Joaquin vs. Aniceto

An employer's subsidiary civil liability for a crime committed by an employee cannot be enforced in a separate civil action before the employee's final conviction; Article 33 of the New Civil Code permits a separate action against the employee on his primary civil liability, not against the employer on subsidiary liability.

Pilar Joaquin was the injured party in a criminal case against Felix Aniceto, the driver of a taxicab owned by Ruperto Rodelas. Rodelas stood as Aniceto's employer and owner of the vehicle. Under the Revised Penal Code, an employer may be subsidiarily liable for a felony committed by an employee in the discharge of his duties, while Article 33 of the New Civil Code allows a separate civil action for damages in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries. The New Civil Code also provides a quasi-delict route under Articles 2176 to 2194, where employer liability may be defended by proof of due diligence in selection and supervision.

On April 27, 1960, Pilar Joaquin was on the sidewalk of Aviles Street, Manila, when a taxicab driven by Felix Aniceto and owned by Ruperto Rodelas bumped her, causing her physical injuries. Aniceto was charged in the Municipal Court of Manila with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence.

Aniceto was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment. No ruling was made on his civil liability to Joaquin because she reserved the right to file a separate civil action for damages for the injuries she suffered.

Aniceto appealed the judgment of conviction to the CFI of Manila. While the criminal case was pending on appeal, Joaquin filed a civil action for damages in the CFI of Manila under her reservation, naming Aniceto and Rodelas, the driver and owner of the taxicab, as defendants.

• Nature of the Action: Petitioner argued that her action was one to enforce the civil liability arising from crimes, governed by Article 1161 of the New Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code.
• Due Diligence Defense: Petitioner maintained that Rodelas could not prove exercise of due diligence in the selection and supervision of Aniceto because such a defense is not available in a civil action brought under the Penal Code to recover the subsidiary civil liability arising from the crime.

• Separate Civil Action for Civil Liability: Whether an employee's primary civil liability for a crime and the employer's subsidiary liability therefor may be proved in a separate civil action while the criminal case against the employee is still pending.

• Separate Civil Action for Civil Liability: No. A separate civil action may be brought against the employee on his primary civil liability under Article 33 of the New Civil Code, but an action against the employer to enforce subsidiary civil liability is premature before final conviction of the employee, because such liability is governed by the Revised Penal Code and conviction is a condition sine qua non.

• Separate Civil Action for Civil Liability: The SC began from Article 1157 of the New Civil Code, which lists crime as a source of obligations, and Article 1161, which provides that civil obligations arising from criminal offenses are governed by the penal laws, subject to Article 2177 and the pertinent provisions on human relations and damages. Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable; under Article 103 in relation to Article 102, employers are civilly liable in default of the persons criminally liable for felonies committed by their servants or employees in the discharge of their duties. The SC relied on City of Manila vs. Manila Electric Co. for the rule that the Penal Code authorizes the determination of subsidiary liability while the New Civil Code negates its applicability to civil obligations arising from crimes. It then enumerated the requisites for an employer's subsidiary liability: (1) the employee committed a crime in the discharge of his duties; (2) the employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability; and (3) the employer is engaged in some kind of industry. Without the conviction of the employee, the employer cannot be subsidiarily liable. The SC held that Article 33 of the New Civil Code, which authorizes a civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, permits an action against the employee on his primary civil liability only. It cannot be used against the employer to enforce subsidiary civil liability because that liability arises only after conviction of the employee in the criminal case; any action against the employer before the employee's conviction is premature. The SC also explained that in cases of negligence, the injured party may choose between an action to enforce civil liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi-delict under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the New Civil Code. If the injured party chooses quasi-delict, the employer may be held liable for the employee's negligent act subject to the defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family under Article 2180. If the injured party chooses the crime-based action under Article 100, the employer can be held subsidiarily liable only upon prior conviction of the employee. A separate and independent civil action for damages may be brought against the employee under Article 33, but no such action may be filed against the employer on subsidiary civil liability because that liability is governed by the Penal Code, under which conviction of the employee is a condition sine qua non. The SC added that if the court trying the employee's liability adjudges the employee liable but the criminal court acquits the employee, the employee's subsequent insolvency cannot make the employer subsidiarily liable to the offended party or the latter's heirs.

