G.R. No. L-30306 - Luciano vs. Provincial Governor of Rizal

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30306)

Relevant Dates

Incident date: February 9, 1976
Motion to recall writ and appeal order denial: May 12, 1982
Petition for certiorari and prohibition decision: December 22, 1987
Jurisdiction and legal analysis are governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Applicable Law and Facts

Article 103 and Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code provide for the employer’s subsidiary civil liability for damages caused by the felony of his employee, should the employee be insolvent. Policarpio Balatayo was convicted and sentenced for homicide with serious physical injuries resulting from reckless imprudence while driving a vehicle owned by Ozoa. The criminal judgment included an award of civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased and injured parties.

The writ of execution to enforce civil liabilities was initially directed against Balatayo but was returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. Subsequently, a writ of execution was sought against Ozoa as the employer, invoking the subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.

Trial Court Proceedings and Findings

The trial court, after hearing the parties and reviewing the evidence, found:

Ozoa was the employer of Balatayo, engaged in hauling business.
Ozoa had promised to pay P6,000 to the widow Madula in exchange for signing an affidavit of desistance, but only P1,500 was paid to defray burial expenses.

Based on these findings, the trial court issued an order directing execution against Ozoa. It held that the employer’s liability arises subsidiarily when the employee is insolvent and that the conviction of the employee conclusively establishes both the fact and amount of civil liability of the employer. This is consistent with jurisprudence cited from Miranda v. Malate Garage and Pajarito v. Seneris.

Appeal and Motion for Reconsideration

Ozoa filed a notice of appeal and a motion to recall the writ of execution. The trial court denied these motions, reasoning that the appeal was not perfected due to the failure to file an appeal bond and the record on appeal, and held that the proper remedy was a special civil action of certiorari, not appeal.

Issues Raised on Petition

Ozoa contended:

He has the right to appeal the order declaring his subsidiary civil liability in the same manner as appeals in criminal cases.
It was erroneous to require an appeal bond and record on appeal since only a notice of appeal is sufficient to perfect the appeal in criminal cases.
After the appeal was perfected, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue an alias writ of execution.

Legal Analysis on Employer’s Subsidiary Civil Liability

The Court reaffirmed that:

A criminal conviction imposes civil liability, which is enforceable in the same proceeding unless waived or litigated separately.
Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, an employer is subsidiarily liable if the employee is insolvent.
The employer’s liability is conclusive concerning the fact and amount of civil liability once the employee is convicted.

However, due process requires that before subsidiary liability is enforced, the following elements must be conclusively established:

The accused is indeed the employer of the convicted employee.
The employer is engaged in some kind of trade or industry.
The employee committed the crime in the course of his assigned duties.
Execution against the employee has been unsatisfied due to insolvency.

These issues must be determined at a hearing with full opportunity for evidence and defense to be presented. This may be done within the same criminal case as part of the execution proceedings.

Proper Mode and Time of Appeal

No explicit legislation governs the precise manner of appealing orders on employer’s subsidiary civil liability; judicial construction governs the process. Because this is a continuation of the criminal case rather than a civil action, the rules for appeals in criminal cases apply. Thus, a notice of appeal filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order imposing subsidiary liability is sufficient to perfect an appeal.

The fifteen-day period for appeal runs from the notice of the order directing enforcement against the employer, not from the employee’s conviction or sentence date, since the employer’s liability arises only upon the insolvency of the employee and consequent execution attempt.

Proper Remedy and Jurisdiction

The Court held the trial court erred in denying the appeal for lack of appeal bond and record on appeal and in declaring that the special civil action of certiorari was the only proper remedy. An appeal by writ of error or petition for review on certiorari is available depending on whether questions of fact or law are involved. Exceptionally, a special civil action of certiorari may be used if the order was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-30306)

Background and Nature of the Case

The case arose as a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioner Virgilio Ozoa challenging the Order of the respondent Judge, which denied his appeal and motion to recall a writ of execution.
The writ of execution enforced Ozoa's subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code arising from the criminal conviction of his employee, Policarpio Balatayo.
Policarpio Balatayo, employee and driver for Ozoa, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon for homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence.
The information alleged that Balatayo, while driving a truck owned by Ozoa, negligently ran over and caused the death of Arcadio Madula Lagas and serious injuries to Nenito Ayag y Regidor.
Balatayo pleaded guilty after initially pleading not guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay indemnities to the victims' heirs.
The conviction became final, but execution of the civil liability against Balatayo was returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency.
The widow of the deceased, Caridad Madula, then moved for execution against Ozoa as the employer, asserting his subsidiary civil liability.
Ozoa opposed the motion, claiming the existence of an "Affidavit of Desistance" acknowledging full satisfaction of the civil liability and that the employer-employee relationship should be litigated before the Court acquires jurisdiction over him.

Facts Established by the Court a quo

Both parties presented evidence during a hearing on the motion for execution.
The key undisputed facts were:
- Ozoa was the employer of Balatayo and was engaged in corn hauling, as admitted in his affidavit (Exhibit "F").
- Ozoa promised to pay the widow P6,000 and persuaded her to sign an affidavit of desistance (Exhibit 1), but only P1,500 was given, used for burial expenses.
- Execution against Balatayo was returned unsatisfied due to insolvency.
Based on these facts, the Court a quo ordered execution against Ozoa, applying Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code which make the employer subsidiarily liable for the employee’s civil liability when the latter is insolvent.

Legal Basis for Employer's Subsidiary Civil Liability

Article 103 and related provisions of the Revised Penal Code impose subsidiary civil liability on an employer for the civil liability adjudged against his employee arising from a felony committed during employment.
The employer's liability is inseparable from that of the employee, and the conviction of the employee is binding and conclusive on the employer both as to liability and amount.
Jurisprudence like Miranda v. Malate Garage and Pajarito v. Seneris support holding the employer responsible as a party to the criminal action where civil liability of the employee is adjudged.
Before enforcing the employer’s subsidiary liability, however, it is essential that:
1. The employer-employee relationship is adequately proven.
2. The employer is engaged in an industry.
3. The employee committed the crime while performing his duties.
4. Execution against the employee is unsatisfied.

Procedural History and Issues on Appeal

Ozoa filed a notice of appeal and a motion to recall the writ of execution after it was issued against him.
The Court a quo denied the appeal and motion to recall on the ground that Ozoa failed to perfect his appeal by filing an appeal bond and record on