ROLITO CALANG and PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC., v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,- G.R. No. 190696, August 3, 2010

Fact:
Calang, driver of Philtranco was involved in a vehicular accident instantly killer 3 people. A criminal case was filed against Calang and Philtranco. The RTC ruled finding Calang and Philtrnaco jointly and severally liable for the crime and ordered to pay indemnity to the victims. After it MR was denied, Philtranco appealed the CA with in turn affirms in toto the decision of the RTC. When the CA denied its MR, Philtranco went to the SC to raise the issue stated below.

Issue:
Whether the Liability of the Employer is jointly and severally liable in a civil liability arising from delict committed by its employee?

Held:
No. Since the cause of action against the employee was based on delict, both the RTC and the CA erred in holding the Employer jointly and severally liable with the employee, based on quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code pertain to the vicarious liability of an employer for quasi-delicts that an employee has committed. Such provision of law does not apply to civil liability arising from delict.

Employer’s liability may only be subsidiary. Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code states the subsidiary civil liabilities of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability – Articles 102 and 103 – are deemed written into the judgments in cases to which they are applicable. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer. Nonetheless, before the employers’ subsidiary liability is enforced, adequate evidence must exist establishing that (1) they are indeed the employers of the convicted employees; (2) they are engaged in some kind of industry; (3) the crime was committed by the employees in the discharge of their duties; and (4) the execution against the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency. The determination of these conditions may be done in the same criminal action in which the employee’s liability, criminal and civil, has been pronounced, in a hearing set for that precise purpose, with due notice to the employer, as part of the proceedings for the execution of the judgment.