GR L 47655; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47655; April 28, 1941
H.H. STEINMETZ, plaintiff and appellant, vs. JOSE VALDEZ, defendant and appellee.
FACTS
On April 27, 1938, at the intersection of Azcarraga and Lepanto streets in Manila, the plaintiff-appellant H.H. Steinmetz, while driving his automobile along Azcarraga Street, collided with the vehicle of the defendant-appellee Jose Valdez, which was then crossing the intersection. At the time of the collision, Valdez’s automobile was being driven by his chauffeur, Basilio Bayukan. As a result of this collision, the chauffeur Bayukan was prosecuted and convicted for the crime of damage to property. Since the said chauffeur could not satisfy the indemnity he was sentenced to pay, the plaintiff filed the present action, which is the subject of this appeal, to try to collect said indemnity from the defendant-appellee Valdez.
ISSUE
Whether the defendant-appellee Jose Valdez, a private individual who uses his automobile for private purposes and was not in the vehicle at the time of the accident, can be held subsidiarily civilly liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code for the indemnity arising from the crime (damage to property) committed by his chauffeur.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment, holding that the defendant-appellee is not subsidiarily liable. The plaintiff-appellant invoked Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, which establishes the subsidiary civil liability of masters, employers, persons, and companies engaged in any kind of industry for crimes committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. The Court ruled that the provisions of this same article are negative of the appellant’s claim. It was admitted that the defendant-appellee is a private person, who has no business or industry, and uses his automobile for private ends. It is evident, therefore, that he does not fall within the classification made by the cited Article 103. It was proven that at the time of the accident, the appellee was not in his automobile, and moreover, he exercised due diligence in the selection of his chauffeur. The Court found the present case identical to the precedent set in Rosalio Marquez, etc. vs. Bernardo Castillo ( G.R. No. 46237 , promulgated September 27, 1939) and applied the doctrine established therein. The appealed judgment was confirmed in all its parts, with costs in both instances charged to the appellant.