G.R. No. 91856 - Yakult Philippines vs. Court of Appeals

On December 24, 1982, a five-year-old boy, Roy Camaso, was injured when he was sideswiped by a Yamaha motorcycle.
The motorcycle was owned by Yakult Philippines and driven by its employee, Larry Salvado.
Larry Salvado was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries.
The criminal information was filed on January 6, 1983, with the City Court of Manila under Criminal Case No. 027184.

On October 19, 1984, a complaint for damages was filed by Roy Camaso, represented by his father, David Camaso.
The civil suit was filed against Yakult Philippines and Larry Salvado in the Regional Trial Court of Manila under Civil Case No. 84-27317.
The civil case sought recovery for actual medical expenses, attorney’s fees, and other costs, arising from the same incident that led to the criminal charge.

The trial court rendered a decision on May 26, 1989, ordering the defendants to pay damages amounting to P13,006.30 for medical expenses, plus P3,000.00 for attorney’s fees and additional costs.
Despite an appeal by the defendants, a petition for certiorari was filed in the Court of Appeals challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction over the civil action.
The petitioners argued that the civil action for damages, being based on alleged criminal negligence without malice, was not properly instituted as a separate civil action.
They relied on Article 33 of the Civil Code and Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, contending that a separate civil action could not be filed unless there was an express reservation of that right.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in a decision dated November 3, 1989, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on January 30, 1990.

Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that upon the institution of a criminal action, the corresponding civil action for the recovery of damages is impliedly instituted, unless the offended party waives it, reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes it prior to the criminal proceeding.
The rule explicitly covers damages recoverable under the Revised Penal Code and the Civil Code (including Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176).
Although the incident occurred before the promulgation of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the procedural nature of the provision allowed its retrospective application.
In the present case, the offended party neither waived the civil action nor reserved the right to file a separate civil case.
Crucially, the civil action was filed before the prosecution presented its evidence in the criminal case, and the presiding judge in the criminal action was duly informed of the civil filing.

Whether a civil action instituted after the filing of the criminal case, but without an express reservation to file a separate civil action, may proceed.
Whether the absence of an express reservation, as mandated by Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, invalidates the jurisdiction of the trial court over the civil action.

Whether the provisions of Section 1, Rule 111, which require the reservation of the right to file a separate civil action, apply to claims based on quasi-delict as defined under Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
Whether filing the separate civil action before the presentation of criminal evidence satisfies the requirement intended to prevent a double recovery for the same act or omission.