29.

CORPUS vs PAJE
G.R. No. L-26737 July 31, 1969

FACTS:

On December 23, 1956, a passenger bus of the Victory Liner Transportation Co., Inc., driven by
Felardo Paje, collided within the municipality of Lubao, Pampanga, with a jeep driven by Clemente
Marcia, resulting in the latter's death and in physical injuries to two other persons.

An information for homicide and double serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed
against Felardo Paje in the Court First Instance of Pampanga. The heirs of Clemente Marcia reserved
their right to institute a separate civil action for damages.

On November 7, 1960, the accused, Felardo Paje, was found guilty and convicted of the crime
charged in the information. Said defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to the Court of
Appeals.

On November 21, 1961, while defendant's appeal was pending decision in the Court of Appeals,
Clemente Marcia's heirs instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a separate civil action for
damages based upon the criminal act of reckless imprudence against Felardo Paje and the Victory
Liner Transportation Co., Inc., defendants, praying that said defendants be ordered to pay jointly and
severally the amounts of damages claimed by the plaintiffs.

On November 9, 1962, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision in the appeal of Felardo Paje
reversing the appealed judgment and acquitting the appellant after finding that the reckless imprudence
charged against him did not exist, and that the collision was a case of pure accident.

ISSUE: WON an independent civil action for damages may be instituted in connection with the said
offense

RULING:

No. The acquittal of the defendant Felardo Paje by the Court of Appeals in the criminal action on the
ground that the reckless imprudence or criminal negligence charged against him did not exist and that
the collision was a case of pure accident, was a bar to the civil action for damages for the death of
Clemente Marcia, which action was based upon the same criminal negligence of which the defendant
Felardo Paje was acquitted in the criminal action.

Criminal negligence, that is, reckless imprudence, is not one of the three crimes mentioned in Article 33
of the Civil Code which authorizes the institution of an independent civil action, that is, of an entirely
separate and distinct civil action for damages, which shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution and shall be proved only by a preponderance of evidence.

Homicide through reckless imprudence or criminal negligence comes under the general rule that the
acquittal of the defendant in the criminal action is a bar to his civil liability based upon the same criminal
act notwithstanding that the injured party reserved his right to institute a separate civil action. In the
language of the Rules of Court (Rule 111, Sec. 3) the extinction of the criminal action by acquittal of the
defendant on the ground that the criminal act charged against him did not exist, necessarily
extinguished also the civil action for damages based upon the same act.
30. CORINTHIAN GARDENS vs TANJANGCO
G.R. No. 160795 June 27, 2008

FACTS:

Repondents-spouses Tanjangco own Lots 68 and 69 located at Corinthian Gardens Subdivision,

Quezon City, which is managed by petitioner Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. (Corinthian). On the
other hand, respondents-spouses Cuaso own Lot 65 which is adjacent to the Tanjangcos lots.

Before the Cuasos constructed their house on Lot 65, a relocation survey was necessary. Corinthian
referred Engr. De Dios to the Cuasos. Before, during and after the construction of the said house,
Corinthian conducted periodic ocular inspections in order to determine compliance with the approved
plans pursuant to the Manual of Rules and Regulations of Corinthian. Unfortunately, after the Cuasos
constructed their house employing the services of C.B. Paraz as builder, their perimeter fence
encroached on the Tanjangcos Lot 69 by 87 square meters.

No amicable settlement was reached between the parties. Thus, the Tanjangcos demanded that the
Cuasos demolish the perimeter fence but the latter failed and refused, prompting the Tanjangcos to file
with the RTC a suit against the Cuasos for Recovery of Possession with Damages.

Eventually, the Cuasos filed a Third-Party Complaint against Corinthian, C.B. Paraz and Engr. De
Dios. The Cuasos ascribed negligence to C.B. Paraz for its failure to ascertain the proper specifications
of their house, and to Engr. De Dios for his failure to undertake an accurate relocation survey, thereby,
exposing them to litigation. The Cuasos also faulted Corinthian for approving their relocation survey
and building plans without verifying their accuracy and in making representations as to Engr. De Dios'
integrity and competence. The Cuasos alleged that had Corinthian exercised diligence in performing its
duty, they would not have been involved in a boundary dispute with the Tanjangcos. Thus, the Cuasos
opined that Corinthian should also be held answerable for any damages that they might incur as a
result of such construction.

ISSUE: WON Corinthian was negligent

RULING: Yes. The instant case is obviously one for tort, as governed by Article 2176 of the Civil Code,
which provides: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
this Chapter.

In every tort case filed under this provision, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1)
the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person
for whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence and the damages incurred.

Undeniably, the perimeter fence of the Cuasos encroached on Lot 69 owned by the Tanjangcos by 87
square meters as duly found by both the RTC and the CA in accordance with the evidence on record.
As a result, the Tanjangcos suffered damage in having been deprived of the use of that portion of their
lot encroached upon.

The test to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the
defendant in committing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinary person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
By this test, we find Corinthian negligent.