Calang vs. People

An employer that is not a direct party to a criminal case for its employee’s delict cannot be held jointly and severally liable under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code; its liability, if any, is merely subsidiary under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code, subject to the conditions for enforcement.

Rolito Calang drove a bus owned by Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc.; Philtranco was not a direct party in the criminal case against him. The resolution turns on the distinction between civil liability arising from delict under the Revised Penal Code and vicarious liability for quasi-delict under the Civil Code.

At around 2:00 p.m. of April 22, 1989, Rolito Calang was driving Philtranco Bus No. 7001, owned by Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc., along Daang Maharlika Highway in Barangay Lambao, Sta. Margarita, Samar. The bus’s rear left side hit the front left portion of a Sarao jeep coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the collision, Cresencio Pinohermoso, the jeep’s driver, lost control of the vehicle and bumped and killed Jose Mabansag, a bystander who was standing along the highway’s shoulder. The jeep turned turtle three times before finally stopping at about 25 meters from the point of impact. Two of the jeep’s passengers, Armando Nablo and an unidentified woman, were instantly killed, while the other passengers sustained serious physical injuries.

The prosecution charged Calang with multiple homicide, multiple serious physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless imprudence before the RTC, Branch 31, Calbayog City. The CA found that Calang failed to exercise due care and precaution in driving the Philtranco bus. Various eyewitnesses testified that the bus was traveling fast and encroached into the opposite lane when it evaded a pushcart that was on the side of the road. Calang also failed to slacken his speed despite admitting that he had already seen the jeep coming from the opposite direction when it was still half a kilometer away. The CA further found that Calang demonstrated a reckless attitude when he drove the bus despite knowing that it was suffering from loose compression, hence not roadworthy. The CA also found that Philtranco did not prove that it had exercised the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the accident.

• Philtranco’s Liability: Petitioners claimed that there was no basis to hold Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang because Philtranco was not a party in the criminal case for multiple homicide with multiple serious physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless imprudence before the RTC.
• Calang’s Negligence: Petitioners maintained that the courts below overlooked several relevant facts, supported by documentary exhibits, which, if considered, would have shown that Calang was not negligent, such as the affidavit and testimony of witness Celestina Cabriga, the testimony of witness Rodrigo Bocaycay, the traffic accident sketch and report, and the jeepney’s registration receipt.
• Last Clear Chance: Petitioners insisted that the jeep’s driver had the last clear chance to avoid the collision.

• Calang’s Negligence: Whether the lower courts’ finding that Calang was negligent should be overturned in light of the evidence petitioners claim was overlooked and the jeep driver’s alleged last clear chance.
• Philtranco’s Liability: Whether Philtranco, which was not a party to the criminal case against Calang, may be held jointly and severally liable with Calang for civil liability arising from delict, or only subsidiarily liable under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Calang’s Negligence: No. The finding of negligence is a question of fact; in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the SC reviews only errors of law absent the recognized exceptions.
• Philtranco’s Liability: No. The RTC and CA erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code; because Calang’s liability arose from delict and Philtranco was not a direct party, Philtranco’s liability, if any, is only subsidiary under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Calang’s Negligence: The SC saw no reason to overturn the lower courts’ finding on Calang’s culpability. The finding of negligence by the trial court, affirmed by the CA, is a question of fact that the SC cannot pass upon without going into factual matters touching on the finding of negligence. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, the SC is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. The SC found no reason to depart from the lower courts’ factual finding.

