G.R. No. 131280; October 18, 2000
Pepe Catacutan and Aureliana Catacutan, petitioners, vs. Heirs of Norman Kadusale, Heirs of Lito Amancio and Gil B. Izon, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aureliana Catacutan was the registered owner and operator of a passenger jeepney driven by Porferio Vendiola. On April 11, 1991, the jeepney collided with a tricycle in Negros Oriental, resulting in the deaths of tricycle driver Norman Kadusale and passenger Lito Amancio, and causing serious physical injuries to another passenger, respondent Gil B. Izon. A criminal case for Reckless Imprudence was filed solely against the driver, Vendiola. The Regional Trial Court convicted Vendiola and ordered him to pay indemnity and actual damages to the victims’ heirs and to Izon. Vendiola did not appeal and applied for probation. A writ of execution against him was returned unsatisfied, as he had no property to satisfy the judgment.
The respondents then filed a Motion for Subsidiary Writ of Execution against petitioner Aureliana Catacutan as the employer, pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court denied the motion, ruling it never acquired jurisdiction over Catacutan as she was not a party to the criminal case, and suggested a separate civil action was the proper remedy. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and directed the issuance of the subsidiary writ.

ISSUE

May a subsidiary writ of execution issue against an employer in a criminal case where the employee-driver was convicted, even though the employer was not formally impleaded as a party to the criminal proceedings?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The subsidiary liability of an employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code is civil in nature but is incidental to and dependent upon the criminal conviction of the employee. This liability attaches ipso facto by operation of law upon the employee’s conviction and a showing of the employee’s insolvency. It does not require the employer to be a formal party to the criminal case.
The petitioners’ claim of denial of due process is untenable. They were furnished a copy of the Motion for Subsidiary Writ of Execution and filed their Opposition, thus receiving ample opportunity to be heard. A separate civil action or hearing is unnecessary, as the requisites for subsidiary liability were already established: (1) an employer-employee relationship existed between Catacutan and Vendiola; (2) the employer was engaged in the land transportation industry; (3) the employee was adjudged guilty of the offense committed in the discharge of his duties; and (4) the employee was insolvent, as shown by the sheriff’s return of unsatisfied execution. To require a separate proceeding would be a waste of judicial time and resources.