G.R. No. 190696; August 3, 2010
ROLITO CALANG and PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On April 22, 1989, petitioner Rolito Calang, driving a Philtranco bus along Daang Maharlika Highway in Samar, hit a Sarao jeepney coming from the opposite direction. The collision caused the jeepney to turn turtle, resulting in the deaths of bystander Jose Mabansag, passenger Armando Nablo, and an unidentified woman, with other passengers sustaining serious injuries. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Calang of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, physical injuries, and damage to property. The RTC also held petitioner Philtranco, Calang’s employer, jointly and severally liable with Calang for civil indemnities. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in full.
The petitioners filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, which was initially denied. They subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the lower courts overlooked evidence exculpating Calang of negligence and that Philtranco should not have been held jointly and severally liable as it was not a party to the criminal case.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the factual findings on Calang’s criminal negligence should be reversed; and (2) whether the imposition of joint and several liability upon Philtranco was correct.

RULING

The Supreme Court partly granted the motion. On the first issue, the Court upheld Calang’s criminal liability. It ruled that the petition, being one for review on certiorari under Rule 45, is limited to questions of law. The unanimous factual findings of the RTC and the CA—that Calang was driving fast, encroached into the opposite lane, failed to slow down despite seeing the oncoming jeepney from a distance, and operated a bus with known mechanical defects—are binding and conclusive absent any showing that such findings were unsupported by evidence or based on a misapprehension of facts. These findings sufficiently established reckless imprudence beyond reasonable doubt.
On the second issue, the Court modified the civil liability of Philtranco. It held that the RTC and CA erred in imposing joint and several liability based on Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code governing quasi-delict. Since Calang was prosecuted criminally for a delict, the employer’s civil liability, if any, must be based on the Revised Penal Code. Applying Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code, an employer’s liability for an employee’s criminal act is merely subsidiary, not joint and several. Subsidiary liability attaches only after execution against the convicted employee is returned unsatisfied due to insolvency and upon proof that the employer is engaged in industry, the employee committed the crime in the discharge of duties, and the employer-employee relationship exists. Thus, Philtranco’s liability was reduced from joint and several to subsidiary. The conviction of Calang was affirmed.