SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 151452. July 29, 2005]

SPS. ANTONIO C. SANTOS and ESPERANZA C. SANTOS, NORA ARNA!O, E!IN"A !#$ACTA", $ARIENE!A "%, NI&&A SANTOS and !EONAR"O 'ERRER, petitioners, vs. (ON. NOR$AN"IE . PIZAR"O, a) P*+),d,n- Jud-+, RTC o. /u+0on C,1y, *an23 101, "IONISIO $ SI A%AN, and 4IRON TRANSPORTATION CO$PAN%, INC., *+5*+)+n1+d 6y 4IRGI!IO /. RON"ARIS, P*+),d+n17C3a,*8an, respondents. "ECISION
TINGA, J.9

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari [1] dated March 1, 2002, petitioners assail the Resolutions of the Court of ppeals dated Septe!"er 10, 2001 and #anuar$ %, 2002, respecti&el$ dis!issin' their petition for certiorari and den$in' their !otion for reconsideration, arisin' fro! the dis!issal of their co!plaint to reco&er ci&il inde!nit$ for the death and ph$sical in(uries of their )in* +he follo,in' facts are !atters of record* In an Infor!ation dated pril 2-, 1%%., Dionisio M* Si"a$an /Si"a$an0 ,as char'ed ,ith 1ec)less I!prudence 1esultin' to Multiple 2o!icide and Multiple 3h$sical In(uries in connection ,ith a &ehicle collision "et,een a south"ound Viron +ransit "us dri&en "$ Si"a$an and a north"ound 4ite ce Van, ,hich clai!ed the li&es of the &an5s dri&er and three /60 of its passen'ers, includin' a t,o7!onth old "a"$, and caused ph$sical in(uries to fi&e /-0 of the &an5s passen'ers* fter trial, Si"a$an ,as con&icted and sentenced to suffer the penalt$ of i!prison!ent for t,o /20 $ears, four /.0 !onths and one /10 da$ to four /.0 $ears and t,o /20 !onths* 2o,e&er, as there ,as a reser&ation to file a separate ci&il action, no pronounce!ent of ci&il lia"ilit$ ,as !ade "$ the !unicipal circuit trial court in its decision pro!ul'ated on Dece!"er 18, 1%%9*[2] On Octo"er 20, 2000, petitioners filed a co!plaint for da!a'es a'ainst Si"a$an, Viron +ransit and its 3resident:Chair!an, Vir'ilio ;* 1ondaris, ,ith the 1e'ional +rial Court of ;ue<on Cit$, pursuant to their reser&ation to file a separate ci&il action* [6] +he$ cited therein the (ud'!ent con&ictin' Si"a$an* Viron +ransit !o&ed to dis!iss the co!plaint on the 'rounds of i!proper ser&ice of

