SECOND DIVISION damage suit in said criminal action.

This was denied by the Manila Regional

Trial Court in its Order dated July 21, 1993,[2] ruling thus:
[G.R. No. 119771. April 24, 1998]
"Answering the first question thus posed, the court holds that plaintiff may
SAN ILDEFONSO LINES, INC., and EDUARDO JAVIER, petitioners, vs. COURT
legally institute the present civil action even in the absence of a reservation
OF APPEALS (Thirteenth Division) and PIONEER INSURANCE and SURETY
in the criminal action. This is so because it falls among the very exceptions
CORPORATION, respondents.
to the rule cited by the movant.
DECISION
"It is true that the general rule is that once a criminal action has been
MARTINEZ, J.: instituted, then civil action based thereon is deemed instituted together
with the criminal action, such that if the offended party did not reserve the
At around 3:30 in the afternoon of June 24, 1991, a Toyota Lite Ace Van filing of the civil action when the criminal action was filed, then such filing of
being driven by its owner Annie U. Jao and a passenger bus of herein the civil action is therefore barred; on the other hand, if there was such
petitioner San Ildefonso Lines, Inc. (hereafter, SILI) figured in a vehicular reservation, still the civil action cannot be instituted until final judgment has
mishap at the intersection of Julia Vargas Avenue and Rodriguez Lanuza been rendered in the criminal action;
Avenue in Pasig, Metro Manila, totally wrecking the Toyota van and injuring
Ms. Jao and her two (2) passengers in the process. "But, this rule (Section 2, Rule 111, Revised Rules of Court) is subject to
exemptions, the same being those provided for in Section 3 of the same rule
A criminal case was thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig on which states:
September 18, 1991 charging the driver of the bus, herein petitioner
Eduardo Javier, with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property 'Section 3. When civil action may proceed independently. - In the cases
with multiple physical injuries. provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the independent civil action which was been reserved may be
About four (4) months later, or on January 13, 1992, herein private brought by the offended party, shall proceed independently of the criminal
respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation (PISC), as insurer of action, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.'
the van and subrogee, filed a case for damages against petitioner SILI with
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking to recover the sums it paid the "Besides, the requirement in Section 2 of Rule 111 of the former Rules on
assured under a motor vehicle insurance policy as well as other damages, Criminal Procedure that there be a reservation in the criminal case of the
totaling P564,500.00 (P454,000.00 as actual/compensatory damages; right to institute an independent civil action has been declared as not in
P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; accordance with law. It is regarded as an unauthorized amendment to our
P10,000.00 as litigation expenses; and P500.00 as appearance fees.)[1] substantive law, i.e., the Civil Code which does not require such reservation.
In fact, the reservation of the right to file an independent civil action has
With the issues having been joined upon the filing of the petitioners' answer been deleted from Section 2, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
to the complaint for damages and after submission by the parties of their Procedure, in consonance with the decisions of this Court declaring such
respective pre-trial briefs, petitioners filed on September 18, 1992 a requirement of a reservation as ineffective. (Bonite vs. Zosa, 162 SCRA 180)
Manifestation and Motion to Suspend Civil Proceedings grounded on the
pendency of the criminal case against petitioner Javier in the Pasig RTC and
the failure of respondent PISC to make a reservation to file a separate
"Further, the Court rules that a subrogee-plaintiff may institute and
prosecute the civil action, it being allowed by Article 2207 of the Civil Code."
After their motion for reconsideration of said July 21, 1993 Order was rules of procedure require adherence, it must be remembered that said
denied, petitioners elevated the matter to this Court via petition for rules of procedure are intended to promote, not defeat, substantial justice,
certiorari which was, however, referred to public respondent Court of and therefore, they should not be applied in a very rigid and technical
Appeals for disposition. On February 24, 1995, a decision adverse to sense."
petitioners once again was rendered by respondent court, upholding the
Hence, this petition for review after a motion for reconsideration of said
assailed Manila Regional Trial Court Order in this wise:
respondent court judgment was denied.
"A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or
The two (2) crucial issues to be resolved, as posited by petitioners, are:
not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that
the offended party is not allowed (if the tortfeasor is actually charged also 1) If a criminal case was filed, can an independent civil action based on
criminally), to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code be filed if no reservation
such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards was made in the said criminal case?
made in the two cases vary.
2) Can a subrogee of an offended party maintain an independent civil action
"To subordinate the civil action contemplated in the said articles to the during the pendency of a criminal action when no reservation of the right to
result of the criminal prosecution - whether it be conviction or acquittal - file an independent civil action was made in the criminal action and despite
would render meaningless the independent character of the civil action and the fact that the private complainant is actively participating through a
the clear injunction in Art. 31, that this action may proceed independently private prosecutor in the aforementioned criminal case?
of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
We rule for petitioners.
"In Yakult Phil. vs. CA, the Supreme Court said:
On the chief issue of "reservation", at the fore is Section 3, Rule 111 of the
'Even if there was no reservation in the criminal case and that the civil Rules of Court which reads:
action was not filed before the filing of the criminal action but before the
prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action, and the judge "Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. -- In the cases
handling the criminal case was informed thereof, then the actual filing of provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
the civil action is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of Philippines, the independent civil action which has been reserved may be
an express reservation that should be made by the offended party before brought by the offended party, shall proceed independently of the criminal
the prosecution presented its evidence.' action, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence."

