    103 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-8439 May 30, 1958 - CO CHO CHIT v. HANSON, ORTH & STEVENSON, INC., ET AL.

    103 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-10642 May 30, 1958 - IN RE: ALFREDO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 964

  • G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. ISABEL IYA

    103 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-10952 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO V. LINGAD

    103 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-11073 May 30, 1958 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES E. VARELA

    103 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-11374 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO PINUILA

    103 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. L-11444 May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO

    103 Phil 1004

  • G.R. No. L-11498 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN J. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 1008

  • G.R. Nos. L-11531-33 May 30, 1958 - MARIA CONCEPCION v. PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CP. INC.

    103 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-12053 May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ

    103 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-12081 May 30, 1958 - LORENZO LERMA v. VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. L-12530 May 30, 1958 - CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    103 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-12567 May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO

    103 Phil 1042

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-11640   May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI<br /><br />103 Phil 904

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-11640. May 28, 1958.]

    CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LI CHUI alias ONG PONG, Defendant-Appellee.

    Primo B. Alvez for Appellant.

    Jesus P. Garcia for Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION INCLUDES CIVIL LIABILITY. — Where an offended party in a criminal case neither expressly waived the civil action nor reserved his right to institute it separately, the said civil action for recovery of civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted with said criminal case. (Rule 107 [a] Rules of Court.)

    2. LIMITATION OF ACTION; INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ACTION INTERRUPTS PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION. — The period of prescription within which to enforce the right to damages for physical injuries suffered is four years from the date of accident, and such period is interrupted by the institution of a criminal case where the civil liability is deemed included because under Article 1973 of the Old Civil Code and Article 1155 of the New Civil Code the institution of civil actions interrupts the running of the period of prescription during the time that the case is pending in court.


    D E C I S I O N


    MONTEMAYOR, J.:


    Claudio Degollacion is appealing the order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu in Civil Case No. R-4024, dismissing his complaint on the ground of prescription.

    The facts in this case are not controverted. In the month of September, 1949, plaintiff-appellant Degollacion was an employee of Chua Leh in his store and in his soap factory at Talisay, Cebu. On September 29 of that year, plaintiff, his employer Chua Leh, and Filemon Legaspina were riding in Leh’s delivery truck S-1325 to deliver soap to customers. On the way home, within the town of Carcar, Cebu, and while said delivery truck was stopping on the correct side of the road to allow the "Bisaya" truck T-16969, owned by Li Chui alias Ong Pong, and driven by his employee, Telesforo Sagayno, to pass, the latter truck bumped the delivery truck from behind, causing it to fall into a precipice with its three passengers. As a result, the delivery truck was demolished, its cargo scattered in all directions, and the occupants suffered physical injuries.

    On December 13, 1949, Sagayno, the driver of Ong Pong, was charged in the Justice of the Peace Court of Carcar, Cebu, in Criminal Case No. 304, with less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to suffer one month and twenty days imprisonment, with costs. He appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance of Cebu where, after repeated postponements at his instance, the case was on February 16, 1954, dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal was due to the alleged failure of Chua Leh, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, to appear on the date of the last hearing set.

    On May 14, 1955, after failing to have the criminal case reinstated through the Fiscal’s Office, plaintiff-appellant Degollacion filed the present civil action for damages against defendant-appellee Li Chui alias Ong Pong, employer of the driver, Sagayno. Acting upon a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff’s cause of action had already prescribed, the trial court on July 25, 1955, dismissed the complaint without pronouncement as to costs. This is the order of dismissal being appealed directly to us, involving as it does only questions of law. The theory underlying the motion to dismiss as well as the order of dismissal is that the period of prescription of four years within which to enforce the right to damages for physical injuries suffered, began to run from the date of the accident on September 29, 1949, and consequently, when the present action was filed in 1955, the period of prescription had already run out. Appellee contended that the civil action for damages is separate from the criminal action, and so, the filing of the criminal charge in the Justice of the Peace Court in 1949 against Sagayno for less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, did not interrupt the running of the period of prescription. We find this theory untenable. Rule 107 (a) of the Rules of Court provides thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    . . ." (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action. unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Inasmuch as the offended party in the criminal case (Degollacion) neither expressly waived the civil action nor reserved his right to institute it separately, then the said civil action for recovery of civil liability was deemed impliedly instituted with the said criminal case. Under Article 1973 of the Old Civil Code and Article 1155 of the New Civil Code, the institution of said criminal action interrupted the running of the period of prescription during the time that the case was pending in court. The period again continued to run when the said criminal action was dismissed in 1954. It is therefore clear that considering this interruption, comprising the period from December 13, 1949 to February 16, 1954, the period of four years, starting from September 29, 1949, had not yet expired.

    We deem it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised by appellee.

    In view of the foregoing, the appealed order of dismissal is reversed and this case is hereby remanded for further proceedings. With costs.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-11640   May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI<br /><br />103 Phil 904


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED