Case Summary (G.R. No. 158995)
Procedural History
A criminal information (People v. Yeneza) was filed against the driver for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, but the accused committed suicide before trial and the MTCC dismissed the criminal case (order dated September 30, 1998). The Vallejeras filed a complaint for damages in the RTC (Civil Case No. 99‑10845) on June 23, 1999 against LG Foods and Gabor alleging negligence and failure to exercise due diligence in selection and supervision of their employee. The petitioners answered and sought dismissal, principally arguing that any employer civil liability is subsidiary under Article 103, Revised Penal Code, and therefore contingent upon a prior conviction of the employee. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss (order of September 4, 2001). The Court of Appeals affirmed (Decision dated April 25, 2003; Resolution July 10, 2003). The petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court was denied.
Core Legal Issue
Whether the civil action is predicated on subsidiary employer liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code (requiring a prior conviction of the employee and establishment of insolvency), or whether it is a quasi‑delict action under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code (which imposes direct employer liability without prerequisite criminal conviction).
Applicable Law and Governing Constitution
Applicable constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered after 1990).
Primary statutory provisions relied upon in the decision: Article 103, Revised Penal Code; Article 100, Revised Penal Code; Articles 2176, 2177 and 2180, Civil Code; Article 1161, Civil Code; Section 2, Rule 2, Rules of Civil Procedure (definition of cause of action); Section 3, Rule 6, 1997 Rules of Criminal Procedure (on reservation in criminal cases). Jurisprudential authorities cited in the decision include Maniago v. CA, Kapalaran Bus Lines v. Coronado, Joaquin v. Aniceto, and Cancio, Jr. v. Isip.
Facts Relevant to Liability and Pleadings
The complaint alleged that the Ford Fiera van owned by petitioners, driven by their employee, struck and killed the Vallejeras’ 7‑year‑old son due to the driver’s gross fault and negligence. It further alleged that the employer failed to exercise due diligence in selection and supervision of the employee, and that such failure, if exercised, would have prevented the accident. The complaint did not allege the elements required for subsidiary liability under Article 103 (e.g., prior conviction of the employee or insolvency).
Analysis of Parties’ Contentions
Petitioners urged dismissal on the ground that employer liability for tortious acts of employees is subsidiary under Article 103 RPC and therefore dependent upon a prior conviction of the employee; because the driver died before conviction, petitioners argued there was no cause of action. They also invoked the absence of a reservation to pursue a separate civil action during the pendency of the criminal case. The Vallejeras proceeded instead under a quasi‑delict theory (Articles 2176 and 2180 Civil Code), seeking direct civil recovery from the employer for failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family.
Court’s Reasoning
The courts below and the Supreme Court examined the complaint and concluded it invoked civil liability under quasi‑delict rather than subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 RPC. The complaint lacked allegations necessary to invoke Article 103 (no allegation of the employee’s conviction or insolvency). The Civil Code (Article 2180) imposes direct and immediate liability on employers for damages caused by employees acting within the scope of their duties, subject to the employer proving that he observed all the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent damage. Article 2177 clarifies that civil liability for fault or negligence under the Civil Code is distinct from civil liability arising under the Penal Code; the injured party therefore has a choice of remedies and may elect to sue under quasi‑delict. The Court emphasized that the choice of remedy rests with the plaintiff as expressed in the initiatory pleading; the defendant cannot compel dismissal by asserting that the plaintiff should instead have relied on Article 103. The criminal action’s dismissal due to the death of the accused rendered any supposed subsidiary remedy effectively unavailable, and the absence of a reservation to file a separate civil action was immaterial where the criminal case was dismissed without any pronouncement on civil liability.
Court’s Conclusion and Disposition
The Supreme Court denied the peti
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 158995)
Case Citation and Participating Judges
- Reported at 534 Phil. 268, Second Division, G.R. No. 158995, decided September 26, 2006.
- Decision penned by Associate Justice (now Chief Justice) Renato C. Corona as reported in the source judgment (García, J., authored the reported decision in the provided text).
- The Court’s disposition: petition denied; costs against the petitioners; concurrence by Puno (Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Azcuna, JJ.
- The Court of Appeals decision under review was penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes (now Presiding Justice) and Elvi John Asuncion concurring; its resolution of July 10, 2003 denying reconsideration is also part of the record.
Antecedent Facts
- On February 26, 1996, Charles Vallejera, a 7-year-old son of spouses Florentino and Theresa Vallejera, was struck by a Ford Fiera van owned by petitioners L.G. Foods Corporation and driven by their employee, Vincent Norman Yeneza y Ferrer.
- Charles died as a result of the accident.
- An Information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide was filed against the driver (People v. Vincent Norman Yeneza) in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bacolod City, Criminal Case No. 67787.
- Before conclusion of the criminal trial, the accused driver committed suicide; subsequently, the MTCC, by order dated September 30, 1998, dismissed the criminal case.
Civil Complaint and Claims (Civil Case No. 99-10845)
- On June 23, 1999, spouses Florentino and Theresa Vallejera filed a complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bacolod City, labeled Civil Case No. 99-10845, against L.G. Foods Corporation and Victorino Gabor as employer/manager.
- The complaint alleged:
- L.G. Foods Corporation is the registered owner of the Ford Fiera Van (Plate NMS 881) and employer, in February 1996, of Vincent Norman Yeneza y Ferrer, the driver/salesman.
- On February 26, 1996 at around 2:00 P.M. at Rosario St., Bacolod City, their minor son was hit by that vehicle driven by the employee.
- The mishap was due to gross fault and negligence of the driver who drove recklessly, negligently and at high speed, and due to the employer’s failure to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.
- As a result, the minor suffered multiple injuries resulting in death the same day.
- A criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide was filed against the driver but was dismissed because the accused committed suicide while litigation was pending.
- Petitioners were civilly liable for negligence/imprudence of the driver because they failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in selecting and supervising their employee, which diligence, if exercised, would have prevented the incident.
Petitioners’ Pleadings, Motions and Defenses
- In their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, petitioners denied liability and claimed they exercised required due diligence in selection and supervision; they prayed dismissal for lack of cause of action.
- During pre-trial, petitioners insisted their dismissal prayer be resolved; the trial court required a memorandum of authorities within ten days.
- Instead of the memorandum, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting:
- The complaint is essentially a claim for subsidiary liability against an employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Subsidiary liability under Article 103 requires, as a condition sine qua non, a prior judgment of conviction against the employee.
- Since the driver died (committed suicide) while the criminal action was pending and there was no conviction, the condition precedent for subsidiary liability is not met, hence there is lack of cause of action.
- Because plaintiffs did not make a reservation to institute a separate action for damages when the criminal case was filed, the damage suit is deemed instituted with the criminal action, which was dismissed.
Trial Court Rulings
- By Order dated September 4, 2001, the RTC, Branch 43, Bacolod City denied the petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of merit and set the case for pre-trial.
- The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the same court by Order dated September 26, 2001.
Court of Appeals Ruling (CA-G.R. SP No. 67600)
- The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated April 25, 2003, affirmed the RTC’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss and held:
- The complaint neither represents nor implies that the responsibility charged was the petitioners’ subsidiary liability under Article 103, Revised Penal Code.
- The complaint did not allege basic elements for Article 103 liability (e.g., conviction of the accused employee and his insolvency).
- A civil action to enforce subsidiary liability separate and distinct from the criminal action is unnecessary in the case at bar.
- Civil Case No. 99-10845 sought responsibility for fault or negligence under Article 2176, Civil Code, separate and distinct from civil liability under the Revised Penal Code.
- Liability under Article 2180, Civil Code, is direct and immediate and is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee or h