Casupanan V Laroya

1/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Casupanan vs. Laroya
*
G.R. No. 145391. August 26, 2002.
AVELINO CASUPANAN and ROBERTO CAPITULO,

petitioners, vs. MARIO LLAVORE LAROYA, respondent.
Remedial Law; Actions; Dismissals; Under Administrative

Circular No. 04-94 the order of dismissal is without prejudice to
refiling the complaint, unless the order of dismissal expressly
states it is with prejudice.—The MCTC dismissed the civil action
for quasi-delict on the ground of forum-shopping under Supreme
Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The MCTC did not state
in its order of dismissal that the dismissal was with prejudice.
Under the Administrative Circular, the order of dismissal is
without prejudice to refiling the complaint, unless the order of
dismissal expressly states it is with prejudice. Absent a
declaration that the dismissal is with prejudice, the same is
deemed without prejudice. Thus, the
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
29
VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 29
MCTC’s dismissal, being silent on the matter, is a dismissal

without prejudice.
Same; Same; Same; An order dismissing an action without
prejudice is not appealable.—Section 1 of Rule 41 provides that an
order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable.
The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a special civil action
under Rule 65. Section 1 of Rule 41 expressly states that “where
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ff314b7b2e009542e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party

may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.”
Clearly, the Capas RTC’s order dismissing the petition for
certiorari, on the ground that the proper remedy is an ordinary
appeal, is erroneous.
Same; Same; Forum-shopping; Essence of forum-shopping.—
The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment.
Forum-shopping is present when in the two or more cases
pending, there is identity of parties, rights of action and reliefs
sought. However, there is no forum-shopping in the instant case
because the law and the rules expressly allow the filing of a
separate civil action which can proceed independently of the
criminal action.
Same; Same; Same; Since the present Rules require the
accused in a criminal action to file his counterclaim in a separate
civil action, there can be no forum-shopping if the accused files
such separate civil action.—Moreover, paragraph 6, Section 1,
Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure (“2000 Rules”
for brevity) expressly requires the accused to litigate his
counterclaim in a separate civil action, to wit: “SECTION 1.
Institution of criminal and civil actions.—(a) x x x. No
counterclaim, crossclaim or third-party complaint may be filed by
the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which
could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate
civil action.” (Emphasis supplied) Since the present Rules require
the accused in a criminal action to file his counterclaim in a
separate civil action, there can be no forum-shopping if the
accused files such separate civil action.
Same; Same; Independent Civil Actions; To file a separate and
independent civil action for quasi-delict under the 1985 Rules, the
offended party had to reserve in the criminal action the right to
bring such action.—Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure (“1985 Rules” for brevity), as amended in
1988, allowed the filing of a separate civil action independently of
the criminal action provided the offended party reserved the right
to file such civil action. Unless the offended party reserved the
civil action before the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution, all civil actions arising from the same act or omission
were
30
deemed “impliedly instituted” in the criminal case. These civil

actions referred to the recovery of civil liability ex-delicto, the
recovery of damages for quasi-delict, and the recovery of damages
for violation of Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code on Human
Relations. Thus, to file a separate and independent civil action for
quasi-delict under the 1985 Rules, the offended party had to
reserve in the criminal action the right to bring such action.
Otherwise, such civil action was deemed “impliedly instituted” in
the criminal action.
Same; Same; Same; Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111
what is “deemed instituted” with the criminal action is only the
action to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delicto.
—Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is “deemed
instituted” with the criminal action is only the action to recover
civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delicto. All the other
civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code
are no longer “deemed instituted,” and may be filed separately
and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in
the criminal action. The failure to make a reservation in the
criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and
independent civil action based on these articles of the Civil Code.
Same; Same; Same; Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the
offended party in the criminal action, not to the accused.—Section
3 of the present Rule 111, like its counterpart in the amended
1985 Rules, expressly allows the “offended party” to bring an
independent civil action under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the
Civil Code. As stated in Section 3 of the present Rule 111, this
civil action 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.” There is no
question that the offended party in the criminal action can file an
independent civil action for quasidelict against the accused.
Section 3 of the present Rule 111 expressly states that the
“offended party” may bring such an action but the “offended
party” may not recover damages twice for the same act or
omission charged in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule
111 refers to the offended party in the criminal action, not to the
accused.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

