Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Maniago V CA - Jasper

    Uploaded by

    James Lou
    1. A vehicular accident occurred between a shuttle bus owned by petitioner Maniago and driven by his employee Andaya, and a passenger jeepney owned by respondent Boado. A criminal case was filed against Andaya for reckless imprudence resulting in damage and injuries. 2. A month later, Boado filed a separate civil case against Maniago himself for damages. Maniago argued the civil case should be suspended as a criminal case was pending against his driver. The trial court denied the motion as the civil action could proceed independently. 3. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding that to bring a separate civil action,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Maniago V CA - Jasper

    Uploaded by

    James Lou
    56 views1 page
    1. A vehicular accident occurred between a shuttle bus owned by petitioner Maniago and driven by his employee Andaya, and a passenger jeepney owned by respondent Boado. A criminal case was filed against Andaya for reckless imprudence resulting in damage and injuries. 2. A month later, Boado filed a separate civil case against Maniago himself for damages. Maniago argued the civil case should be suspended as a criminal case was pending against his driver. The trial court denied the motion as the civil action could proceed independently. 3. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding that to bring a separate civil action,

    Original Description:

    Good read

    Original Title

    Maniago v CA_Jasper

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. A vehicular accident occurred between a shuttle bus owned by petitioner Maniago and driven by his employee Andaya, and a passenger jeepney owned by respondent Boado. A criminal case was filed against Andaya for reckless imprudence resulting in damage and injuries. 2. A month later, Boado filed a separate civil case against Maniago himself for damages. Maniago argued the civil case should be suspended as a criminal case was pending against his driver. The trial court denied the motion as the civil action could proceed independently. 3. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding that to bring a separate civil action,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    56 views1 page

    Maniago V CA - Jasper

    Uploaded by

    James Lou
    1. A vehicular accident occurred between a shuttle bus owned by petitioner Maniago and driven by his employee Andaya, and a passenger jeepney owned by respondent Boado. A criminal case was filed against Andaya for reckless imprudence resulting in damage and injuries. 2. A month later, Boado filed a separate civil case against Maniago himself for damages. Maniago argued the civil case should be suspended as a criminal case was pending against his driver. The trial court denied the motion as the civil action could proceed independently. 3. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding that to bring a separate civil action,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Maniago v CA| G.R. No. 104392 February 20, 1996 | of the Rules of Court in 1988.

    In other
    Mendoza, J. | Separate Action filed by the Accused| by words the right of the injured party to sue
    Jasper separately for the recovery of the civil
    liability whether arising from crimes (ex
    FACTS: delicto) or from quasi delict under Art.
    ● One of the shuttle buses owned by petitioner 2176 of the Civil Code must be reserved
    Ruben Maniago, and driven by Herminio Andaya, otherwise they will be deemed instituted
    figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger with the criminal action.
    jeepney owned by respondent Boado along Loakan d. Madeja v. Caro was cited by the court in
    Road, Baguio City. support of their judgment that reservation
    ● They were set to transport employees of Texas was required. In the said case, the civil
    Instrument Philippines to their plant site in Loakan. action proceeded pending the criminal
    ● A criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in case because the widow had expressly
    damage to property and multiple physical injuries reserved her right to file for such action.
    was filed against petitioner’s driver. e. Said requirement does not impair,
    ● A month later, respondent Boado filed a civil case diminish, or defeat substantive rights but
    for damages against petitioner Maniago himself. merely regulates exercise of such in the
    Petitioner moved that the civil case be suspended interest of orderly procedure. It is for the
    citing that a criminal case was already pending practical reason avoiding the filing of more
    against his driver. than one action for the same act or
    ● The trial court denied the motion on the ground omission against the same party
    that the civil action could proceed independently of RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is
    the criminal action. REVERSED and the complaint against petitioner is
    ● On appeal to CA via certiorari and prohibition, DISMISSED.
    petitioner reiterated his contention adding that the
    civil action could not proceed because no
    reservation to bring it separately was made in the
    criminal case.
    ● CA affirmed the trial court’s decision citing Garcia v.
    Florido & Abellana v. Marave which held that a civil
    action for damages may be filed independently of a
    criminal action despite having no reservation of
    such.
    Boado: No dispute that no reservation has been made to file
    independently; Cites Art. 2176 & 2177 as substantive rights
    which enforcement cannot rest on reservation to enforce
    them;
    Maniago: Cites Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
    Procedure that although a civil action under Art. 2176 &
    2177 of the Civil Code may be brought separately from the
    criminal action, the right to bring it must still be reserved.
    Hence, the civil action, because of non-reservation, is
    deemed to be impliedly instituted in the criminal case
    against his employee.
    ISSUES/RATIO:
    1. Whether or not the civil action may proceed
    independently of the criminal action when no
    reservation of right to bring it separately was made
    a. NO; must be reserved first
    b. We have reached the conclusion that the
    right to bring an action for damages under
    the Civil Code must be reserved as
    required by Rule III, Sec 1, otherwise it
    should be dismissed .
    c. To begin with, Sec 1 quite clearly requires
    that a reservation must be made to
    institute separately all civil actions for the
    recovery of civil liability, otherwise they
    will be deemed to have been instituted
    with the criminal case. Such civil actions
    are not limited to those which arise “from
    the offense charged,” as originally
    provided in Rule III before the amendment

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy