BERMUDEZ v. MELENCIO-HERRERA G.R. No. L-32055 February 26, 1988 REYNALDO BERMUDEZ, SR., and, ADONITA
YABUT BERMUDEZ petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. JUDGE A. MELENCIO-HERRERA, DOMINGO PONTINO y TACORDA and
CORDOVA NG SUN KWAN, respondents-appellees.
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 plaintiffs-appellants, was riding. The boy sustained injuries which caused his death. As a result, Criminal Case No.92944 for Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence was filed against Domingo Pontino by the Manila City Fiscal's Office. Plaintiffs-appellants filed on July 27,1969 in the said criminal case "A Reservation to File Separate Civil Action." On July 28,1969, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a civil case for damages with the Court of First Instance of Manila.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. CFI- Manila: dismissed plaintiffs-appellants' complaint, to suspend the hearing of the case against Domingo Pontino until after the criminal case for Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence is finally terminated and finding that the plaintiffs instituted the action "on the assumption that defendant Pontino's negligence in the accident of May 10, 1969 constituted a quasi-delict," the trial court stated that plaintiffs had already elected to treat the accident as a "crime" by reserving in the criminal case their right to file a separate civil action.
ISSUE:
Whether the civil action filed by the plaintiffs-appellants is founded on crime or on quasi-delict
RULING:
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 solidarity 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 b appellant 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.
Obligations arise from law, contract, quasi-contract, crime and quasi-delict.
It is now settled that for an employer to be subsidiarily liable, the following requisites must be present:
(1) that an employee has committed a crime in the discharge of his duties;
(2) that said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability;
(3) that the employer is engaged in some kind of industry.
Article 2177 of the Civil Code, cited in Section 2, of Rule 111, provides that —
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.
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 plaintiffs-appellants, was riding. The boy sustained injuries which caused his death. As a result, Criminal Case No.92944 for Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence was filed against Domingo Pontino by the Manila City Fiscal's Office. Plaintiffs-appellants filed on July 27,1969 in the said criminal case "A Reservation to File Separate Civil Action." On July 28,1969, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a civil case for damages with the Court of First Instance of Manila.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. CFI- Manila: dismissed plaintiffs-appellants' complaint, to suspend the hearing of the case against Domingo Pontino until after the criminal case for Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence is finally terminated and finding that the plaintiffs instituted the action "on the assumption that defendant Pontino's negligence in the accident of May 10, 1969 constituted a quasi-delict," the trial court stated that plaintiffs had already elected to treat the accident as a "crime" by reserving in the criminal case their right to file a separate civil action.
ISSUE:
Whether the civil action filed by the plaintiffs-appellants is founded on crime or on quasi-delict
RULING:
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 solidarity 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 b appellant 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.
Obligations arise from law, contract, quasi-contract, crime and quasi-delict.
It is now settled that for an employer to be subsidiarily liable, the following requisites must be present:
(1) that an employee has committed a crime in the discharge of his duties;
(2) that said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability;
(3) that the employer is engaged in some kind of industry.
Article 2177 of the Civil Code, cited in Section 2, of Rule 111, provides that —
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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment