Salta vs.

De Veyra

Facts: Petitioner was an employee of the PNB assigned as Manager of the Malolos branch. s s!ch" his d!ty was to grant loans" or only to recommend the granting of loans" depending on the amo!nt of the loan applied for. #n the performance of this d!ty" he is s!pposed to e$ercise care and pr!dence" and with !tmost diligence" observe the policies" r!les and reg!lations of the ban%. #n disregard of the pertinent r!les" reg!lations and policies of the respondent ban%" petitioner indiscriminately granted certain loans mentioned in the complaints filed by PNB" in a manner characteri&ed by negligence" fra!d and manifest partiality" and !pon sec!rities not commens!rate with the amo!nt of the loans. 'his is how the respondent ban% fo!nd petitioner to have discharged his d!ties as branch manager of the ban%" and so it filed a civil action in the (F# of Manila on pril ))" *+,- to recover losses the ban% s!ffered and another case on September )." *+,) . t the same time the ban% ca!sed to be filed" based on the same acts" a criminal case for violation of the nti/0raft and (orr!pt Practices ct. 1Bale ) (ivil (ase at isang criminal case2 #n the criminal case" the (o!rt granted the Motion to Dismiss 1Dem!rrer to 3vidence2. 4ith his ac5!ittal in the criminal case" petitioner filed Motions to Dismiss in each of the two civil cases" based on Section .1c2" 6!le # # # of the 6evised 6!les of (o!rt which provides: 1c2 e$tinction of the penal action does not carry with it e$tinction of the civil" !nless the e$tinction proceeds from a declaration in a final 7!dgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not e$ist. ... 8!dge de Veyra opposed the M'D while 8!dge P!risima granted it. 8!dge de Veyra r!led that the M'D m!st be denied for the reason that ac5!ittal in the criminal case will not be an obstacle for the civil case to prosper !nless in the criminal case the (o!rt ma%es a finding that even civilly the acc!sed wo!ld not be liable/there is no s!ch a finding. part from this" Plaintiff in this present civil case bases its case either on fra!d or negligence/evidence that only re5!ires a preponderance" !nli%e beyond reasonable do!bt which is the re5!isite in criminal cases. #ss!e: 49N a decision of ac5!ittal in a criminal case operates to dismiss a separate civil action filed on the basis of the same facts as alleged in the criminal case. :eld: No. 'he filing in this case of a civil action separate from the criminal action is f!lly warranted !nder the provision of rticle .. of the N((. 'he criminal case is for the prosec!tion of an offense the

main element of which is fra!d" one of the %inds of crime mentioned in the aforecited provision. Based on the same acts for which the criminal action was filed" the civil actions very clearly alleged fra!d and negligence as having given rise to the ca!se of action averred in the complaints. #t needs hardly any showing to demonstrate this fact" which petitioner disp!tes" partic!larly as to the s!fficiency of the allegation of fra!d in the civil complaints. Definitely" 4e hold that the following allegation in the complaints !nmista%ably shows that the complaints do contain s!fficient averment of fra!d 'he opinion of former 8!stice 8.B.;. 6eyes in Dionisio vs. lvendia is not only enlightening" b!t a!thoritative. 'h!s < =. . . in the case of an independent civil actions !nder the (ivil (ode" the res!lt of the criminal case" whether ac5!ittal or conviction" wo!ld be entirety irrelevant to the civil action. 'his seems to be the spirit of the law when it decided to ma%e these actions >entirely separate and distinct> from the criminal action 1 rticles ))" .." .? and )*,,2. :ence in these cases" # thin% 6!le *-, Sec. l1d2 does not apply. =

@nder rticle .* of the New (ivil (ode" it is made clear that the civil action permitted therein to be filed separately from the criminal action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings =regardless of the res!lt of the latter.= #t seems perfectly reasonable to concl!de that the civil actions mentioned in rticle .." permitted in the same manner to be filed separately from the criminal case" may proceed similarly regardless of the res!lt of the criminal case. 'he wisdom of the provision of rticle .. of the New (ivil (ode is to be fo!nd in the fact that when the civil action is reserved to be filed separately" the criminal case is prosec!ted by the prosec!ting officer alone witho!t intervention from a private co!nsel representing the interest of the offended party. #t is b!t 7!st that when" as in the present instance" the prosec!tion of the criminal case is left to the government prosec!tor to !nderta%e" any mista%e or mishanding of the case committed by the latter sho!ld not wor% to the pre7!dice of the offended party whose interest wo!ld th!s be protected by the meas!re contemplated by rticle .. and rticle )*,, *) of the New (ivil (ode.

