Case Digest (G.R. No. 137612)
Facts:
The case at hand is Leoncito Dyogi, Aida Dyogi, Laurentino Dyogi, Carmen Dyogi, Avelina Dyogi, Felicidad Dyogi, Gloria Dyogi, Lilia Dyogi, Leoncio Dyogi, Jr., and Romeo Dyogi v. Nicasio Yatco, as Judge of the Quezon City First Instance, Basilia Vda. de Juan Franco, Roy Franco, and Benjamin Liggayu, docketed as G.R. No. L-9623, decided on January 22, 1957. The incident that led to this case occurred on June 26, 1953, when Teresita Young de Dyogi was fatally injured after being run over by a car driven by Basilia Vda. de Franco, who was accompanied by her son Roy Franco and Benjamin Liggayu, who allegedly was driving at that time. Following Teresita's death the same day from her injuries, an information for homicide through reckless negligence was filed against Liggayu and Roy Franco, which became Criminal Case No. 4367.
In response to the tragedy, Leoncio Dyogi (the surviving husband) and their nine children filed a civil suit (Civil Case No. 2239) against both drivers and t
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 137612)
Facts:
Teresita Young de Dyogi was run over and mortally injured on Samson Road, Caloocan on June 26, 1953, when the automobile of Basilia Vda. de Franco—allegedly driven by Benjamin Liggayu with her minor son Roy Franco aboard—struck her. Teresita died on the same day. Subsequently, in criminal case No. 4367, an information for homicide through reckless negligence was filed against the drivers. Meanwhile, Leoncio Dyogi, the surviving husband of Teresita, along with their nine children, initiated a civil action (Civil Case No. 2239) against the drivers and the car’s owner, alleging negligence-based wrongful acts (culpa aquiliana) resulting in damages. As the case was set for hearing in July 1954, the counsel for the drivers requested suspension of the civil proceedings on account of the parallel criminal case pending. The trial court granted this petition and suspended the civil proceedings, a decision later reinforced in an August 22, 1955 order denying the plaintiffs’ motion to have their action heard independently. The plaintiffs contended that the civil action, being founded on the quasi-delictual claim under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the New Civil Code, should proceed independently of the criminal case, even if the latter was pending.Issues:
- Whether the civil action for damages, founded on culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict), should be suspended pending the resolution of the corresponding criminal case involving reckless negligence.
- Whether Article 33 of the New Civil Code, as interpreted in Carandang v. Valenton, extends to cases involving “physical injuries” including fatal injuries, thereby allowing the civil suit to proceed concurrently with the criminal proceeding.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)