G.R. No.

L-4160 July 29, 1952

ANITA TAN, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
STANDARD VACUUM OIL CO., JULITO STO DOMINGO, IGMIDIO RICO, a! RURAL TRANSIT
CO.,defendants-appellees.
Alberto R. de Joya for appellant.
Ross, Selph, Carrascoso and Janda for appellees Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Sto. Domingo
and Rico.
Arnaldo J. Guman for appellee Rural !ransit Co.
"AUTISTA ANG#LO, J.$
Anita Tan is the owner of the house of strong materials based in the City of Manila, Philippines. On
May 3, !"!, the #tandard $a%uum Oil Company ordered the delivery to the &ural Transit Company
at its garage at &i'al Avenue ()tension, City of Manila, of ,!*+ gallons of gasoline using a gasoline
tan,-tru%, trailer. The tru%, was driven by -ulito #to. .omingo, who was helped /gmidio &i%o. 0hile
the gasoline was being dis%harged to the underground tan,, it %aught fire, whereupon -ulito #to.
.omingo drove the tru%, a%ross the &i'al Avenue ()tension and upon rea%hing the middle of the
street he abondoned the tru%, with %ontinued moving to the opposite side of the first street %ausing
the buildings on that side to be burned and detroyed. The house of Anita Tan was among those
destroyed and for its repair she spent P*,111.
As an aftermath of the fire, -ulito #to. .omingo and /migidio &i%o were %harged with arson through
re%,less impruden%e in the Court of 2irst /nstan%e of Manila where, after trial, both were a%3uitted,
the %ourt holding that their negligen%e was not proven and the fire was due to an unfortunate
a%%ident.
Anita Tan then brought the a%tion against the #tandard $a%uum Oil Company and the &ural Transit
Company4, in%luding the two employees, see,ing to re%over the damages she has suffered for the
destru%tion of her house.
.efendants filed separate motions to dismiss alleging in substan%e that 5a6 plaintiff7s a%tion is barred
by prior 8udgment and 5b6 plaintiff7s %omplaint states no %ause of a%tion4 and this motion having been
sustained, plaintiff elevated the %ase to this Court imputing eight errors to the %ourt a "uo.
The re%ord dis%loses that the lower %ourt dismissed this %ase in view of the a%3uittal of the two
employees of defendant #tandard $a%uum Oil Company who were %harged with arson through
re%,less impruden%e in the Court of 2irst /nstan%e of Manila. /n %on%luding that a%%used were not
guilty of the a%ts %harged be%ause of the fire was a%%idental, the %ourt made the following findings9
:the a%%used /migidio &i%o %annot in any manner be held responsible for the fire to the three houses
and goods therein above mentioned. ;e was not the %ause of it, and he too, all the ne%essary
pre%autions against su%h %ontingen%y as he was %onfronted with. The eviden%e throws no light on
the %ause of fire. The witnesses for the prose%ution and for the defense testified that they did not
,now what %aused the fire. /t was unfortunate a%%ident for whi%h the a%%used /igmidio &i%o %annot
be held responsible.: And a similar finding was made with respe%t to the other a%%used that the
information filed against the a%%used by the 2is%al %ontains an itemi'ed statement of the damages
suffered by the vi%tims, in%luding the one suffered by Anita Tan, thereby indi%ating the intention of the
prose%ution to demand indemnity from the a%%used in the same a%tion, but that notwithstanding this
statement with respe%t to damages, Anita Tan did not ma,e any reservation of her right to file a
separate %ivil a%tion against the a%%used as re3uired by the &ules of Court &ule 1<, se%tion -5a6.
As Anita Tan failed to ma,e reservation, and the a%%used were a%3uitted, the lower %ourt ruled that
she is now barred from filing this a%tion against the defendants.
This ruling is so far as defendants -ulio #to. .omingo and /migidio &i%o are %on%erned is %orre%t.
The rule is that :e)tin%tion of the penal a%tion does not %arry with it e)tin%tion of the %ivil, unless the
e)tin%tion pro%eeds from the de%laration in a final 8udgment that the fa%t from whi%h the %ivil might
arise did not e)ist: 5&ule 1<, se%tion -d, &ules of Court6. This provision means that the a%3uittal of
the a%%used from the %riminal %harge will not ne%essarily e)tinguish the %ivil liability unless the %ourt
de%lares in the 8udgment that the fa%t from whi%h the %ivil liability might arise and did not e)ist. ;ere
it is true that -ulito #to. .omingo and /gmidio &i%o were a%3uitted, the %ourt holding that they were
not responsible for the fire that destroyed the house of the plaintiff,=whi%h as a rule will not
ne%essarily e)tinguish their %ivil liability,=but the %ourt went further by stating that the eviden%e
throws no light on the %ause of fire and that it was an unfortunate a%%ident for whi%h the a%%used
%annot be held responsible. /n our opinion, this de%laration fits well into the e)%eption of the rule
whi%h e)empts the two a%%used from %ivil liability. 0hen the %ourt a%3uitted the a%%used be%ause
the fire was due to an unfortunate a%%ident it a%tually said that the fire was due to a fortuitous event
for whi%h the a%%used are not to blame. /t a%tually e)onerated them from %ivil liability.
