G.R. No. L-18966 November 22, 1966
VICENTE BANTOTO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. SALVADOR BOBIS, ET AL., defendants. CRISPIN VALLEJO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Crispin Vallejo, the registered owner of a jeepney operated by his driver Salvador Bobis in Bacolod City, appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros. The jeepney, through Bobis’s negligence, struck and killed the three-year-old daughter of plaintiffs-appellees Vicente Bantoto and Florita Lanceta on October 24, 1948. Bobis pleaded guilty to homicide through reckless imprudence in a criminal case and was sentenced to imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs in the sum of P3,000.00. The appellees filed a civil action against Bobis and Vallejo, seeking to hold them solidarily liable for damages. Vallejo moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege the driver’s insolvency. The trial court overruled the motion, admitted evidence of the writ of execution and a sheriff’s return of nulla bona against Bobis from the criminal case, and rendered judgment against Vallejo for civil indemnity, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

The main issues were: (1) whether the complaint stated a cause of action against the employer Vallejo despite not alleging the driver’s insolvency; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting the writ of execution and sheriff’s return from the criminal case as evidence; and (3) whether the trial court erred in condemning Vallejo to pay indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision. It held: (1) The complaint stated a cause of action. The subsidiary civil liability of an employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code does not require the insolvency of the employee as a condition precedent for the rendition of judgment; it is only required for execution. The employer, being in a better position to know the employee’s solvency, cannot demand prior exhaustion of the employee’s assets unless he can point out available property sufficient to cover the debt. (2) Any error in admitting the writ of execution and sheriff’s return was non-prejudicial, as such evidence would be material for execution, and the criminal judgment is conclusive against the employer in the absence of collusion. (3) The award of exemplary damages was improper because the master, as a subsidiarily liable party, cannot incur greater civil liability than the convicted employee. However, the award of attorney’s fees was proper and was doubled to account for the appeal. The modified decision orders Vallejo to pay the P3,000.00 indemnity with interest, plus P1,000.00 attorney’s fees, eliminating the exemplary damages.