You are on page 1of 2

MENDOZA v.

ARRIETA
91 SCRA 113 (1975)
Melencio-Herrera, J. / alo

SUBJECT MATTER: Sources of Obligations > Quasi-Delicts

CASE SUMMARY:

A three-way vehicular accident occurred wherein a Merces Benz (Mendoza), a private jeep (Salazar), and a gravel and
sand truck (owned by Timbol and driven by Montoya) collided. Two cases of reckless imprudence resulting to damage to
property were filed against Salazar and Montoya, wherein Montoya was convicted while Salazar was acquitted. Mendoza
filed a civil case against Salazar and Timbol for indemnification of damages, but this was dismissed by the trial court on
the ground of res judicata. The case against Salazar was also dismissed based on Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. The SC
held that res judicata is not applicable to the first case since the elements were not complete and upheld that the second
action should be dismissed based on the acquittal from criminal charges by the trial court.

DOCTRINES:

v The elements of res judicata are:


v Final judgment
v Rendered by a court with jurisdiction
v Judgment on merits
v Identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action
v Failure to make a reservation in the criminal action for negligence of the right to file an independent civil action
does not bar the filing of the latter. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court cannot amend the substantive provision of Art.
31 of the Civil Code on quasi-delict.

FACTS:

v October 1969- a three-way vehicular accident occurred along MacArthur Hi-way, Bulacan involving:
o Mercedes Benz (Mendoza)
o Private Jeep (Salazar)
o Gravel and Sand Truck (owned by Timbol and driven by Montoya)
v Two cases of reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property were filed against Salazar and Montoya
(Mendoza v. Salazar; Salazar v. Montoya)
v Montoya was convicted while Salazar was acquitted
v Mendoza filed a civil case against Salazar and Timbol for indemnification of damages
v Timbol filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that complaint is barred by a prior judgment
v Motion to dismiss was granted
v Hon. Arrieta also dismissed the case against Salazar based on Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, which requires an
express reservation in order to file a civil action independent of the criminal suit

ISSUE/S:
1. WON the civil action against Timbol was barred by res judicata (NO)
2. WON the civil action against Salazar should be dismissed (YES)

HOLDING:

2. NO. The elements of res judicata are:


v Final judgment
v Rendered by a court with jurisdiction
v Judgment on merits
v Identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action
The last element is not present in the case on hand.

The case against Timbol is independent of the criminal action against Montoya (based on culpa criminal). The
case at hand is based on culpa aquiliana. It cannot be barred by the fact that the petitioner failed to reserve in the
criminal action his right to file an independent civil action based on quasi-delict.

3. YES. Firstly, there was no need for Mendoza to make an express reservation because the civil liability of Salazar
was imputed in the criminal case. Nevertheless, the court upheld the dismissal of the case based on the acquittal
from criminal charges by the trial court.

Sec. 2, Rule 111 of Rules of Court:


The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action
based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that
the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

DISPOSITIVE: 1) the Order dated September 12, 1970 dismissing Civil Case No. 80803 against private respondent Felino
Timbol is set aside, and respondent Judge, or his successor, hereby ordered to proceed with the hearing on the merits; 2)
but the Orders dated January 30, 1971 and February 23, 1971 dismissing the Complaint in Civil Case No. 80803 against
respondent Rodolfo Salazar are hereby upheld.

You might also like