CASE DIGEST ON MENDOZA V. ARRIETA

For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com

case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests

CASE DIGEST ON MENDOZA V. ARRIETA [91 S 113 (1979)] - Where in a multiple highway accident involving a truck which hit a jeep which then hit a Mercedes Benz coming from the opposite direction, two criminal actions for reckless imprudence was filed against the drivers of the truck and jeep, and the driver of the truck was found guilty and the driver of the jeep acquitted, a civil action for damages against the owner of the truck would prosper as there is no res judicata, the parties and causes of action being different. Furthermore, under Art. 31 of the Civil Code, When the civil action is based on an obli¬gation not arising from crime, the civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceed¬ings regardless of result of the latter. Citing Garcia v. Florido,
"As we have stated at the outset, the same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liabil¬ity 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 negligenc, having always had its own foundation and individuality. Some legal writers are of the view that in accord¬ance with Article 31, the civil action based upon quasi-delict may proced 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 (requiring reservation of civil actions) 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 procedura, 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."
However, a civil action for damages against the owner-driver of the jeep would not prosper because civil liability arising from crime co-exists with criminal liability in criminal cases. Hence, the offended party had the option to prosecute on civil liability arising from crime or from quasi-delict. His active participation in the criminal case implies that he opted to recover the civil liability arising from crime. Hence, since the acquittal in the criminal case, which was not based on reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages can no longer be instituted.


For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com

case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests