Rafael Reyes Trucking v People (Torts)

RAFAEL REYES TRUCKING V PEOPLE G.R. No. 129029 April 3, 2000 RAFAEL REYES TRUCKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ROSARIO P. DY (for herself and on behalf of the minors Maria Luisa, Francis Edward, Francis Mark and Francis Rafael, all surnamed Dy), respondents.

FACTS:
On October 10, 1989, Provincial Prosecutor Patricio T. Durian of Isabela filed with the Regional Trial Court, Isabela, Branch 19, Cauayan an amended information charging Romeo Dunca y de Tumol with reckless imprudence resulting in double homicide and damage to property. The said accused being the driver and person-in-charge of a Trailer Truck Tractor bearing Plate No. N2A-867 registered in the name of Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation, with a load of 2,000 cases of empty bottles of beer grande hit and bump a Nissan Pick-up. Due to irreversible shock, internal and external hemorrhage and multiple injuries, open wounds, abrasions, and further causing damages to the heirs of Feliciano Balcita in the amount of P100,000.00 and to the death of Francisco Dy, Jr.; @ Pacquing and damages to his Nissan Pick-Up bearing Plate No. BBG-957 in the total amount of P2,000,000.00.
The offended parties made a reservation to file a separate civil action against the accused arising from the offense charged. The offended parties actually filed with the Regional Trial Court, Isabela, Branch 19, Cauayan a complaint against petitioner Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation, as employer of driver Romeo Dunca y de Tumol, based on quasi delict.
The petitioner settled the claim of the heirs of Feliciano Balcita (the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident). The private respondents opted to pursue the criminal action but did not withdraw the civil case quasi ex delicto they filed against petitioner. On December 15, 1989, private respondents withdrew the reservation to file a separate civil action against the accused and manifested that they would prosecute the civil aspect ex delicto in the criminal action.
Upon agreement of the parties, the trial court consolidated both criminal and civil cases and conducted a joint trial of the same.

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. Trial Court: Finding the accused Romeo Dunca y de Tumol guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Double Homicide through Reckless Imprudence private respondents moved for amendment of the dispositive portion of the joint decision so as to hold petitioner subsidiarily liable for the damages awarded to the private respondents in the event of insolvency of the accused, which was approved by the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal, the accused jumped bail and fled to a foreign country.
2. Court of Appeals: affirmed the decision of the trial court.

ISSUES:
1. May petitioner as owner of the truck involved in the accident be held subsidiarily liable for the damages awarded to the offended parties in the criminal action against the truck driver despite the filing of a separate civil action by the offended parties against the employer of the truck driver?
2. May the Court award damages to the offended parties in the criminal case despite the filing of a civil action against the employer of the truck driver; and in amounts exceeding that alleged in the information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property?

RULING:
1. No. Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation, as employer of the accused who has been adjudged guilty in the criminal case for reckless imprudence, cannot be held subsidiarily liable because of the filing of the separate civil action based on quasi delict against it. In view of the reservation to file, and the subsequent filing of the civil action for recovery of civil liability, the same was not instituted with the criminal action. Such separate civil action was for recovery of damages under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, arising from the same act or omission of the accused

In negligence cases, the aggrieved party has the choice between
(1) an action to enforce civil liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; and
(2) a separate action for quasi delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Once the choice is made, the injured party cannot avail himself of any other remedy because he may not recover damages twice for the same negligent act or omission of the accused. This is the rule against double recovery.1âwphi1.nêt
Private respondents sued petitioner Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation, as the employer of the accused, to be vicariously liable for the fault or negligence of the latter. Under the law, this vicarious (secondary) liability of the employer is founded on at least two specific provisions of law. 

Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code
1. allow an action predicated on quasi-delict to be instituted by the injured party against the employer for an act or omission of the employee and would necessitate only a preponderance of evidence to prevail
2. the liability of the employer for the negligent conduct of the subordinate is direct and primary, subject to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.
3. enforcement of the judgment against the employer in an action based on Article 2176 does not require the employee to be insolvent since the nature of the liability of the employer with that of the employee, the two being statutorily considered joint tortfeasors, is solidary.

Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code
1. an employer may be held subsidiarily civilly liable for a felony committed by his employee in the discharge of his duty.
2. liability attaches when the employee is convicted of a crime done in the performance of his work and is found to be insolvent that renders him unable to properly respond to the civil liability adjudged

When private respondents, as complainants in the criminal action, reserved the right to file the separate civil action, they waived other available civil actions predicated on the same act or omission of the accused-driver. Such civil action includes the recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. Offended parties in fact filed a separate civil action against the employer based on quasi delict resulting in the waiver of the civil action ex delicto.
The withdrawal is ineffective to reverse the effect of the reservation earlier made because private respondents did not withdraw the civil action against petitioner based on quasi delict. The rationale behind this rule is the avoidance of multiple suits between the same litigants arising out of the same act or omission of the offender. The restrictive phraseology of the section under consideration is meant to cover all kinds of civil actions, regardless of their source in law, provided that the action has for its basis the same act or omission of the offender.

The trial court grievously erred in dismissing plaintiff's civil complaint. And the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's decision. Unfortunately private respondents did not appeal from such dismissal and could not be granted affirmative relief.
This case should be remanded to the trial court so that it may render decision in the civil case awarding damages as may be warranted by the evidence.

2. No, the award of damages in the criminal case was improper because the civil action for the recovery of civil liability was waived in the criminal action by the filing of a separate civil action against the employer. Thus, the judgment convicting the accused became final and executory, but only insofar as the penalty in the criminal action is concerned. The damages awarded in the criminal action was invalid because of its effective waiver. The pronouncement was void because the action for recovery of the civil liability arising from the crime has been waived in said criminal action. "there would be no possibility that the employer would be held liable because in such a case there would be no pronouncement as to the civil liability of the accused.

DOUBLE RECOVERY RULE

"the policy against double recovery requires that only one action be maintained for the same act or omission whether the action is brought against the employee or against his employer. The injured party must choose which of the available causes of action for damages he will bring.