This case involved a vehicle collision that killed 3 passengers and injured 5 others. The driver, Dionisio Sibayan, was convicted criminally. Petitioners then filed a civil suit for damages against Sibayan and his employer. The trial court dismissed, finding the claim had prescribed under the 4-year period for quasi-delict. The Supreme Court ruled the claim was for civil liability from crime, not quasi-delict, so it had not prescribed. As the criminal court did not rule on civil liability due to a reservation, petitioners could still pursue that claim ex delicto. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissals and remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial court.
This case involved a vehicle collision that killed 3 passengers and injured 5 others. The driver, Dionisio Sibayan, was convicted criminally. Petitioners then filed a civil suit for damages against Sibayan and his employer. The trial court dismissed, finding the claim had prescribed under the 4-year period for quasi-delict. The Supreme Court ruled the claim was for civil liability from crime, not quasi-delict, so it had not prescribed. As the criminal court did not rule on civil liability due to a reservation, petitioners could still pursue that claim ex delicto. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissals and remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial court.
This case involved a vehicle collision that killed 3 passengers and injured 5 others. The driver, Dionisio Sibayan, was convicted criminally. Petitioners then filed a civil suit for damages against Sibayan and his employer. The trial court dismissed, finding the claim had prescribed under the 4-year period for quasi-delict. The Supreme Court ruled the claim was for civil liability from crime, not quasi-delict, so it had not prescribed. As the criminal court did not rule on civil liability due to a reservation, petitioners could still pursue that claim ex delicto. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissals and remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial court.
This case involved a vehicle collision that killed 3 passengers and injured 5 others. The driver, Dionisio Sibayan, was convicted criminally. Petitioners then filed a civil suit for damages against Sibayan and his employer. The trial court dismissed, finding the claim had prescribed under the 4-year period for quasi-delict. The Supreme Court ruled the claim was for civil liability from crime, not quasi-delict, so it had not prescribed. As the criminal court did not rule on civil liability due to a reservation, petitioners could still pursue that claim ex delicto. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissals and remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial court.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
[G.R. NO. 151452.
July 29, 2005]
SPS. ANTONIO C. SANTOS and ESPERANZA C. SANTOS, NORA BARNALO,
BELINDA LUMACTAD, MARIENELA DY, NIKKA SANTOS and LEONARDO FERRER, Petitioners, v. HON. NORMANDIE B. PIZARDO, as Presiding Judge, RTC of Quezon City, Branch 101, DIONISIO M SIBAYAN, and VIRON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., represented by VIRGILIO Q. RONDARIS, President/Chairman, Respondent.
Facts:
Dionisio M. Sibayan (Sibayan) was charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting
to Multiple Homicideand Multiple Physical Injuries in connection with a vehicle collision between a southbound Viron Transit bus driven by Sibayan and a northbound Lite Ace Van, which claimed the lives of the vans driver and three(3) of its passengers, including a two-month old baby, and caused physical injuries to five (5) of the vans passengers. After trial, Sibayan was convicted and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for two (2) years, four(4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months.
However, as there was a reservation to file a separate civil action, no
pronouncement of civil liability was made by the municipal circuit trial court in its decision promulgated on December 17, 1998.
On October 20, 2000, petitioners filed a complaint for damages against Sibayan, Viron Transit and its President/Chairman, Virgilio Q. Rondaris, with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, pursuant to the reservation to file a separate civil action.The trial court dismissed the complaint on the principal ground that the cause of action had already prescribed (4 years for action based on quasi-delict).
In this instant case, Petitioners insist that the liability sought to be enforced in the complaint arose ex delicto and is not based on quasi delict.
Issue: Whether the action has prescribed.
Held:
NO. A reading of the complaint reveals that the allegations therein are consistent with petitioner’s claim that the action was brought to recover civil liability arising from crime. Although there are allegations of negligence on the part of Sibayan and Viron Transit, such does not necessarily mean that petitioners were pursuing a cause of action based on quasi delict, considering that at the time of the filing of the complaint, the cause of action ex quasi delicto had already prescribed.
Besides, in cases of negligence, the offended party has the choice between an action to enforce civil liability arising from crime under the Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi delict under the Civil Code. At the time of the filing of the complaint for damages in this case, the cause of action ex quasi delicto had already prescribed. Nonetheless, petitioners can pursue the remaining avenue opened for them by the reservation, i.e., the surviving cause of action ex delicto. This is so because the prescription of the action ex quasi delicto does not operate as a bar to an action to enforce the civil liability arising from crime especially as the latter action had been expressly reserved.
Petitioners expressly made a reservation of their right to file a separate civil action as a result of the crime committed by Sibayan. On account of this reservation, the municipal circuit trial court, in its decision convicting Sibayan, did not make any pronouncement as to the latter’s civil liability.
We held that the dismissal of the action based on culpa aquiliana is not a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary liability of the employer. Once there is a conviction for a felony, final in character, the employer becomes subsidiarily liable if the commission of the crime was in the discharge of the duties of the employees.This is so because Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code operates with controlling force to obviate the possibility of the aggrieved party being deprived of indemnity even after the rendition of a final judgment convicting the employee.Seen in this light, the trial court should not have dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, but instead allowed the complaint for damages ex delicto to be prosecuted on the merits, considering petitioners’ allegations in their complaint, opposition to the motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal, insisting that the action was to recover civil liability arising from crime.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered SETTING ASIDE the resolutions of
the Court of Appeals dated September 10, 2001 and January 9, 2002, respectively dismissing the present action and denying petitioners motion for reconsideration, as well as the orders of the lower court dated February 26, 2001 and July 16, 2001.Let the case be REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.
