Case Digest (G.R. No. 91856)
Facts:
Yakult Philippines and Larry Salvado v. Court of Appeals, Wenceslao M. Polo (in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila), and Roy Camaso, G.R. No. 91856, October 05, 1990, Supreme Court En Banc, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.On December 24, 1982, five‑year‑old Roy Camaso was sideswiped on a Manila sidewalk by a Yamaha motorcycle owned by Yakult Philippines and driven by its employee Larry Salvado. An information charging Salvado with reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries was filed on January 6, 1983 in the then City Court of Manila as Criminal Case No. 027184.
On October 19, 1984, a separate complaint for damages was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Civil Case No. 84‑27317) by Roy, through his father David Camaso, seeking recovery for medical expenses and other damages from both Salvado and Yakult. The RTC rendered a judgment in the civil suit on May 26, 1989 ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally P13,006.30 for medical/hospital expenses, P3,000 attorney’s fees, and costs.
Although the defendants appealed the civil judgment, they also filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction to entertain the separate civil action. The Court of Appeals dismissed that petition in a decision dated November 3, 1989 (ponente Justice Luis L. Victor, concurred in by Justices Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. and Felipe B. Kalalo). A motion for reconsideration was denied on January 30, 1990. Petitioners then brought the present petition to the Supreme Court.
Petitioners argued that a civil action for damages arising from criminal negligence (allegedly without malice) cannot be filed independently of the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code, and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Did the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to hear the separate civil action filed after the criminal information was filed despite the absence of an express reservation by the offended party under Section 1, Rule 111 (1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure)?
- Substantive: If the civil action was filed after the criminal action, does filing the civil action before the prosecution presented its evidence — and informing the judge presiding over the criminal case — satisfy the reservation requirement of Section ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)