55. CASUPANAN VS.

LAROYA filing of a separate civil action independently of the criminal action provided the
offended party reserved the right to file such civil action. Unless the offended party
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED reserved the civil action before the presentation of the evidence for the
Casupanan vs. Laroya prosecution, all civil actions arising from the same act or omission were
G.R. No. 145391. August 26, 2002.* 30
AVELINO CASUPANAN and ROBERTO CAPITULO, petitioners, vs. MARIO 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
LLAVORE LAROYA, respondent. Casupanan vs. Laroya
Remedial Law; Actions; Dismissals; Under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 the deemed “impliedly instituted” in the criminal case. These civil actions referred to
order of dismissal is without prejudice to refiling the complaint, unless the order of the recovery of civil liability ex-delicto, the recovery of damages for quasi-delict, and
dismissal expressly states it is with prejudice.—The MCTC dismissed the civil action the recovery of damages for violation of Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code on
for quasi-delict on the ground of forum-shopping under Supreme Court Administrative Human Relations. Thus, to file a separate and independent civil action for quasi-delict
Circular No. 04-94. The MCTC did not state in its order of dismissal that the dismissal under the 1985 Rules, the offended party had to reserve in the criminal action the right
was with prejudice.Under the Administrative Circular, the order of dismissal is without to bring such action. Otherwise, such civil action was deemed “impliedly instituted” in
prejudice to refiling the complaint, unless the order of dismissal expressly states it is the criminal action.
with prejudice. Absent a declaration that the dismissal is with prejudice, the same is Same; Same; Same; Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111 what is “deemed
deemed without prejudice. Thus, the instituted” with the criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from
_______________ the crime or ex-delicto.—Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is “deemed
* THIRD DIVISION.
instituted” with the criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from
29 the crime or ex-delicto. All the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 29 the Civil Code are no longer “deemed instituted,” and may be filed separately and
Casupanan vs. Laroya prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. The
MCTC’s dismissal, being silent on the matter, is a dismissal without prejudice. failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a
Same; Same; Same; An order dismissing an action without prejudice is not separate and independent civil action based on these articles of the Civil Code.
appealable.—Section 1 of Rule 41 provides that an order dismissing an action without Same; Same; Same; Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the offended party in the
prejudice is not appealable. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a special civil criminal action, not to the accused.—Section 3 of the present Rule 111, like its
action under Rule 65. Section 1 of Rule 41 expressly states that “where the judgment counterpart in the amended 1985 Rules, expressly allows the “offended party” to bring
or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil an independent civil action under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. As
action under Rule 65.” Clearly, the Capas RTC’s order dismissing the petition for stated in Section 3 of the present Rule 111, this civil action shall proceed independently
certiorari, on the ground that the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal, is erroneous. of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
Same; Same; Forum-shopping; Essence of forum-shopping.—The essence of however, may the “offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission
forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same charged in the criminal action.” There is no question that the offended party in the
cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment. criminal action can file an independent civil action for quasidelict against the accused.
Forum-shopping is present when in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of Section 3 of the present Rule 111 expressly states that the “offended party” may bring
parties, rights of action and reliefs sought. However, there is no forum-shopping in the such an action but the “offended party” may not recover damages twice for the same
instant case because the law and the rules expressly allow the filing of a separate civil act or omission charged in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to
action which can proceed independently of the criminal action. the offended party in the criminal action, not to the accused.
Same; Same; Same; Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the Regional Trial Court of
action to file his counterclaim in a separate civil action, there can be no forum-shopping Capas, Tarlac, Br. 66.
if the accused files such separate civil action.—Moreover, paragraph 6, Section 1, Rule The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure (“2000 Rules” for brevity) expressly Yolanda C. Castro for petitioners.
requires the accused to litigate his counterclaim in a separate civil action, to wit: Pablo Olarte for private respondent.
“SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.—(a) x x x. No counterclaim, 31
crossclaim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 31
but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in Casupanan vs. Laroya
a separate civil action.” (Emphasis supplied) Since the present Rules require the CARPIO, J.:
accused in a criminal action to file his counterclaim in a separate civil action, there can The Case
be no forum-shopping if the accused files such separate civil action. This is a petition for review on certiorari to set aside the Resolution 1 dated December
Same; Same; Independent Civil Actions; To file a separate and independent civil 28, 1999 dismissing the petition for certiorari and the Resolution 2 dated August 24,
action for quasi-delict under the 1985 Rules, the offended party had to reserve in the 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration, both issued by the Regional Trial Court
criminal action the right to bring such action.—Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Capas, Tarlac, Branch 66, in Special Civil Action No. 17-C (99).
on Criminal Procedure (“1985 Rules” for brevity), as amended in 1988, allowed the The Facts

Page 1 of 5
Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Mario Llavore Laroya (“Laroya” for brevity) and 33
the other owned by petitioner Roberto Capitulo (“Capitulo” for brevity) and driven by VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 33
petitioner Avelino Casupanan (“Casupanan” for brevity), figured in an accident. As a Casupanan vs. Laroya
result, two cases were filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (“MCTC” for brevity) The Court’s Ruling
of Capas, Tarlac. Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless Casupanan and Capitulo assert that Civil Case No. 2089, which the MCTC dismissed
imprudence resulting in damage to property, docketed as Criminal Case No. 002-99. on the ground of forum-shopping, constitutes a counterclaim in the criminal case.
On the other hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi- Casupanan and Capitulo argue that if the accused in a criminal case has a counterclaim
delict, docketed as Civil Case No. 2089. against the private complainant, he may file the counterclaim in a separate civil action
When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was then at its preliminary at the proper time. They contend that an action on quasi-delict is different from an
investigation stage. Laroya, defendant in the civil case, filed a motion to dismiss the action resulting from the crime of reckless imprudence, and an accused in a criminal
civil case on the ground of forum-shopping considering the pendency of the criminal case can be an aggrieved party in a civil case arising from the same incident. They
case. The MCTC granted the motion in the Order of March 26, 1999 and dismissed the maintain that under Articles 31 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the civil case can proceed
civil case. independently of the criminal action. Finally, they point out that Casupanan was not the
On Motion for Reconsideration, Casupanan and Capitulo insisted that the civil case only one who filed the independent civil action based on quasi-delict but also Capitulo,
is a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal case. The the owner-operator of the vehicle, who was not a party in the criminal case.
MCTC denied the motion for reconsideration in the Order of May 7, 1999. Casupanan In his Comment, Laroya claims that the petition is fatally defective as it does not
and Capitulo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Regional Trial Court state the real antecedents. Laroya further alleges that Casupanan and Capitulo
(“Capas RTC” for brevity) of Capas, Tarlac, Branch 66,3assailing the MCTC’s Order of forfeited their right to question the order of dismissal when they failed to avail of the
dismissal. proper remedy of appeal. Laroya argues that there is no question of law to be resolved
_______________ as the order of dismissal is already final and a petition for certiorari is not a substitute
1 Penned by Judge Josefina D. Ceballos.
for a lapsed appeal.
2 Penned by Judge Cesar M. Sotero.
In their Reply, Casupanan and Capitulo contend that the petition raises the legal
3 Docketed as Special Civil Action No. 17-C (99).
question of whether there is forum-shopping since they filed only one action—the
32 independent civil action for quasi-delict against Laroya.
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Nature of the Order of Dismissal
Casupanan vs. Laroya The MCTC dismissed the civil action for quasi-delict on the ground of forum-shopping
The Trial Court’s Ruling under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The MCTC did not state in its
The Capas RTC rendered judgment on December 28, 1999 dismissing the petition for order of dismissal5 that the dismissal was with prejudice. Under the Administrative
certiorari for lack of merit. The Capas RTC ruled that the order of dismissal issued by Circular, the order of dismissal is without prejudice to re-
the MCTC is a final order which disposes of the case and therefore the proper remedy _______________
5 Records of Special Civil Action No. 17 C-’99, Order of March 26, 1999, pp. 12-14.
should have been an appeal. The Capas RTC further held that a special civil action for
certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Finally, the Capas RTC declared that even 34
on the premise that the MCTC erred in dismissing the civil case, such error is a pure 34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
error of judgment and not an abuse of discretion. Casupanan vs. Laroya
Casupanan and Capitulo filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the Capas RTC filing the complaint, unless the order of dismissal expressly states it is with
denied the same in the Resolution of August 24, 2000. prejudice.6 Absent a declaration that the dismissal is with prejudice, the same is
Hence, this petition. deemed without prejudice. Thus, the MCTC’s dismissal, being silent on the matter, is
The Issue a dismissal without prejudice.
