Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-27760 May 29, 1974
CRISPIN ABELLANA and FRANCISCO ABELLANA, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE GERONIMO R. MARAE, !"d#$, Co"%& o' F(%)& In)&an*$ o'
M()a+() O**(d$n&a,, B%an*- II. and GERONIMO CAMPANER, MARCELO
LAMASON, MARIA G/RREA, PACIENCIOSA FLORES and ES0ELI0A
NEMEN0, respondents.
Prud. V. Villafuerte for petitioners.
Hon. Geronimo R. Marave in his own behalf.

FERNAN1O, J.:p
This petition for certiorari is characterized by a rather vigorous insistence on the
part of petitioners Crispin Abellana and Francisco Abellana that an order of
respondent Judge was issued with grave abuse of discretion. It is their contention
that he ought to have dismissed an independent civil action filed in his court,
considering that the plaintiffs, as offended parties, private respondents here,
1

failed to reserve their right to institute it separately in the City Court of zamis
City, when the criminal case for physical in!uries through rec"less imprudence
was commenced. #uch a stand of petitioners was sought to be bolstered by a
literal reading of #ections $ and % of &ule $$$.
2
It does not ta"e into account,
however, the rule as to a trial de novo found in #ection ' of &ule $%(.
2
)hat is
worse, petitioners appear to be oblivious of the principle that if such an
interpretation were to be accorded the applicable &ules of Court provisions, it
would give rise to a grave constitutional *uestion in view of the constitutional
grant of power to this Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice,
and procedure being limited in the sense that they +shall not diminish, increase,
or modify substantive rights.+
4
It thus appears clear that the petition for certiorari
is without merit.
The relevant facts were set forth in the petition and admitted in the answer. The
dispute had its origins in a prosecution of petitioner Francisco Abellana of the
crime of physical in!uries through rec"less imprudence in driving his cargo truc",
hitting a motorized pedicab resulting in in!uries to its passengers, namely, private
respondents ,arcelo -amason, ,aria .urrea, /acienciosa Flores, and 0stelita
1eme2o. The criminal case was filed with the city court of zamis City, which
found the accused Francisco Abellana guilty as charged, damages in favor of the
offended parties li"ewise being awarded. The accused, now petitioner, Francisco
Abellana appealed such decision to the Court of First Instance.
3
At this stage, the
private respondents as the offended parties filed with another branch of the Court
of First Instance of ,isamis ccidental, presided by respondent Judge, a
separate and independent civil action for damages allegedly suffered by them
from the rec"less driving of the aforesaid Francisco Abellana.
6
In such complaint,
the other petitioner, Crispin Abellana, as the alleged employer, was included as
defendant. 3oth of them then sought the dismissal of such action principally on
the ground that there was no reservation for the filing thereof in the City Court of
zamis. It was argued by them that it was not allowable at the stage where the
criminal case was already on appeal.
7
&espondent Judge was not persuaded. n April %4, $56', he issued the
following order7 +This is a motion to dismiss this case on the ground that in
Criminal Case 1o. 89(:% which was decided by the City Court and appealed to
this Court, the offended parties failed to e;pressly waive the civil action or
reserve their right to institute it separately in said City Court, as re*uired in
#ection $, &ule $$$, &ules of Court. From the &ecords of Criminal Case 1o. 89
(:%, it appears that the City Court convicted the accused. n appeal to this
Court, the !udgment of the City Court was vacated and a trial de novo will have to
be conducted. This Court has not as yet begun trying said criminal case. In the
meantime, the offended parties e;pressly waived in this Court the civil action
impliedly instituted with the criminal action, and reserve their right to institute a
separate action as in fact, they did file. The Court is of the opinion that at this
stage, the offended parties may still waive the civil action because the !udgment
of the City Court is vacated and a trial de novo will have to be had. In view of this
waiver and reservation, this Court would be precluded from !udging civil damages
against the accused and in favor of the offended parties. <)herefore=, the motion
to dismiss is hereby denied. ...+
4
There was a motion for reconsideration which
was denied. >ence this petition.
The only basis of petitioners for the imputation that in the issuance of the
challenged order there was a grave abuse of discretion, is their reading of the
cited &ules of Court provision to the effect that upon the institution of a criminal
action +the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charge
is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party
...reserves his right to institute it
separately.+
9
#uch an interpretation, as noted, ignores the de novo aspect of
appealed cases from city courts.
10
It does li"ewise, as mentioned, give rise to a
constitutional *uestion to the e;tent that it could yield a meaning to a rule of court
that may trench on a substantive right. #uch an interpretation is to be re!ected.
