Title
Spouses Santos vs. Pizardo
Case
G.R. No. 151452
Decision Date
Jul 29, 2005
A civil case for damages arising from a fatal 1994 bus accident was dismissed due to prescription and procedural errors. The Supreme Court ruled the action was based on criminal liability, not quasi-delict, and remanded the case, emphasizing justice over procedural lapses.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 151452)

Key Dates

• April 25, 1994: Information filed charging Sibayan with reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and injuries
• Dec. 17, 1998: Sibayan convicted; civil liability reserved for separate action
• Oct. 20, 2000: Petitioners file complaint for damages in RTC
• Feb. 26 & July 16, 2001: Trial court dismisses complaint for prescription and improper service; denies reconsideration
• Sept. 10, 2001 & Jan. 9, 2002: Court of Appeals dismisses certiorari petition; denies reconsideration
• July 29, 2005: Supreme Court grants petition, remands for further proceedings

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution (decision post-1990)
• Revised Penal Code Arts. 100, 103, 104
• Civil Code Arts. 2176–2177, 1146
• 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 111, § 1 (reservation of civil action)

Factual Background and Criminal Reservation

Sibayan’s bus struck a van, killing four occupants and injuring five. He was convicted of reckless imprudence (penalty: 2 years, 4 months & 1 day to 4 years & 2 months). Petitioners expressly reserved their right to a separate civil action; hence the municipal court did not pronounce civil liability in its 1998 judgment.

Separate Civil Complaint and Dismissal Grounds

In October 2000 petitioners sued Sibayan, Viron Transit and its president for civil indemnity ex delicto. Viron Transit moved to dismiss based on prescription, improper service, laches, defective non-forum-shopping certification, and corporate personality. Trial court held the cause of action to be quasi‐delict, barred by the four-year prescription under Civ. Code Art. 1146, and also noted improper service through an undesignated employee.

Appellate Proceedings and Remedy Question

Petitioners filed a certiorari petition with the CA, asserting grave abuse of discretion in treating their claim as quasi‐delict. The CA dismissed for choosing certiorari over appeal, deeming appeal available and exceptions inapplicable. Reconsideration was denied.

Petitioners’ Contentions

They urge that their claim arises from civil liability ex delicto under the RPC, accruing at the finality of Sibayan’s conviction and prescribing in ten years. They claim the trial court abused its discretion by recharacterizing the cause of action as quasi‐delict and that certiorari should be allowed to vindicate their substantive right.

Respondents’ Counterarguments

They maintain that the complaint pleads negligence under Civ. Code Arts. 2176–2180, triggering a four-year prescription from the accident date. They argue Sibayan’s conviction without a civil award precludes subsidiary liability under RPC Art. 103, and stress procedural deficiencies (improper certificate, lack of certified order, incomplete parties’ details).

Supreme Court’s Civil Liability Analysis

Under RPC Art. 100, a felony conviction carries implied civil liability (restitution, reparation, indemnification), subject to waiver or reservation per Rule 111, § 1. The reservation for separate civil action preserved petitioners’ right to recover civil liability ex delicto. Allegations of negligence in the complaint do not convert the reserved cause into quasi‐delict when the criminal civil aspect remains unadjudicated.

Distinction of Remedies and Prescription

An injured party may choose between (a) enforcing civil liability ex delicto under the RPC (10-year prescription from final conviction) and (b) pursuing quasi-delict under the Civil Code (4-year prescription from accrual)

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.