MENDOZA V.

ARRIETA
MELENCIO–HERRERA, J. / 1979

NATURE: Petition for Certiorari

FACTS:

 A 3-way vehicular accident happened along Mac-Arthur Highway, Bulacan involving a Mercedes Benz (Mendoza’s ), a private jeep
(Salazar’s), and a truck (driven by Montoya, owned by Timbol). Two separate Informations for Reckless Imprudence Causing Damage
to Property were filed against (1) Rodolfo Salazar by Mendoza and (2) Freddie Montoya by Salazar.
 The 1st case was against the jeep for colliding with the Mercedes Benz. The 2nd was against the truck that hit the rear part of the
jeep.

 Mendoza testified, and adopted by truck-driver Montoya, that jeep-owner Salazar overtook the truck driven by Montoya, swerved
left going towards the poblacion of Marilao, and hit his car which was bound for Manila. Petitioner (Mendoza) further testified that
before the impact, Salazar had jumped from the jeep and that he was not aware that Salazar’s jeep was bumped from behind by the
Montoya’s truck.

 Salazar, on the other hand, stated that, after overtaking the truck, he flashed a signal indicating his intention to turn left towards the
poblacion of Marilao but was stopped at the intersection by a policeman who was directing traffic; that while he was at a stop
position, his jeep was bumped at the rear by Montoya’s truck causing him to be thrown out, which then swerved to the left and hit
petitioner’s car, which was coming from the opposite direction.
 CFI acquitted Salazar from the criminal offense charged whereas truck-driver Montoya was found guilty and civilly liable, ordered to
indemnify Salazar. However, no indemnification was awarded to Mendoza since he was not a complainant against the truck-driver
but only against Salazar.

 Later, Mendoza filed a civil case against Salazar and, this time, Timbol, the owner of the truck. Both Salazar and Timbol were joined
as defendants, either in the alternative or in solidum, allegedly for the reason that petitioner was uncertain as to whether he was
entitled to relief against both or only one of them.

 Timbol motioned to dismiss the case on the ground that the Complaint is barred by a prior judgment in the criminal cases and that it
fails to state a cause of action. Respondent judge dismissed the case as well as its review stating that “while it is true that an
independent civil action for liability under Article 2177 CC could be prosecuted independently of the criminal action for the offense
from which it arose, the New RoC requires an express reservaqtion of the civil action to be made in the criminal action, otherwise,
the same would be barred”.

 The case was then raised to this Court.

ISSUES:
(1) WoN truck-owner Timbol’s civil case is barred by the fact that Mendoza failed to reserve, in the criminal action, his right to file an individual
civil action based on quasi-delict.
(2) WoN jeep-owner-driver Salazar is civilly liable for the offense even when he was already acquitted.

HELD:
(1) No.
(2) No.

RATIO:
(1) Against Timbol
The rule that for a prior judgment to constitute a bar to a subsequent case is when the following requisites concur: (a) final judgment; (b) must
be rendered by a Court having jurisdiction over the matter and the parties; (c) must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) in the 1st and 2nd
actions, there must be identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action. Only the 1st three requisites are met. But as to the last, it is
quite different. For one thing, petitioner wasn’t even a complainant against Timbol. For the other, the cause of action for the criminal cases was
the enforcement of the civil liability arising from criminal negligence whereas this present civil case is based on quasi-delict. Therefore, such
petition is not barred.
Also, as to the ground that petitioner did not present a cause of action, the two factors consisting of a cause of action, that of (1) plaintiff’s
summary right being the owner of the Mercedes Benz and (2) the defendant’s wrongful act or omission which violated plaintiff’s primary right
(negligence in driving of either defendant), were alleged in the Complaint.
(2) Against Salazar
As in the above ratio, petitioner can opt to go for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal or just an action of recovery based on
culpa aquiliana. Based on petitioner’s previous criminal case (initial case against Salazar), he based his action on culpa criminal also as
evidenced by his active participation and intervention in the prosecution of the criminal suit against said Salazar. Since Salazar’s civil liability
continued throughout the criminal case, there was no need for petitioner to file a separate civil action, it being deemed impliedly instituted in
said criminal case. Under the facts, the Trial Court’s pronouncement was that Salazar cannot be held liable for the damages. Hence, no civil
liability attaches to Salazar.

DECISION: Dismissal of civil case against Timbol is set aside and ordered to continue whereas that of dismissing the civil case against Salazar
is upheld.