Title
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs. Eduardo Mangawang
Case
G.R. No. 160355
Decision Date
May 16, 2005
Bus driver convicted for fatal accident; employer’s appeal denied as judgment was final, upholding subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5485)

Applicable Law and Charges

On July 23, 1993, an Information was filed against Ancheta for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The charge arose from an incident that occurred on November 23, 1992, at Barangay Dolores, Capas, Tarlac, where Ancheta's bus collided with Mangawang's jeep, resulting in Mangawang's death. The legal basis for the accusations includes provisions related to reckless imprudence as outlined in the Revised Penal Code and traffic regulations.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Capas, Tarlac, Branch 66, found Ancheta guilty on November 12, 1999, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering him to pay damages amounting to P28,600.00 for actual damages, P1,436,466.30 for loss of earning capacity, and P100,000.00 in total for indemnification and moral damages to Mangawang's heirs.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Ancheta's appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed on November 10, 2000, due to his failure to file a brief. This dismissal rendered the RTC's decision final. Consequently, a warrant for Ancheta's arrest was issued on June 5, 2001. The Petitioner, PRBLI, filed its own Notice of Appeal, which was denied by the RTC on grounds of being untimely, as it was considered after the decision had become final.

Employer's Actions and Subsequent Motions

The Petitioner argued that it had not been notified of the RTC's decision or the subsequent orders, due partly to the negligence of the counsel it provided for Ancheta. An urgent motion for reconsideration but subsequent motions for clarification were also denied. Eventually, the RTC allowed the appeal to process on October 17, 2001, where PRBLI raised several assignments of error.

Decision of the Court of Appeals

On October 10, 2003, the CA affirmed the RTC decision but modified the damages awarded to only P5,000.00 for actual damages, explicitly ruling that the decision was binding due to the finality of Ancheta's conviction. Thus, PRBLI was bound by the civil liabilities adjudged against Ancheta.

Petition for Review

Subsequently, PRBLI filed a petition for review, challenging the CA's ruling on two primary grounds: the finality of Ancheta's conviction against it and its right to contest that conviction concerning its civil liabilities. It cited relevant jurisprudence asserting that since the Petitioner was an employer, it had vested interests in the case outcome and should have been given the opportunity to contest the civil judgment directly resulting from its employee's conviction.

Solicitor General's Position

The Office of the Solicitor General countered PRBLI's claims, asserting that PRBLI was not a direct party to the criminal case and hence not entitled to contest the RTC’s judgment, which was res judicata. It argued that any supposed procedural deficiency or negligence on PRBLI’s part was not sufficient grounds to undermine the finality of the conviction.

Supreme Court's Ruling

Th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.