B.

) NO DOUBLE RECOVERY RULE (ARTICLE 2177 NCC)

Article 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.

JURISPRUDENCE:
14. Joseph v. Bautista

FACTS:
Joseph was a paying passenger in a cargo truck. The cargo truck tried to overtake a tricycle proceeding in
the same direction. At the same time, a pick-up truck tried to overtake the cargo truck, thus the cargo
truck was forced to veer towards the shoulder of the road & rammed a mango tree in the process.
Joseph sustained a bone fracture in one of his legs. Joseph sued the owner of the cargo truck for breach
of the contract of carriage & the owner of the pick-up for quasi-delict for injuries he sustained. The
owner of the pick-up paid Joseph the amount he was claiming thru a settlement agreement. Joseph still
wants to maintain the action vs. the truck owner claiming that he still has another cause of action vs. the
latter, for breach of contract of carriage.

ISSUE: Did the payment by the other respondents inure to the benefit of Perez, sanctioning the dismissal
of the case

HELD:
Yes. A cause of action is understood to be the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the
defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff. A single act or omission may simultaneously
be violative of various rights, as when the act constitutes juridically a violation of several separate and
distinct legal obligations. Notwithstanding the fact, where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but
a single cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated. If only one
injury resulted from several wrongful acts, only one cause of action arises. In the case at bar,
petitioner sustained only one injury on his person, vesting in him a single cause of action, although there
are correlative rights of action against the different respondents through the appropriate remedies
allowed. A recovery by petitioner under one remedy, as when he already recovered under the
principle of quasi-delict, necessarily bars recovery under the other. This is the principle of the
proscription in the law against double recovery for the same act or omission under the fundamental
rule against unjust enrichment. Moreover, since the respondents are solidarily liable to petitioner, the
full payment by some of the solidary debtors and their subsequent release from liability resulted in the
extinguishment and release from liability of the other solidary debtors, including Perez.
15. Bermudez v. Herrera

FACTS:
A cargo truck driven by Domingo Pontino and owned by Cordova Ng Sun Kwan bumped a jeep on which
Rogelio, a six-year old son of plaintiff-appellants, was riding. The boy sustained injuries which caused his
death. As a result, a criminal case for Homicide through Reckless Imprudence was filed against Domingo
Pontino by the Manila City Fiscal‘s Office. Plaintiff-appellants filed in the said criminal case. A
Reservation to File Separate Civil Action. Subsequently, the plaintiff-appellants filed a civil case for
damages with the Court of First Instance of Manila. Finding that the plaintiffs instituted the action on
the assumption that defendant Pontino‘s negligence in the accident constituted a quasi-delict.

The trial court stated that the plaintiffs had already elected to treat the accident as a crime by reserving
in the criminal case the right to file a separate civil action. That being so, the trial court decided to order
the dismissal of the complaint against defendant Cordova Ng Sun Kwan and to suspend the hearing of
the case against Domingo Pontino until after the criminal case for Homicide Through Reckless
Imprudence is finally terminated. From said order, plaintiffs filed the present appeal.

ISSUE: Whether a reservation to file a separate civil action in a criminal case precludes the filing of a civil
action based on quasi-delict

RULING:
No. In cases of negligence, the injured party or his heirs has the choice between an action to enforce the
civil liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi-
delict under Article 2176-2194 of the Civil Code. If a party chooses the latter, he may hold the employer
solidarily liable for the negligent act of his employee, subject to the employer's defense of exercise of
the diligence of a good father of the family.
In the case at bar, the action filed by plaintiffs-appellants was an action for damages based on quasi-
delict. The fact that appellants reserved their right in the criminal case to file an independent civil
action did not preclude them from choosing to file a civil action for quasi-delict. The appellant
precisely made a reservation to file an independent civil action in accordance with the provisions of
Section 2 of Rule 111, Rules of Court. In fact, even without such a reservation, we have allowed
the injured party in the criminal case which resulted in the acquittal of the accused to recover
damages based on quasi-delict. In People v. Ligon, G.R. No. 74041, we held: "However, it does
not follow that a person who is not criminally liable is also free from civil liability. While the
guilt of the accused in a criminal prosecution must be established beyond reasonable
doubt, only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil action for damages (Article 29,
Civil Code). The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the civil liability of the accused only when it
includes a declaration that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not exist (Padilla v.
Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 559
16. Singson v. BPI

FACTS:

Singson, was one of the defendants in a civil case, in which judgment had been rendered sentencing him
and his co-defendants therein Lobregat and Villa-Abrille & Co., to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff
therein. Said judgment became final and executory as only against Ville-Abrille for its failure to file an
appeal. A writ of garnishment was subsequently served upon BPI — in which the Singsons had a current
account — insofar as Villa-Abrille’s credits against the Bank were concerned.
Upon receipt of the said Writ of Garnishment, a clerk of the bank, upon reading the name of the Singson
in the title of the Writ of Garnishment as a party defendants, without further reading the body and
informing himself that said garnishment was merely intended for the deposits of defendant Villa-Abrille
& Co., et al, prepared a letter informing Singson of the garnishment of his deposits by the plaintiff in that
case.

Subsequently, two checks issued by the plaintiff Julian C. Singson, one in favor of B. M. Glass Service and
another in favor of the Lega Corporation, were dishonored by the bank. B. M. Glass Service then wrote
to Singson that the check was not honored by BPI because his account therein had already been
garnished and that they are now constrained to close his credit account with them.

Singson wrote to BPI, claiming that his name was not included in the Writ of Execution and Notice of
Garnishment, which was served upon the bank. The defendants lost no time to rectify the mistake that
had been inadvertently committed.

Thus this action for damages.

ISSUE: WON the existence of a contract between the parties bars a plaintiff’s claim for damages based
on torts

RULING: NO. The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the commission of a tort
by the one against the order and the consequent recovery of damages therefore. Indeed, this view has
been, in effect, reiterated in a comparatively recent case. Thus, in Air France vs. Carrascoso, involving an
airplane passenger who, despite his first-class ticket, had been illegally ousted from his first-class
accommodation and compelled to take a seat in the tourist compartment, was held entitled to recover
damages from the air-carrier, upon the ground of tort on the latter’s part, for, although the relation
between a passenger and a carrier is “contractual both in origin and nature … the act that breaks the
contract may also be a tort.
In view, however, of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, and considering, particularly, the
circumstance, that the wrong done to the plaintiff was remedied as soon as the President of the bank
realized the mistake he and his subordinate employee had committed, the Court finds that an award of
nominal damages — the amount of which need not be proven — in the sum of P1,000, in addition to
attorney’s fees in the sum of P500, would suffice to vindicate plaintiff’s rights.