8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503

170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador

*
G.R. No. 158995. September 26, 2006.

L.G. FOODS CORPORATION and VICTORINO GABOR,

VicePresident and General Manager, petitioners, vs. HON.
PHILADELFA B. PAGAPONG-AGRAVIADOR, in her capacity as
Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Bacolod City,
and SPS. FLORENTINO and THERESA VALLEJERA,
respondents.

Actions; Damages; An act or omission causing damage to another may

give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., 1)
civil liability ex delicto; and, 2) independent civil liabilities.—Section 2,
Rule 2, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines cause of action as the
“act or omission by which a party violates the right of another.” Such act or
omission gives rise to an obligation which may come from law, contracts,
quasi contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts. Corollarily, an act or omission
causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on
the part of the offender, i.e., 1) civil liability ex delicto; and 2) independent
civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission
complained of as felony (e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from
law; the intentional torts; and culpa aquiliana); or (b) where the injured
party is granted a right to file

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

171

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 171

L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador

an action independent and distinct from the criminal action. Either of these
two possible liabilities may be enforced against the offender.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589edab96f766870000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/12
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503

Same; Same; Torts; Quasi-Delicts; Negligence; Victims of negligence

or their heirs have a choice between an action to enforce the civil liability
arising from culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code,
and an action for quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) under Articles 2176 to 2194
of the Civil Code.—Victims of negligence or their heirs have a choice
between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from culpa criminal
under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an action for quasi-delict
(culpa aquiliana) under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code. If, as here,
the action chosen is for quasi-delict, the plaintiff may hold the employer
liable for the negligent act of its employee, subject to the employer’s
defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family. On the
other hand, if the action chosen is for culpa criminal, the plaintiff can hold
the employer subsidiarily liable only upon proof of prior conviction of its
employee. Article 1161 of the Civil Code provides that civil obligation
arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by penal laws subject to the
provision of Article 2177 and of the pertinent provision of Chapter 2,
Preliminary Title on Human Relation, and of Title XVIII of this Book,
regulating damages. Plainly, Article 2177 provides for the alternative
remedies the plaintiff may choose from in case the obligation has the
possibility of arising indirectly from the delict/crime or directly from quasi-
delict/tort. The choice is with the plaintiff who makes known his cause of
action in his initiatory pleading or complaint, and not with the defendant
who can not ask for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s cause of action or lack of
it based on the defendant’s perception that the plaintiff should have opted to
file a claim under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Under Article 2180 of the Civil
Code, the liability of the employer is direct or immediate—it is not
conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior
showing of insolvency of such employee.—Under Article 2180 of the Civil
Code, the liability of the employer is direct or immediate. It is not
conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior
showing of insolvency of such employee. Here, the complaint sufficiently
alleged that the death of the couple’s minor son was caused by the negligent
act of the petitioners’ driver; and that the petitioners themselves were civilly
liable for the negligence of their driver for failing “to exercise the necessary
diligence required of a good father of the family in the selection and
supervision of [their] employee, the driver, which diligence, if exercised,
would have prevented said accident.”

172

172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589edab96f766870000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/12
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The circumstance that no reservation

to institute a separate civil action for damages was made when the criminal
case was filed is of no moment where the criminal case was dismissed
without any pronouncement having been made therein—in reality, it is as if
there was no criminal case to speak of in the first place.—Citing Maniago v.
CA, 253 SCRA 674 (1996), petitioner would argue that Civil Case No. 99-
10845 should have been dismissed for failure of the respondent spouses to
make a reservation to institute a separate civil action for damages when the
criminal case against the driver was filed. The argument is specious. To start
with, the petitioners’ reliance on Maniago is obviously misplaced. There,
the civil case was filed while the criminal case against the employee was
still pending. Here, the criminal case against the employee driver was
prematurely terminated due to his death. Precisely, Civil Case No. 99-10845
was filed by the respondent spouses because no remedy can be obtained by
them against the petitioners with the dismissal of the criminal case against
their driver during the pendency thereof. The circumstance that no
reservation to institute a separate civil action for damages was made when
the criminal case was filed is of no moment for the simple reason that the
criminal case was dismissed without any pronouncement having been made
therein. In reality, therefor, it is as if there was no criminal case to speak of
in the first place. And for the petitioners to insist for the conviction of their
driver as a condition sine qua non to hold them liable for damages is to ask
for the impossible.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Eufemio Law Offices for petitioners.
     Archie S. Baribar for respondents.

