Scribd
Upload
232 views2 pages

Hambon Vs CA

The petitioner filed a complaint for damages after a collision with the respondent's truck. The respondent argued that the civil case could no longer be pursued as the criminal case against him was dismissed and the petitioner failed to reserve the right to file a separate civil case. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner but the CA reversed, stating that the failure to reserve meant the civil case was impliedly part of the criminal case and was dismissed along with it. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA's decision, citing rules that civil cases are impliedly joined with criminal cases unless the right to file separately is reserved. As the petitioner did not reserve that right, the civil case was dismissed along with the criminal case.

Uploaded by

Kristine Kristineee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
232 views2 pages

Hambon Vs CA

The petitioner filed a complaint for damages after a collision with the respondent's truck. The respondent argued that the civil case could no longer be pursued as the criminal case against him was dismissed and the petitioner failed to reserve the right to file a separate civil case. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner but the CA reversed, stating that the failure to reserve meant the civil case was impliedly part of the criminal case and was dismissed along with it. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA's decision, citing rules that civil cases are impliedly joined with criminal cases unless the right to file separately is reserved. As the petitioner did not reserve that right, the civil case was dismissed along with the criminal case.

Uploaded by

Kristine Kristineee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

HAMBON vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND CARANTES, G.R. No.

122150,
March 17, 2003.
Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for damages for the injuries he suffered after a
collision with a truck driven by respondent. Respondent argued that the complaint
could no longer be pursued, as the Criminal Case issued against him for the same act
was dismissed and because petitioner failed to make a reservation on the civil aspect
of the case, then the same was impliedly instituted with the criminal case and was thus
also dismissed when the criminal case was also dismissed. The RTC ruled that the
civil case was not barred by the dismissal of the criminal case and petitioner is
entitled to damages. On appeal with the CA, the appellate court reversed the RTC
ruling, stating that because the petitioner failed to make a reservation to institute a
separate civil case for damages, it was deemed instituted in the criminal case and the
dismissal of the criminal case also carried with it the dismissal for the complaint of
damages.
Issue: WON a civil action may be dismissed for failure of complainant to make a
reservation to institute a separate civil case, thus the civil case was deemed impliedly
instituted with the criminal case, and when the criminal case was dismissed, so was
the civil action for damages.
Held: The petition must be denied. The amended rules on Criminal Procedure states
that a party must expressly reserve an action to institute a separate civil case for
damages, otherwise, the same shall be deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal
case. Under the rule, civil actions to recover damages arising from crime or quasi-
delicts are deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal case unless expressly
waived, reserved or previously instituted. Prior reservation is an indispensable
requirement before an independent civil action can be instituted. Because petitioner
Hambon failed to make a prior reservation to his right to institute a separate civil case
for damages, the same was deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal case, and since
that was dismissed, the Civil case for damages subsequently filed by him without
prior reservation should also be dismissed.
Decision: The instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed CA decision
is AFFIRMED.

Petitioner argues that the ruling in the case of Abellana v. Marave should be observed,
i.e., a civil action for damages may be filed and proceed independently of the criminal
action even without reservation to file the same has been made; and that the
requirement of reservation, as provided in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, practically
diminished/amended/modified his substantial right.

Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure


SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with
the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his
right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

You might also like