Regional Trial Court of Capas, Tarlac, Br. 66.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Yolanda C. Castro for petitioners.
Pablo Olarte for private respondent.
31
VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 31

CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a petition
1
for review on certiorari to set aside the
Resolution dated December 28, 19992 dismissing the
petition for certiorari and the Resolution dated August 24,
2000 denying the motion for reconsideration, both issued
by the Regional Trial Court of Capas, Tarlac, Branch 66, in
Special Civil Action No. 17-C (99).
The Facts
Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Mario Llavore

Laroya (“Laroya” for brevity) and the other owned by
petitioner Roberto Capitulo (“Capitulo” for brevity) and
driven by petitioner Avelino Casupanan (“Casupanan” for
brevity), figured in an accident. As a result, two cases were
filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (“MCTC” for
brevity) of Capas, Tarlac. Laroya filed a criminal case
against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property, docketed as Criminal Case No. 002-99.
On the other hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil
case against Laroya for quasi-delict, docketed as Civil Case
No. 2089.
When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was then
at its preliminary investigation stage. Laroya, defendant in
the civil case, filed a motion to dismiss the civil case on the
ground of forum-shopping considering the pendency of the
criminal case. The MCTC granted the motion in the Order
of March 26, 1999 and dismissed the civil case.
On Motion for Reconsideration, Casupanan and Capitulo
insisted that the civil case is a separate civil action which
can proceed independently of the criminal case. The MCTC
denied the motion for reconsideration in the Order of May
7, 1999. Casupanan and Capitulo filed a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 before the Regional Trial Court3
(“Capas RTC” for brevity) of Capas, Tarlac, Branch 66,
assailing the MCTC’s Order of dismissal.
_______________
1 Penned by Judge Josefina D. Ceballos.

2 Penned by Judge Cesar M. Sotero.
3 Docketed as Special Civil Action No. 17-C (99).
32

The Trial Court’s Ruling
The Capas RTC rendered judgment on December 28, 1999

dismissing the petition for certiorari for lack of merit. The
Capas RTC ruled that the order of dismissal issued by the
MCTC is a final order which disposes of the case and
therefore the proper remedy should have been an appeal.
The Capas RTC further held that a special civil action for
certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Finally, the
Capas RTC declared that even on the premise that the
MCTC erred in dismissing the civil case, such error is a
pure error of judgment and not an abuse of discretion.
Casupanan and Capitulo filed a Motion for
Reconsideration but the Capas RTC denied the same in the
Resolution of August 24, 2000.
Hence, this petition.
The Issue
The petition premises the legal issue in this wise:
“In a certain vehicular accident involving two parties, each one of

them may think and believe that the accident was caused by the
fault of the other, x x x [T]he first party, believing himself to be
the aggrieved party, opted to file a criminal case for reckless
imprudence against the second party. On the other hand, the
second party, together with his operator, believing themselves to
be the real aggrieved parties, opted in turn to file a civil case for
quasi-delict against the first party4
who is the very private
complainant in the criminal case.”
Thus, the issue raised is whether an accused in a pending

criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly file,
simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action
for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the
criminal case.
_______________
4 Petition for Review on Certiorari dated October 27, 2000, pp. 1 & 2;
Rollo, pp. 9 & 10.
33
VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 33

