Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > July 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-37632 July 30, 1982 - GREGORIA VDA. DE PAMAN v. ALBERTO V. SEÑERIS

201 Phil. 290:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-37632. July 30, 1982.]

GREGORIA VDA. DE PAMAN, ROMEO PAMAN, ELISBERTO PAMAN, and CESARIA PAMAN, Petitioners, v. HON. ALBERTO V. SEÑERIS, as Judge of CFI, Branch II, Zamboanga City, WESTERN MINDANAO LUMBER COMPANY and TEODORO DE LOS SANTOS, Respondents.

Segunolo Jose Martinez, for Petitioners.

Pelaez, Jalandoni Jamir & Adriano Law Offices for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent Teodoro de los Santos was charged with Homicide Thru Reckless Imprudence before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, at Zamboanga City, for the death of Victoriano Paman when the latter thru the recklessness and lack of foresight of the former, fell from the cargo truck owned by respondent Western Mindanao Lumber Company while being driven by De los Santos. The Court sentenced him to imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00. Respondent judge issued an order for the execution of De los Santos’ civil liability but the Sheriff’s Return showed that De los Santos was insolvent in view of which petitioner (widow of the deceased) moved for execution on the subsidiary liability of employer respondent company under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code which she contended is executory in nature and there is no need of a separate action or further civil case to enforce the decision. Respondent judge denied the motion on the ground that respondent employer not having been notified that its driver was facing a criminal charge, a separate civil action must he filed. Hence, the instant petition.

On mandamus, the Supreme Court held that the proceeding for the enforcement of the employer’s subsidiary liability may be considered as part of the proceeding for the execution of the judgment and the trial court may hear and decide the same in the said proceeding.

Petition granted, questioned order set aside.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENT; EXECUTION; ENFORCEMENT OF EMPLOYER’S SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY; ESSENTIAL REQUISITES. — In order that an employer may be subsidiarily liable for the employee’s civil liability in the criminal action, it should be shown (1) that the employer, etc. 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.

2. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO INTENTION; ENFORCEMENT OF EMPLOYER’S SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY IN THE SAME PROCEEDING WILL GIVE MEANING TO RULE 111 OF THE RULES OF COURT. — Rule 111 of the Rules of Court means that the civil action may be tried and prosecuted, with all the ancillary processes provided by law (Ramcar Inc. v. De Leon, 78 Phil. 449). Said provision will be rendered meaningless if the subsidiary civil liability is not allowed to be enforced in the same proceeding.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENT; EXECUTION; ENFORCEMENT OF EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY IN THE SAME PROCEEDINGS; AFFORDS DUE PROCESS TO EMPLOYER. — In order to afford due process to the employer, the Supreme Court directed the court a quo in Pajarito v. Señeris, Et Al., 87 SCRA 275, to hear and decide in the same proceeding the subsidiary liability of the alleged owner and operator of the passenger bus. It was explained therein that the proceeding for the enforcement of the subsidiary liability may be considered as part of the proceeding for the execution of the judgment, since a case in which an execution has been issued is regarded as still pending so that all proceedings on the execution are proceedings in the suit.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF TRIAL COURT OVER ITS PROCESS OF EXECUTION. — There is no question that the Court which rendered the judgment has a general supervisory control over its process of execution and this power carries with it the right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; JUDGMENT TO PAY INDEMNITY CONCLUSIVE UPON THE EMPLOYER AS TO CIVIL LIABILITY AND AMOUNT. — It has been invariably held that a judgment of conviction sentencing a defendant employer to pay an indemnity in the absence of any collusion between the defendant and the offended party, is conclusive upon the employer in an action for the enforcement of the latter’s subsidiary liability not only with regard to the civil liability, but also with regard to its amount. (Martinez v. Barredo, 81 Phil. 1; Miranda v. Malate Garage and Taxicab, Inc., 99 Phil. 670; Manalo and Salvador v. Robles Transportation Company, Inc., 99 Phil. 729)

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INDEMNITY AWARDED IN THE CRIMINAL CASE CANNOT BE AMENDED OR MODIFIED. — The court has no other function than to render decision based upon the indemnity awarded in the criminal case and has no power to amend or modify it even if in its opinion an error has been committed in the decision. A separate and independent action is, therefore, unnecessary and would only unduly prolong the agony of the heirs of the victim.


D E C I S I O N


GUERRERO, J.:


This is a petition for mandamus to order the District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, 16th Judicial District, Branch II, to perform his allegedly ministerial duty to execute the judgment in Criminal Case No. 2953 entitled "People of the Philippines, plaintiffs, versus, Teodoro de los Santos, Accused," for Homicide Thru Reckless Imprudence In Violation of Section 52 of Act 3992, As Amended, in order to enforce the subsidiary liability of employer respondent Western Mindanao Lumber Company pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.

