Tayag v. Alcantara

CONCEPCION JR., J.:

This is a petition for certiorari, premised upon the following facts: On September 25, 1974, the petitioners, heirs of Pedro Tayag, Sr., namely: Crisanta Salazar, Pedro Tayag, Jr., Renato Tayag, Gabriel Tayag, Corazon Tayag and Rodolfo Tayag, filed with the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, Branch I, presided over by the respondent Judge, a complaint 1 for damages against the private respondents Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and Romeo Villa y Cunanan - docketed therein as Civil Case No. 5114 - alleging among others that in the afternoon of September 2, 1974, while Pedro Tayag Sr. was riding on a bicycle along MacArthur Highway at Bo. San Rafael, Tarlac, Tarlac on his way home, he was bumped and hit by a Philippine Rabbit Bus bearing Body No. 1107 and Plate No. YL 604 PUB '74, driven by Romeo Villa, as a result of which he sustained injuries which caused his instantaneous death. In due time, the private respondents filed their answer, 2 admitting some allegations and denying the other allegations of the complaint Thereafter, the private respondents filed a motion to suspend the trial 3 dated April 30, 1975, on the ground that the criminal case 4 against the driver of the bus Romeo Villa was still pending in said court, and that Section 3, Rule Ill of the Revised Rules of Court enjoins the suspension of the civil action until the criminal action is terminated.

The respondent Judge granted the motion, and consequently, suspended the hearing of Civil Case No. 5114. 5 On October 25, 1977, the respondent Judge rendered a decision 6 in Criminal Case No. 836, acquitting the accused Romeo Villa of the crime of homicide on the ground of reasonable doubt. Thereafter, the private respondents filed a motion to dismiss 7 Civil Case No. 5114 on the ground that the petitioners have no cause of action against them the driver of the bus having been acquitted in the criminal action.

The petitioners opposed the motions 8 alleging that their cause of action is not based on crime but on quasi-delict. Acting upon the said motion as well as the opposition thereto, the respondent Judge issued an order 9 dated April 13, 1978, dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 5114. The petitioners moved to reconsider; 10 however, the same was denied by respondent Judge in his order 11 dated May 30, 1979.

Hence, the petitioners interposed the present petition for certiorari, to annul and set aside the order of respondent Judge dated April 13, 1977, claiming that the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction and for with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the disputed order, and that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law except thru the present petition. After the private respondents had filed their comment, 12 this Court Resolved to consider the said comment as answer to the petition, and the case was deemed submitted for decision on September 3, 1979.ℒαwρhi৷ The only issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Civil Case No. 5114. The petition is meritorious.

Article 31 of the Civil Code provides as follows: Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or commission complained of as a felony. such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.

Evidently, the above quoted provision of the Civil Code refers to a civil action based, not on the act or omission charged as a felony in a criminal case, but one based on an obligation arising from other sources, 13 like quasi delict. 14 In the case at bar, the allegations of the complaint clearly show that petitioners' cause of action was based upon a quasi delict. 15 Thus, the complaint alleged among others: