in the Court of Appeals The judge ruled that the trial of the civil action must

In the court of appeals the judge ruled that the

This preview shows page 7 - 10 out of 31 pages.

Court of Appeals. The judge ruled that the trial of the civil action must await the result ofthe criminal case on appeal. A motion for reconsideration was submitted, but the courtdenied the same; hence this petition for certiorari7
Background image
RULE 111Case DigestISSUE: Whether or not the Judge erred in suspending the trial of the civil case awaiting theresult of the pending criminal case RULING The Court ruled that respondent judge committed an error in suspending the trial of thecivil case. The trial of said civil case can proceed without awaiting the result of thepending criminal case. The court further ruled that the injured party may bring the civilaction for damages founded on injury to the person and the trial court may proceed withthe trial of the case without awaiting the result of the pending criminal case.9 ACE HAULERS CORP V CA GR NO 12793423 AUGUST 2000 FACTS: As a result of the vehicular collision involving the truck owned by the petitioner, AceHaulers Corporation driven by its employee, Jesus dela Cruz, and a jeepney owned byIsabelito Rivera, driven by Rodolfo Parma. A third vehicle, a motorcycle, was bumpedand dragged by the jeepney, and its rider, Fidel Abiva, was run over by the truck ownedby petitioner Ace Haulers Corporation, causing his death. Upon his untimely demise,Fidel Abiva left behind a wife, respondent Erderlinda Abiva ( Abiva, for brevity) and theirthree (3) children. criminal information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicidewas filed against the two drivers, Dela Cruz and Parma. While the criminal action waspending, on, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court, a separate civilaction for damages against the two accused in the criminal case, as well asagainst Isabelito Rivera and petitioner Ace Haulers Corp., the owners of the vehiclesinvolved in the accident and employers of the accused. The trial court, however,dismissed the action for damages on the ground that no civil action shall proceedindependently of the criminal prosecution in a case for reckless imprudence resulting inhomicide. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Aggrieved, respondentelevated the case before the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC, for brevity), whichreversed the dismissal order of the trial court. Ace Haulers Corporation elevated the caseto the Supreme Court. ISSUEwhether or not in an action for damages arising from a vehicular accident plaintiff mayrecover damages against the employer of the accused driver both in the criminal case(delict) and the civil case for damages based on quasi delict, but not recover twice forthe same actRULING: The court ruled in this case that a separate civil action for damages lies against theoffender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or8
Background image
RULE 111Case Digestacquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged alsocriminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality
Background image
Image of page 10

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture