Facts:

The case involves Reynaldo Bermudez, Sr. and Adonita Yabut Bermudez as petitioners-appellants against Hon. Judge A. Melencio-Herrera, Domingo Pontino y Tacorda, and Cordova Ng Sun Kwan as respondents-appellees. The events leading to this case began on May 10, 1969, when a cargo truck driven by Domingo Pontino, owned by Cordova Ng Sun Kwan, collided with a jeep carrying the six-year-old son of the petitioners, Rogelio. The accident resulted in severe injuries to Rogelio, which ultimately led to his death. Following this tragic incident, the Manila City Fiscal's Office filed Criminal Case No. 92944 against Domingo Pontino for Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence. On July 27, 1969, the petitioners filed a "Reservation to File Separate Civil Action" in the criminal case. The next day, they initiated a civil case for damages, designated as Civil Case No. 77188, in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The trial court, however, dismissed the civil complaint against C...

Facts:

Parties and Incident Background

• Petitioner-Appellants:
• Reynaldo Bermudez, Sr.
• Adonita Yabut Bermudez.
• Respondent-Appellees:
• Domingo Pontino y Tacorda – truck driver implicated in the accident.
• Cordova Ng Sun Kwan – owner of the cargo truck.
• The incident involved:
• A cargo truck operated by Domingo Pontino that struck a jeep.
• The jeep was carrying a six‑year‑old child, Rogelio, who sustained injuries leading to his death.
• Criminal proceedings:
• A criminal case (Criminal Case No. 92944) for Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence was initiated against Domingo Pontino.
• On July 27, 1969, the petitioners reserved their right in the criminal case “to file a separate civil action.”

Filing of the Civil Case and Related Proceedings

• On July 28, 1969, the petitioners instituted a civil case for damages (Civil Case No. 77188) against the respondents.
• The title of the civil case read: “Reynaldo Bermudez, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Domingo Pontino y Tacorda and Cordova Ng Sun Kwan, Defendants.”
• Underlying assumption:
• The petitioners contended that the negligence of defendant Pontino, which led to the accident, constituted a quasi‑delict.
• They sought damages based on quasi‑delict, despite having reserved the right to a separate civil action in the criminal case.

Trial Court Orders and Procedural Posture

• The trial court characterized the petitioners’ action as based on crime:
• It held that reserving the right in the criminal case implied that the civil complaint should be based on criminal liability.
• Consequently, it dismissed the civil action against Cordova Ng Sun Kwan.
• Suspension of proceedings:
• The hearing on the civil action against Domingo Pontino was suspended pending final resolution of the criminal case.
• The case’s treatment:
• The trial court’s approach was grounded on earlier jurisprudence (Joaquin vs. Aniceto) which linked a reservation in the criminal case to a crime-based civil action.

Petitioners’ Arguments on Appeal

• Principal contention:
• The petitioners argued that their action was founded on quasi‑delict rather than on crime.
• They maintained that the reservation in the criminal case did not preclude filing an independent civil action based on quasi‑delict.
• Additional points raised:
• Whether the suspension of the civil case against Domingo Pontino was proper.
• Whether dismissing the case against Cordova Ng Sun Kwan was legally justified, especially given that the petitioners also sought damages for the jeep.

Issue:

Nature of the Underlying Claim

• Whether the civil action filed by the petitioners is based on quasi‑delict or on criminal liability.

Procedural Validity of the Trial Court's Orders

• Whether the suspension of the civil hearing against Domingo Pontino pending the criminal case is appropriate.
• Whether dismissing the civil action against Cordova Ng Sun Kwan, the truck’s owner, is legally sustainable.

Impact of the Reservation in the Criminal Case

• Whether reserving the right to file a separate civil action in the criminal proceeding necessitates that the civil claim be for recovery based on crime.
• Whether the reservation precludes or affects the ability to pursue a quasi‑delict claim.

Recovery of Specific Damages

• Whether the civil claim for actual damages to the jeep is improperly affected by the pending criminal case for homicide through reckless imprudence.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)