"The purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the offended There is no dispute that these so-called "independent civil actions" based on
party from recovering damages twice for the same act or omission. the aforementioned Civil Code articles are the exceptions to the primacy of
the criminal action over the civil action as set forth in Section 2 of Rule
"Substantial compliance with the reservation requirement may, therefore, 111.[3] However, it is easily deducible from the present wording of Section 3
be made by making a manifestation in the criminal case that the private as brought about by the 1988 amendments to the Rules on Criminal
respondent has instituted a separate and independent civil action for Procedure -- particularly the phrase " which has been reserved" -- that the
damages. "independent" character of these civil actions does not do away with the
reservation requirement. In other words, prior reservation is a condition
"Oft-repeated is the dictum that courts should not place undue importance
sine qua non before any of these independent civil actions can be instituted
on technicalities when by so doing, substantial justice is sacrificed. While the
and thereafter have a continuous determination apart from or simultaneous Sharing the same view on the indispensability of a prior reservation is Mr.
with the criminal action. That this should now be the controlling procedural Justice Florenz D. Regalado, whose analysis of the historical changes in Rule
rule is confirmed by no less than retired Justice Jose Y. Feria, remedial law 111 since the 1964 Rules of Court is equally illuminating. Thus,
expert and a member of the committee which drafted the 1988
"1. Under Rule 111 of the 1964 Rules of Court, the civil liability arising from
amendments, whose learned explanation on the matter was aptly pointed
the offense charged was impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless
out by petitioners, to wit:
such civil action was expressly waived or reserved. The offended party was
"The 1988 amendment expands the scope of the civil action which is authorized to bring an independent civil action in the cases provided for in
deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless waived, Articles 31, 32, 33, 34 and 2177 of the Civil Code provided such right was
reserved or previously instituted xxx. reserved.

Under the present Rule as amended, such a civil action includes not only In the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the same Rule 111 thereof
recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code and damages under reiterated said provision on the civil liability arising from the offense
Articles 32, 33, 34 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, but also damages charged. The independent civil actions, however, were limited to the cases
under Article 2176 of the said code. xxx provided for in Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code, obviously because
the actions contemplated in Articles 31 and 2177 of said Code are not
Objections were raised to the inclusion in this Rule of quasi-delicts under
liabilities ex delicto. Furthermore, no reservation was required in order the
Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. However, in view of Article
civil actions in said Articles 32, 33 and 34 may be pursued separately.
2177 of the said code which provides that the offended party may not
recover twice for the same act or omission of the accused, and in line with 2. The present amendments introduced by the Supreme Court have the
the policy of avoiding multiplicity of suits, these objections were overruled. following notable features on this particular procedural aspect, viz:
In any event, the offended party is not precluded from filing a civil action to
a. The civil action which is impliedly instituted with the criminal action,
recover damages arising from quasi-delict before the institution of the
barring a waiver, reservation or prior institution thereof, need not arise
criminal action, or from reserving his right to file such a separate civil action,
from the offense charged, as the phrase 'arising from the offense charged'
just as he is not precluded from filing a civil action for damages under
which creates that nexus has been specifically eliminated.
Articles 32, 33 and 34 before the institution of the criminal action, or from
reserving his right to file such a separate civil action. It is only in those cases b. The independent civil actions contemplated in the present Rule 111
where the offended party has not previously filed a civil action or has not include the quasi-delicts provided for in Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, in
reserved his right to file a separate civil action that his civil action is deemed addition to the cases provided in Arts. 32, 33 and 34 thereof. It is necessary,
impliedly instituted with the criminal action. however, that the civil liability under all the said articles arise 'from the
same act or omission of the accused.' Furthermore, a reservation of the
It should be noted that while it was ruled in Abella vs. Marave (57 SCRA 106)
right to institute these separate civil actions is again required, otherwise,
that a reservation of the right to file an independent civil action is not
said civil actions are impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the
necessary, such a reservation is necessary under the amended rule. Without
former are waived or filed ahead of the criminal action." (Emphasis
such reservation, the civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the
supplied.)[5]
criminal action, unless previously waived or instituted. (Underscoring ours.
Justice Jose Y. Feria [Ret.], 1988 Amendments to the 1985 Rules on Criminal In fact, a deeper reading of the "Yakult Phils. vs. CA" case[6] relied upon by
Procedure, a pamphlet, published by Central Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc., respondent court reveals an acknowledgement of the reservation
Philippine Legal Studies, Series No. 3, 5-6).[4] requirement. After recognizing that the civil case instituted by private
respondent therein Roy Camaso (represented by his father David Camaso) Civil Code, should no longer be controlling. There must be a renewed
against petitioner Yakult Phils. (the owner of the motorcycle that sideswiped adherence to the time-honored dictum that procedural rules are designed,
Roy Camaso, only five years old at the time of the accident) and Larry not to defeat, but to safeguard the ends of substantial justice. And for this
Salvado (the driver of the motorcycle) during the pendency of the criminal noble reason, no less than the Constitution itself has mandated this Court to
case against Salvado for reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical promulgate rules concerning the enforcement of rights with the end in view
injuries, as one based on tort, this Court said: of providing a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases which should not diminish, increase or modify
"The civil liability sought arising from the act or omission of the accused in
substantive rights.[7] Far from altering substantive rights, the primary
this case is a quasi-delict as defined under Article 2176 of the Civil Code as
purpose of the reservation is, to borrow the words of the Court in "Caos v.
follows:
Peralta":[8]
"The aforecited rule [referring to the amended Section 1, Rule111] requiring
" to avoid multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression and abuse, to
such previous reservation also covers quasi-delict as defined under Article
prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial
2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or omission of the
court; in short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation
accused"(Underscoring supplied).
to the parties-litigants."
But what prompted the Court to validate the institution and non-suspension
Clearly then, private respondent PISC, as subrogee under Article 2207 of the
of the civil case involved in "Yakult" was the peculiar facts attendant
Civil Code,[9] is not exempt from the reservation requirement with respect
therein. Thus,
to its damages suit based on quasi-delict arising from the same act or
"Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous omission of petitioner Javier complained of in the criminal case. As private
reservation in the criminal case, nevertheless since it was instituted before respondent PISC merely stepped into the shoes of Ms. Jao (as owner of the
the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action, and the judge insured Toyota van), then it is bound to observe the procedural
handling the criminal case was informed thereof, then the actual filing of requirements which Ms. Jao ought to follow had she herself instituted the
the civil action is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of civil case.
an express reservation that should be made by the offended party before
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Court of
the prosecution presents its evidence"
Appeals dated February 24, 1995 and the Resolution dated April 3, 1995
The distinct factual scenario in "Yakult" simply does not obtain in this case. denying the motion for reconsideration thereof are hereby REVERSED and
No satisfactory proof exists to show that private respondent PISC's damage SET ASIDE. The "MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO SUSPEND CIVIL
suit was instituted before the prosecution presented its evidence in the PROCEEDINGS" filed by petitioners is GRANTED.
criminal case pending in the Pasig Regional Trial Court. Neither is there any
SO ORDERED.
indication that the judge presiding over the criminal action has been made
aware of the civil case. It is in this light that reliance on the "Yakult" case is Regalado, (Chairman), Melo, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
indeed misplaced.

Now that the necessity of a prior reservation is the standing rule that shall
govern the institution of the independent civil actions referred to in Rule
111 of the Rules of Court, past pronouncements that view the reservation
requirement as an "unauthorized amendment" to substantive law - i.e., the