The Court’s Ruling
Casupanan and Capitulo assert that Civil Case No. 2089,

which the MCTC dismissed on the ground of forum-
shopping, constitutes a counterclaim in the criminal case.
Casupanan and Capitulo argue that if the accused in a
criminal case has a counterclaim against the private
complainant, he may file the counterclaim in a separate
civil action at the proper time. They contend that an action
on quasi-delict is different from an action resulting from
the crime of reckless imprudence, and an accused in a
criminal case can be an aggrieved party in a civil case
arising from the same incident. They maintain that under
Articles 31 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the civil case can
proceed independently of the criminal action. Finally, they
point out that Casupanan was not the only one who filed
the independent civil action based on quasi-delict but also
Capitulo, the owner-operator of the vehicle, who was not a
party in the criminal case.
In his Comment, Laroya claims that the petition is
fatally defective as it does not state the real antecedents.
Laroya further alleges that Casupanan and Capitulo
forfeited their right to question the order of dismissal when
they failed to avail of the proper remedy of appeal. Laroya
argues that there is no question of law to be resolved as the
order of dismissal is already final and a petition for
certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal.
In their Reply, Casupanan and Capitulo contend that
the petition raises the legal question of whether there is
forum-shopping since they filed only one action—the
independent civil action for quasi-delict against Laroya.
Nature of the Order of Dismissal

The MCTC dismissed the civil action for quasi-delict on the
ground of forum-shopping under Supreme Court
Administrative Circular No.
5
04-94. The MCTC did not state
in its order of dismissal that the dismissal was with
prejudice. Under the Administrative Circular, the order of

dismissal is without prejudice to re-
_______________
5 Records of Special Civil Action No. 17 C-’99, Order of March 26, 1999,
pp. 12-14.
34

filing the complaint, unless6 the order of dismissal expressly

states it is with prejudice. Absent a declaration that the
dismissal is with prejudice, the same is deemed without
prejudice. Thus, the MCTC’s dismissal, being silent on the
matter, is a dismissal without
7
prejudice.
Section I of Rule 41 provides that an order dismissing
an action without prejudice is not appealable. The remedy
of the aggrieved party is to file a special civil action under
Rule 65. Section 1 of Rule 41 expressly states that “where
the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved
party may file an appropriate special civil action under
Rule 65.” Clearly, the Capas RTC’s order dismissing the
petition for certiorari, on the ground that the proper
remedy is an ordinary appeal, is erroneous.
Forum-Shopping
The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
either simultaneously
8
or successively, to secure a favorable
judgment. Forum-shopping is present when in the two or
more cases pending, there9 is identity of parties, rights of
action and reliefs sought. However, there is no forum-
shopping in the instant case because the law and the rules
expressly allow the filing of a separate civil action which
can proceed independently of the criminal action.
Laroya filed the criminal case for reckless imprudence
resulting in damage to property based on the Revised Penal
Code while Casupanan and Capitulo filed the civil action
for damages based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
Although these two actions arose
_______________
6 Sto. Domingo-David vs. Guerrero, 296 SCRA 277 (1998).
7 Section 9, Rule 40 (Appeal from Municipal Trial Courts to the

Regional Trial Courts) provides:
“SEC. 9. Applicability of Rule 41.—The other provisions of Rule 41 shall apply to

appeals provided for herein insofar as they are not inconsistent with or may serve
to supplement the provisions of this Rule.”
8 Melo vs. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 94 (1999).

9 International School, Inc. (Manila) vs. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA
474 (1999).
35
VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 35

from the same act or omission, they have different causes

of action. The criminal case is based on culpa criminal
punishable under the Revised Penal Code while the civil
case is based on culpa aquiliana actionable under Articles
2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code. These articles on culpa
aquiliana read:
“Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,

there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
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.”
Any aggrieved person can invoke these articles provided he

proves, by preponderance of evidence, that he has suffered
damage because of the fault or negligence of another.
Either the private complainant or the accused can file a
separate civil action under these articles. There is nothing
in the law or rules that state only the private complainant
in a criminal case may invoke these articles.
Moreover, paragraph 6, Section 1, Rule 111 of the 2000
Rules on Criminal Procedure (“2000 Rules” for brevity)
expressly requires the accused to litigate his counterclaim
in a separate civil action, to wit:
“SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.—(a) x x x.

