Short answer. No. Article 1161 ties civil liability from a crime to Article 2177, which bars recovering damages twice for the same wrongful act. You may pursue the criminal case's civil liability or a separate quasi-delict action, but once you actually collect under one, you cannot also collect under the other for that same act.

What the law says

Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by the penal laws, subject to the provisions of article 2177

Civil Code, Article 1161 — Obligations From Delicts. Read the full provision →

One wrongful act, one recovery

A single reckless act, such as a driver hitting a pedestrian, can support two different legal routes: the civil liability that automatically attaches to a criminal conviction, or an independent quasi-delict suit for the same negligence. Article 1161 lets both routes exist side by side, but ties criminal civil liability back to Article 2177's rule against double recovery. The two routes rest on different legal labels for the same underlying wrong, one rooted in the criminal offense itself and the other in ordinary negligence, yet both exist to compensate the same injury suffered by the same victim.

Why the law allows two routes but one payout

The victim is not forced to guess which theory will succeed, so both a criminal case and a quasi-delict case may proceed at the same time or in sequence. What the law forbids is treating the same loss as two separate paydays just because two different legal labels apply to the same underlying act. Keeping both routes open protects the victim in case one case stalls, gets dismissed on a technicality, or ends in an acquittal that would not by itself defeat a quasi-delict claim, since the two proceedings differ in their standard of proof and their legal theory of liability.

Practical effect for a victim

If damages are already paid out under the criminal case's civil liability, that payment is credited against any judgment later obtained in a quasi-delict suit for the identical injury, and vice versa. A victim can still sue on both theories to preserve options, but the second judgment is reduced by whatever has already been actually received under the first. Courts typically apply this offset rather than throwing out the second case entirely, since the two actions remain separate causes of action even though they ultimately compensate the same loss.

What counts as the same act

This limit applies specifically to the same wrongful act causing the same injury; it does not stop a victim from claiming for separate, distinct harms that happen to arise from the same incident. Someone hurt in an accident who suffers both bodily injury and separate property damage may still recover for each distinct loss, so long as that same specific item of damage is not being paid for twice simply because it was pursued under two different case labels.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.