Mendoza v.

Judge Arrieta

Facts:
Mendoza was hit by Salazar caused by Montoyas hitting the latters jeep. Due
this, Mendoza filed a criminal case against Salazar while Salazar filed a case against
Montoya. The lower court then ruled that Montoya is guilty with regards to Salazar
while Salzar is acquitted since he was just bumped by Montoya. Hence, Mendoza
then filed civil cases before the CFI charging Salazar and Timbol (Montoyas
employer). The CFI then ruled that Mendoza failed to reserve his right to file a
separate civil case against Salazar and Timbol. Also, the CFI ruled that in case of
Timbol, it was already barred by the previous case against his employee.

Issue: WON the contention of CFI is tenable

Held:
No. The contention of CFI is untenable.
In case of Timbol, the criminal case only involved a civil aspect arising out of
ex-delicto while the present civil case involves a civil aspect arising out of culpa
aquiliana. Pursuant to the provision of the Art 31 in relation to sec 2 of rule 111, no
reservation is needed if the civil action is founded upon an entirely different source
from that of the criminal case.
In case of Salazar, the Court is correct when it dismissed the civil case.
Pursuant to the provision of sec 3, rule 111, the extinction of the criminal case
founded upon the finding of the court that the source from which it was charge does
not exist causes the extinction of the civil aspect of the case.