Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > December 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-51183 December 21, 1983 - CARMEN L. MADEJA v. FELIX T. CARO, ET AL.

211 Phil. 469:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-51183. December 21, 1983.]

CARMEN L. MADEJA, Petitioner, v. HON. FELIX T. CARO and EVA ARELLANO-JAPZON, Respondents.

Ernesto P. Miel for Petitioner.

Gorgonio T. Alvarez for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION; SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE CRIMINAL ACTION; CONSTRUED. — Section 2, Rule 111 of the Ruleso of Court in relation to Article 33 of the Civil Code is the applicable provision. There are at least two about Art. 33 of the Civil Code which are worth noting, namely: (I) The civil action for damages which it allows to be instituted is ex-delicto. This is manifest from the provision which uses the expressions "criminal action" and "criminal prosecution." This conclusion is supported by the comment of the Code Commission; and (2) The term "physical injuries" is used in a generic sense. It is not the crime of physical injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code. It includes not only physical injuries but consummated, frustrated and attempted homicide. (Carandang v. Santiago, 97 Phil. 94. 96-97 [1955]).

2. ID.; ID.; CORPUS CASE; NOT AUTHORITATIVE. — Corpus v. Paje L-26737, July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 1062, which states that reckless imprudenoe or criminal negligence is not included in Article 33 of the Civil Code is not authoritative. Of eleven justices only nine took part in the decision and four of them merely concurred in the result. In the light of the foregoing, it is apparent that the civil action against Dr. Japzon may proceed independently of the criminal action against her.

AQUINO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CIVIL LAW; DEATH DUE TO A NEGLIGENT ACT; ALTERNATIVE CIVIL ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 100 OF THE R.P.C. OR UNDER ARTICLE 2176 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE. — Justice Aquino concurs. Death due to a negligent act may be a delict or quasi-delict. It may create a civil action based on Article 100 of the Penal Code or an action based on culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. These alternatives are assumed in Article 2177 of the Civil Code "but the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act or omission of the defendant" (Barredo v. Garcia, 73 Phil. 607 and Sudario v. Acro Taxi and Yuson, 86 Phil. 1. See Formento v. CA, L-26442, August 29, 1969, 29 SCRA 437).

2. ID.; INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION; RECOGNIZED UNDER ARTICLE 33 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE. — The term "physical injuries" in Article 33 of the Civil Code includes death and may give rise to an independent civil action (Dyogi v. Yatco, 100 Phil. 1095). The rule in Corpus v. Paje, L-26737, July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 1062, that reckless imprudence is not included in Article 33 of the Civil Code, is not authoritative doctrine because it was concurred in by only five Justices. Four Justices concuned in the result.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


In Criminal Case No. 75-88 of the defunct Court of First Instance of Eastern Samar, DR. EVA A. JAPZON is accused of homicide through reckless imprudence for the death of Cleto Madeja after an appendectomy. The complaining witness is the widow of the deceased, Carmen L. Madeja. The information states that: "The offended party Carmen L. Madeja reserving her right to file a separate civil action for damages." (Rollo, p. 36.)

The criminal case still pending, Carmen L. Madeja sued Dr. Eva A. Japzon for damages in Civil Case No. 141 of the same court. She alleged that her husband died because of the gross negligence of Dr. Japzon. The respondent judge granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss which motion invoked Section 3(a) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 3. Other civil action arising from offenses. — In all case not included in the preceding section the following rules shall be observed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) Criminal and civil actions arising from the same offense may be instituted separately, but after the criminal action has been commenced the civil action can not be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action.." . .

According to the respondent judge, "under the foregoing Sec. 3 (a), Rule 111, New Rules of Court, the instant civil action may be instituted only after final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action." (Rollo, p. 33.)

The instant petition which seeks to set aside the order of the respondent judge granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 141 is highly impressed with merit.

Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court in relation to Article 33 of the Civil Code is the applicable provision. The two enactments are quoted hereinbelow:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 2. Independent civil action. — In the cases provided for in Articles 31, 32, 33, 34 and 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal case, provided the right is reserved as required in the preceding section. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence." (Rule 111, Rules of Court.)

"Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence." (Civil Code.)

There are at least two things about Art. 33 of the Civil Code which are worth noting, namely:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

1. The civil action for damages which it allows to be instituted is ex-delicto. This is manifest from the provision which uses the expressions "criminal action" and "criminal prosecution." This conclusion is supported by the comment of the Code Commission, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The underlying purpose of the principle under consideration is to allow the citizen to enforce his rights in a private action brought by him, regardless of the action of the State attorney. It is not conducive to civic spirit and to individual self-reliance and initiative to habituate the citizens to depend upon the government for the vindication of their own private rights. It is true that in many of the cases referred to in the provision cited, a criminal prosecution is proper, but it should be remembered that while the State is the complainant in the criminal case, the injured individual is the one most concerned because it is he who has suffered directly. He should be permitted to demand reparation for the wrong which peculiarly affects him." (Report, p. 46.)

And Tolentino says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The general rule is that 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 reserves his right to institute it separately; and after a criminal action has been commenced, no civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted. The present articles creates an exception to this rule when the offense is defamation, fraud, or physical injuries. In these cases, a civil action may be filed independently of the criminal action, even if there has been no reservation made by the injured party; the law itself in this article makes such reservation; but the claimant is not given the right to determine whether the civil action should be scheduled or suspended until the criminal action has been terminated. The result of the civil action is thus independent of the result of the criminal action." (I Civil Code, p. 144 [1974].)

