GR L 62955; (December, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-62955 December 22, 1987
VIRGILIO OZOA, petitioner, vs. CARIDAD VDA. DE MADULA, HON. CELSO LARGO, etc., and PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF BUKIDNON, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Virgilio Ozoa was the employer of Policarpio Balatayo, who was convicted of homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. The criminal information identified Balatayo as the driver of a truck owned by Ozoa. After Balatayo’s conviction and the finality of the judgment, a writ of execution was issued against him for civil indemnity but was returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. Private respondent Caridad Vda. de Madula, the victim’s widow, then moved for a writ of execution against Ozoa to enforce his subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court held a hearing where it established that Ozoa was indeed Balatayo’s employer and that Ozoa had induced the widow to sign an affidavit of desistance by an unfulfilled promise of payment. Consequently, the court granted execution against Ozoa.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Ozoa’s appeal from the order holding him subsidiarily liable and in issuing an alias writ of execution.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the procedural issue, the Court clarified that an order holding an employer subsidiarily liable is appealable. The trial court erred in denying Ozoa’s appeal for failure to submit a record on appeal and appeal bond, as appeals in criminal cases require only a notice of appeal. However, the Court deemed a remand unnecessary. On the substantive merits, the Court upheld Ozoa’s subsidiary liability. The requisites under Article 103 were satisfied: an employer-employee relationship was proven; the employee was convicted of a felony committed in the discharge of his duties; and the employee’s insolvency was established. The subsidiary liability is derivative and enforceable in the same criminal proceeding after a hearing where the employer is afforded due process, which Ozoa received. The trial court’s factual findings, including the vitiation of the affidavit of desistance due to non-payment, were conclusive. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the execution order.