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 the subject thereof may be litigated in a

separate civil action.” (Emphasis supplied)
Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal

action to file his counterclaim in a separate civil action,
there can be no forum-shopping if the accused files such
separate civil action.
36

Filing of a separate civil action

Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure (“1985 Rules” for brevity), as amended in 1988,
allowed the filing of a separate civil action independently of
the criminal action provided the offended party reserved
the right to file such civil action. Unless the offended party
reserved the civil action before the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution, all civil actions arising from
the same act or omission were deemed “impliedly
instituted” in the criminal case. These civil actions referred
to the recovery of civil liability ex-delicto, the recovery of
damages for quasidelict, and the recovery of damages for
violation of Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code on
Human Relations.
Thus, to file a separate and independent civil action for
quasidelict under the 1985 Rules, the offended party had to
reserve in the criminal action the right to bring such
action. Otherwise, such civil action was deemed “impliedly
instituted” in the criminal action. Section 1, Rule 111 of the
1985 Rules provided as follows:
“Section 1.—Institution of criminal and civil actions.—When a

criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action,
unless the offended party waives the action, reserves his right to
institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the
Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act
or omission of the accused.
A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The
institution of, or the reservation of the right to file, any of said
civil actions separately waives the others.
The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil

actions shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its
evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a
reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for
the same act or omission of the accused.
x x x.” (Emphasis supplied)
37
VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 37

Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules was amended on

December 1, 2000 and now provides as follows:
“SECTION 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.
The 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.
xxx
(b) xxx
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.” (Emphasis
supplied)
Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is “deemed

instituted” with the criminal action is only the action to
recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delicto.
All the other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the Civil Code are no longer “deemed instituted,”
and may be filed separately and prosecuted independently
even without any reservation in the criminal action. The
failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a
waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil
action based on these articles of the Civil Code. The
prescriptive period on the civil actions based on these
articles of the Civil Code continues to run even with the
filing of the criminal action. Verily, the civil actions based

on these articles of the Civil Code are separate, distinct and
independent of 10the civil action “deemed instituted” in the
criminal action.
_______________
10 Neplum, Inc. vs. Evelyn V. Orbeso, G.R. No. 141986, prom. July 11,
2002, at pp. 11-12, 384 SCRA 466.
38

Under the present Rule 111, the offended party is still

given the option to file a separate civil action to recover
civil liability exdelicto by reserving such right in the
criminal action before the prosecution presents its
evidence. Also, the offended party is deemed to make such
reservation if he files a separate civil action before filing
the criminal action. If the civil action to recover civil
liability ex-delicto is filed separately but its trial has not
yet commenced, the civil action may be consolidated with
the criminal action. The consolidation under this Rule does
not apply to separate civil actions arising from the same act
or omission11 filed under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the
Civil Code.
Suspension of the Separate Civil Action

Under Section 2, Rule 111 of the amended 1985 Rules, a
separate civil action, if reserved in the criminal action,
could not be filed until after final judgment was rendered
in the criminal action. If the separate civil action was filed
before the commencement of the criminal action, the civil
action, if still pending, was suspended upon the filing of the
criminal action until final judgment was rendered in the
criminal action. This rule applied only to the separate civil
action filed to recover liability ex-delicto. The rule did not
apply to independent civil actions based on Articles 32, 33,
34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, which could proceed
independently regardless of the filing of the criminal
action.
The amended provision of Section 2, Rule 111 of the
2000 Rules continues this procedure, to wit:
“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.
_______________
11 Section 1 of Rule 31, however, allows consolidation, in the discretion

of the trial court, of actions involving common questions of law or fact
pending before the same court (Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, (203
SCRA 619 [1991]), or pending even in different branches of the same
regional trial court if one of the cases has not been partially tried
(Raymundo vs. Felipe, 42 SCRA 615 [1971]).
39
VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 39

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.
x x x.” (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, Section 2, Rule 111 of the present Rules did not

change the rule that the separate civil action, filed to
recover damages exdelicto, is suspended upon the filing of
the criminal action. Section 2 of the present Rule 111 also
prohibits the filing, after commencement of the criminal
action, of a separate civil action to recover damages ex-
delicto.
When civil action may proceed independently

