March 1968 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > March 1968 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-20865 March 13, 1968 - ASELA P. TACTAQUIN v. JOSE B. PALILEO:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-20865. March 13, 1968.]
ASELA P. TACTAQUIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSE B. PALILEO, Defendant-Appellee.
F.D. Regalado & Associates, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Celso Fernandez Law Office, for Defendant-Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM CRIME; SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT FOR DAMAGES; MATTER TO BE PLEADED BEFORE TRIAL COURT IN INSTANT CASE. — Appellee claims in his motion for reconsideration of the resolution remanding the case below for further proceeding in connection with the P4,000.00 indemnity awarded to appellant in the criminal case involved, that a separate action for damages against him should no longer be entertained because he had already served subsidiary imprisonment to the award of damages to appellant. The contention is without merit. The fact that he has already served imprisonment in relation to the indemnity awarded to appellant in the Criminal Case — which award was declared void in the Court’s resolution of December 29, 1967 — may be pleaded by him in a supplemental answer, for the trial court to determine whether or not, out of equitable consideration, it should be taken into account to reduce the damages that may be awarded to the herein Appellant.
R E S O L U T I O N *
DIZON, J.:
Our resolution of December 29, 1967 set aside our original decision and directed that this case be remanded below for further proceedings.
Before Us now is a motion for reconsideration filed by appellee wherein it is alleged for the first time that in connection with the P4,000.00 indemnity awarded to appellant in the decision rendered in Criminal Case No. 4736 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, appellee has already served the corresponding subsidiary penalty of imprisonment. Upon this ground he claims that, to entertain the separate action for damages we ordered remanded to the lower court, would allow appellant to collect damages twice for one and the same act.
We find no merit in appellee’s contention, for the reason that the fact that he has already served subsidiary imprisonment in relation to the indemnity awarded to appellant in the criminal case mentioned above — which award We declared void in our resolution of December 29, 1967 — may be pleaded by him in a supplemental answer, for the trial to determine whether or not, out of equitable considerations, it should be taken into account to reduce the damages that may be awarded to the herein Appellant.
WHEREFORE, appellee’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Before Us now is a motion for reconsideration filed by appellee wherein it is alleged for the first time that in connection with the P4,000.00 indemnity awarded to appellant in the decision rendered in Criminal Case No. 4736 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, appellee has already served the corresponding subsidiary penalty of imprisonment. Upon this ground he claims that, to entertain the separate action for damages we ordered remanded to the lower court, would allow appellant to collect damages twice for one and the same act.
We find no merit in appellee’s contention, for the reason that the fact that he has already served subsidiary imprisonment in relation to the indemnity awarded to appellant in the criminal case mentioned above — which award We declared void in our resolution of December 29, 1967 — may be pleaded by him in a supplemental answer, for the trial to determine whether or not, out of equitable considerations, it should be taken into account to reduce the damages that may be awarded to the herein Appellant.
WHEREFORE, appellee’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
* Editor’s Note: See Decision in 21 SCRA 346.
