Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-4920 June 29, 1953
FRANCISCO DIANA and SOLEDAD DIANA,
plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO., defendant-
appellee.
Zosimo D. Tanalega for appellants.
Gibbs, Gibbs, Chuidian and Quasha for appellee.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
The present appeal stems from a case originally instituted
in the Court of First Instance of Laguna wherein plaintiffs
seek to recover from defendant as a party subsidiarily
liable for the crime committed by an employee in the
discharge of his duty the sum of P2,500 as damages, plus
legal interest, and the costs of action.
The appeal was originally taken to the Court of Appeals
but the case was certified to this court on the ground that
it poses merely a question of law.
Plaintiffs are the heirs of one Florenio Diana, a former
employee of the defendant. On June 21, 1945, while
Florenio Diana was riding in Truck No. 14, belonging to
the defendant, driven by Vivencio Bristol, the truck ran
into a ditch at Bay, Laguna, resulting in the death of
Florenio Diana and other passengers. Subsequently,
Vivencio Bristol was charged and convicted of multiple
homicide through reckless imprudence wherein, among
other things, he was ordered to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the amount of P2,000. When the decision
became final, a writ of execution was issued in order that
the indemnity may be satisfied but the sheriff filed a
return stating that the accused had no visible leviable
property. The present case was started when defendant
failed to pay the indemnity under its subsidiary liability
under article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The
complaint was filed on October 19, 1948 (civil case No.
9221).
On December 13, 1948, defendant filed a motion to dis-
miss on the ground that there was another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause (civil case
No. 8023 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna) in
which the same plaintiffs herein sought to recover from
the same defendant the amount of P4,500 as damages
resulting from the death of Florenio Diana who died while
on board a truck of defendant due to the negligent act of
the driver Vivencio Bristol. This first action was
predicated on culpa aquiliana.
On December 16, 1948, plaintiffs filed a written
opposition to the motion to dismiss. On February 3, 1949,
the lower court, having found the motion well founded,
dismissed the complaint, without special pronouncement
as to costs; and their motion for reconsideration having
been denied, plaintiffs took the present appeal.
The only question to be determined is whether the lower
court correctly dismissed the complaint on the sole
ground that there was another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause under Rule 8, section 1(d)
of the Rules of Court.
The determination of this issue hinges on the proper
interpretation of Rule 8, section 1 (d) which allows the
dismissal of a case on the ground that "there is another
action pending between the same parties for the same
cause." Former Justice Moran, commenting on this
ground, says: "In order that this ground may be invoked,
there must be between the action under consideration and
the other action, (1) identity of parties, or at least such as
representing the same interest in both actions; (2) identity
of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
found on the same facts; and (3) the identity on the two
preceding particulars should be such that any judgment
which may be rendered on the other action will,
regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
adjudicata in the action under consideration." [I Moran,
Comments on the Rules of Court, (1952), p. 168.].
There is no doubt with regard to the identity of parties. In
both cases, the plaintiffs and the defendant are the same.
With regard to the identity of reliefs prayed for, a
different consideration should be made. It should be noted
that the present case (civil case No. 9221) stems from a
criminal case in which the driver of the defendant was
found guilty of multiple homicide through reckless
imprudence and was ordered to pay an indemnity of
P2,000 for which the defendant is made subsidiarily liable
under article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, while the
other case (civil case No. 8023) is an action for damages
based on culpa aquiliana which underlies the civil liability
predicated on articles 1902 to 1910 of the old Civil Code.
These two cases involve two different remedies. As this
court aptly said: "A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a
separate legal institution under the Civil Code, with a
substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely
apart and independent from a delict or crime. * * *. A
distinction exists between the civil liability arising from a
crime and the responsibility for cuasi-delictos or culpa
extra-contractual. The same negligent act causing dam-
ages may produce civil liability arising from a crime
under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, or create an
action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual under
articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code (Barredo vs. Garcia
and Al- mario, 73 Phil., 607). The other differences
pointed out between crimes and culpa aquiliana are:.
1. That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi-
delitos are only of private concern.
2. That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes or
corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by means
of indemnification, merely repairs the damage.
3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because
the former are punished only if there is a penal law clearly
covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos, include all
acts in which 'any kind of fault or negligence intervenes.
(P. 611, supra.).
Considering the distinguishing characteristics of the two
cases, which involve two different remedies, it can hardly
be said that there is identity of reliefs in both actions as to
make the present case fall under the operation of Rule 8,
section 1(d) of the Rules of Court. In other words, it is a
mistake to say that the present action should be dismissed
because of the pendency of another action between the
same parties involving the same cause. Evidently, both
cases involve different causes of action. In fact, when the
Court of Appeals dismissed the action based on culpa
aquiliana (civil case No. 8023), this distinction was
stressed. It was there said that the negligent act committed
by defendant's employee is not a quasi crime, for such
negligence is punishable by law. What plaintiffs should
have done was to institute an action under article 103 of
the Revised Penal Code (CA-G.R. No. 3632-R). And this
is what plaintiffs have done. To deprive them now of this
remedy, after the conviction of defendant's employee,
would be to deprive them altogether of the indemnity to
which they are entitled by law and by a court decision,
which injustice it is our duty to prevent.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is reversed and the
case is hereby remanded to the lower court for further
proceedings. No pronouncement as to costs.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason,
Montemayor, Jugo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.