The petition premises the legal issue in this wise: Section I of Rule 417 provides that an order dismissing an action without
“In a certain vehicular accident involving two parties, each one of them may think and prejudice is not appealable. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a special civil
believe that the accident was caused by the fault of the other, x x x [T]he first party, action under Rule 65. Section 1 of Rule 41 expressly states that “where the judgment
believing himself to be the aggrieved party, opted to file a criminal case for reckless or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil
imprudence against the second party. On the other hand, the second party, together action under Rule 65.” Clearly, the Capas RTC’s order dismissing the petition for
with his operator, believing themselves to be the real aggrieved parties, opted in turn certiorari, on the ground that the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal, is erroneous.
to file a civil case for quasi-delict against the first party who is the very private Forum-Shopping
complainant in the criminal case.”4 The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties
Thus, the issue raised is whether an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a
imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action favorable judgment.8 Forum-shopping is present when in the two or more cases
for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case. pending, there is identity of parties, rights of action and reliefs sought.9 However, there
_______________ is no forum-shopping in the instant case because the law and the rules expressly allow
4 Petition for Review on Certiorari dated October 27, 2000, pp. 1 & 2; Rollo, pp. 9

& 10.

Page 2 of 5
the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal criminal action provided the offended party reserved the right to file such civil action.
action. Unless the offended party reserved the civil action before the presentation of the
Laroya filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to evidence for the prosecution, all civil actions arising from the same act or omission
property based on the Revised Penal Code while Casupanan and Capitulo filed the were deemed “impliedly instituted” in the criminal case. These civil actions referred to
civil action for damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Although these two the recovery of civil liability ex-delicto, the recovery of damages for quasidelict, and the
actions arose recovery of damages for violation of Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code on Human
_______________ Relations.
6 Sto. Domingo-David vs. Guerrero, 296 SCRA 277 (1998). Thus, to file a separate and independent civil action for quasidelict under the 1985
7 Section 9, Rule 40 (Appeal from Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Rules, the offended party had to reserve in the criminal action the right to bring such
Courts) provides: action. Otherwise, such civil action was deemed “impliedly instituted” in the criminal
“SEC. 9. Applicability of Rule 41.—The other provisions of Rule 41 shall apply to action. Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules provided as follows:
appeals provided for herein insofar as they are not inconsistent with or may serve to “Section 1.—Institution of criminal and civil actions.—When a criminal action is
supplement the provisions of this Rule.” instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the
8 Melo vs. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 94 (1999).
criminal action, unless the offended party waives the action, reserves his right to
9 International School, Inc. (Manila) vs. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 474 (1999).
institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
35 Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code,
VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 35 and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
Casupanan vs. Laroya arising from the same act or omission of the accused.
from the same act or omission, they have different causes of action. The criminal case A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The institution of, or the
is based on culpa criminalpunishable under the Revised Penal Code while the civil case reservation of the right to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the others.
is based on culpa aquiliana actionable under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code. The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shall be made
These articles on culpa aquiliana read: before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording
“Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or
no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is omission of the accused.
governed by the provisions of this Chapter. x x x.” (Emphasis supplied)
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is 37
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 37
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or Casupanan vs. Laroya
omission of the defendant.” Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules was amended on December 1, 2000 and now
Any aggrieved person can invoke these articles provided he proves, by preponderance provides as follows:
of evidence, that he has suffered damage because of the fault or negligence of another. “SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.—(a) When a criminal action is
Either the private complainant or the accused can file a separate civil action under instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
these articles. There is nothing in the law or rules that state only the private complainant charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party
in a criminal case may invoke these articles. waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
Moreover, paragraph 6, Section 1, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal action prior to the criminal action.
Procedure (“2000 Rules” for brevity) expressly requires the accused to litigate his The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made
counterclaim in a separate civil action, to wit: before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances
“SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.—(a) x x x. affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused xxx
in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof (b) xxx
may be litigated in a separate civil action.” (Emphasis supplied) Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet
Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal action to file his counterclaim commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the
in a separate civil action, there can be no forum-shopping if the accused files such court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall
separate civil action. proceed in accordance with section 2 of this rule governing consolidation of the civil
36 and criminal actions.” (Emphasis supplied)
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is “deemed instituted” with the criminal
Casupanan vs. Laroya action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delicto.All
Filing of a separate civil action the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are no longer
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (“1985 Rules” for brevity), “deemed instituted,” and may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even
as amended in 1988, allowed the filing of a separate civil action independently of the without any reservation in the criminal action. The failure to make a reservation in the
criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil action

Page 3 of 5
based on these articles of the Civil Code. The prescriptive period on the civil actions additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried and
based on these articles of the Civil Code continues to run even with the filing of the decided jointly.
criminal action. Verily, the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code are During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period of prescription
separate, distinct and independent of the civil action “deemed instituted” in the criminal of the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been
action.10 suspended shall be tolled.