GARCIA, J.:

Assailed and sought to be1 set aside in this petition for review on
certiorari is the Decision dated April 25, 2003 of the Court of
Appeals

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin with Associate Justices Ruben T.

Reyes (now Presiding Justice) and Elvi John Asuncion, concurring. Rollo, pp. 17-22.

173

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 173

L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador

2
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589edab96f766870000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/12
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503
2
(CA), as reiterated in its Resolution of July 10, 2003, in CA-G.R. SP
No. 67600, affirming an earlier Order of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 43, which denied the petitioners’
motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 99-10845, an action for
damages arising from a vehicular accident thereat instituted by the
herein private respondents—the spouses Florentino Vallejera and
Theresa Vallejera—against the petitioners.
The antecedent facts may be briefly stated as follows:
On February 26, 1996, Charles Vallereja, a 7-year old son of the
spouses Florentino Vallejera and Theresa Vallejera, was hit by a
Ford Fiera van owned by the petitioners and driven at the time by
their employee, Vincent Norman Yeneza y Ferrer. Charles died as a
result of the accident.
In time, an Information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide was filed against the driver before the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities (MTCC), Bacolod City, docketed as Criminal Case
No. 67787, entitled People of the Philippines v. Vincent Norman
Yeneza.
Unfortunately, before the trial could be concluded, the accused
driver committed suicide, evidently bothered by conscience and
remorse. On account thereof, the MTCC, in its order of September
30, 1998, dismissed the criminal case.
On June 23, 1999, in 3the RTC of Bacolod City, the spouses
Vallejera filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners as
employers of the deceased driver, basically alleging that as such
employers, they failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and
supervision of their employees. Thereat docketed as Civil Case No.
99-10845, the complaint was raffled to Branch 43 of 4the court.
In their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, the petitioners
as defendants denied liability for the death of the Vallejeras’ 7-year
old son, claiming that they had exercised the required due diligence
in the selection and supervision of their employees, including the
deceased driver. They thus prayed in their Answer for the dismissal
of

_______________

2 Id., at p. 23.
3 Id., at pp. 93-98.
4 Id., at pp. 85-91.

174

174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador

the complaint for lack of cause of action on the part of the Vallejera
couple.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589edab96f766870000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/12
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503

During pre-trial, the defendant petitioners insisted that their

dismissal prayer be resolved. Hence, the trial court required them to
file within ten days a memorandum of authorities supportive of their
position.
Instead, however, of the required memorandum of authorities, the
defendant petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, principally arguing
that the complaint is basically a “claim for subsidiary liability
5
against an employer” under the provision of Article 103 of the
Revised Penal Code. Prescinding therefrom, they contend that there
must first be a judgment of conviction against their driver as a
condition sine qua non to hold them liable. Ergo, since the driver
died during the pendency of the criminal action, the sine qua non
condition for their subsidiary liability was not fulfilled, hence the of
lack of cause of action on the part of the plaintiffs. They further
argue that since the plaintiffs did not make a reservation to institute a
separate action for damages when the criminal case was filed, the
damage suit in question is thereby deemed instituted with the
criminal action which was already dismissed.6
In an Order dated September 4, 2001, the trial court denied the
motion to dismiss for lack of merit and set the case for pre-trial.
With their motion for reconsideration 7
having been denied by the
same court in its subsequent order of September 26, 2001, the
petitioners then went on certiorari to the CA in CA-G.R. SP No.
67600, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial
judge in refusing to dismiss the basic complaint for damages in Civil
Case No. 99-10845.

