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), driven by its motorman Sixto Eustaquio, collided with a truck belonging to the City of Manila, causing damage amounting to P1,788.27. Eustaquio was criminally prosecuted and convicted for damage to property and slight injuries through reckless imprudence. The final judgment sentenced him to pay a fine and to indemnify the City of Manila in the sum of P1,788.27. Unable to collect the indemnity from Eustaquio, the City of Manila filed a civil action against Meralco to enforce its 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 record in the criminal case against Eustaquio and rendered judgment in favor of the City of Manila. Meralco appealed.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the record of the criminal case against the motorman, Sixto Eustaquio.
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 quasi-delict and the defense of due diligence).

RULING

1. On the first issue: YES, the trial court committed a prejudicial error.
The Supreme Court ruled that as a general rule, the record of a criminal case cannot be admitted as evidence in a civil action, except to show a collateral fact. The parties and issues in the two actions are not identical. Admitting the criminal record violated Meralco’s right to due process, as it was not a party to the criminal case and there was no proof that it controlled the defense in that case. The case was ordered remanded for a new trial.

2. On the second issue: The subsidiary civil liability of the employer is governed by the Penal Code, not the Civil Code.
The Court held that when the act or omission causing damage constitutes a crime or misdemeanor (as in this case of reckless imprudence), the resulting civil liability is governed by the Penal Code. Article 20 of the Penal Code specifically imposes subsidiary liability on employers for felonies or misdemeanors committed by their employees in the discharge of their duties. This is distinct from the civil liability arising from a quasi-delict under Article 1903 of the Civil Code. In a subsidiary liability action under the Penal Code, the defense that the employer exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the employee is not available. That defense is only pertinent in a civil action for quasi-delict.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the trial court was set aside. The records were remanded to the lower court for a new trial consistent with the ruling that Meralco’s liability is subsidiary under the Penal Code and that the criminal record was improperly admitted. No costs were awarded in this instance.

SEPARATE OPINIONS:
* Justice Johnson concurred in part, suggesting that to avoid multiplicity of suits, all persons civilly and criminally liable should be made parties in the criminal case.
* Justice Johns concurred only on the first error regarding the admissibility of evidence.
* Justice Ostrand dissented.