Short answer. You may pursue both routes, but you cannot be paid twice. Responsibility for fault or negligence is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code — and the same article forbids recovering damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
What the law says
Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
Civil Code, Article 2177 — No Double Recovery. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Obligations arise from: (1) Law; (2) Contracts; (3) Quasi-contracts; (4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and (5) Quasi-delicts.
Civil Code, Article 1157 — Sources of Obligations. Read the full provision →
Two sources of liability from one collision
The Code treats the same careless act as capable of generating obligations by two independent routes. Article 1157 lists them among the sources of obligation: obligations arise from: (1) Law; (2) Contracts; (3) Quasi-contracts; (4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and (5) Quasi-delicts. An act punished by law and a quasi-delict are separate entries. Article 2177 then says the responsibility for fault or negligence is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code, which is what makes the two routes genuinely parallel rather than alternatives.
What the separation is worth to a claimant
The civil action rests on Article 2176 — whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. It is founded on the fault, not on the crime, so it is not simply an appendage of the criminal case and does not answer to the same standards or the same evidence. Article 1161 confirms the arrangement from the other side, subjecting civil obligations arising from criminal offences to penal laws but expressly subject to Article 2177 and to the provisions on damages.
The limit is on payment, not on filing
Then comes the sentence that governs your question: the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. It bars double indemnity, not double avenues. An amount already received as civil liability in the criminal case is compensation you have had for that injury, and the law will not have it paid over again under another label. What is left open is the balance — heads of damage that the earlier award did not cover, and losses that only became apparent afterwards.
What decides this in practice is the record
Everything turns on identifying exactly what was awarded, under which case, for which act, and what has actually been received rather than merely ordered. Bring the decision or the order fixing the civil liability, proof of what was paid, and any settlement or quittance signed along the way. Tell the lawyer about the criminal case before anything is filed. A claim that looks like double recovery on the papers is difficult to rescue afterwards, however different the loss really was.
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.
- Supreme Transportation Liner, Inc. and Felix Q. Ruz vs. Antonio San Andres, G.R. No. 200444, August 15, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rafael Reyes Trucking Corp. vs. People of the Philippines and Rosario P. Dy, etc, G.R. No. 129029, April 3, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Alastair John Kane vs. Patricia Roggenkamp, G.R. No. 214326, July 6, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Enrique Llonillo and Marites Llonillo vs. People of the Phillippines, G.R. No. 246787, January 30, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2176 — Quasi-Delict Defined (Culpa Aquiliana)
- Civil Code, Article 1161 — Obligations From Delicts