IV. Criminal Negligence vs. Civil Negligence (Art.

2177, NCC)

Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.

a. Actions available to victims of negligence (Arts. 100, 103 RPC; Arts. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 2180, NCC)

Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of a felony - Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons - The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also
apply to employers, teachers, persons and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices or employees in the discharge of their duties.

Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a
preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for
damages in case the complaint should be found malicious.

If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the
absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to
that ground.

Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal
proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to
prove the act complained of.

Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil
action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any
manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

1) Freedom of religion;

2) Freedom of speech;

3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;

4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;

5) Freedom of suffrage;

6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;

7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;

8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;

9) The right to be secured in one's person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;

10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;

 11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;

12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;

13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for redress of grievances;

14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;

15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;

16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;

17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from
being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a
State witness;

18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in
accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and

19) Freedom of access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal
offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other
relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted) and may be proved
by a preponderance of evidence.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

The responsibility, herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of
the Penal Code or other penal statute.

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical 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 a preponderance of evidence.

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of
persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor
children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and
live in their company.

The owner and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope
of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been
caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Art 2176 shall be applicable.
 Lastly, teachers or heads of establishment of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and
students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed
all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

b. Procedural Aspect (Secs. 1, 2 , 3 and 4 of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure.

Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives
the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

Reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting
its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or
exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or information, the filing fees therefore shall
constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such damages.

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding
filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon filing thereof in court.

No counterclaim, cross-claim or third party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause
of action which could have been subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action.

(b) The criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on
the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or
information also seek to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay the
filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently
awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.

Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with
the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions
shall proceed in accordance with Section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.

Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended. After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising
therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.

If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in
whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the
criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the
offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the
evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice
to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the
parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly.
 During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period of prescription of the civil action which cannot
be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled.

The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based
on delict may 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.

Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the
independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same
act or omission charged in the criminal action.

Sec. 4. Effect of death on civil actions. The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal
action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action instituted under Section 3
of this Rules or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued
against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the case may be.
The heirs of the accused may be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a
period of thirty (30) days from notice.

A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these
Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.

If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the offended
party may file against the estate of the deceased.

V. Proximate Cause

Art. 2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover
damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendants
lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

Tests of proximate cause

1. Cause-in-fact Test - it is necessary that there is proof that defendant's conduct is a factor in causing plaintiff's damage.

a. but for test/sine qua non test

b. substantial factor test

c. necessary and sufficient test

2. Policy test - the law limits the liability of the defendant to certain consequences of his action; if the damage or injury to the
plaintiff is beyond the limit of the liability fixed by law, the defendant's conduct cannot be considered the proximate cause of
the damage.
Note: such limit of liability is determined by applying these subtests to the policy test:

a. foreseeability test

b. natural and probable consequence test

c. natural and ordinary or direct consequences test

d. hindsight test

e. orbit of risk test

f. substantial factor test.

Efficient intervening cause - it is one which destroys the causal connection between the negligent act and the injury and
thereby negatives liability. It is sometimes called, novusactusinterviens.

There is no efficient intervening cause if the force created by the negligent act or omission have either:

1. remained active itself; or

2. created another force which remained active until it directly caused the result; or

3. created a new active risk of being acted upon by the active force that caused the result.

Contributory Negligence - it is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has
suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection.

Doctrine of Comparative Negligence - the negligence of both the plaintiff and the defendant are compared for the purpose of
reaching an equitable apportionment of their respective liabilities for the damage caused and suffered by the plaintiff.

Note: The relative degree of negligence of the parties is considered in determining whether, and to what degree, either should
be responsible for his negligence (apportionment of damages).

The principle of contributory negligence cannot be used as defense in criminal cases through reckless imprudence because one
cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence.

Attractive Nuisance - a condition or appliance in question although in danger is apparent to those of age, is so enticing and
alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to approach, get on or use it and this attractiveness is an implied
invitation to children.

Note: The attractiveness of the premises or of the dangerous instrumentality to children of tender years is to be considered as
an implied invitation, which takes the children who accepted it out of the category of a trespasser and puts them in the
category of invitees, towards whom the owner of the premises or instrumentality owes the duty of ordinary care.

Note: Nature has created streams, lakes and pools which attract children. Lurking their waters is always the danger of
drowning. Against this danger, children are early instructed so that they are sufficiently presumed to know the danger; and if
the owner of private property creates and artificial pool on his own property, merely duplicating the work of nature without
adding any new danger, he is not liable because of having created an "attractive nuisance".
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance - this is also called as the "humanitarian negligence doctrine". Where parties are negligent but
the negligent act of one succeeds that the other by an appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last reasonable
opportunity to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so, is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the
prior negligence of the other party.

Note: the doctrine of last clear chance is a theory adopted to mitigate the harshness of the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff.

Requisites:

1. plaintiff is placed in danger by his own negligent acts and he is unable to get out from such situation by any means;

2. defendant knows that the plaintiff is in danger and knows or should have known that the plaintiff was unable to
extricate himself therefrom; and

3. defendant has the last clear chance or opportunity to avoid the accident through the exercise of ordinary care but
failed to do so, and the accident occurred as a proximate result of such failure.