_______________

5 Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.—The subsidiary liability

established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers,
persons and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by
their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their
duties.
6 Rollo, pp. 71-74.
7 Id., at p. 65.

175

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 175

L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador

8
In the herein assailed decision dated April 25, 2003, the CA denied
the petition and upheld the trial court. Partly says the CA in its
challenged issuance:

“x x x      x x x      x x x

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589edab96f766870000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/12
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503

It is clear that the complaint neither represents nor implies that the
responsibility charged was the petitioner’s subsidiary liability under Art.
103, Revised Penal Code. As pointed out [by the trial court] in the Order of
September 4, 2001, the complaint does not even allege the basic elements
for such a liability, like the conviction of the accused employee and his
insolvency. Truly enough, a civil action to enforce subsidiary liability
separate and distinct from the criminal action is even unnecessary.
x x x      x x x      x x x
Specifically, Civil Case No. 99-10845 exacts responsibility for fault or
negligence under Art. 2176, Civil Code, which is entirely separate and
distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Revised
Penal Code. Verily, therefore, the liability under Art. 2180, Civil Code, is
direct and immediate, and not conditioned upon prior recourse against the
negligent employee or prior showing of the latter’s insolvency.” (Italics in
the original.)

In time, the petitioners moved for a reconsideration

9
but their motion
was denied by the CA in its resolution of July 10, 2003. Hence, the
petitioners’ present recourse on their submission that the appellate
court committed reversible error in upholding the trial court’s denial
of their motion to dismiss.
We DENY.
As the Court sees it, the sole issue for resolution is whether the
spouses Vallejeras’ cause of action in Civil Case No. 99-10845 is
founded on Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, as maintained by
10
the petitioners, or derived from Article 2180 of the Civil Code, as
ruled by the two courts below.

_______________

8 Supra note 1.
9 Rollo, p. 23.
10 Article 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only
for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
x x x      x x x      x x x

176

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador

It thus behooves us to examine the allegations of the complaint for

damages in Civil Case No. 99-10845. That complaint alleged, inter
alia, as follows:

“x x x      x x x      x x x

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589edab96f766870000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/12
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503

3 . That defendant [LG Food Corporation] is the registered owner of

a Ford Fiera Van with Plate No. NMS 881 and employer sometime
February of 1996 of one Vincent Norman Yeneza y Ferrer, a
salesman of said corporation;
4. That sometime February 26, 1996 at around 2:00 P.M. at Rosario
St., Bacolod City, the minor son of said plaintiffs [now
respondents], Charles Vallejera, 7 years old, was hit and bumped by
above-described vehicle then driven by said employee, Vincent
Norman Yeneza y Ferrer;
5. That the mishap was due to the gross fault and negligence of
defendant’s employee, who drove said vehicle, recklessly,
negligently and at a high speed without regard to traffic condition
and safety of other road users and likewise to the fault and
negligence of the owner employer, herein defendants LG Food
Corporation who failed to exercise due diligence in the selection
and supervision of his employee, Vincent Norman Yeneza y Ferrer;
6. That as a result of said incident, plaintiffs’ son suffered multiple
body injuries which led to his untimely demise on that very day;
7. That a criminal case was filed against the defendant’s employee,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 67787, (earlier filed as Crim. Case
No. 9617570 before RTC) before MTC-Branch III, entitled “People
v. Yeneza” for “Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide,” but
the same was dismissed because pending litigation, then remorse-
stricken [accused] committed suicide;

x x x      x x x      x x x

8. That the injuries and complications as well as the resultant death

suffered by the late minor Charles Vallejera were due to the
negligence and imprudence of defendant’s employee;

_______________

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry.
x x x      x x x      x x x
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage (1903a).

