SUBJECT:

TOPIC:
Torts and Damages
Quasi-Delict Defined
CASE NAME: Cinco vs. Hon. Canonoy
PONENTE: Melencio-Herrera, J.
Case Summary:

Date Made:
8/26/16

Digest Maker:
Lance

Case Date: May 31, 1979

A vehicular accident between Cincos automobile and a jeepney driven by Hilot but
owned by the Pepitos led Cinco to file a Complaint for recovery of damages against the 3
respondents. A criminal case was also filed against the driver. The Respondents moved
to suspend the civil case until final judgment on the criminal case which the City Court
and the RTC granted based on Rule 111, Sec. 3 (b).
Cinco filed petition for Review to the SC with the court acknowledging his Complaint as
civil action based on quasi-delict. The SC said that criminal negligence and quasi-delict
are different as distinguished in the Barredo vs. Garcia case which revealed that the
quasi-delict civil action for damages is the more expedient remedy. The SC then cited
Rule 111, Sec. 2 and Article 31 of the New Civil Code as legal proof that the quasi-delict
civil action is an independent civil action which may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
The SC held that there was grave abuse of discretion when the judges ordered for
suspension.
Ruling: Proceed with the hearing on the civil case (based on quasi-delict)!
Rule of Law:
NCC (New Civil Code), 2176
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter.
NCC, Article 2177
Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and
distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
Rule 111, Sec. 3 (b)
(b) After a criminal action has been commenced. no civil action arising from the same
offense can be prosecuted, and the same shall be suspended, in whatever stage it may
be found, until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered
Rule 111, 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, are independent civil action entirely separate and
distinct from the criminal action, and may be brought by the injured party during the
pendency of the criminal case, provided the right is reserved as required in the
BLOCK D 2019 1

preceding section. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
Detailed Facts:
-

Cinco filed a Complaint in the City Court of Mandaue, Cebu for recovery of
damages
This is on account of a vehicular accident involving his automobile and a
jeepney (driven by Romeo Hilot and owned by Valeriana and Carlos Pepito)
Criminal case was filed against driver Hilot
- At pre-trial The respondents (the 3 Hilot and the two Pepitos) moved to
suspend the civil action pending final determination of the criminal suit
They invoked: Rule 111, Sec. 3 (b)
City Court ordered suspension of civil case
- They filed certiorari to CFI Cebu (Judge Canonoy)
- Judge Canonoy dismissed petition no grave abuse of discretion on City Courts
part
Reason: damage to property is not one of the instances when an
independent civil action is proper; claim for damages in the criminal case is
the adequate remedy under the law; the City Court resolution is interlocutory
(certiorari is improper)
Effect: Affirmed City Court = the trial of civil case (recovery for damages
from vehicular accident) should be suspended after final judgment is
rendered in the criminal case
- Petition for Review filed before SC. Grounds are:
RTC erred in holding that to avoid delay, offended party may submit claim for
damages in the criminal case
RTC erred in holding that trial of civil case must be suspended until final
judgment on criminal case is rendered
- Argument of Cinco: The driver (Hilot)s fault/negligence in the operation of the
jeepney owned by the Pepitos caused the collision and the damages sustained by
Cinco was because of such collision. There is a direct causal connection between
the damages he suffered and fault and negligence of respondents.
- Defense by Respondents: Valeriana observed due diligence in selection and
supervision of her employees a defense peculiar to actions based on quasi-delict
(2180)
Issue:
(S) W/N there can be an independent civil action for damage to property during
the pendency of the criminal action. - YES
Holding:
-

The action for recovery of damages (civil action) was quasi-delictual in

nature and character. (2176 and 2180)
2180 The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for
one's own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
xxxxxx
Employers shall be liable for the damages cause by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
BLOCK D 2019 2

xxxxxx
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father
of a family to prevent damage.
Liability being predicated on quasi-delict the civil case may proceed as a
separate and independent civil action based on Article 2177
The crucial distinction between criminal negligence and quasi-delict is expounded
in Barredo vs. Garcia:
Culpa aquiliana or quasi-delito is a principle enshrined in Articles 1902 -1910
of the Civil Code. We are not to render such principle lifeless by construing
them to refer only to fault or negligence not punished by law. If we were to
construe it as such (ie. Literally), then death or injury to persons and damage
to property through any degree of negligence even the slightest would
have to be indemnified only through the principle of civil liability arising from
crime (via RPC, Art. 365 on reckless/simple imprudence). The lawmakers did
not intend to render the quasi-delito provisions (1902-1910) to be little in
scope and application.
There are numerous cases of criminal negligence which cannot be shown
beyond reasonable doubt, but can be proved by a preponderance of
evidence. The civil action under 1902 to 1910 can make the defendant
responsible. If not, there would be many instances of unvindicated civil
wrongs. (Ubi jus ibi remedium)
In construing the laws, courts have endeavored to shorten and facilitate the
pathways of right and justice. To hold that there is only one way to make
defendants liability effective (ie. To sue the driver and exhaust his property
first) would be wasteful and productive of delay. 1903 provides a more
expeditious way based on primary and direct responsibility of defendant.
o The primary and direct responsibility of employers and their presumed
negligence are principles calculated to protect society. It is the masters
or employers who principally reap the profits resulting from the
services of these servants and employees so they should guarantee
the latter's careful conduct for the safety of others.
o Many jurists also base this primary responsibility of the employer on
the principle of representation of the principal by the agent.
It has become common practice to seek damages ONLY by virtue of the civil
responsibility arising from crime but it is time to re-establish an ancient and
additional remedy based on culpa aquiliana or culpa extra-contractual.
The City Court was wrong in relying on Rule 111, SECTION 3 (b) because
the civil action referred to in Secs. 3(a) and 3(b) of Rule 111, which should be
suspended after the criminal action has been instituted, is that arising from the
criminal offense.
Rule 111, Sec. 2 provides for the civil action based on quasi-delict
Article 31 of the NCC says that such civil action (not based on obligation
nor crime) may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and
regardless of the result of the latter.
The concept of quasi-delict as enunciated in Article 2176, is so broad that it
includes not only injuries to persons but also damage to property. It
makes no distinction between "damage to persons" on the one hand and "damage
to property" on the other. Indeed, the word "damage" is used in two
concepts: the "harm" (to person OR property) done and "reparation" for the harm
BLOCK D 2019 3

done.
Ruling:
- Judge Canonoy gravely abused discretion in affirming the suspension of the civil
action (based on quasi-delict) until final judgment of the criminal action.
- City Court decision is SET ASIDE
- Proceed with hearing on the civil case (re: quasi-delict)
Other Opinions:
N/A

BLOCK D 2019 4