FACTS
On July 23, 1987, Simplicio Pronebo was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with double homicide and double physical injuries. Pronebo was the driver of a dump truck owned and registered in the name of Luisito P. Basilio. While driving the truck in Marikina, Pronebo collided with several vehicles. The collision resulted in the death of Danilo Advincula and injuries to other persons, as well as damage to several vehicles.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Pronebo guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in the death of Danilo Advincula. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two years and four months, as minimum, to six years of prision correccional, as maximum, and was ordered to pay civil indemnity, actual and compensatory damages, damages for loss of earning capacity, moral damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Pronebo subsequently applied for probation, causing the judgment to become final and executory. The trial court also found that, at the time of the accident, Pronebo was employed as the driver of Basilio's dump truck.
Basilio later filed a Special Appearance and Motion for Reconsideration, asking the trial court to reconsider the judgment insofar as it subjected him to subsidiary civil liability for the civil aspect of Pronebo's criminal case. His motion was denied. The private respondent then sought execution of Basilio's subsidiary liability. The trial court issued an order directing the issuance of a writ of execution against Basilio. Basilio challenged the orders before the Court of Appeals, claiming, among others, that he had been denied due process because he was not given an opportunity to prove that no employer-employee relationship existed between him and Pronebo.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Basilio's petition. It sustained the trial court's ruling that the criminal judgment had become final and executory and that execution of the subsidiary civil liability could proceed. Basilio then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court. He argued that the trial court could not impose subsidiary liability upon him without first giving him an opportunity to be heard regarding his alleged employer-employee relationship with Pronebo.
ISSUE
The first issue was whether the judgment of February 4, 1991 had become final and executory when Pronebo applied for probation at the promulgation of the judgment. The Court also considered whether Basilio, who was not an accused or a party in the criminal case, could challenge the judgment insofar as it imposed subsidiary civil liability upon him.
The second issue was whether an employer may be held subsidiarily liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code without being afforded an opportunity to be heard. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether Basilio was denied due process when the trial court ordered execution of the subsidiary civil liability against him.
HELD
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for lack of merit and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 27, 1992. The Court held that the trial court did not deny Basilio due process when it ordered execution of his subsidiary civil liability.
The statutory basis for an employer's subsidiary civil liability is Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. It provides that the subsidiary liability established for other persons also applies to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. The Court stated that this liability may be enforced in the same criminal proceeding in which the civil award is made.
However, before execution against the employer may proceed, there must be a determination, in a hearing set for that purpose, of the following: (1) the existence of an employer-employee relationship; (2) that the employer is engaged in some kind of industry; (3) that the employee was adjudged guilty of the wrongful act and committed the offense in the discharge of his duties; and (4) that the employee is insolvent. The Court explained that the alleged employer must be given an opportunity to be heard because he is not a party to the criminal case.
The Court found, however, that Basilio was not deprived of due process. He knew about the criminal case because the truck involved in the accident was his. The insurance company that insured the truck even provided counsel for Pronebo pursuant to the insurance contract. Despite knowing that evidence concerning the employer-employee relationship was being presented, Basilio did not intervene in the criminal proceedings.
The Court further found that Basilio was given another opportunity to be heard during the proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment. He filed an opposition in which he specifically alleged that no employer-employee relationship existed between him and Pronebo and that Pronebo was not performing any function related to his employment when the accident occurred. Basilio's counsel, however, failed to appear at the hearing on the motion for execution, and his later counter-manifestation was filed only after the matter had already been submitted for resolution. The Court therefore concluded that Basilio had been afforded opportunities to present his defenses but failed to timely avail himself of them.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the subsidiary civil liability could be enforced against Basilio, and that the lower courts did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals' Decision was AFFIRMED, with costs against Basilio
No comments:
Post a Comment