Title
Copiaco vs. Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 46135
Decision Date
Sep 19, 1938
Heirs sued Luzon Brokerage Co. for indemnities after its employee caused a fatal accident; court ruled employer subsidiarily liable under Article 103, RPC.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 46135)

Background of the Case

Pedro Morales was charged with quadruple homicide through reckless imprudence for driving a truck recklessly, causing the deaths of four individuals on April 24, 1935, in Manila. The court found him guilty under Section 67(d) of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law (Act No. 3992), sentencing him to imprisonment from three to six years and requiring him to pay the families of the deceased indemnities of P500 each. After Morales's insolvency prevented the payment of these indemnities, the heirs initiated civil actions against Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc., as the employer of Morales.

Civil Actions Filed

The heirs of the deceased individuals filed separate civil suits against Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. in the municipal court of Manila, claiming indemnities based on the unresolved civil liability arising from the conviction of Morales. Each complaint sought to recover P500, the amount awarded in the criminal case, and additional damages in some cases due to the loss of their family members. The municipal courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to the appeal by Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc.

Joint Trial and Ruling

The civil actions were consolidated and jointly tried in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which found Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. subsidiarily liable for the indemnities originally imposed on Morales. The court affirmed the requirement that the corporation pay the families P500 each, plus legal interest and costs, referencing Articles 10 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code, which hold employers accountable for the actions of their employees conducted within their employment scope.

Challenges by the Defendant

In appealing the court's ruling, Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. raised multiple arguments. Firstly, it contested the applicability of Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code to the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, claiming that the law's penalties did not entail civil indemnity as an accessory penalty. However, case law affirmed that the Revised Motor Vehicle Law constitutes a special penal law, making the Revised Penal Code supplementary to it.

Clarification on Civil Liability

The court clarified that the applicability of Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code solidifies civil liability for an individual who is criminally liable. The refusal of the defendant's argument was based on the premise that the indemnity claims were valid under the Civil Code and Penal Code provisions, extending to the families of the deceased, thus substantiating the civil obligations arising from the crime committed by Morales. Even without the indemnities awarded in the criminal case being valid, the plaintiffs' claims could still prosper under Article 1092 of the Civil Code.

Indemnity Amounts

The judgment awarded defendants a total of P2,000 for the deaths of the four victims, based on the precedent that each family, especially those suffering dual losse

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.