CINCO v.

CANONOY
G.R. No. L-33171

Date of Promulgation: May 31, 1979

Ponente: Melencio-Herrera, J.
Petitioner: Porfirio Cinco
Respondents: Hon. Mateo Canonoy, Hon. Lorenzo Barria, Romeo Hilot, Valeriana Pepito, and
Carlos Pepito

Facts:
Petitioner Porfirio Cinco filed a complaint in the City Court of Mandaue for the recovery of
damages on account of a vehicular accident involving his automobile and a jeepney driven by
Romeo Hilot and operated by Valeriana Pepito and Carlos Pepito. A criminal case was
subsequently filed against Hilot. At the pre-trial for the civil case, counsel for private
respondents moved to suspend the said case pending the final determination of the criminal suit.
The Mandaue City Court then ordered the suspension of the civil suit.

Issues/Held:
WON there can be an independent civil action for damage to property during the pendency of the
criminal action – YES

Doctrines:
1. Article 2176, CC. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)

2. Article 2177, CC. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission
of the defendant. (n)

3. Art. 2180(1), (5), (8), CC. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only
for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
(1903a)
Ratio:
1. On whether an independent civil action can arise during the pendency of a criminal
action

Petitioner Cinco’s action for damages is one of quasi-delict based on Articles 2176 and 2180
of the CC. Liability being predicated on culpa aquiliana, the civil case may proceed as a
separate and independent civil action under Article 2177. A separate and independent civil
action for quasi-delict is also recognized in Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.

2. On how the concept of quasi-delict in Article 2176 covers damage to property.

Article 2176 makes no distinction between “damage to persons” and “damage to property”. It
is therefore obvious that the “harm” contemplated in the said article includes both injuries to
person and property. In fact, the law itself includes examples of quasi-delict involving
damage to property. For example, Article 2191(2) of the CC holds proprietors responsible for
damages caused by excessive smoke which may be harmful to persons or property.

Note: The Court here cites Barredo v. Garcia. However, there is nothing supporting the
statement; rather, the Court just seems to cite it to justify its ruling. In addition, Barredo was
decided before the enactment of Art. 2176.

Also, fault or negligence is not a requirement under Art. 2191(2). Thus, the same may be
considered as merely a strict liability rule for employers (Casis).

Decision:
Petition is granted. The City Court of Mandaue is ordered to proceed with the civil case.