The facts of the case are simple and uncontradicted.

On May 24, 1961, Accused-respondent Teodoro de los Santos was charged by the City Attorney of Zamboanga City in the following information:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned City Attorney accuses TEODORO DE LOS SANTOS, with HOMICIDE THRU RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 52 of ACT 3992 AS AMENDED, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about December 21, 1956, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-mentioned accused, driver of a cargo truck with plate No. T-15341, owned and operated by the Western Mindanao Lumber Co., and without due precaution, considering the width, grades, curvature, visibility and other conditions of the road, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, thru his recklessness and lack of foresight while driving said cargo truck cause one Victoriano Paman to fall therefrom who was riding the said truck and as a consequence, the latter sustained injuries on his person which caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon arraignment on June 26, 1972, Accused-respondent Teodoro de los Santos entered a plea of guilty. In view of said plea, the respondent Judge, Alberto Señeris, rendered a Decision sentencing said respondent to suffer an imprisonment of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor and to indemnify the heirs of the late Victoriano Paman, namely, the petitioner Gregoria Vda. de Paman and her three children, in the amount of P12,000.00, the dispositive portion of the Decision reading as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, Teodoro de los Santos, by his own admission, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Imprudence resulting in Homicide as defined and penalized under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, and appreciating in his favor the two mitigating circumstances above-mentioned not offset by any aggravating circumstance, hereby SENTENCES him to an imprisonment of TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of arresto mayor, to indemnify the heirs of the late Victoriano Paman, namely: Gregoria Guevara Vda. de Paman and her three children, in the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00), with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency but which however, shall not be more than one (1/3) third of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs of the proceedings.

SO ORDERED." 1

On the same day, Accused-respondent Teodoro de los Santos commenced his service of sentence. On August 4, 1972, petitioner Gregoria Vda. de Paman, widow of the victim, filed the first motion for execution of the judgment to enforce the civil liability of the P12,000.00 of the accused-respondent. This was followed on August 28, 1972 by the filing of petitioner of an ex parte motion for execution of judgment against the accused. In both instances, Western Mindanao Lumber Company was duly notified.

On August 31, 1972, respondent Judge issued an order granting the said motion for execution. However, on September 4, 1972, the Sheriff’s Return of Service showed that the accused-respondent Teodoro de los Santos had no property registered in his name.

Upon discovery that accused-respondent is insolvent, petitioner filed on September 19, 1972, a "Motion for Execution on Subsidiary Liability of Employer Western Mindanao Lumber Company under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code." Petitioner contended therein that the subsidiary liability of the employer Western Mindanao Lumber Company in the event the accused is insolvent, is executory in nature and there is no need for a separate action or a further civil case to be filed in the enforcement of the division aforementioned. On October 11, 1972, petitioner filed a "Supplemental Motion for Execution for Subsidiary Liability of Employer under Art. 103 of the Penal Code." Petitioner, thru counsel, cited therein the case of Fernando v. Franco, 37 SCRA 311, where this Court held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It may be stated further that since it was not only in the latter part of October, 1962 that the decision against the driver attained finality and became executory, had plaintiffs relied on suing out a writ of execution against the employer, it could have had until October 1967 at the latest to take such step."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner concluded that the tenor of the aforesaid decision implies that the subsidiary liability of the employer may be enforced in the same proceeding.

On September 8, 1973, respondent Judge issued an order denying the motion for issuance of writ of execution against the employer of Teodoro de los Santos. He opined that the alleged employer not having been notified that its driver was facing a criminal charge, a separate civil action must be filed. Hence, this petition for mandamus.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

This case finds parallelism in a case involving the same respondent Judge, i.e. Lucia S. Pajarito v. Hon. Alberto V. Señeris, Et Al., 87 SCRA 275, where the only issue involved is whether or not the subsidiary liability established in Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced in the same criminal case where the award was made, or in a separate civil action.

As in the aforementioned case, the apparent drawback in the enforcement of the subsidiary liability in the same criminal proceeding is the lack of due process to the alleged employer. Not being a party to the case, he is not heard as to whether he is indeed the employer. Besides, even if the employer-employee relationship is not disputed, still, in order that an employer may be subsidiarily liable for the employee’s civil liability in the criminal action, it should be shown (1) that the employer, etc. is engaged in any kind of industry, (2) that the employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties, and (2) that he is insolvent. 2

Against the foregoing considerations, Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides, however, that "when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately." That means as if two actions are joined in one as twins, each one complete with the same completeness as any of the two normal persons composing the twins. It means that the civil action may be tried and prosecuted, with all the ancillary processes provided by law. 3 Said provision will be rendered meaningless if the subsidiary civil liability is not allowed to be enforced in the same proceeding.

