G.R. No. 29356, December 29, 1928
THE CITY OF MANILA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

Ponente: MALCOLM, J.

FACTS

On June 8, 1925, a streetcar owned by the Manila Electric Company (Meralco), operated by its motorman Sixto Eustaquio, collided with a truck owned by the City of Manila, causing damage amounting to P1,788.27. Eustaquio was criminally prosecuted for damage to property and slight injuries through reckless imprudence. He was convicted by final judgment and sentenced to pay a fine and to indemnify the City of Manila in the said amount. The City, unable to collect the indemnity from Eustaquio, filed a civil action against Meralco to enforce its alleged subsidiary liability under Article 20 of the Penal Code. Meralco’s principal defense was that it had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. The trial court, over Meralco’s objection, took judicial notice of the entire record of the criminal case against Eustaquio (Exhibits A to F) instead of allowing the City to present its witnesses. The trial court ruled in favor of the City, holding Meralco subsidiarily liable.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the record of the criminal case (Exhibits A to F) against the motorman in this civil action against Meralco.
2. Whether the civil liability of Meralco arising from the criminal act of its employee is governed by the Penal Code (specifically its provisions on subsidiary liability) or by the Civil Code (specifically its provisions on vicarious liability and the defense of due diligence).

RULING

1. On the first issue: YES, the trial court committed a reversible error.
The Supreme Court held that as a general rule, the record of a criminal case cannot be admitted as evidence in a separate civil action, except to show a collateral fact. The parties and the issues in the two actions are not identical. Meralco was not a party to the criminal case, and there was no proof that it controlled the defense in that case. Admitting the criminal record violated Meralco’s right to due process, as it was condemned without being afforded its day in court on the issue of its own liability. The case was ordered remanded for a new trial to allow the City to present its evidence properly.

2. On the second issue: The action is governed by the Penal Code, not the Civil Code.
The Court, addressing the issue to guide the new trial, ruled that when the act causing damage constitutes a crime or misdemeanor (like reckless imprudence), the resulting civil liability is governed by the Penal Code. Article 20 of the Penal Code imposes subsidiary civil liability on employers for felonies committed by employees in the discharge of their duties. This is distinct from the civil liability for quasi-delict under Article 1903 of the Civil Code. In a subsidiary liability action under the Penal Code, the employer’s defense of having exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee (a valid defense under the Civil Code) is not applicable. The employer’s liability under the Penal Code is subsidiary and attaches by operation of law upon the employee’s criminal conviction and insolvency.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment appealed from is set aside. The record is remanded to the lower court for a new trial. No costs are awarded in this instance.

SEPARATE OPINIONS:
* Johnson, J., concurring in part: Suggested that to avoid multiplicity of suits, all persons civilly liable from a crime should be made parties in the criminal case.
* Johns, J., concurring: Concurred based on the first error and declined to express an opinion on the second.
* Ostrand, J., dissented.