su!!ons, prescription and laches, and defecti&e certification of non7foru! shoppin'* It also sou'ht the droppin' of Vir'ilio ;* 1ondaris as defendant in &ie, of the separate personalit$ of Viron +ransit fro! its officers*[.] 3etitioners opposed the !otion to dis!iss contendin', a!on' others, that the ri'ht to file a separate action in this case prescri"es in ten /100 $ears rec)oned fro! the finalit$ of the (ud'!ent in the cri!inal action* s there ,as no appeal of the decision con&ictin' Si"a$an, the co!plaint ,hich ,as filed "arel$ t,o /20 $ears thence ,as clearl$ filed ,ithin the prescripti&e period* +he trial court dis!issed the co!plaint on the principal 'round that the cause of action had alread$ prescri"ed* ccordin' to the trial court, actions "ased on quasi delict, as it construed petitioners5 cause of action to "e, prescri"e four /.0 $ears fro! the accrual of the cause of action* 2ence, not,ithstandin' the fact that petitioners reser&ed the ri'ht to file a separate ci&il action, the co!plaint ou'ht to "e dis!issed on the 'round of prescription* [-] I!proper ser&ice of su!!ons ,as li)e,ise cited as a 'round for dis!issal of the co!plaint as su!!ons ,as ser&ed throu'h a certain #essica ="alde of the le'al depart!ent ,ithout !entionin' her desi'nation or position* 3etitioners filed a !otion for reconsideration pointin' out $et a'ain that the co!plaint is not "ased on quasi delict "ut on the final (ud'!ent of con&iction in the cri!inal case ,hich prescri"es ten /100 $ears fro! the finalit$ of the (ud'!ent* [>] +he trial court denied petitioners5 !otion for reconsideration reiteratin' that petitioners5 cause of action ,as "ased on quasi delict and had prescri"ed under rticle 11.> of the Ci&il Code "ecause the co!plaint ,as filed !ore than four /.0 $ears after the &ehicular accident* [8] s re'ards the i!proper ser&ice of su!!ons, the trial court reconsidered its rulin' that the co!plaint ou'ht to "e dis!issed on this 'round* 3etitioners filed a petition for certiorari ,ith the Court of ppeals ,hich dis!issed the sa!e for error in the choice or !ode of appeal* [9] +he appellate court also denied petitioners5 !otion for reconsideration reasonin' that e&en if the respondent trial court (ud'e co!!itted 'ra&e a"use of discretion in issuin' the order of dis!issal, certiorari is still not the per!issi"le re!ed$ as appeal ,as a&aila"le to petitioners and the$ failed to alle'e that the petition ,as "rou'ht ,ithin the reco'ni<ed e?ceptions for the allo,ance of certiorari in lieu of appeal* [%] In this petition, petitioners ar'ue that a ri'id application of the rule that certiorari cannot "e a su"stitute for appeal ,ill result in a (udicial re(ection of an e?istin' o"li'ation arisin' fro! the cri!inal lia"ilit$ of pri&ate respondents* 3etitioners insist that the lia"ilit$ sou'ht to "e enforced in the co!plaint arose ex delicto and is not "ased on quasi delict. +he trial court alle'edl$ co!!itted 'ra&e a"use of discretion ,hen it insisted that the cause of action in&o)ed "$ petitioners is "ased on quasi delict and concluded that the action had prescri"ed* Since the action is "ased on the cri!inal lia"ilit$ of pri&ate respondents, the cause of action accrued fro! the finalit$ of the (ud'!ent of con&iction* ssu!in' that their petition ,ith the appellate court ,as procedurall$ fla,ed, petitioners i!plore the Court to e?e!pt this case fro! the ri'id operation of the rules as the$ alle'edl$ ha&e a le'iti!ate 'rie&ance to &indicate, i.e., da!a'es for the deaths and ph$sical in(uries

caused "$ pri&ate respondents for ,hich no ci&il lia"ilit$ had "een ad(ud'ed "$ reason of their reser&ation of the ri'ht to file a separate ci&il action* In their Comment[10] dated #une 16, 2002, pri&ate respondents insist that the dis!issal of the co!plaint on the 'round of prescription ,as in order* +he$ point out that the a&er!ents in the co!plaint !a)e out a cause of action for quasi delictunder rticles 218> and 2190 of the Ci&il Code* s such, the prescripti&e period of four /.0 $ears should "e rec)oned fro! the ti!e the accident too) place* Viron +ransit also alle'es that its su"sidiar$ lia"ilit$ cannot "e enforced since Si"a$an ,as not ordered to pa$ da!a'es in the cri!inal case* It is Viron +ransit5s contention that the su"sidiar$ lia"ilit$ of the e!plo$er conte!plated in rticle 106 of the 1e&ised 3enal Code presupposes a situation ,here the ci&il aspect of the case ,as instituted in the cri!inal case and no reser&ation to file a separate ci&il case ,as !ade* 3ri&ate respondents li)e,ise alle'e that the recourse to the Court of ppeals via certiorari ,as i!proper as petitioners should ha&e appealed the ad&erse order of the trial court* Moreo&er, the$ point out se&eral other procedural lapses alle'edl$ co!!itted "$ petitioners, such as lac) of certification a'ainst foru!7shoppin'@ lac) of duplicate ori'inal or certified true cop$ of the assailed order of the trial court@ and non7indication of the full na!es and addresses of petitioners in the petition* 3etitioners filed a Reply[11] dated Septe!"er 1., 2002, ,hile pri&ate respondents filed a Rejoinder[12] dated Octo"er 1., 2002, "oth in reiteration of their ar'u!ents* Ae 'rant the petition* Our 1e&ised 3enal Code pro&ides that e&er$ person cri!inall$ lia"le for a felon$ is also ci&ill$ lia"le*[16] Such ci&il lia"ilit$ !a$ consist of restitution, reparation of the da!a'e caused and inde!nification of conseBuential da!a'es* [1.] Ahen a cri!inal action is instituted, the ci&il lia"ilit$ arisin' fro! the offense is i!pliedl$ instituted ,ith the cri!inal action, su"(ect to three nota"le e?ceptionsC first, ,hen the in(ured part$ e?pressl$ ,ai&es the ri'ht to reco&er da!a'es fro! the accused@second, ,hen the offended part$ reser&es his ri'ht to ha&e the ci&il da!a'es deter!ined in a separate action in order to ta)e full control and direction of the prosecution of his cause@ and third, ,hen the in(ured part$ actuall$ e?ercises the ri'ht to !aintain a pri&ate suit a'ainst the offender "$ institutin' a ci&il action prior to the filin' of the cri!inal case* Nota"l$, it ,as the 1%9- 1ules on Cri!inal 3rocedure, as a!ended in 1%99, ,hich 'o&erned the institution of the cri!inal action, as ,ell as the reser&ation of the ri'ht to file a separate ci&il action* Section 1, 1ule 111 thereof statesC

Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and

damages under Articles !, , " and !1#$ of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. A waiver of any of the civil actions e%tinguishes the others. &he institution of, or the reservation of the right to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the others. &he reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to ma'e such reservation. (n no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused. When the offended party see's to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate or e%emplary damages, the filing fees for such action as provided in these Rules shall constitute a first lien on the )udgment e%cept in an award for actual damages. (n cases wherein the amount of damages, other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon filing thereof in court for trial.
3etitioners e?pressl$ !ade a reser&ation of their ri'ht to file a separate ci&il action as a result of the cri!e co!!itted "$ Si"a$an* On account of this reser&ation, the !unicipal circuit trial court, in its decision con&ictin' Si"a$an, did not !a)e an$ pronounce!ent as to the latter5s ci&il lia"ilit$* 3redicatin' their clai! on the (ud'!ent of con&iction and their reser&ation to file a separate ci&il action !ade in the cri!inal case, petitioners filed a co!plaint for da!a'es a'ainst Si"a$an, Viron +ransit and its 3resident:Chair!an* 3etitioners assert that "$ the institution of the co!plaint, the$ see) to reco&er pri&ate respondents5 ci&il lia"ilit$ arisin' fro! cri!e* =nfortunatel$, "ased on its !isreadin' of the alle'ations in the co!plaint, the trial court dis!issed the sa!e, declarin' that petitioners5 cause of action ,as "ased on quasi delict and should ha&e "een "rou'ht ,ithin four /.0 $ears fro! the ti!e the cause of action accrued, i.e., fro! the ti!e of the accident* readin' of the co!plaint re&eals that the alle'ations therein are consistent ,ith petitioners5 clai! that the action ,as "rou'ht to reco&er ci&il lia"ilit$ arisin' fro! cri!e* lthou'h there are alle'ations of ne'li'ence on the part of Si"a$an and Viron +ransit, such does not necessaril$ !ean that petitioners ,ere pursuin' a cause of action "ased on quasi delict, considerin' that at the ti!e of the filin' of the co!plaint, the cause of action ex quasi delicto had alread$ prescri"ed* Desides, in cases of ne'li'ence, the offended part$ has the choice "et,een an action to enforce ci&il lia"ilit$ arisin' fro! cri!e under the 1e&ised 3enal Code and an action for quasi delict under the Ci&il Code. n act or o!ission causin' da!a'e to another !a$ 'i&e rise to t,o separate ci&il lia"ilities on the part of the offender, i.e., /10 ci&il lia"ilit$ ex delicto, under rticle 100 of the 1e&ised 3enal Code@ and /20 independent ci&il lia"ilities, such as those /a0 not arisin' fro! an act or o!ission co!plained of as a felon$, e.g., culpa contractual or o"li'ations arisin' fro!

