G.R. No. L-8171; August 16, 1956
Emilio Manalo and Clara Salvador, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. Robles Transportation Company, Inc., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On August 9, 1947, a taxicab owned and operated by Robles Transportation Company, Inc. (the Company) and driven by its employee, Edgardo Hernandez, collided with a passenger truck in Parañaque, Rizal. The taxicab ran over and killed an eleven-year-old boy, Armando Manalo. Hernandez was prosecuted and convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence. The criminal court sentenced him to imprisonment and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased (plaintiffs Emilio Manalo and Clara Salvador, the victim’s parents) in the amount of P3,000. Hernandez served his sentence but failed to pay the indemnity. Two writs of execution against him were returned unsatisfied by the sheriff, who certified that no property, real or personal, could be found in Hernandez’s name. The plaintiffs then filed a civil action against the Company to enforce its subsidiary liability under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The Company moved to dismiss, contending that the driver Hernandez was an indispensable party defendant, but the trial court denied the motion, a ruling later upheld by the Court of Appeals. The trial court rendered judgment ordering the Company to pay plaintiffs P3,000 with interest, plus P600 for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the judgment of conviction in the criminal case and the sheriff’s returns are admissible as evidence against the subsidiarily liable employer; (2) whether Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability were repealed by the New Civil Code; and (3) whether the action to enforce subsidiary liability had prescribed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
1. The judgment of conviction in the criminal case, in the absence of collusion, is binding upon the party subsidiarily liable. The sheriff’s returns, being official statements made by a public officer in the performance of a duty, are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein (such as the insolvency of the convicted employee) and do not require the sheriff’s testimony in court.
2. Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code were not repealed by the New Civil Code. Article 2177 of the New Civil Code expressly recognizes civil liabilities arising from negligence under the Penal Code, merely prohibiting double recovery for the same act.
3. The action to enforce the subsidiary liability is based on a judgment (the decision in the criminal case) and, therefore, prescribes in ten years, not four years as for a quasi-delict. The action was filed within the prescriptive period.