G.R. No. 159132 - Cayao-Lasam vs. Spouses Ramolete

Plaintiff-appellant Marcos Bordas was involved in a vehicular incident in Cebu City on May 2, 1968, at approximately 8:40 a.m., where he was allegedly sideswiped along M. C. Briones Street.
Defendant-appellee Senceno Canadalla, driving a jeepney (Plate No. PUJ-13914) registered under Primo Tabar, his employer, was charged with the offense of Serious Physical Injuries Through Reckless Imprudence in Criminal Case No. R-28941 before the City Court of Cebu, Branch III.

While the criminal case was pending, Marcos Bordas initiated a separate civil action for damages based on culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict), alleging negligence by Canadalla and, by extension, his employer Primo Tabar.
This civil action was docketed as Civil Case No. L-13110.

Defendants-appellees raised a motion to dismiss the civil action on the ground that plaintiff-appellant failed to reserve his right in the criminal case to subsequently institute an independent civil action, as required by Sections 1 and 2 of Rule III of the Rules of Court (as then in force).
The City Court of Cebu granted the motion to dismiss on September 2, 1968, leading to the dismissal of Civil Case No. L-13110.
Plaintiff-appellant appealed the dismissal to the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Civil Case No. R-10824), but on November 2, 1968, the court affirmed in toto the order dismissing the civil action.

Following the affirmation of the dismissal, plaintiff-appellant subsequently filed a petition for review on certiorari.
The petition sought the reversal and setting aside of the trial and appellate court decisions, arguing that the civil action based on culpa aquiliana does not require the reservation provided in the criminal proceeding because it is distinct in nature from an action based on criminal liability.

Whether the plaintiff-appellant was compelled to reserve his right to bring a separate civil action for damages within the criminal proceedings under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule III of the Rules of Court.
Whether the absence of such a reservation barred the institution of an independent civil action based on culpa aquiliana.

Whether the civil action for damages based on culpa aquiliana should be considered as deriving from the criminal liability of the accused or as an independent action for quasi-delict.
Whether the trial court erred in treating the criminal conviction as a “prejudicial question” affecting the civil claim for damages.