• Philtranco’s Liability: The SC held that the RTC and the CA both erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang. Calang was charged criminally before the RTC, and Philtranco was undisputedly not a direct party in the case. Since the cause of action against Calang was based on delict, both the RTC and the CA erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang based on quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. Those provisions pertain to the vicarious liability of an employer for quasi-delicts that an employee has committed; such provision of law does not apply to civil liability arising from delict. If at all, Philtranco’s liability may only be subsidiary. Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code states the subsidiary civil liabilities of innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and proprietors of establishments. Article 103 extends the subsidiary liability established in Article 102 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 provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability — Articles 102 and 103 — are deemed written into the judgments in cases to which they are applicable; thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer. Nonetheless, before the employer’s subsidiary liability is enforced, adequate evidence must exist establishing that (1) they are indeed the employers of the convicted employees; (2) they are engaged in some kind of industry; (3) the crime was committed by the employees in the discharge of their duties; and (4) the execution against the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency. The determination of these conditions may be done in the same criminal action in which the employee’s liability, criminal and civil, has been pronounced, in a hearing set for that precise purpose, with due notice to the employer, as part of the proceedings for the execution of the judgment.

• Employer’s subsidiary liability for employee’s delict — Under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code, an employer engaged in industry is subsidiarily liable for felonies committed by its employees in the discharge of their duties. The SC applied this to Philtranco because Calang’s liability arose from delict and Philtranco was not a direct party. The conditions are:
  • The employer is indeed the employer of the convicted employee;
  • The employer is engaged in some kind of industry;
  • The crime was committed by the employee in the discharge of duties;
  • Execution against the employee has not been satisfied due to insolvency.
  • Civil liability from delict vs. quasi-delict — Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code govern quasi-delict and an employer’s vicarious liability for quasi-delicts; they do not apply to civil liability arising from delict. The SC held that the lower courts erred in using them to hold Philtranco jointly and severally liable.
  • Subsidiary liability deemed written into judgment — The Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary liability are deemed written into judgments in applicable cases; the trial court need not expressly pronounce the employer’s subsidiary liability in the dispositive portion. Enforcement requires a hearing with notice to the employer as part of execution proceedings.
  • Rule 45 limits review to questions of law — The SC will not review factual findings, including a finding of negligence, absent a showing that the findings are devoid of support or based on a misapprehension of facts. The SC applied this to decline reviewing Calang’s negligence.

• "We, however, hold that the RTC and the CA both erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang." — The SC announces the modification of Philtranco’s liability from joint and several to subsidiary.
• "Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code pertain to the vicarious liability of an employer for quasi-delicts that an employee has committed. Such provision of law does not apply to civil liability arising from delict." — The SC distinguishes quasi-delict from delict and rejects the Civil Code basis for Philtranco’s joint and several liability.
• "The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability – Articles 102 and 103 – are deemed written into the judgments in cases to which they are applicable. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer." — The SC explains that subsidiary liability need not be expressly stated in the judgment but is read into it.
• "Nonetheless, before the employers’ subsidiary liability is enforced, adequate evidence must exist establishing that (1) they are indeed the employers of the convicted employees; (2) they are engaged in some kind of industry; (3) the crime was committed by the employees in the discharge of their duties; and (4) the execution against the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency." — The SC lays down the conditions for enforcing an employer’s subsidiary liability.

• Pangonorom vs. People, 495 Phil. 195 (2005) — Cited for the rule that the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary liability are deemed written into judgments and the trial court need not expressly pronounce the employer’s subsidiary liability.
• Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People, G.R. No. 147703, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 456 — Cited for the conditions that must be established before an employer’s subsidiary liability may be enforced and for the hearing in the same criminal action with notice to the employer.

• Article 2176, Civil Code — Defines quasi-delict as fault or negligence causing damage absent a pre-existing contractual relation; the SC held it did not apply because Calang’s liability arose from delict.
• Article 2180, Civil Code — Makes the obligation under Article 2176 demandable for persons for whom one is responsible, including employers for employees acting within assigned tasks; the SC held it did not justify Philtranco’s joint and several liability in a delict case.
• Article 102, Revised Penal Code — States the subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and proprietors of establishments; the SC used it as part of the subsidiary liability framework for employers.
• Article 103, Revised Penal Code — Extends subsidiary liability to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in industry for felonies committed by servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties; the SC held Philtranco’s liability, if any, was subsidiary under this provision.
• Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court — Limits petitions for review on certiorari to errors of law; the SC applied it to decline reviewing the lower courts’ factual finding of Calang’s negligence.