GR L 26730; (April, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26730 April 27, 1972
ANITA JAMELO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FEDERICO SERFINO, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiff Anita Jamelo’s son, Artemio Jamelo, died due to a collision involving a truck driven by Antonio Regoles, an employee of defendant Federico Serfino. Jamelo filed a civil case solely against the driver, Regoles, and secured a judgment for damages. The judgment remained unsatisfied due to Regoles’s insolvency. Consequently, Jamelo filed the present action against Serfino, the truck owner and employer, seeking to enforce his alleged subsidiary liability under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code for the amount adjudged against the insolvent driver.
The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint stated no cause of action as there was no prior criminal conviction of the employee-driver, a prerequisite for such subsidiary liability. The lower court granted the motion, ruling that subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code presupposes a criminal action and a resulting judgment of conviction against the employee.
ISSUE
Is a prior criminal conviction of the employee-driver a condition precedent for an action to enforce the employer’s subsidiary liability under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The subsidiary civil liability of an employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code is not primary but is incidental to and dependent upon the criminal conviction of the employee. This liability arises only after a criminal case establishes the employee’s guilt and fixes the civil liability. Since no criminal case was filed against the driver, and consequently no criminal conviction was obtained, the condition sine qua non for Serfino’s subsidiary liability was absent. The civil judgment against Regoles alone is enforceable only against him.
The Court further noted that while a separate civil action for quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code could have been pursued directly against the employer, such an action was already barred by prescription. The accident occurred on February 1, 1961, and the complaint was filed only on March 10, 1966, exceeding the four-year prescriptive period for quasi-delicts. The order of dismissal was therefore correct.