The crucial question now is whether Casupanan and
Capitulo, who are not the offended parties in the criminal
case, can file a separate civil action against the offended

party in the criminal case. Section 3, Rule 111 of the 2000
Rules provides as follows:
“SEC. 3. When civil action may proceed independently.—In the

cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, 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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 3 of the present Rule 111, like its counterpart in

the amended 1985 Rules, expressly allows the “offended
party” to bring an independent civil action under Articles
32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
40

the Civil Code. As stated in Section 3 of the present Rule

111, this civil action 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.”
There is no question that the offended party in the
criminal action can file an independent civil action for
quasi-delict against the accused. Section 3 of the present
Rule 111 expressly states that the “offended party” may
bring such an action but the “offended party” may not
recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged
in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers
to the offended party in the criminal action, not to the
accused.
Casupanan and 12Capitulo, however, invoke the ruling in
Cabaero vs. Cantos where the Court held that the accused
therein could validly institute a separate civil action for
quasi-delict against the private complainant in the
criminal case. In Cabaero, the accused in the criminal case
filed his Answer with Counterclaim for malicious
prosecution. At that time the Court noted the “absence of
clear-cut rules governing the prosecution on impliedly
instituted civil actions and the necessary consequences and
implications thereof.” Thus, the Court ruled that the trial
court should confine itself to the criminal aspect of the case

and disregard any counterclaim for civil liability. The
Court further ruled that the accused may file a separate
civil case against the offended party “after the criminal
case is terminated and/or in accordance with the new Rules
which may be promulgated.” The Court explained that a
cross-claim, counterclaim or third-party complaint on the
civil aspect will only unnecessarily complicate the
proceedings and delay the resolution of the criminal case.
Paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 was
incorporated in the 2000 Rules precisely to address the
lacuna mentioned in Cabaero. Under this provision, the
accused is barred from filing a counterclaim, cross-claim or
third-party complaint in the criminal case. However, the
same provision states that “any cause of action which could
have been the subject (of the counterclaim, cross-claim or
third-party complaint) may be litigated in a separate civil
ac-
_______________
12 271 SCRA 391 (1997).
41
VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 41

tion.” The present Rule 111 mandates the accused to file

his counterclaim in a separate civil action which shall
proceed independently of the criminal action, even as the
civil action of the offended party is litigated in the criminal
action.
Conclusion
Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent
civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code
is not deemed instituted with the criminal action but may
be filed separately by the offended party even without
reservation. The commencement of the criminal action does
not suspend the prosecution of the independent civil action
under these articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in
Section 2 of the present Rule 111 refers only to the civil
action arising from the crime, if such civil action is reserved
or filed before the commencement of the criminal action.
Thus, the offended party can file two separate suits for
the same act or omission. The first a criminal case where
the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed
instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi-delict—

without violating the rule on non-forum shopping. The two
cases can proceed simultaneously and independently of
each other. The commencement or prosecution of the
criminal action will not suspend the civil action for quasi-
delict. The only limitation is that the offended party cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the
defendant. In most cases, the offended party will have no
reason to file a second civil action since he cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused.
In some instances, the accused may be insolvent,
necessitating the filing of another case against his
employer or guardians.
Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-
delict for the same act or omission he is accused of in the
criminal case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6,
Section 1 of the present Rule 111 which states that the
counterclaim of the accused “may be litigated in a separate
civil action.” This is only fair for two reasons. First, the
accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in
the civil aspect that is deemed instituted in the criminal
case. The accused is therefore forced to litigate separately
his counterclaim against the offended party. If the accused
does not file a
42

separate civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptive period

may set in since the period continues to run until the civil
action for quasi-delict is filed.
Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a
right to invoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code, in the same
way that the offended party can avail of this remedy which
is independent of the criminal action. To disallow the
accused from filing a separate civil action for quasi-delict,
while refusing to recognize his counterclaim in the criminal
case, is to deny him due process of law, access to the courts,
and equal protection of the law.
Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed
separately by Casupanan and Capitulo is proper. The order
of dismissal by the MCTC of Civil Case No. 2089 on the
ground of forum-shopping is erroneous.
We make this ruling aware of the possibility that the
decision of the trial court in the criminal case may vary
with the decision of the trial court in the independent civil
action. This possibility has always been recognized ever

since the Civil Code introduced in 1950 the concept of an
independent civil action under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176
of the Code. But the law itself, in Article 31 of the Code,
expressly provides that the independent civil action “may
proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and
regardless 13of the result of the latter.” In Azucena vs.
Potenciano, the Court declared:
“x x x. There can indeed be no other logical conclusion than this,

