George Hambon vs CA and Valentino Carantes
of the title issued in the name of Taiwan Tekkosho which was
Facts:
Hambon filed before RTC Baguio a complaint for damages
for the injuries and expenses he sustained after the truck
driven by Carantes bumped him.
Carantes contended that the criminal case (Serious
Physical Injuries thru Reckless Imprudence) had already
been dismissed by the MTC Benguet. The dismissal with
respect to both criminal and civil liabilities of Carantes.
RTC Baguio ruled that the civil case was not barred by the
dismissal of the criminal case. Hambon entitled to
damages.
CA reversed the decision. Dismissed Hambons complaint
for damages.
CA: Since Hambon did not make any reservation to
institute a separate civil action for damages, it was
impliedly instituted with the criminal case, and the
dismissal carried with it the dismissal of the suit for
damages.
Petition for review on certiorari:
WON a civil case for damages based on an independent civil
action falling under Article 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the NCC
be duly dismissed for failure to make reservation to file a
separate civil action in a criminal case filed arising from the
same act or omission of the accused pursuant to Rule 111,
Section 1 of the Rules of Court.
o The failure to make reservation being due to the
fact that the criminal case was dismissed before the
prosecution started to present evidence for failure
of the private complainant to appear despite notice.
o Hambon argues: the requirement of reservation
(rule 111) practically
diminished/amended/modified his substantial right.
Ruling: PETITION DENIED
The 1988 amendment of the rule (Rule 111) explicitly
requires reservation of the civil action; Prior reservation is
a condition sine qua non before any of these independent
civil actions can be instituted and thereafter have a
continuous determination apart from or simultaneous with
the criminal action.
Hambon should have reserved his right to separately
institute the civil action for damages. With the dismissal of
the criminal case, whatever civil action for the recovery of
civil liability that was impliedly instituted therein was
likewise dismissed.
SAGRADA ORDEN VS NACOCO G.R. NO. L-3756 JUNE 30,
1952
FACTS:
The land in question belongs to plaintiff Sagrada Orden in
whose name the title was registered before the war
On January 4, 1943, during the Japanese military occupation,
the land was acquired by a Japanese corporation by the name
of Taiwan Tekkosho
After liberation on April 4, 1946, the Alien Property Custodian
of the United States of America took possession, control, and
custody of the property pursuant to the Trading with the
Enemy Act
The property was occupied by the Copra Export Management
Company under a custodian agreement with US Alien Property
Custodian. When it vacated the property, it was occupied by
defendant National Coconut Corporation
The plaintiff made claim to the said property before the Alien
Property Custodian. Alien Property Custodian denied such
claim
It bought an action in court which resulted to the cancellation
executed under threats, duress, and intimidation; reissuance
of the title in favor of the plaintiff; cancellation of the claims,
rights, title, interest of the Alien property Custodian; and
occupant National Coconut Corporations ejection from the
property. A right was also vested to the plaintiff to recover
from the defendants rentals for its occupation of the land from
the date it vacated.
Defendant contests the rental claims on the defense that it
occupied the property in good faith and under no obligation
to pay rentals.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant is obliged to pay rentals
to the plaintiff
HELD: No. Nacoco is not liable to pay rentals prior the
judgment. If defendant-appellant is liable at all, its
obligations, must arise from any of the four sources of
obligations, namley, law, contract or quasi-contract, crime, or
negligence. (Article 1089, Spanish Civil Code.) Defendant-
appellant is not guilty of any offense at all, because it entered
the premises and occupied it with the permission of the entity
which had the legal control and administration thereof, the
Allien Property Administration. Neither was there any
negligence on its part.
DMPI Employees Credit Coop Inc vs Hon. Velez, and
Villegas (Independent Civil Action)
Special civil action for certiorari: DMPI seeks the annulment
of the order of the RTC granting the motion for
reconsideration of respondent to file an independent civil
action.
Estafa case: RTC dismissed civil case, but granted motion
for reconsideration.
Whether the civil case could proceed independently of the
criminal case for estafa without having reserved the filing
of the civil action.
The Courts Ruling:
The offended party may prove the civil liability of an
accused arising from the commission of the offense in the
criminal case since the civil action is either deemed
instituted with the criminal action or is separately
instituted.
Rule 111, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, which became effective on December 1, 2000,
provides that:
(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for
the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action
unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves
the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action. [Emphasis supplied]
Rule 111, Section 2 further provides that
After the criminal action has been commenced, the
separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted
until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.
[Emphasis supplied]
However, with respect to civil actions for recovery of civil
liability under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code
arising from the same act or omission, the rule has been
changed.
Under the present rule, only the civil liability arising from
the offense charged is deemed instituted with the criminal
action unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the
civil action prior to the criminal action.[17]

There is no more need for a reservation of the right to file

the independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The reservation
and waiver referred to refers only to the civil action for the
recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense
charged. This does not include recovery of civil liability
under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines arising from the same act or omission which
may be prosecuted separately even without a
reservation.[18]

Rule 111, Section 3 reads:

Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. In

the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action
may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed
independently of the criminal action and shall require only
a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may
the offended party recover damages twice for the same act
or omission charged in the criminal action.

DECISION:
Thus, Civil Case No. CV-94-214, an independent civil action
for damages on account of the fraud commited against
respondent Villegas under Article 33 of the Civil Code, may
proceed independently even if there was no reservation as
to its filing.