Buyayao v. Itogon Mining
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alejandro Bentres was convicted of homicide for the death of Dagtayan Dalasdas and was ordered to pay P4,000.00 as indemnity to the heirs of the deceased. The homicide occurred while Bentres, a policeman of Itogon Mining Company, Inc., was attempting to stop and arrest the deceased whom he caught stealing ores from the company's mine. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Bentres acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right. Procedural History: An execution for the P4,000.00 indemnity against Bentres yielded a sheriff's return stating that the accused had no property, real or personal, that could be levied upon. A notice of garnishment served upon Itogon Mining Company, Inc. regarding Bentres' salary remained unanswered. Consequently, the heirs of the deceased (plaintiffs-appellees) filed the present action against Itogon Mining Company, Inc. to enforce its subsidiary liability. The Appeal: Itogon Mining Company, Inc. (defendant-appellant) appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance, which held the company subsidiarily liable. The primary argument raised on appeal was that the parole granted to Alejandro Bentres, conditioned upon his payment of one-fifth of his monthly salary to the heirs, suspended or barred the heirs' right to enforce the subsidiary liability against the company, given Bentres' compliance with the parole condition.
Issue(s)
Whether the parole granted to Alejandro Bentres, conditioned on paying a portion of his salary to the heirs of the deceased, bars or suspends the heirs' right to enforce the subsidiary liability of his employer, Itogon Mining Company, Inc. Whether the sheriff's return of unsatisfied execution is conclusive evidence of the convict's insolvency. Whether payments made by the paroled convict, in compliance with the parole condition, affect the employer's subsidiary liability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding Itogon Mining Company, Inc. subsidiarily liable. The Court ruled that the parole granted to Alejandro Bentres did not bar or suspend the heirs' right to enforce the subsidiary liability of his employer. The sheriff's return was considered at least prima facie evidence of insolvency, and the payments made by Bentres could be deducted from the total indemnity but did not suspend or bar the action for enforcement.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of parole suspending subsidiary liability: The Court held that the parole granted to Alejandro Bentres did not suspend or bar the right of the heirs of the deceased to enforce the subsidiary liability of his employer, Itogon Mining Company, Inc. The Parole Act (Act No. 4103, as amended) contains no provision that modifies or suspends the liability of a subsidiarily liable party upon the grant of parole to the convict. The proceedings for parole are administrative and ex parte, involving only the State and the convict, and do not purport to affect the rights of the offended party. To hold otherwise would be a deprivation of property without due process of law, as the offended party was not heard in the parole proceedings. The condition imposed in the parole, requiring payment of a portion of the salary, was viewed as part of the convict's rehabilitation process and did not constitute a novation of the civil indemnity obligation without the creditor's consent. On the conclusiveness of the sheriff's return: The Court ruled that the sheriff's return stating that the accused has no property that could be levied upon is at least prima facie evidence of the convict's insolvency. If the convict had other properties that could be levied upon, this fact should have been alleged in the defense or included in the stipulation of facts, which was not done in this case. Therefore, the argument that the return was not conclusive was overruled. On the effect of payments made by the paroled convict: The Court clarified that any payments made by the paroled convict, Alejandro Bentres, in compliance with the parole condition, could be deducted from the total amount of the judgment on the subsidiary liability. However, these payments did not, in any manner, suspend or bar the action for the enforcement of said subsidiary liability. The employer's subsidiary liability remains enforceable until the entire indemnity is satisfied, and partial payments by the convict do not extinguish this obligation for the employer.
Main Doctrine
The subsidiary liability of an employer for the civil indemnity arising from a crime committed by its employee, particularly when the employee acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right, remains enforceable even if the employee has been granted parole. The conditions of parole, which are administrative in nature and primarily concern the convict's rehabilitation and sentence service, do not affect the civil rights of the offended party. The employer's liability is a separate legal consequence that can only be extinguished by actual payment or satisfaction of the judgment, not by the mere grant of parole to the convict.