Case Summary (G.R. No. 147703)
Procedural History and Motions
After final judgment in July 1994, the accused jumped bail and remained at large. His counsel’s notice of appeal was denied and that denial was affirmed by the CA. Independently, petitioner filed its own notice of appeal, which the RTC gave due course to in April 1997. The CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal in March 2000 and denied its motion for reconsideration in March 2001.
Court of Appeals Ruling on Subsidiary Liability
The CA held that the civil liability established in the criminal case—both primary (employee) and subsidiary (employer)—is conclusive once the judgment is final and executory. Allowing petitioner to dispute its subsidiary liability independently via appeal would nullify a final judgment.
Central Issue on Employer’s Right to Appeal
Whether petitioner, having duly participated in the defense of its employee, may independently appeal the conviction and civil awards despite the accused’s abandonment of his own appeal.
Rights to Appeal in Criminal Cases
Under Rule 122 §1, both accused and prosecution may appeal a criminal judgment, except where double jeopardy would ensue. Offended parties may also appeal only the civil aspects of a judgment. An appeal by petitioner aiming to overturn the conviction implicates the accused’s right against double jeopardy under the 1987 Constitution.
Impact of Bail Jumping on Finality
Rule 124 §2 provides for dismissal of an appeal when the appellant absconds, since a fugitive is deemed to have waived judicial relief. By jumping bail, the accused forfeited his right to appeal and rendered the judgment final and executory under Rule 120 §7.
Civil Liability Deemed Instituted in Criminal Prosecution
Rule 111 §1 deems the civil action for damages arising from the crime instituted with the criminal action, unless waived or reserved. The employer’s subsidiary liability under Articles 102 and 103 is thus enforceable upon final conviction of the employee and proof of the latter’s insolvency, without need for a separate civil suit.
Subsidiary Liability of the Employer
Employer liability is contingent and secondary to the employee’s civil liability. Although petitioner furnished defense counsel, it was never a direct party to the criminal case. Its subsidiary liability arose ipso facto upon final conviction and insolvency of the employee, binding it to the same civil awards without independent appeal rights.
Due Process and Procedural Compliance
The
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 147703)
Procedural History
- This case is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing two Court of Appeals (CA) resolutions dated March 29, 2000 and March 27, 2001 in CA-GR CV No. 59390.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, La Union convicted Napoleon Roman y Macadangdang, petitioner’s employee, for reckless imprudence resulting in triple homicide, multiple physical injuries, and property damage, imposing both criminal and civil liabilities.
- Roman absconded after conviction; his bail was forfeited and his appeal was dismissed by the CA for jumping bail.
- Petitioner-employer filed its own notice of appeal from the RTC decision, which the RTC gave due course on April 29, 1997; the CA subsequently denied the appeal and petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Facts of the Case
- On July 27, 1994, driver-employee Napoleon Roman was found guilty of reckless imprudence for a 1990 bus-jeepney collision in San Juan, La Union.
- Criminal penalty: four years, nine months, eleven days to six years imprisonment.
- Primary civil indemnities awarded against Roman totaled several millions of pesos, covering:
- Death indemnities (P50,000 each for Torres, Velero, Ancheta), funeral and medical expenses, unearned income, moral damages up to P1,000,000, attorney’s fees, and property damage.
- Specific awards to accident victims Maureen Brennan (medical/hospital expenses, future correction indemnity, P1,000,000 moral damages) and others for actual and moral damages.
- P250,000 for the wrecked Toyota Hi-Ace Van; P22,698.38 for the damaged jeepney.
- The RTC held that, upon Roman’s insolvency, Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. would be subsidiarily liable for all civil liabilities.
- Roman jumped bail and remained at large; his counsel’s notice of appeal was denied; the CA dismissed his appeal per Rule 124, Section 8 of the Rules of Court.
- Petitioner’s separate appeal was similarly dismissed by the CA; it