Manalo v. Robles Transportation Company
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 9, 1947, a taxicab owned and operated by Robles Transportation Company, Inc. (Company), driven by Edgardo Hernandez, collided with a passenger truck. The taxicab then ran over Armando Manalo, an eleven-year-old boy, who sustained physical injuries resulting in his death several days later. Edgardo Hernandez was prosecuted for homicide through reckless imprudence, found guilty, and sentenced to one year of prision correccional, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P3,000, and to pay costs. Hernandez served his sentence but failed to pay the indemnity. Writs of execution against him were returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. Procedural History: On February 17, 1953, the parents of Armando Manalo filed a civil action against the Company to enforce its subsidiary liability under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The Company moved to dismiss, arguing that Hernandez was an indispensable party. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling in a certiorari proceeding. The trial court subsequently rendered judgment ordering the Company to pay P3,000 with interest, P600 for attorney's fees and expenses, and costs. The Petition: The Company appealed the decision, primarily contending that the evidence used to prove Hernandez's insolvency and the Company's subsidiary liability was inadmissible and that the applicable laws had been repealed.
Issue(s)
Whether the judgment of conviction in the criminal case, along with the sheriff's returns on the writs of execution, are admissible to prove the subsidiary liability of the employer. Whether the sheriff's return is sufficient proof of the employee's insolvency without requiring the sheriff to testify. Whether Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code were repealed by the New Civil Code. Whether the action against the Company had prescribed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, ordering Robles Transportation Company, Inc. to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P3,000 with interest, plus P600 for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, with costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the criminal conviction and sheriff's returns: The Court held that the judgment of conviction in the criminal case is binding upon the party subsidiarily liable, absent any collusion between the defendant and the offended party. The sheriff's returns on the writs of execution, showing that the indemnity could not be satisfied due to the employee's insolvency, were also admissible. These returns are official statements made by a public official in the performance of a duty enjoined by law and are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. On the sufficiency of the sheriff's return as proof of insolvency: The Court ruled that a sheriff's return is sufficient proof of insolvency. Citing Wigmore on Evidence and established jurisprudence, the Court explained that public documents executed by public officials in the performance of their duties are presumed to be accurate and faithful. Requiring the sheriff to testify would unduly burden public officials and disrupt the administration of government. Therefore, the sheriff's return, being an official record, is admissible and sufficient without the sheriff's personal testimony. On the repeal of Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court found the contention that Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code were repealed by the New Civil Code to be untenable. Article 2177 of the New Civil Code expressly recognizes civil liabilities arising from negligence under the Penal Code, clarifying that a plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission. This provision indicates that the civil liability under the Penal Code remains in force. On prescription: The Court agreed with the appellees that the action was not barred by prescription. It held that the present action was based upon a judgment (the criminal case conviction ordering indemnity), which can be instituted within ten years, not an action upon a quasi delict which prescribes in four years under Article 1146 of the New Civil Code. Therefore, the action was timely filed.
Main Doctrine
The subsidiary liability of an employer for the civil damages arising from the criminal offense of its employee, committed in the performance of duty, is enforceable even if the employee has already served his sentence, provided the indemnity remains unpaid and the employee is insolvent, and the employer cannot claim that the employee's insolvency must be proven through a separate civil action.