CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM QUASI-DELICT CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM CRIME

A civil case was an action for damages based on Culpa Aquiliana under
Arts. 2176 and 2194 of the NCC for which the defendant, as employer,
was to be primarily and directly liable for reason of his own negligence,
either in the selection or supervision of his driver.
Whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as quasi-delict
only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the
criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not
been committed by the accused.
The plaintiff may hold the employer liable for the negligent act of its
employees, subject to the employers defense of exercise of the
diligence of a good father of the family. Under Art. 2180 of the CC, the
liability of the employer is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned upon
prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of
insolvency of such employee.
Culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be
punishable by law. While preponderance of evidence is sufficient to
make the defendant pay in damages. There are numerous cases of
criminal negligence which cannot be shown beyond reasonable doubt;
but can be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
Conviction by final judgment of defendants driver in the criminal case
filed against said driver for damage to property through reckless
imprudence, damages for which defendant, as employer, is made
subsidiarity liable under Art. 103 of the RPC1
Rule 111 of the ROC applies only to a civil action arising from crime or
ex delicto and not to a civil action arising from Quasi-delict or culpa
aquiliana. The extinction of the civil liability in Rule 111 refers
exclusively to civil liability founded on Art. 100 of the RPC. 2
The plaintiff can hold the employer subsidiarity liable only upon proof of
prior conviction of its employee.3
RPC in Art. 365 punish not only reckless but also simple negligence. To
find the accused in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt is required. 4

1
Mendoza v. La Mallorca Bus Co., GR No. L-26407, March 31, 1978.
2 Manliclic v. Calaunan, GR No. 150157, January 25, 2007.
3 L.G. Foods Corp. v. Pagapong-Agraviador, GR No. 158995, September 26, 2006.
4 Elcano v. Hill, GR No. L-24803, May 26, 1977.

*The Barredo case was decided by the Supreme Court Prior to the present Civil Code.
Outline on the Rules of Reservation under Rule 111 of the Rules of Court - The extinction of civil liability refers exclusively to civil liability
founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the
I. Effectivity
civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only
- January 1, 1964
and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in
the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened
II. Provision
or has not been committed by the accused. 7
- An independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from
the civil action may be instituted by the injured party during the
pendency of the criminal case, provided said party has reserved
his right to institute it separately.

III. Reservation
- Section 2 of Rule 111 of the Rules, which require reservation by
the inured party considering that by the institution of the civil
action even before the commencement of the trial of the criminal
case, petitioners have thereby foreclosed their right to intervene
therein, or on where reservation to file the civil action need not
be made for the reason that the law itself (Art. 33 of the Civil
Code) already makes the reservation and the failure of the
offended party to do so does not bar him from bringing the
action.5

IV. Enforcement
- The action for enforcement of the civil liability based on culpa
criminal under Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court is
deemed simultaneously instituted with the criminal action, unless
expressly waiver or reserved for separate application by the
offended party.6

V. Extinction

5 7 Elcano v. Hill, GR No. L-24803, May 26, 1977.

Garcia v. Florido, GR No. L-35095, August 31, 1973.
6 Mendoza v. Arrieta, GR No. L-32599, June 29, 1979.
Is the reservation provided in Rule 111 o the Rules of COURT required for civil case
arising from Quasi-delict?

No. An offended party loses his right to intervene in the prosecution of a criminal case, not only when he
has waived the civil action or expressly reserved his right to institute, but also when he has actually
instituted the civil action.

The negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liability arising from crime or create an action for
quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a
distinct and independent negligence, having always had its own foundation and individuality. Some legal
writers are of the view that in accordance with Article 31, the civil action based upon quasi-delict may
proceed independently of the criminal proceeding for criminal negligence and regardless of the result of
the latter. Hence, "the proviso in Section 2 of Rule 111 with reference to Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil
Code is contrary to the letter and spirit of the said articles, for these articles were drafted and are intended
to constitute as exceptions to the general rule stated in what is now Section 1 of Rule 111.

The proviso which is procedural may also be regarded as an unauthorized amendment of substantive
law, Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code, which do not provide for the reservation required in
the proviso." But in whatever way We view the institution of the civil action for recovery of damages under
quasi-delict by petitioners, whether as one that should be governed by the provisions of Section 2 of Rule
111 of the Rules which require reservation by the injured party considering that by the institution of the
civil action even before the commencement of the trial of the criminal case, petitioners have thereby
foreclosed their right to intervene therein, or one where reservation to file the civil action need not be
made, for the reason that the law itself (Article 33 of the Civil Code) already makes the reservation and
the failure of the offended party to do so does not bar him from bringing the action, under the peculiar
circumstances of the case, We find no legal justification for respondent court's order of dismissal. 8

8
Garcia v. Florido, GR No. L-35095, August 31, 1973.