To remedy the situation and thereby afford due process to the alleged employer, this Court directed the court a quo in Pajarito v. Señeris (supra) to hear and decide in the same proceeding the subsidiary liability of the alleged owner and operator of the passenger bus. It was explained therein that the proceeding for the enforcement of the subsidiary liability may be considered as part of the proceeding for the execution of the judgment. A case in which an execution has been issued is regarded as still pending so that all proceedings on the execution are proceedings in the suit. There is no question that the court which rendered the judgment has a general supervisory control over its process of execution, and this power carries with it the right to determine very question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Moreover, it has been invariably held that a judgment of conviction sentencing a defendant employer to pay an indemnity in the absence of any collusion between the defendant and the offended party, is conclusive upon the employer in an action for the enforcement of the latter’s subsidiary liability not only with regard to the civil liability, but also with regard to its amount. 4 This being the case, this Court stated in Rotea v. Halili, 109 Phil. 495 that the court has no other function than to render decision based upon the indemnity awarded in the criminal case and has no power to amend or modify it even if in its opinion an error has been committed in the decision. A separate and independent action is, therefore, unnecessary and would only unduly prolong the agony of the heirs of the victim.

WHEREFORE, the order dated September 8, 1973 of respondent Judge is hereby SET ASIDE. The Court a quo is hereby directed to conduct further proceedings in the same case on whether the requisite facts to impose subsidiary civil liability on the alleged employer of Teodoro de los Santos are present. Costs against private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., I concur. Even the information does not allege sufficient facts to make Western Mindanao Lumber Co. subsidiarily liable.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 22-23.

2. Joaquin v. Aniceto, L-18719, October 31, 1964.

3. Ramcar, Inc. v. De Leon, 78 Phil. 449.

4. Martinez v. Barredo, 81 Phil. 1; Miranda v. Malate Garage and Taxicab, Inc., 99 Phil. 670; Manalo and Salvador v. Robles Transportation Company, Inc., 99 Phil. 729.




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






July-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-45245 July 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO T. GABILAN

  • G.R. No. L-57573 July 5, 1982 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ERNESTO DATU

  • G.R. No. L-58268 July 5, 1982 - ENRIQUETA S. TY v. EUSTAQUIA ELALE

  • G.R. No. L-27546 July 16, 1982 - PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE v. ASSOC. OF SWEEPSTAKES STAFF PERSONNEL

  • G.R. No. L-30595 July 16, 1982 - MAGDALENA S. JOSON v. FORTUNATO CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. Nos. L-32694 & L-33119 July 16, 1982 - FIDEL SILVESTRE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-36094 July 16, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO DELASA

  • G.R. No. L-30269 July 19, 1982 - EPITACIO BUERANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-40432 July 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO FELIPE

  • G.R. No. L-41543 July 19, 1982 - LEANDRO SEDECO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-51458 July 19, 1982 - MANUEL YAP v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-52498 July 19, 1982 - JESUS B. PACQUING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. 1895-CFI July 20, 1982 - LAMBERTO MACIAS v. GIBSON ARAULA

  • A.C. No. 2160 July 20, 1982 - AVELINO FRAN v. JUANITO FUERTE

  • A.M. No. 2691-CFI July 20, 1982 - ARTEMIO T. VICTORIA v. SEGUNDO M. ZOSA

  • G.R. No. L-30201 July 20, 1982 - CARMEN P. URBANO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-31682 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO NACUSPAG

  • G.R. No. L-32661 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-34840 July 20, 1982 - MARIO RODIS MAGASPI v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

  • G.R. No. L-35333 July 20, 1982 - FELIX M. SULIT v. JOEL P. TIANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-37751 July 20, 1982 - MANUEL LAPINIG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-38140 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO LABINIA

  • G.R. No. L-38440 July 20, 1982 - DOMINGO V. FLORES, JR. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. No. L-41399 July 20, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES v. CESAR GUY

  • G.R. No. L-41958 July 20, 1982 - DONALD MEAD v. MANUEL A. ARGEL

  • G.R. No. L-42963 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REINO P. ROLL

  • G.R. No. L-46954 July 20, 1982 - ELPIDIO YABES, ET AL. v. NAPOLEON FLOJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47740 July 20, 1982 - LIM PIN v. CONCHITA LIAO TAN

  • G.R. No. L-47953 July 20, 1982 - LILIA B. GALCERAN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-50439 July 20, 1982 - ENRIQUE T. YUCHENGCO, INC. v. CONRADO M. VELAYO

