GR L 75357; (November, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-75357 November 27, 1987
RUFO MAURICIO CONSTRUCTION and/or RUFO MAURICIO, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Illustre Cabiliza, a driver for Rufo Mauricio Construction, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of homicide and damage to property through reckless imprudence for a fatal vehicular accident that killed Judge Arsenio Solidum. The court sentenced Cabiliza to imprisonment and ordered him to pay substantial damages to the victim’s heirs. Cabiliza filed a notice of appeal but died during its pendency. The trial court, finding Cabiliza insolvent, granted the victim’s widow’s motion and issued a subsidiary writ of execution against his employer, petitioner Rufo Mauricio.
Petitioner Mauricio then pursued the appeal before the Intermediate Appellate Court, arguing the accused was not negligent and challenging the damages awarded. The appellate court modified the damages but affirmed the conviction. Petitioner subsequently filed this petition, contending that the accused’s death extinguished both criminal and civil liabilities, including any subsidiary liability of the employer.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the death of the accused employee during the pendency of his appeal extinguishes the employer’s subsidiary civil liability arising from the criminal conviction.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the employer’s liability is not extinguished. The death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability, including any obligation to serve imprisonment or pay fines. However, it does not automatically extinguish the civil liability arising from the quasi-delict. The Court clarified that the employer’s liability in such a case is not merely subsidiary under the Revised Penal Code but can be solidary under the Civil Code provisions on quasi-delict.
The Court emphasized that since the employer was not a party to the original criminal case, he must be afforded his day in court to contest the civil liability. This includes the right to cross-examine witnesses on the issues of the driver’s negligence and the computation of damages, and to present evidence in his defense. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the appellate decision and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing on petitioner’s motion to quash the subsidiary writ, ensuring due process.