Title: 9) Virata vs. Ochoa, G.R. No.

L-46179 (January 31, 1978)

Facts:

 While walking along Taft Avenue, Arsenio Virata was bumped by a

jeepney driven by Maximo Bonilla and owned by Victoria Ochoa.
 As a result of the accident, Arsenio died. A criminal action for homicide
through reckless imprudence was instituted against Bonilla.
The private prosecutor made a reservation to file a separate civil
action.
 Subsequently, Atty. Julio Francisco filed a motion to withdraw the
reservation to file a separate civil
action. Thereafter, the private prosecutor actively participated in the
trial and presented evidence on the damages.
 Thereafter, the heirs of Virata again reserved the right to file a separate
civil action. They also commenced a civil action for damages based
on quasi-delict against Borilla and Ochoa.
 Bonilla and Ochoa moved for the dismissal of the civil case on the
ground that there is another action pending between the same parties
and the same cause.
 Pending the resolution of the civil case, the CFI acquitted Bonilla in
the criminal case.
 CFI also granted the motion to dismiss in the civil case.
Issue: Whether or not the heirs of Arsenio Virata can prosecute an action for
damages based on quasi -delict against Borilla and Ochoa.
Held: Yes, they can prosecute an action for damages based on quasi-delict.

 In negligence cases the aggrieved parties may choose between an a

ction under the Revised PenalCode or of quasi-delict under Article 21
76 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. What is prohibited by Article 2
177 ofthe Civil Code of the Philippines is to recover twice for the sam
e negligent act.
 In this case, the petitioners are not seeking to recover twice for the
same negligent act. Before the criminal case was decided, they
manifested that they were filing a separate civil action for damages
against the owner and driver of the jeepney based on quasi-delict. The
acquittal of the driver in the criminal case is not a bar to the prosecution
of the civil case for damages based on quasi-delict. The source of the
obligation sought to enforced in the civil case is a quasi-delict, not an
act or omission punishable by law. Under Art. 1157 of the Civil Code,
quasi delict and an act or omission punishable by law are two different
sources of obligation.
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby set as
ide and Civil Case No. B-134 is reinstated andremanded to the lower court fo
r further proceedings, with costs against the private respondents.