G.R. No. 200444 - Supreme Transportation Liner, Inc. vs. San Andres

On November 5, 2002 at around 5:00 AM, a Mabel Tours Bus owned by respondent Antonio San Andres and driven by Ernesto Belchez sideswiped a Toyota Revo on Maharlika Highway, Barangay Malabanban Norte, Candelaria, Quezon. In swerving left to avoid the Revo, it collided head-on with a Supreme Bus owned by petitioner Supreme Transportation Liner, Inc. and driven by Felix Q. Ruz. The impact pushed the Supreme Bus to the roadside, after which the Mabel Tours Bus struck a parked jeepney that fell into a canal. No one died, but all vehicles were damaged. SPO1 Rafael Ausa investigated and documented the scene.
The cost to repair the Mabel Tours Bus at RMB Assembler and Body Builder was estimated at ₱144,500.00.

On December 12, 2002, respondent filed Civil Case No. T-2240 before the RTC of Tabaco City, claiming:

₱144,500.00 actual damage to his bus;
₱150,000.00 unrealized profits;
₱30,000.00 attorney’s fees; ₱1,000.00 appearance fee; ₱20,000.00 litigation expenses; and costs of suit.

Reckless imprudence of Belchez in overtaking without regard to oncoming traffic;
Operation of the bus outside franchise and without registered plates;
₱500,000.00 damages to their Supreme Bus; ₱100,000.00 medical expenses for passengers and employees; ₱50,000.00 counsel’s fees; ₱5,000.00 appearance fee; ₱3,000.00 litigation and travel expenses.

During pre-trial, conciliation failed. At trial, petitioners’ witness Jessi Alvarez testified they filed and won a criminal case for reckless imprudence against Belchez, but did not reserve civil claims and received no compensation (nor insurance reimbursement).

Dismissed respondent’s complaint for failure to prove liability of petitioners.
Dismissed petitioners’ counterclaim for failure to reserve the civil action in the criminal case, citing Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.

Affirmed the RTC: petitioners were limited to enforcing respondent’s subsidiary liability under Article 103, RPC.
Held counterclaim barred without prior reservation; allowing it would permit double recovery in violation of Article 2177, Civil Code, and Section 3, Rule 111.
Denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration (January 26, 2012).

Was petitioners’ counterclaim correctly denied for failure to reserve their civil action in the criminal case?