la, under rticle 61 of the Ci&il Code, intentional torts under rticles 62 and 6., and culpa aquiliana under rticle 218> of the Ci&il Code@ or /"0 ,here the in(ured part$ is 'ranted a ri'ht to file an action independent and distinct fro! the cri!inal action under rticle 66 of the Ci&il Code*[1-] Either of these lia"ilities !a$ "e enforced a'ainst the offender su"(ect to the ca&eat under rticle 2188 of the Ci&il Code that the plaintiff cannot reco&er da!a'es t,ice for the sa!e act or o!ission of the defendant and the si!ilar proscription a'ainst dou"le reco&er$ under the 1ules a"o&e7Buoted* t the ti!e of the filin' of the co!plaint for da!a'es in this case, the cause of action ex quasi delicto had alread$ prescri"ed* Nonetheless, petitioners can pursue the re!ainin' a&enue opened for the! "$ their reser&ation, i.e., the sur&i&in' cause of action ex delicto. +his is so "ecause the prescription of the action ex quasi delicto does not operate as a "ar to an action to enforce the ci&il lia"ilit$ arisin' fro! cri!e especiall$ as the latter action had "een e?pressl$ reser&ed* +he case of Mendoza v. a Mallorca !us Company [1>] ,as decided upon a si!ilar set of facts* +herein, the dri&er of 4a Mallorca Dus Co!pan$ ,as char'ed ,ith rec)less i!prudence resultin' to da!a'e to propert$* +he plaintiff !ade an e?press reser&ation for the filin' of a separate ci&il action* +he dri&er ,as con&icted ,hich con&iction ,as affir!ed "$ this Court* 4ater, plaintiff filed a separate ci&il action for da!a'es "ased on quasi delict ,hich ,as ordered dis!issed "$ the trial court upon findin' that the action ,as instituted !ore than si? />0 $ears fro! the date of the accident and thus, had alread$ prescri"ed* Su"seBuentl$, plaintiff instituted another action, this ti!e "ased on the su"sidiar$ lia"ilit$ of the "us co!pan$* +he trial court dis!issed the action holdin' that the dis!issal of the earlier ci&il case operated as a "ar to the filin' of the action to enforce the "us co!pan$5s su"sidiar$ lia"ilit$* Ae held that the dis!issal of the action "ased on culpa aquiliana is not a "ar to the enforce!ent of the su"sidiar$ lia"ilit$ of the e!plo$er* Once there is a con&iction for a felon$, final in character, the e!plo$er "eco!es su"sidiaril$ lia"le if the co!!ission of the cri!e ,as in the dischar'e of the duties of the e!plo$ees* +his is so "ecause rticle 106 of the 1e&ised 3enal Code operates ,ith controllin' force to o"&iate the possi"ilit$ of the a''rie&ed part$ "ein' depri&ed of inde!nit$ e&en after the rendition of a final (ud'!ent con&ictin' the e!plo$ee* Seen in this li'ht, the trial court should not ha&e dis!issed the co!plaint on the 'round of prescription, "ut instead allo,ed the co!plaint for da!a'es ex delicto to "e prosecuted on the !erits, considerin' petitioners5 alle'ations in their co!plaint, opposition to the !otion to dis!iss[18] and !otion for reconsideration[19] of the order of dis!issal, insistin' that the action ,as to reco&er ci&il lia"ilit$ arisin' fro! cri!e* +his does not offend the polic$ that the reser&ation or institution of a separate ci&il action ,ai&es the other ci&il actions* +he rationale "ehind this rule is the a&oidance of !ultiple suits "et,een the sa!e liti'ants arisin' out of the sa!e act or o!ission of the offender* [1%] 2o,e&er, since the stale action for da!a'es "ased on quasi delict should "e considered ,ai&ed, there is no !ore occasion for petitioners to file !ultiple suits a'ainst pri&ate respondents as the onl$ recourse a&aila"le to the! is to pursue da!a'es ex delicto. +his interpretation is also consistent ,ith the "ar a'ainst dou"le reco&er$ for o"&ious reasons*

No, the procedural issue* d!ittedl$, petitioners should ha&e appealed the order of dis!issal of the trial court instead of filin' a petition for certiorari ,ith the Court of ppeals* Such procedural !isstep, ho,e&er, should "e e?e!pted fro! the strict application of the rules in order to pro!ote their funda!ental o"(ecti&e of securin' su"stantial (ustice* [20] Ae are loathe to depri&e petitioners of the inde!nit$ to ,hich the$ are entitled "$ la, and "$ a final (ud'!ent of con&iction "ased solel$ on a technicalit$* It is our dut$ to pre&ent such an in(ustice*[21] :(ERE'ORE, (ud'!ent is here"$ rendered SE++INE SIDE the resolutions of the Court of ppeals dated Septe!"er 10, 2001 and #anuar$ %, 2002, respecti&el$ dis!issin' the present action and den$in' petitioners5 !otion for reconsideration, as ,ell as the orders of the lo,er court dated Fe"ruar$ 2>, 2001 and #ul$ 1>, 2001* 4et the case "e 1EM NDED to the trial court for further proceedin's* SO OR"ERE". Puno, "Chairman#, $ustria%Martinez, Callejo, &r., and Chico%'azario, ((., concur.