177

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 177

L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589edab96f766870000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/12
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503

9. That defendant LG Foods Corporation is civilly liable for the

negligence/imprudence of its employee since it failed to exercise
the necessary diligence required of a good father of the family in
the selection and supervision of his employee, Vincent Norman
Yeneza y Ferrer which diligence if exercised, would have prevented
said incident.” (Bracketed words and emphasis ours.)

Nothing in the foregoing allegations suggests, even remotely, that

the herein petitioners are being made to account for their subsidiary
liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. As correctly
pointed out by the trial court in its order of September 4, 2001
denying the petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss, the complaint did not
even aver the basic elements for the subsidiary liability of an
employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, such as the
prior conviction of the driver in the criminal case filed against him
nor his insolvency.
Admittedly, the complaint did not explicitly state that plaintiff
Vallejeras were suing the defendant petitioners for damages based
on quasi-delict. Clear it is, however, from the allegations of the
complaint that quasi-delict was their choice of remedy against the
petitioners. To stress, the plaintiff spouses alleged in their complaint
gross fault and negligence on the part of the driver and the failure of
the petitioners, as employers, to exercise due diligence in the
selection and supervision of their employees. The spouses further
alleged that the petitioners are civilly liable for the
negligence/imprudence of their driver since they failed to exercise
the necessary diligence required of a good father of the family in the
selection and supervision of their employees, which diligence, if
exercised, could have prevented the vehicular accident that resulted
to the death of their 7-year old son.
Section 2, Rule 2, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines
cause of action as the “act or omission by which a party violates the
right of another.” Such act or omission gives rise to an obligation
which may come from law, contracts, quasi contracts, delicts or
11
quasidelicts.

_______________

11 Article 1157, Civil Code of the Philippines.

178

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador

Corollarily, an act or omission causing damage to another may give

rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., 1)
12
civil liability ex delicto; and 2) independent civil liabilities, such as
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589edab96f766870000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/12
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503

those (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as felony

13
(e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from law; the
14 15
intentional torts; and culpa aquiliana ); or (b) where the injured
party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct
16
from the criminal action. Either of these two possible liabilities
17
may be enforced against the offender.
Stated otherwise, victims of negligence or their heirs have a
choice between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from
culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an
action for quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) under Articles 2176 to 2194
of the Civil Code. If, as here, the action chosen is for quasi-delict,
the plaintiff may hold the employer liable for the negligent act of its
employee, subject to the employer’s defense of exercise of the
diligence of a good father of the family. On the other hand, if the
action chosen is for culpa criminal, the plaintiff can hold the
employer subsidiarily liable only upon proof of prior conviction of
18
its employee.
19
Article 1161 of the Civil Code provides that civil obligation
arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by penal laws
20
subject to the provision of Article 2177 and of the pertinent
provision of Chapter 2,

_______________

12 Article 100, Revised Penal Code.

13 Article 31, Civil Code.
14 Articles 32 and 34, Civil Code.
15 Article 2176, Civil Code.
16 Article 33, Civil Code.
17 Cancio, Jr. v. Isip, G.R. No. 133978, November 12, 2002, 391 SCRA 393.
18 Joaquin, et al. v. Aniceto, et al., 120 Phil. 1100; 12 SCRA 308 (1964).
19 ARTICLE 1161. Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall be
governed by the penal laws, subject to the provisions of article 2177, and of the
pertinent provisions of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, on Human Relations, and of Title
XVIII of this Book, regulating damages. (1092a)
20 ARTICLE 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding
article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability

