Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32599)
Facts:
Edgardo E. Mendoza v. Hon. Abundio Z. Arrieta, Felino Timbol, and Rodolfo Salazar, G.R. No. L-32599, June 29, 1979, Supreme Court First Division, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court.On October 22, 1969 a three-vehicle collision occurred along MacArthur Highway, Marilao, Bulacan involving petitioner Edgardo Mendoza’s Mercedes Benz, a jeep owned and driven by respondent Rodolfo Salazar, and a gravel-and-sand truck owned by respondent Felino Timbol and driven by Freddie Montoya. Two separate informations for reckless imprudence causing damage to property were filed in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan: Criminal Case No. SM-227 against truck-driver Montoya (for damage to Salazar’s jeep) and Criminal Case No. SM-228 against Salazar (for damage to Mendoza’s Mercedes).
At the joint criminal trial, Mendoza and Montoya testified that Salazar overtook the truck, swerved left and hit Mendoza’s car; Salazar contended he was halted by a policeman and that Montoya’s truck bumped his jeep from behind, throwing him out and causing the subsequent collision with Mendoza. On July 31, 1970 the CFI of Bulacan (Branch V, Sta. Maria) found Montoya guilty in SM-227 and acquitted Salazar in SM-228, concluding that the truck’s bumping of the jeep caused the jeep to hit Mendoza’s car; the trial court denied recovery to Mendoza in the criminal disposition.
On August 22, 1970 Mendoza filed Civil Case No. 80803 in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Salazar and Timbol for quasi-delict damages to his Mercedes; the complaint alleged that the jeep’s sudden swerve (causing the collision) was due to the negligence of Montoya, Timbol’s employee. Timbol moved to dismiss (Sept. 9, 1970), arguing the civil suit was barred by the prior criminal judgment and failed to state a cause of action; on Sept. 12, 1970 the respondent judge dismissed the complaint as to Timbol. Mendoza sought review of that dismissal before the Supreme Court on Sept. 30, 1970, to which the Court gave due course.
On Jan. 30, 1971, upon Salazar’s motion, the respondent judge dismissed the complaint as to Salazar, citing the Rules of Court (Section 2, Rule 111) requiring express reservation of a civil action in the criminal case; Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration was denied Feb. 23, 1971. Mendoza filed a Supplemental Petition in the Suprem...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is Mendoza’s independent civil action against truck-owner Felino Timbol barred by the prior criminal proceedings and his failure to reserve the right to a separate civil action under Section 2, Rule 111?
- Is Mendoza’s civil action against jeep-owner-driver Rodolfo Salazar barred by the criminal acquittal in SM-228 (i.e., extinguished or otherwise precluded), given Mendoza’s partic...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)