(ap!no vs" Pepsi (ola Facts: vehic!lar collision occ!rred on 8an!ary ." *+A. in palit" Pampanga. #nvolved were a Pepsi/ (ola delivery tr!c% driven by 8on 3lordi and a private car driven by (ap!no. 'he collision proved fatal to the latter as well as to his passengers" the spo!ses Florencio B!an and 6i&alina Paras. 9n 8an!ary A" *+A. 3lordi was charged with triple homicide thro!gh rec%less impr!dence in the (F# of Pampanga. 'he information was s!bse5!ently amended to incl!de claims for damages by the heirs of the three victims. 9n 9ctober *" *+A." while the criminal case was pending" the #ntestate 3state of the B!an spo!ses and their heirs filed a civil action" also for damages" in the (F# of 'arlac against the Pepsi/(ola Bottling (ompany of the Philippines and 8on 3lordi 1(ivil (ase No. B.B2. #ncl!ded in the complaint was a claim for indemnity in the s!m of P)"C)..-- allegedly paid by the 3state to the heirs of (ap!no !nder the 4or%men>s (ompensation ct. #n the criminal case both the heirs of (ap!no and the 3state of B!an were represented by their respective co!nsel as private prosec!tors. #n view of the filing of the civil action the acc!sed 8on 3lordi moved to stri%e o!t the appearances of these private prosec!tors in the criminal case. 0ro!nds for the motion were 1*2 that as the (ap!no heirs were concerned" they no longer had any interest to protect in the criminal case since they had already claimed and received compensation for the death of their decedentD and 1)2 that on the part of the 3state of B!an its right to intervene in said case had been abated by the civil action. 'he co!rt disallowed the intervention. 9n 8!ne **" *+AB the parties in (ivil (ase No. B.B entered into a =(ompromise and Settlement.= For P)+-"---.-- the B!an 3state gave !p its claims for damages" incl!ding the claim for reimb!rsement of the s!m of P)"C)..-- previo!sly paid to the heirs of (ap!no =!nder the 4or%men>s (ompensation ct.= 'he (o!rt approved the compromise and accordingly dismissed the case. t that time" the criminal case was still pendingD 7!dgment was rendered only on pril *A" *+A+" wherein the acc!sed 3lordi was ac5!itted of the charges against him. Prior thereto" or on September )C" *+AB" however" herein appellants commenced a civil action for damages against the Pepsi/(ola Bottling (ompany of the Philippines and 8on 3lordi. 'he (o!rt a 5!o in its order of Febr!ary )+" *+C-" dismissed the case. 'he gro!nds !pon which appellees based their motion for dismissal and which the (o!rt fo!nd to be well ta%en wereD 1*2 that the action had already prescribedD and 1)2 that appellees had been released from appellants> claim for damages by virt!e of the payment to the latter of the s!m of P)"C)..-- by the B!an 3state !nder the 4or%men>s (ompensation ct" which s!m" in

t!rn" was so!ght to be recovered by the said 3state from appellees in (ivil (ase No. B.B b!t finally settled by them in their compromise. #ss!e: 49N the case filed by the appellants on September )C" *+AB wo!ld still prosper. :eld: No. #t is barred by prescription. 'here can be no do!bt that the present action is one for recovery of damages based on a 5!asi/ delict" which action m!st be instit!ted within fo!r ? years 1 rticle **?C" (ivil (ode2. ppellants originally so!ght to enforce their claim e$/delicto" that is" !nder the provisions of the Penal (ode" when they intervened in the criminal case against 8on 3lordi. 'he information therein" it may be recalled" was amended precisely to incl!de an allegation concerning damages s!ffered by the heirs of the victims of the accident for which 3lordi was being prosec!ted. B!t appellants> intervention was s!bse5!ently disallowed and they did not appeal. nd when they commenced the civil action on September )C" *+AB the criminal case was still pending" showing that appellants then chose to p!rs!e the remedy afforded by the (ivil (ode" for otherwise that action wo!ld have been premat!re and in any event wo!ld have been concl!ded by the s!bse5!ent 7!dgment of ac5!ittal in the criminal case. 'he civil action for damages co!ld have been commenced by appellants immediately !pon the death of their decedent" (ipriano (ap!no" on 8an!ary ." *+A. or thereabo!ts" and the same wo!ld not have been stayed by the filing of the criminal action for homicide thro!gh rec%less impr!dence. B!t the complaint here was filed only on September )C" *+AB" or after the lapse of more than five years. 'he prescriptive period of fo!r years shall begin to r!n" that is" =from the day 1the action2 may be bro!ght"= which means from the day the 5!asi/delict occ!rred or was committed. 'he foregoing considerations dispose of appellants> contention that the fo!r/year period of prescription in this case was interr!pted by the filing of the criminal action against 8on 3lordi inasm!ch as they had neither waived the civil action nor reserved the right to instit!te it separately. S!ch reservation was not then necessaryD witho!t having made it they co!ld file a separate civil action even d!ring the pendency of the criminal case. and conse5!ently the instit!tion of a criminal action cannot have the effect of interr!pting the instit!tion of a civil action based on a 5!asi/delict.