GR 113433; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113433; March 17, 2000
LUISITO P. BASILIO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JESUS G. BERSAMIRA, and FE ADVINCULA, respondents.
FACTS
Simplicio Pronebo, the driver of a dump truck owned by petitioner Luisito Basilio, was charged with Reckless Imprudence resulting in damage to property with double homicide and double physical injuries. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Pronebo and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of victim Danilo Advincula. Pronebo applied for probation, making the judgment final and executory. The trial court also noted Pronebo was Basilio’s employee at the time of the accident.
Subsequently, private respondent Fe Advincula moved for execution of the subsidiary civil liability against Basilio as employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Basilio filed a “Special Appearance and Motion for Reconsideration,” contesting the subsidiary liability, which the trial court denied. He then filed a notice of appeal, which was denied due course for being filed out of time. The trial court granted the motion for execution against Basilio. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders, prompting Basilio’s petition to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the execution of petitioner Basilio’s subsidiary civil liability for the civil indemnity arising from his employee’s criminal act.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The subsidiary civil liability of an employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code is enforceable in the same criminal case where the employee is convicted, provided the employer’s liability is established. This liability is not a new obligation but is derived from the employee’s civil liability adjudged in the criminal case. Since the civil action for recovery is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, the employer becomes subsidiarily liable once the employee’s primary civil liability is declared final.
The Court held that Basilio, as the employer, was not denied due process. He was not required to be impleaded as a party in the criminal case for his subsidiary liability to attach. He was given ample opportunity to contest the motion for execution, having filed an opposition and a counter-manifestation. The finality of the judgment against the employee Pronebo, due to his probation application, rendered the civil liability immediately executory, including the subsidiary liability of the employer. Basilio’s appeal was correctly dismissed for being filed beyond the reglementary period. Thus, the execution of his subsidiary liability was proper.