GR L 22686; (January, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22686 January 30, 1968
BERNARDO JOCSON and MARIA D. JOCSON, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. REDENCION GLORIOSO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The parents of a three-year-old boy who died after being run over by a passenger jeepney filed two actions. First, a civil case for damages based on culpa aquiliana against the jeepney owner (Redencion Glorioso) and the driver, which was dismissed by the lower court. The appeal of this dismissal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for non-payment of docket fees. Second, a criminal case for homicide through reckless imprudence was filed against the driver alone. The driver was convicted and ordered to indemnify the heirs in the sum of P6,000.00. This conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. After the judgment became final, a writ of execution against the driver was returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. The parents then filed a new civil action against the jeepney owner, Redencion Glorioso, to enforce her subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The owner’s defense was that the action was barred by the prior dismissal of the culpa aquiliana case. The lower court rejected this defense and held the owner subsidiarily liable.
ISSUE
Whether the previous dismissal of a civil action for damages based on culpa aquiliana against the owner and driver bars a subsequent action to enforce the owner’s subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, arising from the driver’s criminal conviction.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding the owner subsidiarily liable. The Court ruled that an action to enforce subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code is a different remedy from an action for damages based on culpa aquiliana. The dismissal of the culpa aquiliana case does not preclude the enforcement of the subsidiary liability mandated by Article 103, which arises from a final conviction of the employee. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals, in affirming the driver’s criminal conviction, had already rejected the defense of bar by prior judgment (the dismissed civil case). A lower court cannot review or refuse to enforce a matter already decided by a superior court. Therefore, the owner’s subsidiary liability, being a consequence of the final criminal judgment, must be enforced.