G.R. No. 218516 - Davao ACF Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Ang

The case originates from the execution of a judgment rendered in the criminal case People of the Phils. vs. Rodolfo Borja Tanio filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 5, Davao City.
In that criminal case, accused Tanio, then employed as a bus driver by petitioner Davao ACF Bus Lines, Inc. (ACF), was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries after colliding with a Mitsubishi sedan.
The collision caused damage to the vehicle and serious physical injuries to its passenger, respondent Rogelio Bajao Ang (Ang).

The MTCC, in a Judgment dated December 27, 2005, convicted Tanio and awarded Ang damages comprising:

No appeal was filed against the judgment, rendering it final and executory.
Upon filing a Motion for Execution against Tanio—which was unsatisfied due to his apparent lack of attachable properties—the writ of execution was subsequently issued against ACF, his employer.

ACF filed a Motion to Recall and/or Quash the Writ of Execution, which the MTCC denied in its Order dated March 21, 2007.
The Order directed that the implementation of the writ be held in abeyance pending a hearing to determine the existence of the requisites for subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
The hearing was set to determine:

The existence of an employer-employee relationship;
Whether the employer is engaged in an industry;
Whether the employee committed the wrongful act in the discharge of his duties; and
The insolvency of the employee.

A subsequent motion for reconsideration by ACF was denied by the MTCC on May 18, 2007.

ACF filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. 31,984-07, seeking to nullify the MTCC’s orders.
The RTC denied the petition for certiorari and ordered that the MTCC conduct the hearing to determine subsidiary liability.
ACF’s motion for reconsideration before the RTC was likewise denied on April 4, 2011, and it subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal on May 27, 2011.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision in its assailed Decision dated June 27, 2014, denying ACF’s appeal.
The CA held that the MTCC neither committed grave abuse of discretion nor acted beyond its jurisdiction.
ACF filed a Motion for Reconsideration in CA, which was denied in Resolution dated May 5, 2015, prompting the present Petition under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s finding that the MTCC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in:

Denying ACF’s Motion to Recall and/or Quash the Writ of Execution; and
Ordering the conduct of a hearing to determine the existence of the requisites for subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code against ACF.

Whether the alleged errors by the MTCC—specifically, the issuance of an order holding the execution in abeyance pending the determination on subsidiary liability—amount to a lack or excess of jurisdiction justifying a remedy via certiorari.