for to subordinate the civil action contemplated in the said
articles to the result of the criminal prosecution—whether it be
conviction or acquittal—would render meaningless the
independent character of the civil action and the clear injunction
in Article 31 that this action ‘may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.’ ”
More than half a century has passed since the Civil Code
introduced the concept of a civil action separate and
independent from the criminal action although arising from
the same act or omission. The Court, however, has yet to
encounter a case of conflicting and irreconcilable decisions
of trial courts, one hearing the criminal
_______________
13 5 SCRA 468 (1962).
43
VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 43

case and the other the civil action for quasi-delict. The fear
of conflicting and irreconcilable decisions may be more
apparent than real. In any event, there are sufficient
remedies under the Rules of
Court to deal with such remote possibilities.
One final point. The Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure took effect on December 1, 2000 while the MCTC
issued the order of dismissal on December 28, 1999 or
before the amendment of the rules. The Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure must be given retroactive effect
considering the well-settled rule that—
“x x x statutes regulating the procedure of the court will be

construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at
the time of their passage.14Procedural laws are retroactive in that
sense and to that extent.”
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is

hereby GRANTED. The Resolutions dated December 28,
1999 and August 24, 2000 in Special Civil Action No. 17-C
(99) are ANNULLED and Civil Case No. 2089 is
REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairman) and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., On leave.
Petition granted, resolutions annulled.
Note.—Forum-shopping exists where the elements of

litis pendencia are present or where a final judgment in one
case will amount to res judicata in the other. (Cruz vs.
Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 784 [1999])
——o0o——
_______________
14 People vs. Arrojado, 350 SCRA 679 (2001) citing Ocampo vs. Court of
Appeals, 180 SCRA 27 (1989), Alday vs. Camilon, 120 SCRA 521 (1983) &
People vs. Sumilang, 77 Phil. 764 (1946).
44
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Casupanan V Laroya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Casupanan V Laroya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Casupanan V Laroya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 388

28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AVELINO CASUPANAN and ROBERTO CAPITULO,

Remedial Law; Actions; Dismissals; Under Administrative

VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 29

Casupanan vs. Laroya

MCTC’s dismissal, being silent on the matter, is a dismissal

the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party

30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Casupanan vs. Laroya

deemed “impliedly instituted” in the criminal case. These civil

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 31

Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Mario Llavore

1 Penned by Judge Josefina D. Ceballos.

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Trial Court’s Ruling

The Capas RTC rendered judgment on December 28, 1999

The petition premises the legal issue in this wise:

“In a certain vehicular accident involving two parties, each one of

Thus, the issue raised is whether an accused in a pending

VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 33

The Court’s Ruling

Casupanan and Capitulo assert that Civil Case No. 2089,

Nature of the Order of Dismissal

prejudice. Under the Administrative Circular, the order of

34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

filing the complaint, unless6 the order of dismissal expressly

6 Sto. Domingo-David vs. Guerrero, 296 SCRA 277 (1998).

7 Section 9, Rule 40 (Appeal from Municipal Trial Courts to the

“SEC. 9. Applicability of Rule 41.—The other provisions of Rule 41 shall apply to

8 Melo vs. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 94 (1999).

VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 35

from the same act or omission, they have different causes

“Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,

Any aggrieved person can invoke these articles provided he

“SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.—(a) x x x.

which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a

Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal

36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Filing of a separate civil action

“Section 1.—Institution of criminal and civil actions.—When a

The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil

VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 37

Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules was amended on

“SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.—(a) When

Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is “deemed

filing of the criminal action. Verily, the civil actions based

38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Under the present Rule 111, the offended party is still

Suspension of the Separate Civil Action

“SEC. 2. When separate civil action is suspended.—After the

arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has

11 Section 1 of Rule 31, however, allows consolidation, in the discretion

VOL. 388, AUGUST 26, 2002 39

Thus, Section 2, Rule 111 of the present Rules did not

When civil action may proceed independently

case, can file a separate civil action against the offended