G.R. No. L-8326 October 24, 1955
HILARIO S. NAGRAMPA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MULVANEY MACMILLAN & CO., INC., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff Hilario S. Nagrampa filed a complaint against defendant Mulvaney, McMillan & Co., Inc., alleging that on January 26, 1950, a truck owned by the defendant and driven by its employee, Florentino Blarama, which was without brakes, had a defective machine, and was driven on the wrong lane, bumped plaintiff’s truck in Makati, Rizal, causing damages of P1,037.30. Blarama was charged with damage to property through reckless imprudence in Criminal Case No. 2462, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to pay a fine and indemnity of P1,037.30, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Blarama was insolvent and serving the subsidiary imprisonment. Plaintiff sought to hold defendant subsidiarily liable under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code, citing Martinez vs. Barredo. Defendant, in its answer, admitted the parties’ capacity and Blarama’s conviction but denied the amount of damages, claiming it was only about P300, and denied the applicability of Martinez vs. Barredo. Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, attaching exhibits including the criminal information, decision, and sheriff’s return on Blarama’s insolvency. Defendant expressed conformity to the motion for judgment on the pleadings but objected to the exhibits and maintained its denial of the damages amount. The lower court rendered judgment for plaintiff in the amount of P1,037.30. Defendant appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in basing its judgment not solely on the pleadings but also on evidence presented by plaintiff.
2. Whether the lower court erred in finding defendant liable for P1,037.30.
3. Whether the lower court erred in not finding the damage was only P300.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
1. The lower court did not err in considering the exhibits. The decision against Blarama was attached to the complaint and its material allegations were admitted by defendant. The information’s allegations were deemed admitted as defendant did not specifically deny them except as to the damages amount. Defendant’s conformity to the motion for judgment on the pleadings and its prayer for judgment ordering payment of P300 implied an acknowledgment of its subsidiary liability, which connotes an admission of Blarama’s insolvency.
2. & 3. The lower court correctly held defendant subsidiarily liable for P1,037.30. Following Martinez vs. Barredo, the judgment of conviction against the employee, in the absence of fraud, collusion, or clear mistake, is conclusive upon the employer in an action to enforce subsidiary liability under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The employer becomes ipso facto subsidiarily liable upon the employee’s conviction and proof of insolvency. Here, Blarama’s insolvency was proven by the sheriff’s return and impliedly admitted by defendant. The criminal court’s determination of the damages as P1,037.30 is binding; defendant’s claim that damages were only P300 is untenable.