_______________ x x x.” (Emphasis supplied)
10 Neplum, Inc. vs. Evelyn V. Orbeso, G.R. No. 141986, prom. July 11, 2002, at pp.
Thus, Section 2, Rule 111 of the present Rules did not change the rule that the separate
11-12, 384 SCRA 466. civil action, filed to recover damages exdelicto, is suspended upon the filing of the
38 criminal action. Section 2 of the present Rule 111 also prohibits the filing, after
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED commencement of the criminal action, of a separate civil action to recover damages ex-
Casupanan vs. Laroya delicto.
Under the present Rule 111, the offended party is still given the option to file a separate When civil action may proceed independently
civil action to recover civil liability exdelicto by reserving such right in the criminal action The crucial question now is whether Casupanan and Capitulo, who are not the offended
before the prosecution presents its evidence. Also, the offended party is deemed to parties in the criminal case, can file a separate civil action against the offended party in
make such reservation if he files a separate civil action before filing the criminal action. the criminal case. Section 3, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules provides as follows:
If the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is filed separately but its trial has not “SEC. 3. When civil action may proceed independently.—In the cases provided in
yet commenced, the civil action may be consolidated with the criminal action. The Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil
consolidation under this Rule does not apply to separate civil actions arising from the action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the
same act or omission filed under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. 11 criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
Suspension of the Separate Civil Action however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission
Under Section 2, Rule 111 of the amended 1985 Rules, a separate civil action, if charged in the criminal action.” (Emphasis supplied)
reserved in the criminal action, could not be filed until after final judgment was rendered Section 3 of the present Rule 111, like its counterpart in the amended 1985 Rules,
in the criminal action. If the separate civil action was filed before the commencement expressly allows the “offended party” to bring an independent civil action under Articles
of the criminal action, the civil action, if still pending, was suspended upon the filing of 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
the criminal action until final judgment was rendered in the criminal action. This rule 40
applied only to the separate civil action filed to recover liability ex-delicto. The rule did 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
not apply to independent civil actions based on Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Casupanan vs. Laroya
Code, which could proceed independently regardless of the filing of the criminal action. the Civil Code. As stated in Section 3 of the present Rule 111, this civil action shall
The amended provision of Section 2, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules continues this proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of
procedure, to wit: evidence. In no case, however, may the “offended party recover damages twice for the
“SEC. 2. When separate civil action is suspended.—After the criminal action has been same act or omission charged in the criminal action.”
commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final There is no question that the offended party in the criminal action can file an
judgment has been entered in the criminal action. independent civil action for quasi-delict against the accused. Section 3 of the present
_______________ Rule 111 expressly states that the “offended party” may bring such an action but the
11 Section 1 of Rule 31, however, allows consolidation, in the discretion of the trial “offended party” may not recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged
court, of actions involving common questions of law or fact pending before the same in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the offended party in the
court (Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, (203 SCRA 619 [1991]), or pending even in criminal action, not to the accused.
different branches of the same regional trial court if one of the cases has not been Casupanan and Capitulo, however, invoke the ruling in Cabaero vs.
partially tried (Raymundo vs. Felipe, 42 SCRA 615 [1971]). Cantos12 where the Court held that the accused therein could validly institute a
39 separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal
VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 39 case. In Cabaero, the accused in the criminal case filed his Answer with Counterclaim
Casupanan vs. Laroya for malicious prosecution. At that time the Court noted the “absence of clear-cut rules
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the governing the prosecution on impliedly instituted civil actions and the necessary
latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the consequences and implications thereof.” Thus, the Court ruled that the trial court
merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. should confine itself to the criminal aspect of the case and disregard any counterclaim
Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same for civil liability. The Court further ruled that the accused may file a separate civil case
may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in the against the offended party “after the criminal case is terminated and/or in accordance
court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced with the new Rules which may be promulgated.” The Court explained that a cross-
in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action claim, counterclaim or third-party complaint on the civil aspect will only unnecessarily
without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses complicate the proceedings and delay the resolution of the criminal case.
presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present Paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 was incorporated in the 2000 Rules
precisely to address the lacuna mentioned in Cabaero. Under this provision, the

Page 4 of 5
accused is barred from filing a counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint in the Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by Casupanan and
criminal case. However, the same provision states that “any cause of action which Capitulo is proper. The order of dismissal by the MCTC of Civil Case No. 2089 on the
could have been the subject (of the counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint) ground of forum-shopping is erroneous.
may be litigated in a separate civil ac- We make this ruling aware of the possibility that the decision of the trial court in the
_______________ criminal case may vary with the decision of the trial court in the independent civil action.
12 271 SCRA 391 (1997). This possibility has always been recognized ever since the Civil Code introduced in
41 1950 the concept of an independent civil action under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 41 the Code. But the law itself, in Article 31 of the Code, expressly provides that the
Casupanan vs. Laroya independent civil action “may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and
tion.” The present Rule 111 mandates the accused to file his counterclaim in a separate regardless of the result of the latter.” In Azucena vs. Potenciano,13 the Court declared:
civil action which shall proceed independently of the criminal action, even as the civil “x x x. There can indeed be no other logical conclusion than this, for to subordinate the
action of the offended party is litigated in the criminal action. civil action contemplated in the said articles to the result of the criminal prosecution—
Conclusion whether it be conviction or acquittal—would render meaningless the independent
Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, character of the civil action and the clear injunction in Article 31 that this action ‘may
34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal action but may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the
be filed separately by the offended party even without reservation. The commencement latter.’ ”
of the criminal action does not suspend the prosecution of the independent civil action More than half a century has passed since the Civil Code introduced the concept of a
under these articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in Section 2 of the present Rule civil action separate and independent from the criminal action although arising from the
111 refers only to the civil action arising from the crime, if such civil action is reserved same act or omission. The Court, however, has yet to encounter a case of conflicting
or filed before the commencement of the criminal action. and irreconcilable decisions of trial courts, one hearing the criminal
Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for the same act or omission. _______________
13 5 SCRA 468 (1962).
The first a criminal case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto
is deemed instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi-delict—without violating the 43
rule on non-forum shopping. The two cases can proceed simultaneously and VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 43
independently of each other. The commencement or prosecution of the criminal action Casupanan vs. Laroya
will not suspend the civil action for quasi-delict. The only limitation is that the offended case and the other the civil action for quasi-delict. The fear of conflicting and
party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. In irreconcilable decisions may be more apparent than real. In any event, there are
most cases, the offended party will have no reason to file a second civil action since he sufficient remedies under the Rules of
cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused. In some Court to deal with such remote possibilities.
instances, the accused may be insolvent, necessitating the filing of another case One final point. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure took effect on December
against his employer or guardians. 1, 2000 while the MCTC issued the order of dismissal on December 28, 1999 or before
Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or the amendment of the rules. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure must be given
omission he is accused of in the criminal case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph retroactive effect considering the well-settled rule that—
6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which states that the counterclaim of the “x x x statutes regulating the procedure of the court will be construed as applicable to
accused “may be litigated in a separate civil action.” This is only fair for two reasons. actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are
First, the accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in the civil aspect that retroactive in that sense and to that extent.”14
is deemed instituted in the criminal case. The accused is therefore forced to litigate WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The
separately his counterclaim against the offended party. If the accused does not file a Resolutions dated December 28, 1999 and August 24, 2000 in Special Civil Action No.
42 17-C (99) are ANNULLED and Civil Case No. 2089 is REINSTATED.
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED SO ORDERED.
Casupanan vs. Laroya Puno (Chairman) and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
separate civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptive period may set in since the period Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., On leave.
continues to run until the civil action for quasi-delict is filed. Petition granted, resolutions annulled.
Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to invoke Article 2177 Note.—Forum-shopping exists where the elements of litis pendencia are present
of the Civil Code, in the same way that the offended party can avail of this remedy or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. (Cruz vs.
which is independent of the criminal action. To disallow the accused from filing a Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 784 [1999])
separate civil action for quasi-delict,while refusing to recognize his counterclaim in the ——o0o——
criminal case, is to deny him due process of law, access to the courts, and equal _______________
14 People vs. Arrojado, 350 SCRA 679 (2001) citing Ocampo vs. Court of
protection of the law.
Appeals, 180 SCRA 27 (1989), Alday vs. Camilon, 120 SCRA 521 (1983) & People vs.
Sumilang, 77 Phil. 764 (1946).
44

Page 5 of 5