002.Torts.cases.garcia vs. Florido 52 SCRA 420 , August 31, 1973

of 13
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Documents

Published:

Views: 14 | Pages: 13

Extension: PDF | Download: 1

Share
Description
002.Torts.cases.garcia vs. Florido 52 SCRA 420 , August 31, 1973
Tags
Transcript
  7/31/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d972fe3f69d2362ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13 420SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Garcia vs. Florido No. L-35095. August 31, 1973.GERMAN C. GARCIA, LUMINOSA L. GARCIA, andESTER FRANCISCO, petitioners, vs.  THE HONORABLEMARIANO M. FLORIDO OF THE COURT OF FIRSTINSTANCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL, MARCELINOINESIN, RlCARDO VAYSON, MACTAN TRANSIT Co.,INC., and PEDRO TUMALA Y DIGAL, respondents. Criminal procedure; Prosecution of civil action; Whereoffended party actually institutes the civil action separately fromthe criminal action, he loses right to intervene in the prosecution of the latter; Case at bar.—  There is no question that the petitionersnever intervened in the criminal action instituted by the Chief of Police against the respondent, much less has the said criminalaction been terminated either by conviction or acquittal of thesaid accused. It is evident that by the institution of the presentcivil action for damages, petitioners have in effect abandonedtheir right to press recovery for damages in the criminal case, andhave opted instead to recover them in the present civil case. As aresult of this action of petitioners the civil liability of privaterespondents to the former has ceased to be involved in thecriminal action. Undoubtedly, an offended party loses his right tointervene in the prosecution of a criminal case, not only when hehas waived the civil case. As a result of this action of petitionersthe civil liability of private respondents to the former has ceasedto be involved in the criminal action. Undoubtedly, an offendedparty loses his right to intervene in the prosecution of a criminalcase, not only when he has waived the civil action or expresslyreserved his right to institute, but also when he has actuallyinstituted the civil action. For by either of such actions hisinterest in the criminal case has disappeared. Negligence; Same negligent act causing damages may producea civil liability arising from crime or create an action for quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual.—The  same negligent act causingdamages may produce a civil liability arising from crime underarticle 100 of the Revised Penal Code or create an action for  7/31/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d972fe3f69d2362ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13 quasidelict or culpa extra-contractual under articles 2176—2194of the New Civil Code. The former is a violation of the criminallaw, while the latter is a distinct and independent negligence.having always had its own foundation and individuality. Same; Allegation of violation of traffic rules in complaint doesnot detract from nature of action as one based on culpa aquiliana; 421  VOL. 52, AUGUST 31, 1973421 Garcia vs. Florido Case at bar.  —The circumstance that the complaint alleged thatrespondents violated traffic rules does not detract from the natureand character of the action as one based on culpa aquiliana. Theviolation of traffic rules is merely descriptive of the failure of thesaid driver to observe for the protection of the interests of othersthat degree of care, precaution and vigilance which thecircumstances justly demand, which failure resulted in the injuryon petitioners. Certainly excessive speed in violation of trafficrules is a clear indication of negligence.  APPEAL by certiorari from a decision of the Court of FirstInstance of Misamis Occidental.The f acts are stated in the opinion of the Court.   Paulino A. Conol  for petitioners.   Dominador M. Canastra  and Wilfredo C. Martinez  forprivate respondents.  Hon. Mariano M. Florido  for and in his own behalf. ANTONIO, J.: Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of FirstInstance of Misamis Occidental, Branch III, in Civil CaseNo. 