Respondents driver and operator a jeepney, bumped and killed Arsenio Virata, Petitioner filed a complaint in the CFI to which the reserved the filing of the Civil case. During the hearing the private prosecutor actively participated in the trial of the criminal case and expressed to join the Civil case. Private prosecutor then withdrew the prosecution of the Civil case. In a different CFI jurisdiction, Petitioner, filed a separate civil action against the respondent. Respondent filed a Motion to dismiss on the CFI of the civil case contesting that an action in a different jurisdiction already exist. Then, the CFI with the criminal case acquitted the respondent and the CFI with the civil action granted the Motion of the respondent. Hence this case.
Whether the petitioner can prosecute an action for the damages based on quasi-delict against Respondent on the passenger jeepney that bumped and killed Arsenio Virata.
The petitioners are not seeking to recover twice for the same negligent act. Before Criminal Case was decided, they manifested in said criminal case that they were filing a separate civil action for damages against the owner and driver of the passenger jeepney based on quasi-delict. The acquittal of the driver, Maximo Borilla, of the crime charged is not a bar to the prosecution of Civil Case for damages based on quasi-delict The source of the obligation sought to be enforced in Civil Case is quasi-delict, not an act or omission punishable by law. Under Article 1157 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, quasi-delict and an act or omission punishable by law are two different sources of obligation.
One thought on “Virata v. Ochoa – G.R. No. L-46179 January 31, 1978”