View full case

DULAY v. CA

FACTS:

On December 7, 1988, an altercation occurred between Benigno Torzuela and Atty. Napoleon Dulay at the "Big Bang Sa Alabang" carnival in Alabang Village, Muntinlupa. Torzuela, who was a security guard at the carnival, shot and killed Dulay. Maria Benita A. Dulay, the widow of Napoleon Dulay, filed a complaint for damages against Torzuela and the private respondents, Safeguard Investigation and Security Co., Inc. and/or Superguard Security Corp. Dulay alleged that Safeguard and/or Superguard were the employers of Torzuela and therefore responsible for his actions. The complaint stated that Torzuela's wanton and reckless discharge of the firearm, which belonged to Safeguard and/or Superguard, was the immediate and proximate cause of Dulay's death. The petitioners sought actual, compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. The case was raffled to Branch 84 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Dulay's civil liability should be governed by Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code for the commission of a felony rather than Article 2176 of the New Civil Code. They also claimed that Dulay's complaint was premature because Torzuela's conviction in the criminal case was a prerequisite for the employer's subsidiary liability. Safeguard also filed a motion to be excluded as a defendant, asserting that Torzuela was not their employee.

The case involves an incident wherein the petitioners, spouses Napoleon and Rosalina Dulay, were shot by a certain Torzuela. The petitioners filed a complaint for damages against Torzuela and the private respondents, Superguard Security Corporation and Safeguard Investigation and Security Co., Inc., alleging that Torzuela shot them without any justifiable reason. The complaint sought to hold the private respondents vicariously liable for Torzuela's actions under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code.

The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to allege negligence on the part of Torzuela. The court ruled that the complaint appeared to be seeking damages arising from crimes under the Revised Penal Code, rather than damages for a quasi-delict. The trial court also held that the civil action against the private respondents should be dismissed.

The petitioners appealed to the respondent court, but their appeal was denied and their motion for reconsideration was also denied. The petitioners argued that the act of shooting constituted a quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the New Civil Code, which covers intentional and voluntary acts. They further argued that the private respondents could be held primarily liable under Article 2180 for their negligence in the selection or supervision of their employees. The petitioners also contended that the civil action could proceed independently of the criminal action under Article 33 of the New Civil Code.

The private respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the act was not committed with negligence, therefore the petitioners had no cause of action under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the New Civil Code. They argued that these articles only apply to acts committed with negligence, while the act in question was deliberate.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the civil action for damages can proceed independently of the criminal action.

  2. Whether the petitioners have a cause of action under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the New Civil Code.

  3. Whether a civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not the offender is prosecuted, found guilty, or acquitted.

  4. Whether Article 33 of the New Civil Code applies to injuries intentionally committed.

  5. Whether the liability of the employer under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code is direct and immediate.

  6. Whether the complaint states a sufficient cause of action.

  7. Whether or not the complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action.

RULING:

  1. The civil action for damages can proceed independently of the criminal action. Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure allows for the independent civil action to be brought by the offended party and to proceed independently of the criminal action, as long as it is based on Articles 32, 33, 34, or 2176 of the Civil Code. The civil action requires only a preponderance of evidence.

  2. The petitioners have a cause of action under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the New Civil Code. The nature of the cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint, and the petitioners invoked their right to recover damages against the private respondents for their vicarious responsibility for the injury caused by the shooter's intentional act of shooting and killing the victim. Article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence but also acts that are voluntary and intentional.

  3. Yes, a civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not the offender is prosecuted, found guilty, or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed to recover damages on both the civil and criminal cases.

  4. Article 33 of the New Civil Code applies to bodily injuries causing death, including consummated, frustrated, and attempted homicide. It is not limited to the crime of physical injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code.

  5. The liability of the employer under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code is direct and immediate, without regard to the insolvency of the employee. The employer is presumed negligent in the selection and supervision of the employee unless proven otherwise.

  6. The complaint states a sufficient cause of action as it alleges an actionable breach on the part of the defendants, specifically the shooting resulting in the death of the victim, committed by the employee while on duty.

  7. The petition for review is granted, and the decision of the Court of Appeals as well as the Order of the Regional Trial Court are reversed and set aside. The case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court for trial on the merits. The decision is immediately executory.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure allows for an independent civil action to proceed independently of the criminal action if it is based on Articles 32, 33, 34, or 2176 of the Civil Code.

  • The nature of a cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint.

  • Article 2176 of the New Civil Code covers not only acts committed with negligence but also acts that are voluntary and intentional.

  • A civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not the offender is prosecuted, found guilty, or acquitted.

  • Article 33 of the New Civil Code applies to bodily injuries causing death, including consummated, frustrated, and attempted homicide.

  • The liability of the employer under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code is direct and immediate, without regard to the insolvency of the employee.

  • In determining whether a complaint states a sufficient cause of action, it is enough that the allegations establish the elements of a cause of action. The actual liability of the defendants will be determined after trial on the merits.

  • If the allegations in a complaint can provide a sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be assessed by the defendants.

  • To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist rather than that a claim has been defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite, or uncertain.

  • In cases where the plaintiffs have clearly sustained an injury to their rights under the law, it is more just to allow them to present evidence of such injury.