Certiorari, to repeat, clearly does not lie.
$. In the language of the petition, this is the legal proposition submitted for the
consideration of this Court 7 +That a separate civil action can be legally filed and
allowed by the court only at the institution, or the right to file such separate civil
action reserved or waived, at such institution of the criminal action, and never on
appeal to the ne;t higher court.+
11
It admits of no doubt that an independent civil
action was filed by private respondents only at the stage of appeal. 1or was
there any reservation to that effect when the criminal case was instituted in the
city court of zamis. /etitioners would then ta"e comfort from the language of
the aforesaid #ection $ of &ule $$$ for the unwarranted conclusion that absent
such a reservation, an independent civil action is barred. In the first place, such
an inference does not per se arise from the wording of the cited rule. It could be
loo"ed upon plausibly as a non-sequitur. ,oreover, it is vitiated by the grievous
fault of ignoring what is so e;plicitly provided in #ection ' of &ule $%(7 +An
appealed case shall be tried in all respects anew in the Court of First Instance as
if it had been originally instituted in that court.+
12
?nli"e petitioners, respondent
Judge was duly mindful of such a norm. This Court has made clear that its
observance in appealed criminal cases is mandatory.
12
In a $56% decision,
People v. Carreon,
14
Justice 3arrera, as ponente, could trace such a rule to a
$5@A decision, Andres v. olfe.
13
Another case cited by him is Crisostomo v.
!irector of Prisons,
16
where Justice ,alcolm emphasized how deeply rooted in
Anglo9American legal history is such a rule. In the latest case in point, People v.
"amisola,
17
this Court, through Justice Bizon, reiterated such a doctrine in these
words7 +The rule in this !urisdiction is that upon appeal by the defendant from a
!udgment of conviction by the municipal court, the appealed decision is vacated
and the appealed case Cshall be tried in all respects anew in the court of first
instance as if it had been originally instituted in that court.C+
14
#o it is in civil cases
under #ection 5 of &ule :@.
19
Again, there is a host of decisions attesting to its
observance.
20
It cannot be said then that there was an error committed by
respondent Judge, much less a grave abuse of discretion, which is indispensable
if this petition were to prosper.
%. 1or is the above the only ground for re!ecting the contention of petitioners. The
restrictive interpretation they would place on the applicable rule does not only
result in its emasculation but also gives rise to a serious constitutional *uestion.
Article (( of the Civil Code is *uite clear7 +In cases of ... physical in!uries, a civil
action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may
be brought by the in!ured party. #uch civil action shall proceed independently of
the criminal prosecution, and shall re*uire only a preponderance of evidence.+
21

That is a substantive right, not to be frittered away by a construction that could
render it nugatory, if through oversight, the offended parties failed at the initial
stage to see" recovery for damages in a civil suit. As referred to earlier, the grant
of power to this Court, both in the present Constitution and under the $5(A
Charter, does not e;tend to any diminution, increase or modification of
substantive right.
22
It is a well9settled doctrine that a court is to avoid construing a
statute or legal norm in such a manner as would give rise to a constitutional
doubt. ?nfortunately, petitioners, unli"e respondent Judge, appeared to lac"
awareness of the undesirable conse*uence of their submission. Thus is
discernible another insuperable obstacle to the success of this suit.
(. 1or is this all that needs to be said. It is understandable for any counsel to
invo"e legal propositions impressed with a certain degree of plausibility if thereby
the interest of his client would be served. That is though, merely one aspect of
the matter. There is this other consideration. >e is not to ignore the basic
purpose of a litigation, which is to assure parties !ustice according to law. >e is
not to fall prey, as admonished by Justice Fran"furter, to the vice of literalness.
The law as an instrument of social control will fail in its function if through an
ingenious construction sought to be fastened on a legal norm, particularly a
procedural rule, there is placed an impediment to a litigant being given an
opportunity of vindicating an alleged right.
22
The commitment of this Court to
such a primordial ob!ective has been manifested time and time again.
24
)>0&0F&0, this petition for certiorari is dismissed.
Costs against petitioners.
#aldivar $Chairman%& 'arredo& (ernande) and Aquino& "".& concur.
Antonio& ".& concurs on the bases of par. nos. * + , of opinion.

Foo&no&$)
$ The private respondents are7 .eronimo Campaner, ,arcelo -amason, ,aria .urrea, /acienciosa Flores
and 0stelita 1eme2o.
