G.R. No. 33229 , October 23, 1930
BENITO ARAMBULO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On July 30, 1924, a streetcar operated by the Manila Electric Company (Meralco), driven by its motorman Simeon Marzo, struck and fatally injured Basilisa Pacheco, the aged mother of plaintiff Benito Arambulo. The accident occurred at the corner of Ylaya and Raxa Matanda Streets in Tondo, Manila. Evidence showed that the car was traveling at 3540 kilometers per hour, and despite seeing the victim crossing the street, the motorman failed to slow down in time to avoid the collision. The victim died eight days later from her injuries. In Criminal Case No. 28201, motorman Simeon Marzo was convicted of homicide through simple negligence and ordered to pay an indemnity of P1,000 to the victim’s heirs. When the indemnity could not be collected from Marzo, Arambulo filed a civil action against Meralco to enforce its subsidiary liability under the Penal Code.

ISSUE

1. Whether the judgment of conviction in the criminal case against the motorman (Exhibit B-1) is admissible in the civil action against Meralco.
2. Whether Meralco, as employer, may be held subsidiarily liable for the civil liability arising from its employee’s crime, despite exercising the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising the employee.
3. Whether the amount of Meralco’s subsidiary liability can exceed the principal civil liability imposed on the employee.

RULING

1. Yes, the judgment of conviction (Exhibit B-1) is admissible as evidence of a collateral fact. While it cannot be used to establish the commission of the offense in the civil case, it is admissible to prove the fact of the motorman’s conviction, which gives rise to civil liability under Articles 17 and 19 of the Penal Code, and consequently, to Meralco’s subsidiary liability under Article 20 of the Penal Code.
2. Yes, Meralco is subsidiarily liable under Article 20 of the Penal Code, and the defense of due diligence is not applicable. The case is governed by the Penal Code, not the Civil Code, as civil obligations arising from crimes are regulated by the Penal Code (Article 1092, Civil Code). Article 20 of the Penal Code imposes subsidiary liability on employers for felonies committed by employees in the discharge of their duties, without providing an exemption for employers who exercised due diligence. This differs from Article 1903 of the Civil Code, which applies to quasi-delicts and allows exemption upon proof of due diligence.
3. No, the subsidiary liability cannot exceed the principal civil liability. Since the motorman was sentenced to pay an indemnity of P1,000, Meralco’s subsidiary liability is limited to that amount. The trial court’s award of P1,300 (including P300 for hospital and funeral expenses) was modified accordingly.

DISPOSITIVE:
The appealed judgment is modified. Meralco is ordered to pay Benito Arambulo P1,000 as indemnity, with legal interest from the promulgation of the Supreme Court’s decision, and the costs of suit.