Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Heirs of Eduardo Mangawang and People of the Philippines

An employer subsidiarily liable under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code for the civil liability of a convicted employee is not a party to the criminal case and has no right to appeal the employee's conviction or to be furnished copies of the decision; the judgment of conviction is conclusive on the employer as to the existence and amount of the civil liability, and the employer's due process is available at the execution stage.

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (PRBLI) employed Ernesto Ancheta as a driver of one of its passenger buses. Under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code, an employer is subsidiarily liable for the civil liability adjudged against an employee convicted of a crime committed in the discharge of his duties, in the event of the employee's insolvency. The case concerns the procedural position of such an employer when the employee's conviction has become final.

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (PRBLI) employed Ernesto Ancheta as the driver of one of its passenger buses. On November 23, 1992, at around 11:50 a.m., Ancheta was driving a PRBLI bus bearing Plate No. CVE-707 with MVRR No. 63044987, registered in PRBLI's name, southbound along the MacArthur Highway at Barangay Dolores, Capas, Tarlac. The bus bumped the left rear side of a Toyota jeep bearing Plate No. TAB 929 with MVRR No. 64284647, owned by Zenaida B. Dizon and driven by Eduardo Mangawang, which was traveling northbound. Mangawang ultimately died, and the jeep sustained damages.

On July 23, 1993, an Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Capas, Tarlac, Branch 66, charging Ancheta with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. PRBLI assigned Atty. