Casupanan Vs Laroya
GR. No. 145391, August 26, 2002
Facts: Two vehicles, one driven by Laroya and the other owned by Capitulo and driven by
Casupanan, figured in an accident. Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property. On the other hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed a
civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict. When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was
then at its preliminary investigation stage. Laroya 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 and dismiss the civil case. Casupanan and Capitulo, filed a motion for
reconsideration. They insisted that the civil case is a separate civil action which can proceed
independently of the criminal case.
Issue: 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.
Ruling: Yes. 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,
hence, it 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.
Casupanan Vs Laroya
GR. No. 145391, August 26, 2002
Facts: Two vehicles, one driven by Laroya and the other owned by Capitulo and driven by
Casupanan, figured in an accident. Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property. On the other hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed a
civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict. When the civil case was filed, the criminal case was
then at its preliminary investigation stage. Laroya 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 and dismiss the civil case. Casupanan and Capitulo, filed a motion for
reconsideration. They insisted that the civil case is a separate civil action which can proceed
independently of the criminal case. The MR was denied. Hence, they filed a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC.
Issue: 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.
Ruling: Yes. 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,
hence, it 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. First, a criminal
case where the civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted, and second, 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.
