Independent Civil Action.docx

INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION ARISING FROM CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE Procedural rules are designed, not to defeat, but to protect the ends of substantial justice. By reason of this, the Constitution itself ordered the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning the enforcement of rights with the goal of providing a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases with a limitation that it should not however diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure under Rule 111 Section 1 provides the institution of criminal and civil actions. It states that 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. In the case of Hambon vs. CA, the Court of Appeals ruled that since the petitioner did not make any reservation to institute a separate civil action for damages, it was impliedly instituted with the criminal case, and the dismissal of the criminal case carried with it the dismissal of the suit for damages, notwithstanding the fact that the dismissal was provisional as it amounted to an acquittal and had the effect of an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 45. The Supreme Court then denied the petition, ruling that the right of the injured party to sue separately for the recovery of the civil liability whether arising from crimes (ex delicto) or from quasi-delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code must be reserved otherwise they will be deemed instituted with the criminal action. However, the case of Garcia vs. Florido must be noted. In this case, the victims were brought to the hospital for treatment after a vehicular accident. In the meantime,, the police authorities filed a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries, WITHOUT making a reservation as to the civil aspect of the case. After recovering, victims then decided to file a civil case despite the pendency of the said criminal case. The issue then was that should the civil case be admitted. The Supreme Court ruled in affirmative. It stated that while it is true that a reservation should have been made under Rule 111, still the Rule does NOT state when the reservation is supposed to be made. Here, the victims had no chance to make the reservation for they were still being treated at the hospital. In addition to that, the trial has not even begun. Thus, the reservation can still be made. The rationale of prior reservation is to avoid multiplicity of suits, to protect against oppression and abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets and to simplify the work of the trial court. In sum, its main purpose is the attainment of justice with the

least expense and vexation to the parties-litigants. Furthermore, the criminal case requires proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt which is much harder to comply with than that of civil case requires only a mere preponderance of evidence.