Title
Bordas vs. Canadalla
Case
G.R. No. L-30036
Decision Date
Apr 15, 1988
A jeepney accident caused serious injuries, leading to a criminal case and a civil action for damages. The Supreme Court ruled that the civil case, based on quasi-delict, could proceed independently without requiring a prior reservation in the criminal case.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30036)

Facts:

Incident Details:

  • On May 2, 1968, at approximately 8:40 a.m., defendant-appellee Senceno Canadalla, while driving a jeepney (Plate No. PUJ-13914) owned by his employer, Primo Tabar, allegedly sideswiped plaintiff-appellant Marco Bordas along M. C. Briones St., Cebu City.
  • The incident resulted in serious physical injuries to Marco Bordas.

Criminal Case:

  • Canadalla was charged with the offense of Serious Physical Injuries Thru Reckless Imprudence in Criminal Case No. R-28941 before the City Court of Cebu, Branch III.

Civil Case:

  • While the criminal case was pending, Marco Bordas filed a separate civil action for damages based on culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict) against Canadalla and his employer, Primo Tabar. This was docketed as Civil Case No. 13110.

Motion to Dismiss:

  • Instead of filing an answer, the defendants-appellees filed a motion to dismiss the civil case, arguing that the plaintiff-appellant failed to make an express reservation in the criminal action to institute a separate civil action, as required under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule III of the Rules of Court.

Trial Court Decision:

  • The trial court granted the motion to dismiss in an Order dated September 2, 1968, ruling that the civil action could not proceed without the required reservation.

Appeal to the Court of First Instance:

  • Plaintiff-appellant appealed the dismissal to the Court of First Instance of Cebu, where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. R-10824.
  • On November 2, 1968, the Court of First Instance affirmed the trial court's decision, prompting the plaintiff-appellant to file this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:

  1. Whether the plaintiff-appellant was required to make an express reservation in the criminal action to institute a separate civil action for damages based on culpa aquiliana.
  2. Whether the civil action for damages based on quasi-delict is dependent on the outcome of the criminal case for reckless imprudence.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.