>ut the %ase ta,es a different aspe%t with respe%t to the other defendants. 2or one thing, the
prin%iple of res #udicata %annot apply to them for the simple reason that they were not in%luded as
%o-a%%used in the %riminal %ase. ?ot having been in%luded in the %riminal %ase they %annot en8oy the
benefit resulting from the a%3uittal of the a%%used. This benefit %an only be %laimed by the a%%used if
a subse3uent a%tion is later ta,en against them under the &evised Penal Code. And this a%tion %an
only be maintained if proper reservation is made and there is no e)press de%laration that the basis of
the %ivil a%tion has not e)isted. /t is, therefore, an error for the lower %ourt to dismiss the %ase
against these two defendants more so when their %ivil liability is predi%ated or fa%ts other than those
attributed to the two employees in the %riminal %ase.
Ta,e, for instan%e, of the #tandard $a%uum Oil Company. this %ompany is sued not pre%isely
be%ause of supposed negligent a%ts of its two employees -ulito #to. .omingo and /gmidio &i%o but
be%ause of a%ts of its own whi%h might have %ontributed to the fire that destroyed the house of the
plaintiff. The %omplaint %ontains definite allegations of negligent a%ts properly attributable to the
%ompany whi%h proven and not refuted may serve as basis of its %ivil liability. Thus, in paragraph + of
the first %ause of a%tion, it is e)pressly alleged that this %ompany, through its employees, failed to
ta,e the ne%essary pre%autions or measures to insure safety and avoid harm to person and damage
to property as well as to observe that degree of %are, pre%aution and vigilan%e whi%h the
%ir%umstan%es 8ustly demanded, thereby %ausing the gasoline they were unloading to %at%h fire. the
pre%autions or measures whi%h this %ompany has allegedly failed to ta,e to prevent fire are not
%learly stated, but they are matters of eviden%e whi%h need not now be determined. #uffi%e it to say
that su%h allegation furnishes enough basis for a %ause of a%tion against this %ompany. There is no
need for the plaintiff to ma,e a reservation of her right to file a separate %ivil a%tion, for as this %ourt
already held in a number of %ases, su%h reservation is not ne%essary when the %ivil a%tion
%ontemplated is not derived from the %riminal liability but one based on culpa a"uiliana under the Old
Civil Code 5arti%les !1* to !16. These two a%ts are separate and distin%t and should not be
%onfused one with the other. Plaintiff %an %hoose either 5Asun%ion Par,er vs. ;on. A.- Panlilio supra,
p. .6
The %ase of the &ural Transit Co. is even more different as it is predi%ated on a spe%ial provisions of
the &evised Penal Code. Thus, arti%le 1, &ule *, of said Code provides9
Art. 1. Rules regarding ci$il liability in certain cases. = The e)emption from %riminal
liability established in subdivisions , *, 3, + and @ of arti%le * and in subdivision " of arti%le
of this Code does not in%lude e)emption from %ivil liability, whi%h shall be enfor%ed to the
following rules9
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
#e%ond. /n %ases falling within subdivision " of arti%le , the persons for whose benefit the
harm has been prevented shall be %ivilly liable in proportion to the benefit whi%h they have
re%eived.
And on this point, the %omplaint %ontains the following averments9
3. That after the %orresponding trial the said defendants were a%3uitted and defendant -ulio
#to. .omingo was a%3uitted, on the ground that he so a%ted %ausing damage to another in
order to avoid a greater evil or in8ury, under arti%le , paragraph " of the &evised Penal
Code, as shown by the pertinent portion of the de%ision of this ;onorable Court in said %ase,
dated O%tober *A, !"!, whi%h reads as follows9
Bnder the foregoing fa%ts, there %an be no doubt that had the a%%used -ulito #to. .omingo
not ta,en the gasoline tan,-tru%, trailer out in the street, a bigger %onflagration would have
o%%urred in &i'al Avenue ()tension, and, perhaps, there might have been several deaths
and bearing in mind the provisions of Arti%le , paragraph " of the &evised Penal Code the
a%%used -ulito #to. .omingo in%urred no %riminal liability.
". That it was %onse3uently the defendant &ural Transit Co., from whose premises the
burning gasoline tan,-tru%, trailer was driven out by defendant -ulito #to. .omingo in order
to avoid a greater evil or in8ury, for whose benefit the harm has been prevented under arti%le
1, se%ond subse%tion of the &evised Penal Code.
Considering the above 3uoted law and fa%ts, the %ause of a%tion against the &ural Transit Company
%an hardly be disputed, it appearing that the damage %aused to the plaintiff was brought about
mainly be%ause of the desire of driver -ulito #to. .omingo to avoid greater evil or harm, whi%h would
have been the %ase had he not brought the tan,-tru%, trailer to the middle of the street, for then the
fire would have %aused the e)plosion of the gasoline deposit of the %ompany whi%h would have
resulted in a %onflagration of mu%h greater proportion and %onse3uen%es to the houses nearby or
surrounding it. /t %annot be denied that this %ompany is one of those for whose benefit a greater
harm has been prevented, and as su%h it %omes within the purview of said penal provision. The
a%3uittal of the a%%used %annot, therefore, be deemed a bar to a %ivil a%tion against this %ompany
be%ause its %ivil liability is %ompletely divor%ed from the %riminal liability of the a%%used. The rule
regarding reservation of the right to file a separate %ivil a%tion does not apply to it.
0herefore, the order appealed from is hereby modified as follows9 it is affirmed with regard to
defendants -ulito #to. .omingo and /gmidio &i%o4 but it is reserved with regard to defendants
#tandard $a%uum Oil Company and &ural Transit Company, with %osts.
%ablo, &engon, %adilla, !uason, and 'abrador, JJ., %on%ur.
%aras, C.J., %on%urs in the result.