G.R. No.

L-27760 May 29, 1974

CRISPIN ABELLANA and FRANCISCO ABELLANA, Petitioners,

vs. HONORABLE GERONIMO R. MARAVE, Judge, Court of First
Instance of Misamis Occidental, Branch II; and GERONIMO
CAMPANER, MARCELO LAMASON, MARIA GURREA, PACIENCIOSA
FLORES and ESTELITA NEMEN0, Respondents.

Ponente: FERNANDO, J

FACTS: Francisco Abellana was prosecuted before the city court of Ozamis
City and found guilty as charged of the crime reckless imprudence resulting
to physical injuries in driving his truck, hitting a motorized pedicab resulting
in injuries to the private respondents.

Petitioner appealed such decision to the Court of First Instance (CFI for
brevity) of Misamis Occidental.

At this stage, private respondents, as the offended parties, filed a separate

and independent civil action for damages allegedly suffered by the private
respondents with another branch of CFI of Misamis Occidental wherein the
respondent Marave is the Presiding Judge. In such complaint, the other
petitioner, Crispin Abellana, as alleged employer, was included as defendant.

Both of them sought the dismissal of such action principally on the ground
that there was no reservation for the filing thereof in the City Court of
Ozamis. The civil action will prosper despite the lack of reservation. Then
there is a motion for reconsideration but dismissed. The petitioner now
sought relief to the Supreme Court by averring that the respondent Judge
issued an order with grave abuse of discretion by invoking the Rules of Court
provision to the effect that upon the institution of a criminal action the civil
action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charge is
impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party
reserves his right to institute it separately.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner contention invoking the

abovementioned provision on Rules of Court is valid.

RULING: No, the petition is dismissed.

ONGTECO, ERIKA THERESE GONZAGA

CIVIL PROCEDURE
TOPIC: RULE MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT
Article 33 of the Civil Code is quite clear: In cases ofphysical injuries, a
civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal
action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only
preponderance of evidence.

The Supreme Court averred the preceding provision of Civil Code is a

SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT, not to be frittered away by a construction that can
render it nugatory, if through oversight, the offended parties failed at the
initial stage to seek recovery for damages in a civil suit. The grant of
power to the Supreme Court, both in the present Constitution and
under the 1935 Constitution does not extended to any diminution,
increase or modification of substantive right.

The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words and
phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be
determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to
mean what it says. Hence, what is not clearly provided in the law cannot be
extended to those matters outside its scope.

ONGTECO, ERIKA THERESE GONZAGA

CIVIL PROCEDURE
TOPIC: RULE MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ONGTECO, ERIKA THERESE GONZAGA
CIVIL PROCEDURE
TOPIC: RULE MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT