Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2209)
Facts:
Carmen L. Madeja v. Hon. Felix T. Caro and Eva Arellano-Japzon, G.R. No. 51183, December 21, 1983, the Supreme Court Second Division, Abad Santos, J., writing for the Court.In the defunct Court of First Instance of Eastern Samar, Criminal Case No. 75-88 charged Dr. Eva A. Japzon with homicide through reckless imprudence for the death of Cleto Madeja; the complaining witness was his widow, Carmen L. Madeja. The information in the criminal case expressly stated that the offended party reserved her right to file a separate civil action for damages.
While the criminal prosecution remained pending, Carmen L. Madeja instituted Civil Case No. 141 in the same court against Dr. Japzon, alleging that her husband’s death resulted from gross negligence and seeking damages. The defendant moved to dismiss the civil action, invoking Section 3(a), Rule III of the Rules of Court, which prohibits instituting a civil action arising from the same offense after a criminal action has been commenced until final judgment in the criminal case.
The respondent judge, Hon. Felix T. Caro, granted the motion to dismiss, holding that Section 3(a), Rule III barred the civil suit pending resolution of the criminal case. The petitioner then sought relief from the Supreme Court to set aside the dismissal order; the Supreme Court considered the interplay betw...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the respondent judge correct in dismissing Civil Case No. 141 pursuant to Section 3(a), Rule III of the Rules of Court while the criminal prosecution was still pending?
- Does Article 33 of the Civil Code permit an independent civil action for damages (including death) for “physical injuries” to be filed during the pendency ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)