179

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 179

L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador

Preliminary Title on Human Relation, and of Title XVIII of this

Book, regulating damages. Plainly, Article 2177 provides for the
alternative remedies the plaintiff may choose from in case the
obligation has the possibility of arising indirectly from the
delict/crime or directly from quasi-delict/tort. The choice is with the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589edab96f766870000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/12
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503

plaintiff who makes known his cause of action in his initiatory

21
pleading or complaint, and not with the defendant who can not ask
for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s cause of action or lack of it based
on the defendant’s perception that the plaintiff should have opted to
file a claim under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the liability of the
employer is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned upon prior
recourse against the negligent 22
employee and a prior showing of
insolvency of such employee.
Here, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the death of the
couple’s minor son was caused by the negligent act of the
petitioners’ driver; and that the petitioners themselves were civilly
liable for the negligence of their driver for failing “to exercise the
necessary diligence required of a good father of the family in the
selection and supervision of [their] employee, the driver, which
diligence, if exercised, would have prevented said accident.”
Had the respondent spouses elected to sue the petitioners based
on Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, they would have alleged
that the guilt of the driver had been proven beyond reasonable
doubt; that such accused driver is insolvent; that it is the subsidiary
liability of the defendant petitioners as employers to pay for the
damage done by their employee (driver) based on the principle that
23
every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. Since there was
no conviction in the criminal case against the driver, precisely
because death intervened prior to the termination of the criminal
proceedings, the

_______________

arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. (n)
21 Section 3, Rule 6, 1997 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
22 Kapalaran Bus Lines v. Coronado, G.R. No. 85331, August 25, 1989, 176
SCRA 792.
23 Article 100, Revised Penal Code.

180

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador

spouses’ recourse was, therefore, to sue the petitioners for their

direct and primary liability based on quasi-delict.
Besides, it is worthy to note that the petitioners, in their Answer
24
with Compulsory Counter-Claim, repeatedly made mention of
Article 2180 of the Civil Code and anchored their defense on their
allegation that “they had exercised due diligence in the selection and
supervision of [their] employees.” The Court views this defense as
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589edab96f766870000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/12
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503

an admission that indeed the petitioners acknowledged the private

respondents’ cause of action as one for quasi-delict under Article
2180 of the Civil Code.
All told, Civil Case No. 99-10845 is a negligence suit brought
under Article 2176 - Civil Code to recover damages primarily from
the petitioners as employers responsible for their negligent driver
pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The obligation imposed
by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible. Thus, the employer is liable for damages caused by his
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, even though the former is not engaged in any
business or industry.
25
Citing Maniago v. CA, petitioner would argue that Civil Case
No. 99-10845 should have been dismissed for failure of the
respondent spouses to make a reservation to institute a separate civil
action for damages when the criminal case against the driver was
filed.
The argument is specious.
To start with, the petitioners’ reliance on Maniago is obviously
misplaced. There, the civil case was filed while the criminal case
against the employee was still pending. Here, the criminal case
against the employee driver was prematurely terminated due to his
death. Precisely, Civil Case No. 99-10845 was filed by the
respondent spouses because no remedy can be obtained by them
against the petitioners with the dismissal of the criminal case against
their driver during the pendency thereof.

_______________

24 Supra note 4.
25 G.R. 104392, February 20, 1996, 253 SCRA 674.

181

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 181

L.G. Foods Corporation vs. Pagapong-Agraviador

The circumstance that no reservation to institute a separate civil

action for damages was made when the criminal case was filed is of
no moment for the simple reason that the criminal case was
dismissed without any pronouncement having been made therein. In
reality, therefor, it is as if there was no criminal case to speak of in
the first place. And for the petitioners to insist for the conviction of
their driver as a condition sine qua non to hold them liable for
damages is to ask for the impossible.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of
merit.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589edab96f766870000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/12
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503

Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

          Puno (Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and

Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

Notes.—The use of the opaque phrase “among others” can not

confer causes of action other than that specifically averred.
(Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 230 SCRA 710 [1994])
By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a joinder of causes of
action, is meant the uniting of two or more demands or rights of
action in one action, the statement of more than one cause of action
in a declaration. (Republic vs. Hernandez, 253 SCRA 509 [1996])

——o0o——

182

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589edab96f766870000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/12