Art.

100-113

Basilio v CA (Subsidiary Liability)

GR 113433 ; March 17, 2000

Facts: Simplicio Pronebo was employed as a driver and person in charge of a dump truck owned
and registered in the name of Luisito Basilio. Without necessary care and due regard to traffic law,
the dump truck bumped and sideswiped two motorized tricycle and three automobile (Toyota
Corona, Mitsubishi Lancer, Ford Econo Van). Due to the strong impact caused by the collision, one
of the tricycle drivers (Ricardo Sese) and his 3 passengers died, while 2 others sustained serious
physical injuries which incapacitated them from performing their customary labor for a period of time.
Simplicio Pronebo was found guilty of Reckless Imprudence and was sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of minimum to maximum period of prision correccional, and to indemnify the
heirs of deceased a total of P2,241,614.00. This judgment became final and executory. Private
respondent filed a Motion for Execution of the subsidiary civil liability of petitioner Basilio, the latter
appealed but the case was dismissed. Hence, this petition for review.

Issue: Whether or not Luisito Basilio can be considered subsidiary liable to the felony committed.

Held: Yes. The Court held Luisito was subsidiary liable. The statutory basis for an employer's
subsidiary liability is found in Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. This liability is enforceable in
the same criminal proceeding where the award is made. However, before execution against an
employer ensues, there must be a determination, in a hearing set for the purpose of 1) the existence
of an employer-employee relationship; 2) that the employer is engaged in some kind of industry; 3)
that the employee is adjudged guilty of the wrongful act and found to have committed the offense in
the discharge of his duties; and 4) that said employee is insolvent.

In the case at bar, petitioner knew of the criminal case that was filed against accused because it was
his truck that was involved in the incident. Further, it was the insurance company, with which his
truck was insured, that provided the counsel for the accused, pursuant to the stipulations in their
contract. Basilio did not intervene in the criminal proceedings, despite knowledge, that the
prosecution adduced evidence to show employer-employee relationship. He had all his chances to
intervene in the criminal proceedings, and prove that he was not the employer of the accused, but he
chooses not to intervene at the appropriate time.

Thus, CA's decision was affirmed.

PRBL v Mangawang (Subsidiary Liability)
G.R. No. 160355. May 16, 2005

Facts: Ernesto Ancheta was employed by the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (PRBLI) as driver of
one of its passenger buses. The bus driven by the accused while cruising the MacArthur Highway
towards the south direction, bumped the left rear side of a Toyota jeep owned by Zenaida B. Dizon,
and driven by Eduardo Mangawang. As a result, Mangawang died and the jeep sustained damages
of an undetermined amount. Trial court rendered judgment finding Ancheta guilty of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Homicide. He was to suffer imprisonment and to indemnify Mangawang's
heirs a total of P1,565,066.30. This became final and executory. PRBLI, as Anchetas employer,
appealed RTC's decision. CA dismissed on the ground that the decision had long become final and
executory. PRBI averred that it was not furnished with a copy of a CA Resolution. This petition was,
however, denied due to lack of merit. Hence, this review.

Issue: Whether or not PRBLI can still be considered subsidiary liable to the felony committed.

Held: Yes. The Court held that the petitioner, as the employer of the said accused, had no right to
appeal from the said decision because, in the first place, it was not a party in the said case. While
the subsidiary liability provided for by Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code may render
the petitioner a party in substance, it is not entitled to be furnished with a copy of the decision of the
RTC, as well as the resolution and decision of the CA.

Indeed, to allow an employer to dispute its civil liability in the criminal case via an appeal from the
decision of the RTC would be to annul, nullify or defeat a final judgment rendered by a competent
court.

Therefore, petitioner's appeal was dismissed and CA's decision was affirmed.
Carpio v Doroja (Persons civil liable for felonies)
G.R. No. 84516 ; December 5, 1989

Facts: Accused-respondent Edwin Ramirez, while driving a passenger Fuso Jitney owned and
operated by Eduardo Toribio, bumped a pedestrian crossing the street named Dionisio Carpio. As a
consequence, Carpio suffered a fractured left clavicle for three months. MTC convicted the accused
of Reckless Imprudence resulting to Less Serious Physical Injuries, and to indemnify Carpio. At the
early stage of the trial, the private prosecutor manifested his desire to present evidence to establish
the civil liability of either the accused driver or the owner-operator of the vehicle. Ramirez' counsel
moved that the court summon the owner of the vehicle to afford the latter a day in court, on the
ground that the accused is not only indigent but also jobless and thus cannot answer any civil liability
that may be imposed upon him by the court. The private prosecutor, however, did not move for the
appearance of Eduardo Toribio. Thereafter, a writ of execution was served upon the accused.
However, it was returned unsatisfied due to the insolvency. Thus, Carpio moved for a subsidiary writ
of execution against the subsidiary liability of the owner-operator of the vehicle. But it was denied by
the trial court because appellate court's decision made no mention of the subsidiary liability of
Eduardo Toribio. A motion for reconsideration of the said order was disallowed for the reason that
complainant having failed to raise the matter of subsidiary liability with the appellate court, the
decision rendered has become final and executory. Hence, the instant petition.

Issue: Whether or not employer Toribio can be held subsidiary liable.

Held: Yes. The Court held that in order that an employer may be held subsidiarily liable for the
employee's civil liability in the criminal action, it should be shown (1) that the employer is engaged in
any kind of industry, (2) that the employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties and
(3) that he is insolvent. The subsidiary liability of the employer, however, arises only after conviction
of the employee in the criminal action. Once all the requisites as earlier discussed are met, the
employer becomes ipso facto subsidiarily liable, without need of a separate action as raised by
respondent court. Needless to say, the case at bar satisfies all these requirements.

Furthermore, the case is not one wherein the operator is sued for a primary liability but one in which
the subsidiary civil liability incident to and dependent upon his employee's criminal negligence is
sought to be enforced. Considering the subsidiary liability imposed upon the employer by law, he is
in substance and in effect a party to the criminal case. Therefore, the employer's subsidiary liability
may be determined and enforced in the criminal case as part of the execution proceedings against
the employee. 
Heirs of Raymundo Castro v Bustos (What civil liability includes)
G.R. No. L-25913 ; February 29, 1969

Facts: CFI charged Apolonio Bustos of murder for killing Raymundo Castro, but the trial court found
Bustos guilty only of homicide, with two mitigating circumstance. He was sentenced for
imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of Castro in the sum of P6,000. Both respondent and
petitioners appealed, the former for acquittal, the latter for Bustos to be convicted of murder, plus a
sum of P50,764 as indemnity and actual, moral, temperate and exemplary damages. CA rendered
judgment modifying that of the trial court that aside from the P6,000 indemnity, a moral damages
amounting to P6,000 plus P13,380 to compensate for the loss of earning of the decedent at the
annual salary of P2,676. CA later amended the same decision by eliminating the award of P6,000,
and P13,380.00. From this amended decision, petitioners filed petition for certiorari asking that the
amended decision of the Court of Appeals be revoked and reversed, and its original decision be
affirmed as a whole insofar as the award of indemnity and damages is concerned.

Issue: Whether or not CA erred in its decision.

Held: Yes. The Court held that the items of damages that are recoverable in cases of death caused
by a crime, whether the claim is made in the criminal proceedings or in a separate civil action, the
indemnity and damages would be the same, except with respect to attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation which can be awarded only when a separate civil action is instituted. It is also important to
take note that in crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened
according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Heirs are entitled to the following when death occurs as a result of a crime:
1. indemnity for the death of the victim of the evidence – 12k without need of evidence and
even if mitigating circumstance is present
2. loss of earning capacity – item may be considered included in the prayer for “actual
damages” and for other “just and equitable reliefs” – art 2206 & 1764
3. moral damages – mental anguish – amount fixed by court. Can be recovered even by
illegitimate descendants and ascendants of deceased – in case of death, once heirs claim
such and are able to prove they are entitled thereto, it becomes the duty of the court to make
the award.
4. exemplary damages – attended by one or more aggravating circumstances. Fixed by court –
separate from fines
5. attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation – actual amount (only when separate civil action
has been filed or exemplary damages are awarded)
6. interests in proper cases
7. emphasized that indemnity for loss of earning capacity and moral damages are recoverable
separately from and in addition to fixed sum in no. 1. Theses damages may be subject to Art
2204.

Therefore, prayer for additional damages on the basis of the facts not questioned by respondent,
they are entitled only to the P6,000.00 as moral damages and the P13,380.00 as compensatory
damages for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased awarded in the original decision of the CA
in addition, of course, to the indemnity for death fixed also by said court at P6,000.00.