MAXIMO MARCIA, AMALIA MOJICA, TIRSO YAP, DAMIANA MARCIA, EDGAR MARCIA, and RENATO YAP, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPREALS, FELARDO PAJE and VICTORY LINER, INC., respondents.
Facts:
On December 23, 1956, in the municipality of Lubao Pampanga, a bus operated by Victory Liner, Inc. and driven by Felardo Paje, collided with a jeep driven by Clemente Marcia, resulting in the latter’s death and in physical injuries to petitioner Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap. Thereupon, an information for homicide and serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence was filed against Paje in RTC Pampanga.
On January 23, 1957 an action for damages was filed in the RTC of Rizal by the petitioner against Victory and Paje, alleging that the mishap due to the reckless imprudence and negligence of the latter in driving.
While the civil case was in progress in Rizal, RTC Pampanga rendered its decision and convicted the respondent. However, in their appeal to the Ca they were acquitted.
As conducted by the CA, criminal negligence is wanting in the case, and that Paje was not even guilty of Civil Negligence because it was a case of mere accident.
Respondent Paje in the Civil Case in Rizal moved for dismissal of the complaint invoking the decision of the CA for his acquittal. However, the Rizal RTC dismissed the motion and thereafter continued the trial. The RTC Rizal dismissed the complaint against Victory and Paje based on the decision of the CA.
The petitioner appealed to the CA invoking Article 33 of the New Civil Code and Sec. 2 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court and not Sec. 3.
The CA held that private respondent cannot be held civilly liable after it had ruled in the criminal action that negligence was wanting and that the collision was pure accident.
Issue:
Whether the civil case filed separately be dismissed.
Ruling:
It was held by the court that Article 33 speaks only of defamation, fraud and physical injuries. The injuries suffered by the petitioners were alleged to be the result of criminal negligence; they were not inflicted with malice. Hence, no independent civil action for damages maybe instituted in connection therewith. Furthermore, Section 3 (c), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court states that “extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from which the civil might arise did not exist.” Otherwise stated, unless the act from which the civil liability arises is declared to be non-existent in the final judgment, the extinction of the criminal liability will not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability.
