G.R. No. 137276 - People vs. Mucam

The case arose from a vehicular accident on June 1, 1984, involving three vehicles:

A truck owned by Ace Haulers Corporation and driven by its employee, Jesus dela Cruz;
A jeepney owned by Isabelito Rivera and driven by Rodolfo Parma;
A motorcycle which was bumped and dragged by the jeepney.

As a result of the accident, the motorcycle rider, Fidel Abiva, was run over by the truck, leading to his death.
Fidel Abiva left behind his widow, Ederlinda Abiva, and three children.

On July 27, 1984, a criminal information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against drivers Jesus dela Cruz and Rodolfo Parma (Criminal Case No. Q-37248) before RTC, Quezon City, Branch 103.
While the criminal case was pending, on March 11, 1985, respondent Ederlinda Abiva filed a separate civil action for damages against:

On January 31, 1986, Ace Haulers and its employee filed a motion to dismiss, arguing:

The existence of a pending criminal case precluded an independent civil action for quasi-delict, as per the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure;
The alleged civil claims were automatically instituted with the criminal prosecution due to the participation of Abiva’s private counsel in the criminal proceedings.

On February 21, 1986, respondent Ederlinda Abiva countered the motion, asserting that her civil action was separate and independent under Articles 2177 and 2180 of the Civil Code.
The trial court, on February 28, 1986, dismissed the civil action on the ground that “no civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution in a case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.”
After her motion for reconsideration was denied, respondent Abiva elevated the matter to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) by filing a petition for certiorari (Civil Case No. 09644), which reversed the dismissal.

Petitioner Ace Haulers Corporation, along with Jesus dela Cruz, appealed the decision of the IAC.
A subsequent resolution on August 3, 1988, by the Supreme Court denied their petition for review on a technical ground, remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Amid the pendency of the review, a fire destroyed part of the Quezon City Hall building, including the case records. These records were later reconstituted on March 26, 1992.

On March 9, 1993, the pre-trial conference was scheduled for April 6, 1993; however, Ace Haulers Corporation failed to appear.
Consequently, petitioner Ace Haulers was declared in default, and other defendants (Jesus dela Cruz, Isabelito Rivera, and Rodolfo Parma) were discharged and dismissed.
On June 30, 1993, the trial court rendered a decision against Ace Haulers Corporation, awarding:

P200,000.00 as actual damages;
P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees (later modified);
Moral and exemplary damages, claiming various other alleged losses as detailed in respondent Abiva’s testimonies and evidentiary exhibits.

The trial court found sufficient evidence of the negligence of the driver, leading to the accident, and invoked the concept of quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.
On September 13, 1993, petitioner Ace Haulers Corporation appealed to the Court of Appeals.

On January 17, 1997, the Court of Appeals issued a ruling affirming the decision of the trial court except for the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00, which was set aside.
The appellant raised three main issues on appeal:

Recovery of damages in both the criminal case and the civil action without double recovery;
The propriety of declaring petitioner in default for failing to appear at the pre-trial conference;
The alleged excessive award of damages in the civil case relative to the award in the criminal case.

Whether in an action for damages arising from a vehicular accident, the plaintiff may recover damages against the employer of the accused driver in both the criminal case (delict) and the civil case (quasi-delict), but not recover twice for the same act.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not lifting the order declaring Ace Haulers Corporation in default for failing to appear at the pre-trial conference.
Whether the damages awarded in the civil case were excessive, particularly in light of the lower award rendered in the criminal case.