G.R. No. L-62955 - Ozoa vs. Vda. de Madula

Petitioner Virgilio Ozoa was the employer of Policarpio Balatayo, who was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon for homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence.
Private respondent Caridad Vda. de Madula was the widow of the deceased victim, Arcadio Madula Lagas.

Balatayo, as driver of a weapons carrier truck owned by Ozoa, was accused of driving negligently and recklessly, resulting in the death of Arcadio Madula Lagas and serious injuries to Nenito Ayag y Regidor.
He initially pleaded not guilty but later withdrew and pled guilty, leading to his conviction and imprisonment from 6 months (arresto mayor) to 3 years, 6 months and 21 days (prision correccional).
Balatayo was ordered to indemnify P12,000 to the heirs of the deceased and P3,000 to Nenito Ayag without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The judgment became final and the widow secured a writ of execution enforcing Balatayo's civil liability, which was returned unsatisfied due to Balatayo’s insolvency.
Madula then moved for issuance of a writ of execution against Ozoa as employer, asserting subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ozoa opposed, citing an "Affidavit of Desistance" allegedly acknowledging full satisfaction of civil liability by Madula, and argued that a separate case was needed to establish employer-employee relationship and his defenses.

Ozoa was the employer of Balatayo engaged in hauling corn, admitted in his affidavit.
Ozoa promised to pay P6,000 to Madula as settlement but only paid P1,500 for burial expenses; the full amount was not paid.

The trial court relied on Article 103 and related jurisprudence (Miranda v. Malate Garage; Pajarito v. Seneris) holding employer subsidiarily liable if employee insolvent and upheld the execution against Ozoa.

Ozoa filed a notice of appeal and motion to recall writ of execution, which were denied by the trial court for failure to perfect the appeal by posting bond and submitting record on appeal; court ruled appeal improper remedy and recommended certiorari.
Ozoa’s motions for reconsideration and quashal were also denied.

He may appeal from the order declaring his subsidiary civil liability in the same manner as criminal appeals.
Filing only a notice of appeal should be sufficient to perfect the appeal.
The trial court lost jurisdiction upon filing of appeal and should not have issued alias writ of execution.

The Supreme Court reviewed the case, the trial court’s factual findings, and the legal principles invoked.

Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner Ozoa’s appeal and motion to recall the writ of execution on the ground of lack of appeal bond and record on appeal.

Whether the employer may appeal from an order finding subsidiary civil liability in the same manner as appeals in criminal cases.

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to issue an alias writ of execution after the notice of appeal was filed.

Whether the requirements under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code for imposing subsidiary civil liability on the employer were met.