2850 (German C. Garcia, et al. vs. Marcelino Inesin, etal.) dated October 21, 1971, dismissing petitioners' actionfor damages against respondents, Mactan Transit Co., Inc.and Pedro Tumala, without prejudice to refiling the saidcivil action after conviction of the defendants in thecriminal case filed by the Chief of Police of Sindangan,Zamboanga del Norte , and from the order of said Courtdated January 21, 1972, denying petitioners' motion forreconsideration.On August 4, 1971, petitioners, German C. Garcia, Chief of the Misamis Occidental Hospital, together with his wife,Luminosa L. Garcia, and Ester Francisco, bookkeeper of   7/31/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d972fe3f69d2362ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13 said hospital, hired and boarded a PU car with plate No.241-8 G Ozamis 71 owned and operated by respondent,Marcelino Inesin, and driven by respondent, Ricardo Vayson, for a round trip from Oroquieta City to ZamboangaCity, for the purpose of  422 422SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Garcia vs. Florido attending a conference of chiefs of government hospitals,hospital administrative officers, and bookkeepers of Regional Health Office No. 7 at Zamboanga City. At about9:30 a.m., while the PU car was negotiating a slight curveon the national highway at kilometer 21 in BarrioGuisukan, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, said carcollided with an oncoming passenger bus (No. 25) withplate No. 77-4 W Z.N. 71 owned and operated by theMactan Transit Co., Inc. and driven by defendant, PedroTumala. As a result of the aforesaid collision, petitionerssustained various physical injuries which necessitatedtheir medical treatment and hospitalization. Alleging that both drivers of the PU car and thepassenger bus were at the time of the accident driving theirrespective vehicles at a fast clip, in a reckless, grosslynegligent and imprudent manner in gross violation of traffic rules and without due regard to the safety of thepassengers aboard the PU car, petitioners, German C.Garcia, Luminosa L. Garcia, and Ester Francisco, filed onSeptember 1, 1971 with respondent Court of First Instanceof Misamis Occidental an action for damages (Civil CaseNo. 2850) against the private respondents, owners anddrivers, respectively, of the PU car and the passenger busthat figured in the collision, with prayer for preliminaryattachment.On September 16, 1971, Marcelino Inesin and Ricardo Vayson filed their answer in the aforementioned Civil CaseNo. 2850 admitting the contract of carriage with petitionersbut alleged, by way of defense, that the accident was due tothe negligence and reckless imprudence of the bus driver,as when Ricardo Vayson, driver of the PU car, saw theoncoming passenger bus No. 25 coming from the oppositedirection ascending the incline at an excessive speed,chasing another passenger bus, he had to stop the PU carin order to give way to the passenger bus, but, in spite of such precaution, the passenger bus bumped the PU car,thus causing the accident in question, and, therefore, said  7/31/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d972fe3f69d2362ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/13 private respondents could not be held liable for thedamages caused on petitioners.On September 29, 1971, respondents, Mactan TransitCo., Inc. and Pedro Tumala, filed a motion to dismiss onthree (3) grounds, namely: 1) that the plaintiffs(petitioners) had no 423  VOL. 52, AUGUST 31, 1973423 Garcia vs. Florido cause of action; 2) that the complaint carries with it aprayer for attachment but without the requisiteverification, hence defective under the provision of Sec. 3,Rule 57 of the Rules of Court; and 3) that the defendants(respondents), Mactan Transit Co., Inc. and its driver,accused Pedro Tumala, had operated said passenger buswith maximum care and prudence.The principal argument advanced in said motion todismiss was that the petitioners had no cause of action foron August 11, 1971, or 20 days before the filing of thepresent action for damages, respondent Pedro Tumala wascharged in Criminal Case No. 4960 of the Municipal Courtof Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, in a complaint filed bythe Chief of Police for double serious and less seriousphysical injuries through reckless imprudence , and that,with the filing of the aforesaid criminal case, no civil actioncould be filed subsequent thereto unless the criminal casehas been finally adjudicated, pursuant to Sec. 3 of Rule 111of the Rules of Court, and, therefore, the filing of theinstant civil action is premature, because the liability of theemployer is merely subsidiary and does not arise until afterfinal judgment has been rendered finding the driver, PedroTumala, guilty of negligence; that Art. 33 of the New CivilCode, is not applicable because Art. 33 applied only to thecrimes of physical injuries or homicide, not to the negligentact or imprudence of the driver.On October 14, 1971, petitioners filed an opposition tosaid motion to dismiss alleging that the aforesaid action fordamages was instituted not to enforce the civil liability of the respondents under Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Codebut for their civil liability on quasi-delicts pursuant to Articles 21762194, as the same negligent act causingdamages may produce civil liability arising from a crimeunder the Revised Penal Code or create an action for quasi-delict or culpa extracontractual under the Civil Code, and
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x