  • G.R. No. L-52435 July 20, 1982 - ELIZABETH SINCLAIR v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-56554 July 20, 1982 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-56833 July 20, 1982 - RAMON V. MERANO v. EDUARDO C. TUTAAN

  • G.R. No. L-58011-12 July 20, 1982 - VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-58678 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO V. MENDOZA

  • G.R. Nos. L-58973-76 July 20, 1982 - INOCENTES AMORA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-59519 July 20, 1982 - ADELA FRANCISCO v. ALFREDO M. GORGONIO

  • G.R. No. L-35726 July 21, 1982 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. CITY OF BACOLOD, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-58289 July 24, 1982 - VALENTINO L. LEGASPI v. MINISTER OF FINANCE

    201 Phil. 8

  • A.C. No. 792 July 30, 1982 - NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. JESUS M. PONCE

    201 Phil. 37

  • A.C. No. 906 July 30, 1982 - TERESITA B. TABILIRAN v. JOSE C. TABILIRAN, JR.

    201 Phil. 40

  • A.C. No. 1182 July 30, 1982 - ISABELO C. ORIJUELA v. TEMISTOCLES A. ROSARIO

    201 Phil. 45

  • A.C. No. 2343 July 30, 1982 - FACUNDO LUBIANO v. JOEL G. GORDOLLA

    201 Phil. 47

  • A.M. No. 2397-MJ July 30, 1982 - ERNESTO D. BONILLA v. LEONARDO AFABLE

    201 Phil. 52

  • A.M. No. 2681-CFI July 30, 1982 - GEORGE O. JAVIER v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA

    201 Phil. 56

  • G.R. No. L-26676 July 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. NG SAM

    201 Phil. 61

  • G.R. No. L-28692 July 30, 1982 - CONRADA VDA. DE ABETO v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC.

    201 Phil. 82

  • G.R. No. L-29376 July 30, 1982 - MARIANO WONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    201 Phil. 69

  • G.R. No. L-30279 July 30, 1982 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEMA)

    201 Phil. 89

  • G.R. No. L-30456 July 30, 1982 - VIRGILIO S. VELAZCO CAVITE v. EMILIA S. BLAS

    201 Phil. 122

  • G.R. No. L-30738 July 30, 1982 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. JOSE ZULUETA

    201 Phil. 131

  • G.R. No. L-31818 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO GADIANO

    201 Phil. 143

  • G.R. Nos. L-32144-45 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAÑO L. MILFLORES

    201 Phil. 154

  • G.R. No. L-32463 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE L. BATOY

    201 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-32997 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO PEDROSO

    201 Phil. 184

  • G.R. No. L-33169 July 30, 1982 - GLICERIO JAVELLANA v. CESAR KINTANAR

  • G.R. No. L-33327 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO ALMENDRAS

    201 Phil. 211

  • G.R. Nos. L-34527-28 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAGBANUA

    201 Phil. 219

  • G.R. No. L-35745 July 30, 1982 - JULIANA VDA. DE LICARDO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    201 Phil. 247

  • G.R. No. L-35950 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD ZURBITO

    201 Phil. 256

  • G.R. Nos. L-36662-63 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO CAMANO

    201 Phil. 268

  • G.R. No. L-37270 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGNO B. PABLO

    201 Phil. 284

  • G.R. No. L-37632 July 30, 1982 - GREGORIA VDA. DE PAMAN v. ALBERTO V. SEÑERIS

    201 Phil. 290

  • G.R. No. L-38208 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENECITO VILLASON

    201 Phil. 298

  • G.R. No. L-38544 July 30, 1982 - LUZ E. BALITAAN v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS

  • G.R. No. L-38859 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO VIZCARRA

    201 Phil. 326

  • G.R. No. L-39966 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO TABADERO

    201 Phil. 340

  • G.R. No. L-40494 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BURGOS

    201 Phil. 353

  • G.R. No. L-49401 July 30, 1982 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. JOSE P. ARRO

    201 Phil. 362

  • G.R. No. L-55687 July 30, 1982 - JUASING HARDWARE v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA

    201 Phil. 369

  • G.R. Nos. L-57601-06 July 30, 1982 - LAZARO VENIEGAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    201 Phil. 376

  • G.R. No. L-57841 July 30, 1982 - BERNARDO GALLEGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-59283 July 30, 1982 - CRISANTO MOLINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    201 Phil. 385

  • G.R. No. L-60236 July 30, 1982 - DOMESTIC SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC., INC. v. MILAGROS VILLAFANIA-CAGUIOA

    201 Phil. 390