Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 48541 August 21, 1989

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.

Lino R. Eugenio for petitioners.

Eduardo G. Rosario for private respondents.

FERNAN, C.J.:

In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners seek the reversal of the February 13, 1978
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 52567-R, entitled "Bernabe Castillo, et al. v. Juanita
Rosario, et al," affirming the dismissal by the Court of First Instance of Manila of the complaint for
damages filed by petitioners against private respondents. Said dismissal was decreed on the basis
of the evidence before the trial court as well as the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.
07684-CR, entitled "People v. Juanito Rosario."

Petitioners and private respondents figured in a vehicular accident on May 2, 1965 at Bagac,
Villasis, Pangasinan, which caused injuries to their persons and damage to their respective vehicles.

The parties have conflicting versions as to what actually transpired on that fateful day; each party
pointing to the negligence of the other as the proximate cause of the accident. Thus, as expected in
cases like this, the main issue is: Who was at fault? According to the petitioners, the accident
happened as follows: 1

On May 2, 1985, at about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, petitioner Bernabe Castillo
was driving his jeep with Plate No. J-4649 '64 Manila on the right lane of the
McArthur Highway with Generosa Castillo, his wife, father Serapion Castillo, seated
in front and Eulogio Castillo, then a minor child, as passengers, bound and northward
for Binmaley, Pangasinan at the rate of 25 kilometers per hour. Just past San Nicolas
bridge, Villasis, he noticed, from a distance of 120 meters more or less, a speeding
oncoming car with Plate No. L-27045 '64 Cavite, along the same lane (facing north)
he was driving, overtaking a cargo truck ahead of it. He switched on his headlights to
 signal the car to return to its own right lane as the way was not clear for it to overtake
the truck.

The car turned out to be driven by the private respondent, Juanito Rosario, with his
wife, Cresencia Rosario. The signal was disregarded, as the car proceeded on its
direction southward on the right lane (facing north). In order to evade the impending
lwph1.t

collision, petitioner Bernabe Castillo swerved his jeep to the right towards the
shoulder and applied on the brakes, and leaving his feet on it, even, immediately
after the impact. The car rested on the shoulder of the right lane. The jeep's rear left
wheel was on the road, leaving short tiremarks behind it; while the car left long tire-
marks, specially its left rear wheel. The jeep suffered a shattered windshield, pushed-
in radiator. The left mid-portion of its bumper badly dented. The car had a flat tire on
its right front wheel; its right fender badly dented as the headlamp on top of it. The
bumber stooped downward, because it went thru under the bumper of the jeep.

The driver of the jeep, including his passengers suffered physical injuries. Bernabe
Castillo, with the patella of his right knee, fractured, suffered serious physical injuries,
in other parts of his body. Serapion Castillo whose head crushed through the
windshield, was nearly beheaded, while the other two passengers suffered multiple
slight and less serious injuries.

Private respondents, on the other hand, have their own version of the accident and thus asseverate
as follows: 2

Sometime in the early afternoon of May 2, 1965, the private respondents, together
with their small daughter, were on their way from San Carlos City (Pangasinan) to
Olongapo City where they resided at the time and where Juanito Rosario, a member
of the US Navy, had been temporarily stationed. They rode in the family car. (TSN, C.
Rosario, p. 35; J. Rosario, pp. 2, 12 Annex "D", "Request for Admission")

At or about 2:30 p.m. of the same date, as Juanito Rosario who was driving the car,
and his two passengers, were along MacArthur Highway in Barrio Bacag, Villasis,
Pangasinan, going towards the south, they saw ahead of them a big heavily loaded
cargo truck. (TSN, B. Castillo, p. 532, Annex "B", "Request for Admission") The truck
was moving very slowly because of its heavy load so that Juanito Rosario decided to
overtake it. But before doing so, he first saw to it that the road was clear and as
additional precautionary measure, he blew his horn several times at the time he was
overtaking the truck. (TSN, Juanito Rosario, pp. 4, 11; C. Rosario, pp. 31-41, Annex
"B", "Request for Admission")

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 steering and control difficult. Because of the tendency of the car to
veer towards the left due to the blown out tire, the driver steered the car towards the
direction where he could find a safe place to park and fix the tire. He finally brought
 the car to a halt at the left shoulder of the road (facing south). (TSN, C. Rosario, p.
31; J. Rosario, pp. 4, 17, Annex "D", "Request for Admission")

But barely had the said defendant parked his car on the left shoulder of the road and
just as he was about to get off to fix the flat tire, the car was suddenly bumped by the
jeep driven by Bernabe Castillo which came from the opposite direction. (TSN, C.
Rosario, p. 32; J. Rosario, p. 6, "Request for Admission") Both vehicles were
damaged, the car suffering the heavier damage. (Please see Annex "C", "Request for
Admission") Passengers of the jeep sustained injuries while those of the car were
badly shaken.

