Short answer. No. Article 2177 of the Civil Code bars double recovery: you cannot receive damages twice for the same act or omission, even if the two actions — one criminal, one civil under quasi-delict — are technically based on different legal theories. The payment you already received bars the same claim.
What the law says
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 →
Two separate bases of liability — one prohibition on double recovery
Article 2177 of the Civil Code sets out a two-part rule. The first part recognizes that civil liability for negligence under quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability that arises from negligence under the Penal Code. In other words, the same negligent act can give rise to both a criminal prosecution and a separate civil action — and the two do not cancel each other out. But the second part of the article draws a hard line: the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission.
What double recovery means in practice
If you received civil indemnity or damages as part of a criminal proceeding — whether as part of the judgment or as a settlement — and you then file a separate civil action for quasi-delict arising from the same incident, you cannot receive another round of damages for the same harm. The law permits you to pursue both avenues, but only one full recovery. You may file the civil action, but whatever you received in the criminal proceeding will be counted against what you can recover in the civil one. The net result cannot exceed the actual loss you suffered.
Why this rule matters
The prohibition on double recovery is not just procedural — it reflects a principle of justice. Compensatory damages are meant to make the victim whole, not to enrich them at the defendant's expense. Once a person has been fully compensated for a loss, allowing a second recovery for the same loss would punish the wrongdoer beyond what the law intends and give the victim a windfall. Article 2177 allows a victim to take the most favorable route to compensation, but not to collect from both routes for the same injury.
When the civil and criminal proceedings may still both proceed
It is important to understand that Article 2177 does not bar you from filing a quasi-delict action simply because a criminal case was also filed. The two proceed on different tracks. The criminal action establishes guilt and can impose a penalty and civil indemnity; the civil action under quasi-delict addresses the tortious aspect of the same act. Where the criminal case did not result in a full recovery — for example, where the accused was acquitted but the civil liability remains — a quasi-delict action may still be viable. A lawyer can assess the interaction between the two proceedings in your specific case and advise on what, if anything, remains recoverable.
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 →