• Employer's subsidiary civil liability for an employee's crime — The employer is subsidiarily liable for a felony committed by an employee in the discharge of his duties only if (1) the employee committed a crime in the discharge of his duties, (2) the employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability, and (3) the employer is engaged in some kind of industry. Conviction of the employee is a condition sine qua non; an action against the employer before final conviction is premature.
• Article 33 separate civil action — Article 33 of the New Civil Code authorizes a civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries. The SC held that this separate action lies against the employee on his primary civil liability only; it cannot be used to enforce the employer's subsidiary civil liability, which arises only after conviction of the employee.
• Election between crime-based civil liability and quasi-delict — In negligence cases, the injured party may choose between an action under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code to enforce civil liability arising from crime and an action for quasi-delict under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the New Civil Code. The quasi-delict route allows employer liability subject to the defense of due diligence in selection and supervision; the crime-based route requires prior conviction of the employee for subsidiary employer liability.
• Civil liability arising from crime — Under Article 1161 of the New Civil Code, civil obligations arising from criminal offenses are governed by the penal laws, subject to Article 2177 and pertinent provisions on human relations and damages. The SC applied this to hold that the employer's subsidiary liability is governed by the Revised Penal Code, not Article 33 of the New Civil Code.

• "Without the conviction of the employee, the employer cannot be subsidiarily liable." — The SC states the condition sine qua non for employer subsidiary liability and the reason the action against Rodelas was premature.
• "What this article 33 authorizes is an action against the employee on his primary civil liability. It cannot apply to an action against the employer to enforce his subsidiary civil liability as stated above, because such liability arises only after conviction of the employee in the criminal case. Any action brought against him before the conviction of his employee is premature." — The SC distinguishes the employee's primary liability under Article 33 from the employer's subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code.
• "If he chooses an action for quasi-delict, he may hold an employer liable for the negligent act of the employee subject, however, to the employer's defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family." — The SC explains the alternative quasi-delict route and the employer's due diligence defense.

• City of Manila vs. Manila Electric Co., 52 Phil. 586 — Relied on for the rule that the Penal Code authorizes the determination of subsidiary liability while the New Civil Code negates its applicability to civil obligations arising from crimes.
• Barredo vs. Garcia and Almario, 73 Phil. 607 — Cited for the rule that in negligence cases the injured party may choose between an action for civil liability arising from crime under the Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi-delict under the New Civil Code.
• Parker vs. Panlilio, et al., 91 Phil. 1 — Cited with Barredo vs. Garcia and Almario for the same choice between crime-based civil liability and quasi-delict.

• Article 1157, New Civil Code — Provides that obligations arise from law, contract, quasi-contract, crime, and quasi-delict. The SC used it to frame the civil liability arising from crime.
• Article 1161, New Civil Code — Provides that civil obligations arising from criminal offenses are governed by the penal laws, subject to Article 2177 and the pertinent provisions on human relations and damages. The SC applied it to hold that the employer's subsidiary liability is governed by the Revised Penal Code.
• Article 100, Revised Penal Code — Provides that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The SC used it as the basis for the civil liability arising from the crime.
• Article 103 in relation to Article 102, Revised Penal Code — Provides that employers are civilly liable in default of the persons criminally liable for felonies committed by their servants or employees in the discharge of their duties. The SC applied it to require prior conviction and insolvency before subsidiary liability attaches.
• Article 33, New Civil Code — Authorizes a civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries. The SC held it permits an action against the employee on primary civil liability only, not against the employer on subsidiary liability.
• Articles 2176 to 2194, New Civil Code — Govern quasi-delict. The SC noted that the injured party may choose an action for quasi-delict instead of an action for civil liability arising from crime.
• Article 2180, New Civil Code — Makes an employer liable for the negligent act of an employee subject to the defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family. The SC applied it in explaining the quasi-delict route.