Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > March 1978 Decisions > G.R. No. L-26407 March 31, 1978 - EUSEBIO MENDOZA v. LA MALLORCA BUS COMPANY:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-26407. March 31, 1978.]

EUSEBIO MENDOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LA MALLORCA BUS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

Alberto S. Plantilla for Appellant.

Geminiano F. Yabut & Rafael Monterey for Appellee.

SYNOPSIS


As a consequence of a collision involving a freight truck of the plaintiff-appellant and a bus of the defendant-appellee, a criminal case for damage to property thru reckless imprudence was filed against the driver of the latter, resulting in the conviction of said driver, which conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Having made an express reservation in the criminal case for the filing of a separate civil action, plaintiff-appellant filed a civil action for damages based on quasi-delict against defendant-appellee. The civil action, however, was dismissed by the trial court upon the ground that it had already prescribed, which dismissal became final without plaintiff-appellant having appealed therefrom.

Subsequently, plaintiff-appellant instituted the present civil action based on the subsidiary liability of the defendant-appellee under the Revised Penal Code. This case was likewise ordered dismissed by the lower court on the ground that the dismissal of the civil action based on the ground on the quasi-delict was a bar to the present action. Plaintiff-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals which, however, certified the case to the Supreme Court as only questions of law were raised therein.

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of the civil action on quasi-delict, under the Article 2176 to 2194 of the New Civil Code could not be a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary liability of the employer required by Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, as they are two separate and independent actions based on distinct causes of action.

Orders appealed from set aside. Case remanded below the further proceedings.


SYLLABUS


1. RES JUDICATA; ESSENTIAL REQUISITES. — It is well settled that in our jurisprudence that the essential requisites for the existences of res judicata are: (1) the former judgment must be final: (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction on the merits; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions: (a) identity of the parties; (b)identity of the subject matter; and (c) identity of cause of action.

2. ID.; ID.; IDENTITY OF CAUSES OF ACTION, TEST OF. — The test of identity of causes of action lies not in the form of an action but on whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and present causes of action.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN ABSENT. — A civil action for the damages against an employer based on quasi-delict under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the New Civil Code and a civil action where the employer is made subsidiarily liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code are two separate and independent actions based on distinct causes or action. Proof of deligence in the selection and supervision of his employee is a defense in the first action but the same evidence will fail in the second civil action.

4. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE; CIVIL LIABILITY; WHEN EMPLOYER LIABLE. — Once there is a conviction for a felony, final in character, the employer, according to the plain and explicit command of Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, is subsidiarily liable, if it shown that the commission thereof was in the discharge of the duties of such employee.


D E C I S I O N


GUERRERO, J.:


This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija in Civil Case No. 2626 entitled "Eusebio Mendoza, Plaintiff, v. La Mallorca Bus Company, Defendant," raised to the Court of Appeals but certified to Us by said court 1 in its Resolution dated July 26, 1966 as only questions of law were raised therein.cralawnad

The facts are stated in the Resolution of the appellate court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On April 3, 1950, at Plaridel Bulacan, a collision occurred involving a freight truck of the plaintiff and a bus of the defendant. A criminal case for damage to property thru reckless imprudence was brought against defendant’s driver, Claudio Arceo, (Crim. Case No. 1230, CFI-Bulacan), resulting in the conviction of said driver, which conviction was affirmed by this Court in CA-G.R. No. 11602-R. In the said criminal case, the plaintiff made express reservation for the filing of a separate civil action. In affirming the judgment of conviction imposed upon the accused by the lower court, this Court modified the fine imposed, with the observation that the freight truck of the plaintiff therein involved and damaged was worth only P5,000.00 and not P7,000.00 as found by the trial court.

On May 8, 1956, plaintiff filed a separate civil action for damages against the herein defendant, based on quasi-delict under the Civil Code, which separate civil action (Case No. 2137) was ordered dismissed by the trial court upon a finding that plaintiff’s action, instituted exactly six years, one month and five days from the date of the accident (which occurred on April 3, 1950) had already prescribed, which order became final without plaintiff having appealed therefrom.

Subsequently, or on August 26, 1957, the plaintiff instituted the present action, based on the alleged subsidiary liability of the defendant company under the Revised Penal Code. A motion for preliminary hearing under Rule 8, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court was filed in the lower Court in consequence of which the lower court, by order dated Dec. 3, 1958, ordered the dismissal of the case. The order of Jan. 20, 1959 denied the motion for reconsideration.

From the order of the lower court dated December 3, 1958 dismissing the instant action on the ground that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2137 was a bar to the present action, the plaintiff has appealed, alleging that the following errors were committed by the lower court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. In holding that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2137 operated as a bar to the filing of the present action; and

2. In dismissing the complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

We agree with the plaintiff-appellant. The lower court committed a reversible error in declaring that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2137 operated as a bar to the filing of the present action.

It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that the essential requisites for the existence of res judicata are: the former judgment must be final; (a) it must have been rendered by (1) court having jurisdiction on the merits; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions: (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of subject matter; and (c) identity of cause of action. 2

A careful study of the case at bar presents a dispute as to only one of the above elements: Whether or not, as between Civil Case No. 2137 and the present action, there is identity of causes of action.

We hold that, the two actions, namely, the civil action based on quasi-delict (Civil Case No. 2137) and the civil action based on criminal liability (Civil Case No. 2626), are two separate and independent actions based on distinct causes of action. 3

The test of identity of causes of action is stated in this wise: It lies not in the form of an action but on whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and present causes of action. 4

Civil Case No. 2137 was an action for damages based on culpa aquiliana under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the New Civil Code for which the defendant-appellee, as employer, was to be made primarily and directly liable for reason of his own negligence, either in the selection or supervision of his driver; 5 the present action stems from the conviction by final judgment of defendant-appellee’s driver in the previous criminal case filed against said driver for damage to property through reckless imprudence (Crim. Case No. 1230), damages for which defendant-appellee, as employer, is made subsidiarily liable under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Applying the above-stated test, it is evident that res judicata cannot be a defense against the filing of the present action by petitioner. Defendant-appellee could thwart an adverse decision in Civil Case No. 2137 by proving his due diligence in the selection of its employees, but this same evidence will fail in the present action for his liability is inseparable from that of his driver once the latter is finally convicted. 6

In the case of M.D. Transit & Taxi Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals (22 SCRA 559), this Court declared the same principle in simpler terms:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The importance of this issue is due to the fact that appellant’s alleged diligence in the selection of its employees and in exercising supervision over them would be a good defense should the action be based upon a quasi-delict, but not if predicated upon a liability springing from a crime."cralaw virtua1aw library

The question presented before Us has already been resolved in the case of Jocson v. Glorioso, 7 where the issue under consideration is "whether the previous dismissal of an action based on culpa aquiliana precludes the application of the plain and explicit command of Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code." There, this Court ruled in the negative having adopted this Court’s decision in a previous case, Diana v. Batangas Trans, Co. 8 where it was held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Considering the distinguishing characteristics of the two cases, which involve two different remedies, it can hardly be said that there is identity of reliefs in both actions as to make the present case fall under the operation of Rule 8, Section 1 (d) of the Rules of Court. In other words, it is a mistake to say that the present action should be dismissed because of the pendency of another action between the same parties involving the same cause. Evidently, both cases involve different causes of action. In fact, when the Court of Appeals dismissed the action based on culpa aquiliana (Civil Case No. 8022), this distinction was stressed. It was there said that the negligent act committed by defendant’s employee is not a quasi crime, for such negligence is punished by law. What plaintiffs should have done was to institute an action under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code (CA-G.R. No. 3632-R). And this is what plaintiffs have done. To deprive them now of this remedy, after the conviction of defendant’s employee, would be to deprive them altogether of the indemnity to which they are entitled by law and by a court decision, which injustice it is our duty to prevent."cralaw virtua1aw library

This Court then concluded:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On the same principle then, the previous dismissal of the action based on culpa aquiliana could not be a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary liability required by Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code.

"What clearly emerges then is the controlling force of the principle that once there is a conviction for a felony, final in character, the employer, according to the plain and explicit command of Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, is subsidiarily liable, if it be shown that the commission thereof was in the discharge of the duties of such employee." 9

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby entered setting aside the orders of the lower court dated December 3, 1958 and January 20, 1959 respectively dismissing the present action and denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for reconsideration. Let the case be remanded below for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma and Fernandez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Capistrano, J., ponente; Canizares, J. and Yatco, J., concurring.

2. Ipekdjian Merchandising Co., Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, 9 SCRA 72; Philippine Farming Corporation, Ltd. v. Llanos, 14 SCRA 949; Abes v. Rodil, 17 SCRA 822; Cruz v. Mossesgeld, 24 SCRA 1006.

3. Barredo v. Garcia & Almario, 73 Phil. 607 (1942); Parker v. Panlilio, 91 Phil. 1 (1952); Tan v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co., 91 Phil. 672 (1652).

4. Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 14 SCRA 721.

5. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. v. Tan, 107 Phil. 109 (1960).

6. Martinez v. Barredo, 81 Phil. 1 (1948); Miranda v. Malate Garage & Taxicab, Inc., 99 Phil. 670 (1966); Bantoto v. Bobis, 18 SCRA 691.

7. 22 SCRA 316.

8. 93 Phil. 391 (1953).

9. Jocson v. Glorioso, supra, at pp. 322-323.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1978 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-1597 March 1, 1978 - OSCAR R. VICTORIANO v. ABRAHAM B. ALVIOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46366 March 8, 1978 - DEMOCRITO SILVESTRE v. MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 21, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46608 March 8, 1978 - ELENA VALDEZ, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN C. BAGASO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47771 March 11, 1978 - PEDRO G. PERALTA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40904 March 16, 1978 - WORLD WIDE TRAVEL SERVICE, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31077 March 17, 1978 - ARABAY, INC. v. SERAFIN SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31399 March 17, 1978 - ELISEO M. BLANCAFLOR v. ALFREDO C. LAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31812 March 17, 1978 - JUAN COJUANGCO v. PIO R. MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32147-49 March 17, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS LIERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38807 March 17, 1978 - DOROTEO F. BALA, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1308-CFI March 21, 1978 - SATURNINO O. PASCUA v. MAGNO B. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47540 March 21, 1978 - IN RE: RENATO C. DAÑGANAN, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47841 March 21, 1978 - FRANCISCO VIRTOUSO, JR. v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF MARIVELES, BATAAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47883 March 25, 1978 - LAKAS NG BAYAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1770 March 28, 1978 - IGNACIO REYDADO v. CARMENCITA R. DE CASTRO

  • G.R. No. L-46681 March 28, 1978 - ANA I. RABANAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26407 March 31, 1978 - EUSEBIO MENDOZA v. LA MALLORCA BUS COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-35927 March 31, 1978 - BENEDICTO PADASAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41747 March 31, 1978 - ENCARNACION BELARMINO, ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42020 March 31, 1978 - SUPERIOR CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46562 March 31, 1978 - VASSAR INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION v. FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47222-27 March 31, 1978 - VICENTE T. TAN, ET AL. v. MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 5