Case Digest (A.C. No. 5024)
Facts:
In Cinco v. Canonoy, Porfirio P. Cinco (petitioner-appellant) filed a complaint on February 25, 1970, with the City Court of Mandaue City, Cebu (Branch II), seeking damages for a collision between his automobile and a jeepney driven by Romeo Hilot and owned/operated by Valeriana and Carlos Pepito (respondents-appellees). Subsequently, a criminal complaint for reckless driving arising from the same incident was filed against Hilot. At the civil pre-trial, respondents invoked Rule 111, Section 3(b) of the Rules of Court to suspend the civil action pending resolution of the criminal case. The City Court ordered suspension on August 11, 1970, and denied Cinco’s motion for reconsideration on August 25, 1970. On September 11, 1970, Cinco filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Judge Mateo Canonoy presiding, alleging grave abuse of discretion. On November 5, 1970, the trial court dismissed the petition, ruling that civil claims for property damage shou...Case Digest (A.C. No. 5024)
Facts:
- Complaint and Criminal Case
- On February 25, 1970, Porfirio P. Cinco filed a civil complaint in the City Court of Mandaue City, Cebu (Branch II), for recovery of damages sustained in a vehicular collision between his automobile and a jeepney driven by Romeo Hilot and owned/operated by Valeriana and Carlos Pepito.
- A criminal case was subsequently filed against Romeo Hilot arising from the same accident.
- Suspension and Lower Court Proceedings
- At pre-trial in the civil case, private respondents moved to suspend the civil action pending resolution of the criminal case, invoking Rule 111, Sec. 3(b), Rules of Court; the City Court ordered suspension on August 11, 1970 and denied Cinco’s motion for reconsideration on August 25, 1970.
- Cinco filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu on September 11, 1970, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the City Judge in suspending the civil action.
- On November 5, 1970, the CFI dismissed the petition, holding that:
- There was no grave abuse of discretion.
- Damages to property should be claimed in the criminal case to avoid delay.
- The order was interlocutory (hence certiorari improper).
- The petition was defective, as it sought relief more akin to mandamus.
- The CFI denied Cinco’s motion for reconsideration on November 14, 1970.
- Cinco filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was given due course on February 25, 1971.
Issues:
- Whether a plaintiff may maintain an independent civil action for damage to property based on quasi-delict during the pendency of the criminal case arising from the same act.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)