% The aforesaid sections read as follows7 +#ec. $. -nstitution of criminal and civil actions. D )hen a criminal
action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly
instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party e;pressly waives the civil action or reserves his
right to institute it separately. #ec. %. -ndependent civil action. D In the cases provided for in Articles ($, (%,
((, (: and %$'' of the Civil Code of the /hilippines, an independent civil action entirely separate and
distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the in!ured party during the pendency of the criminal
case, provided the right is reserved as re*uired in the preceding section. #uch civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall re*uire only a preponderance of evidence.+ .
( #ection ' of &ule $%( reads as follows7 +An appeal case shall be tried in all respects anew in the Court of
First Instances as if it had been originally instituted in that court.+
: According to Article EIII, #ection $( of the $5(A Constitution7 +The #upreme Court shall have the power to
promulgate runs concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the
practice of law. #aid rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase,
or modify substantive rights. The e;isting laws on pleading, practice, and procedure are hereby repealed as
statutes, and are declared &ules of Courts, sub!ect to the power of the #upreme Court to alter and modify
the same. The Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning pleading,
practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the /hilippines.+ The present
Constitution, in its Article F, #ection A, paragraph GAH, empowers this Court to promulgate +rules concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, and the integration of the
3ar, which, however, may be repealed, altered, or supplemented by the 1ational Assembly. #uch rules shall
provide a simplified and ine;pensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all
courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.+
A /etition, pars. % and (.
6 -bid, par. :.
' -bid, par. A.
4 -bid, par. 5.
5 Cf. &ules of Court, #ection $ of &ule $$$.
$@ Cf. #ection ' of &ule $%(, &ules of Court.
$$ /etition, .round for &eversal of the Court rder Involved, :.
$% Cf. #ection ' of &ule $%( G$56:H.
$( Cf. /eople v. Jaramilia, 5' /hil. 44@ G$5AAHI 0scudero v. -ucero, $@( /hil. 6'% G$5A4HI /eople v. ,alayao,
-9$%$@(, February %4, $56$, $ #C&A 6%4I /eople v. Carreon, -9$'5%@, ,ay (@, $56%, A #C&A %A%I /eople
v. Jamisola, -9%'((%, 1ovember %4, $565, (@ #C&A AAA.
$: -9$'5%@, ,ay (@, $56%, A #C&A %A%.
$A A /hil. 6@.
$6 :$ /hil. (64 G$5%$H. Cf. /eople v. Co >io", 6% /hil. A@$ G$5(AH.
$' -9%'((%, 1ovember %4, l565, (@ #C&A AAA..
$4 Ibid, AA69AA'.
$5 #ection 5 of &ule :@ reads7 +A perfected appeal shall operate to vacate the !udgment of the !ustice of the
peace or the municipal court, and the action when duly doc"eted in the Court of First Instance shall stand for
trial de novo upon its merits in accordance with the regular procedure in the court, as though the same had
never been tried before and had been originally there commenced. If the appeal is withdrawn, or dismissed
for failure to prosecute, the !udgment shall be deemed revived and shall forthwith be remanded to the !ustice
of the peace or municipal court for e;ecution.+
%@ Cf. -ichauco v. .uash, '6 /hil. A G$5:6HI Torres v. campo, 4@ /hil. (6 G$5:4HI &icohermoso v. 0nri*uez
and &icohermoso, 4A /hil. 44 G$5:5HI 0vangelista v. #oriano, 5% /hil. $5@ G$5A%HI Eda. de Ealdez v. Farinas,
5: /hil. 4A@ G$5A:HI &oyal #hirt Factory, Inc. v. Co 3on Tic, 5: /hil. 55: G$5A:HI Acierto J. Be -aperal, $@'
/hil. $@44 G$56@HI #ingh v. -iberty Insurance Corp., -9$646@, July ($, $56(, 4 #C&A A$', Florendo, #r. v.
3uyser, -9%:($6, 1ov. %4, $56', %$ #C&A $$@6I /ermanent Concrete /roducts, Inc. v. Teodoro, -9%5'66,
1ov. %5, $564, %6 #C&A ((%.
%$ Article (( includes the other cases of deformation and fraud.
%% Cf. Article F, #ection A, par. A of the Constitution and Article EIII, #ection $( of the $5(A Constitution.
%( Cf. Avila v. .imenez, -9%:6$A, February %4, $565, %' #C&A (%$.
%: Cf. Aguinaldo v. Aguinaldo, -9(@(6%, 1ovember %6, $5'@, (6 #C&A $('.
The -awphil /ro!ect 9 Arellano -aw Foundation