2. The term "physical injuries" is used in a generic sense. It is not the crime of physical injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code. It includes not only physical injuries by consummated, frustrated and attempted homicide.

"The Article in question uses the words defamation’, fraud’ and physical injuries.’ Defamation and fraud are used in their ordinary sense because there are no specific provisions in the Revise Penal Code using these terms as means of offenses defined therein, so that these two terms defamation and fraud must have been used not to impart to them any technical meaning in the laws of the Philippines, but in their generic sense. With this apparent circumstance in mind, it is evident that the terms physical injuries’ could not have been used in its specific sense as a crime defined in the Revised Penal Code, for it is difficult to believe that the Code Commission would have used terms in the same article — some in their general and another in its technical sense. In other words, the term physical injuries’ should be understood to mean bodily injury not the crime of physical injuries, because the terms used with the latter are general terms. In any case the Code Commission recommended that the civil action for physical injuries be similar to the civil action for assault and battery in American Law, and this recommendation must have been accepted by the Legislature when it approved the article intact as recommended. If the intent has been to establish a civil action for the bodily harm received by the complainant similar to the civil action for assault and battery, as the Code Commission states, the civil action should lie whether the offense committed is that of physical injuries, or frustrated homicide, or attempted homicide, or even death." (Carandang v. Santiago, 97 Phil. 94, 96-97 [1955].)

Corpus v. Paje, L-26737, July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 1062, which states that reckless imprudence or criminal negligence is not included in Article 33 of the Civil Code is not authoritative. Of eleven justices only nine took part in the decision and four of them merely concurred in the result.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

In the light of the foregoing, it is apparent that the civil action against Dr. Japzon may proceed independently of the criminal action against her.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted; the order dismissing Civil Case No. 141 is hereby set aside; no special pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


AQUINO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur. Death due to a negligent act may be a delict or quasi-delict. It may create a civil action based on article 100 of the Penal Code or an action based on culpa aquiliana under article 2176 of the Civil Code. These alternatives are assumed in article 2177 of the Civil Code "but the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act or omission of the defendant" (Barredo v. Garcia, 73 Phil. 607 and Sudario v. Acro Taxi and Yuson, 86 Phil, 1. See Formento v. CA, L-26442, August 29, 1969, 29 SCRA 437).

The term "physical injuries" in article 33 of the Civil Code includes death and may give rise to an independent civil action (Dyogi v. Yatco, 100 Phil. 1095).chanrobles law library : red

The rule in Corpus v. Paje, L-26737, July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 1062, that reckless imprudence is not included in article 33 of the Civil Code, is not authoritative doctrine because it was concurred in by only five Justices. Four Justices concurred in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-65695 December 19, 1983 - HECTOR S. RUIZ v. RICHARD GORDON

    211 Phil. 411

  • G.R. No. L-33906 December 21, 1983 - VICTORIA ABLAZA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 425

  • G.R. No. L-36347 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO SEE

    211 Phil. 437

  • G.R. No. L-48731 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TORIO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 442

  • G.R. No. L-51183 December 21, 1983 - CARMEN L. MADEJA v. FELIX T. CARO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 469

  • G.R. No. L-54136 December 21, 1983 - PHILIPPINE JAI-ALAI & AMUSEMENT CORPORATION v. JACOBO C. CLAVE, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 474

  • G.R. No. L-55487 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BANASEN

    211 Phil. 481

  • G.R. Nos. L-58807-08 December 21, 1983 - TEODORO F. VALENCIA v. EMMANUEL M. PELAEZ, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 490

  • G.R. Nos. L-61572-73 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO MACAYAN, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 494

  • G.R. No. L-61946 December 21, 1983 - TEOFILO REGATCHO v. EMMANUEL G. CLETO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 512

  • G.R. No. L-62547 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICITO TAWAT, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 522

  • G.R. No. L-39498 December 23, 1983 - BIBIANO M. VIÑA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 530

  • A.C. No. 1089 December 29, 1983 - WILSON JESENA v. VICENTE G. OÑASA

    211 Phil. 543

  • A.C. No. 1261 December 29, 1983 - TAN TEK BENG v. TIMOTEO A. DAVID

    211 Phil. 547

  • G.R. No. L-32490 December 29, 1983 - NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 551

  • G.R. No. L-37599 December 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO COPRO

    211 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-39899 December 29, 1983 - ARSENIO DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. VIRGILIO D. POBRE YÑIGO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 567

  • G.R. Nos. L-49693-94 December 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO C. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 579

  • G.R. No. L-52765 December 29, 1983 - EDITO GOBOY v. COMELEC, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 594

  • G.R. No. L-57339 December 29, 1983 - AIR FRANCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 601

  • G.R. No. L-57895 December 29, 1983 - J. WALTER THOMPSON CO. (PHIL.), ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 610

  • G.R. Nos. L-60349-62 December 29, 1983 - CITY FISCAL NESTORIO PLACER, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE NAPOLEON VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-60601 December 29, 1983 - CESAR NEPOMUCENO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 623

  • G.R. Nos. L-61232-33 December 29, 1983 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR and EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 633

  • G.R. No. L-61308 December 29, 1983 - VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC., ET AL. v. CELESTINO YAP, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 640

  • G.R. No. L-62324 December 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELITO LINTAG

    211 Phil. 644

  • G.R. Nos. L-63251-52 December 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER M. DE LA FUENTE

    211 Phil. 650

  • G.R. No. L-64152 December 29, 1983 - PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 657