Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22686)
Facts:
In Bernardo Jocson and Maria D. Jocson v. Redencion Glorioso, G.R. No. L-22686, January 30, 1968, the Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court.A three-year-old boy was run over by a passenger jeepney. The parents, Bernardo Jocson and Maria D. Jocson (plaintiffs-appellees), filed two separate actions: a civil action against the jeepney owner and the driver for damages based on culpa aquiliana, and a criminal complaint against the driver for homicide through reckless imprudence. The trial court dismissed the civil action for culpa aquiliana on the ground that it "in conscience could not" hold the driver guilty of negligence contributing to the accident; the subsequent appeal of that dismissal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for failure to pay docketing fees.
The criminal case produced a conviction: the trial court found the driver guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence and ordered him, besides the prison sentence, to indemnify the heirs P6,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. On appeal the Court of Appeals modified the prison term but affirmed the civil indemnity. After the criminal judgment became final, a writ of execution on the civil indemnity returned unsatisfied because the convicted driver had no visible assets.
Because of the insolvency of the driver, the parents instituted a new civil action in the Court of First Instance (Manila) against Redencion Glorioso (defendant-appellant), the jeepney owner, seeking enforcement of the subsidiary liability imposed by Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. At trial, Glorioso's principal defense was that the prior dismissal of the culpa aquiliana civil action operated as a bar. Judge Carmelino Alvendia rejected that defense and rendered judgment holding Glorioso subsidia...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the prior dismissal of a civil action for damages based on culpa aquiliana bar enforcement against the employer/owner of a subsidiary civil liability arising from a final criminal conviction of the employee under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code?
- Was the trial court correct in enforcing the subsidiary liability when the Court of Appeals had earlier affirmed the driver's conviction and indemnity, such that the lower court would be required ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)