On June 30, 1965, a civil case for the recovery of damages for the injuries sustained by petitioners
and for the damage to their vehicle as a result of the collision, was instituted by the petitioners in the
Court of First Instance of Manila. While this case was pending, the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan
filed an information dated September 29, 1965 against Juanito Rosario, private respondent herein,
for double physical injuries; double less serious physical injuries; and damage to property thru
reckless imprudence, in the Court of First Instance of Urdaneta. Respondent Juanito Rosario was
prosecuted and convicted by the trial court in the criminal case. He appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which rendered a decision 3 acquitting him from the crime charged on the ground that his guilt
has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In the meantime, private respondents thru counsel, filed a "Request for Admission" 4 on April 3, 1972
in the civil case, requesting petitioners to admit the truthfulness of the facts set forth therein as well as the
correctness and genuineness of the documents attached thereto. On May 5,1972, petitioners filled a
"Manifestation", 5 admitting the allegations in the "Request for Admission" with some qualifications. Later,
both parties submitted their respective memoranda.

On the basis of the testimonies and evidence submitted by the petitioners, as well as the records of
the criminal case attached in the "Request for Admission" of the private respondents, the Court of
First Instance of Manila rendered a decision 6 on December 28, 1972, dismissing the complaint of the
petitioners against private respondents as well as the counterclaim of private respondents against the
petitioners. On January 24, 1973, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. On February 13, 1978, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision 7 of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari. 8 The petitioners-appellants raise in issue before Us
the following questions, to wit:

1) Is the decision of the Court of Appeals, where its dispositive part, or "fallo", states
that the guilt of the (appellant) accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt
final and conclusive, on an action for damages based on quasi-delict?;

2) Are the testimonies given in a criminal case, without strict compliance with Section
41 Rule 130 and without opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who made
these testimonies, admissible evidence in a subsequent case and can be the basis of
a valid decision?;
 3) Is an action for damages based on quasi-delict barred by a decision of the
appellate court acquitting the accused, the body of which lays the blame on the
plaintiff but in its dispositive part, declares the guilt of the accused not proved beyond
reasonable doubt ? 9

The main thrust of this petition for review which stems from a cause of action based on quasi-delict
or culpa aquiliana (being a recovery for damages arising from the vehicular accident), is that
petitioners were deprived of due process because their civil action was decided on the basis of
private respondent Juanita Rosario's acquittal in the criminal case for reckless imprudence.

There is no dispute that the subject action for damages, being civil in nature, is separate and distinct
from the criminal aspect, necessitating only a preponderance of evidence. According to a number of
cases, 10 a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code, with a
substantively 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 quasidelictos or culpa extra-contractual under the
Civil Code. Therefore, the acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil
case. 11

In the case of Azucena v. Potenciano, L-14028, June 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 468, 470-471, this Court
held:

... in the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
injuries ..., the judgment of acquittal does not operate to extinguish the civil liability of
the defendant based on the same incident. The civil action is entirely independent of
the criminal case according to Articles 33 and 2177 of the Civil Code. There can be
no logical conclusion than this, for to subordinate the civil action contemplated in the
said articles to the result of the criminal prosecution whether it be conviction or
acquittal would render meaningless the independent character of the civil action
and the clear injunction in Article 31, that his action may proceed independently of
the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.

But this rule is not without exception. Thus, 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.

In a previous case, CA-G.R. No. 07684-CR, People v. Rosario, the Court of Appeals after a
painstaking analysis of. (a) the testimonial evidence; (b) the relative positions of the two vehicles as
depicted in the sketches; (c) the distance of each of the two vehicles from the cemented edge of the
road; (d) the point of impact; (e) the visible tire marks, and (f) the extent of the damage caused upon
each of the two vehicles, ruled that it was the driver of the jeep and not the accused driver of the car
who was negligent and accordingly acquitted the latter. 12
Negligence, being the source and foundation of actions of quasi-delict, is the basis for the recovery
of damages. In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals found that no negligence was committed by
Juanito Rosario to warrant an award of damages to the petitioners.

