Pajarito v. Señeris
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Joselito Aizon was charged with Double Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence for causing a passenger bus he was driving to turn turtle, resulting in the death of Myrna Pajarito de San Luis and Musa Baring. Joselito Aizon pleaded guilty and was convicted, ordered to indemnify the heirs of Myrna Pajarito de San Luis in the amount of P12,000.00. Procedural History: The writ of execution against Joselito Aizon for the indemnity was returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. Lucia S. Pajarito, mother of the deceased Myrna, filed a motion for a subsidiary writ of execution against Felipe Aizon, alleged employer of Joselito. Felipe Aizon opposed, claiming he was not the employer as the vehicle was sold to Isaac Aizon, father of Joselito, though the deed of transfer was not yet executed. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that a separate civil action must be filed against Felipe Aizon as he was not a party to the criminal case. The motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner Lucia S. Pajarito filed an original special civil action for certiorari, contending that the enforcement of subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code can be filed in the same criminal case, that Felipe Aizon was given his day in court by being furnished a copy of the motion and filing an opposition, and that Felipe Aizon should have actively participated in the defense of his employee.
Issue(s)
Whether the subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code can be enforced in the same criminal case or requires a separate civil action. Whether Felipe Aizon, as the alleged employer, was afforded his day in court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the respondent court and directed the court a quo to hear and decide in the same proceeding the subsidiary liability of the alleged owner and operator of the passenger bus. Costs were against the private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether subsidiary civil liability can be enforced in the same criminal case: The Court ruled that the subsidiary civil liability established in Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced in the same criminal case where the award was made, and a separate civil action is not necessary. The institution of a criminal action carries with it the institution of the civil action arising therefrom, unless a separate civil action is reserved. The employer's subsidiary liability arises after the conviction of the employee and upon proof of the latter's insolvency. The judgment of conviction against the employee is conclusive upon the employer regarding the civil liability and its amount, as the employer's liability follows that of the employee. To allow an employer to dispute the civil liability fixed in the criminal case would be to amend, nullify, or defeat a final judgment. The employer is in substance and effect a party to the criminal case due to the subsidiary liability imposed by law, and it is their concern to protect their interest by participating in the defense of their employee. Failure to do so means they cannot later complain of not being given their day in court when enforcement is sought. On the issue of whether Felipe Aizon was afforded his day in court: The Court held that Felipe Aizon was afforded his day in court. While strictly speaking, an employer is not a party to the criminal case, in substance and effect, he is due to the subsidiary liability. By being furnished a copy of the motion for subsidiary writ of execution and filing an opposition, he had the opportunity to present his defense and evidence. The claim that he sold the bus is a matter that could be litigated and resolved in the same criminal case. The proceeding for the enforcement of subsidiary civil liability is considered part of the execution of the judgment, and the court which rendered the judgment has supervisory control over its process of execution, including the determination of all questions of fact and law involved.
Main Doctrine
The subsidiary civil liability of an employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced in the same criminal case where the employee was convicted and the civil indemnity awarded, and a separate civil action is not necessary, as the employer is considered in substance and effect a party to the criminal case due to the subsidiary liability imposed by law.