Respondent Appellate Court states:

In acquitting defendant-appellee Juanito Rosario in CA-G.R. No. 07684-CR on

October 28, 1968, this Court held that the collision was not due to the negligence of
Juanito Rosario but it was Castillo's own act of driving the jeep to the shoulder [of the
road] where the car was that was actually the proximate cause of the collision.' (Ibid.,
p. 183) With this finding, this Court actually exonerated appellee Juanito Rosario
from civil liability. Since plaintiffs-appellants' civil action is predicated upon Juanito
Rosario's alleged negligence which does not exist, it follows that his acquittal in the
criminal action, which is already final, carried with it the extinction of civil
responsibility arising therefrom. (Corpus vs. Paje, 28 SCRA 1062, 1064, 1067;
Faraon vs. Priela, 24 SCRA 582, 583; De Soriano vs. Albornoz, 98 Phil. 785, 787788;
Tan vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Co., 91 Phil. 672, 675). 13

It was the Court of Appeals findings that the collision was not due to the negligence of Juanita
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. With this findings, the Court of
Appeals exonerated Juanito Rosario from civil liability on the ground that the alleged negligence did
not exist.

As earlier stated, the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals was an affirmation of the decision
of the Court of First Instance of Manila. During the trial of the case before the Court of First Instance,
the private respondents were not present, in view of the fact that they were out of the country at that
time. Their counsel introduced as part of their evidence, the records in the criminal case, in
accordance with Section 41, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. 14 These records were attached to their
"Request for Admission" and were substantially admitted by petitioners. The said records were mostly
composed of transcripts of the hearing in the criminal case. Petitioners raised, as one of their objections,
the propriety and correctness of admitting and adopting these transcripts as part of the record in the civil
case. According to them, this is a violation of Section 41, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, on the ground
that petitioners were not given the opportunity to cross-examine. We have to disagree. A careful reading
of the transcripts would reveal that then counsel for petitioners, Atty. Nicodemo Ferrer, actively
participated during the proceedings of the criminal case. He raised various objections, 15 in the course of
the trial. Petitioners, therefore, thru counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

Thus, the admission of the said testimonies cannot be set aside.

Finally, in a long line of decisions, this Court has held time and again that the findings of facts by the
Court of Appeals are conclusive and not reviewable by the Supreme Court. 16

In Macadangdang v. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 73 and Tolentino v. De Jesus, 56 SCRA 167, it
was held that:
 Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and on the
Supreme Court, unless (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly
mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on
misapprehension of facts; (5) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the
case and its findings are contrary to the admission of both appellant and appellee; (6)
the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (7)
said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based; (8) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main
and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (9) when the finding of facts
of the Court of Appeals is premised on the absence of evidence and is contradicted
by evidence on record.

Finding that the questioned decision does not fall under any of the exceptions cited above, we find
no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby denied. No pronouncement as to

costs.

SO ORDERED.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Bernabe Castillo, et al. vs. The Honorable Court of

Appeals, et al., 176 SCRA 591
digested by LLB 1-4 College of Law, Polytechnic
University of the Philippines

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari where petitioners seek for the renewal
of the Court of Appeals decision affirming the dismissal of the Court of First Instance of the
complaint for damages filed by petitioners against the respondents Juanito Rosario and
Cresencia Rosario.
On May 2, 1965, petitioner 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 figured in a vehicular accident with private respondents Juanito
Rosario and Cresencia Rosario at Bagac, Villasis, Pangasinan causing injuries to their
persons and damages to their respective vehicles.

The parties have their own version of what actually happened on that fateful day. Each party
is pointing to the negligence by the other as the proximate cause of the accident.
While the case was pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the Provincial Fiscal of
Pangasinan file an information dated September 29. 1965 against Juanito Rosario for
double physical injuries, double less serious physical injuries, and damage to property thru
reckless imprudence in the Court of First Instance of Urdaneta. Rosario was prosecuted and
convicted in the criminal case. Castillo then 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 proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the Court of First Instance of
Manila rendered a decision on the basis of the testimonies and evidence submitted by the
petitioners as well as the records of the case, dismissing the complain of the petitioners
against private respondents as well as the counterclaim of private respondents against the
petitioners. On January 24, 1973, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which then
affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila as it found no negligence
committed by Juanito Rosario to warrant an award of damages to the petitioners. Hence,
the present petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the judgement of acquittal extinguishes civil liability based on
the same incident.

Ruling: Yes. The Court of Appeals' findings that the collision was not due to the
negligence of Juanito Rosario but Bernabe Castillo's own act of driving was actually the
proximate cause of the collision. With such findings and citing the cases Corpus vs Paje, 28
SCRA 1062, 1064, 1067; Faraon vs Priela, 24 SCRA 582, 583; De Soriano vs Albornoz, 98
Phil. 785, 787788; Tan vs Standard Vacuum Oil Co., 91 Phil. 672, 675, the Court of Appeals
exonerated Rosario from the civil liability on the ground that the alleged negligence did not
exist.

Petition denied. No pronouncement as to costs.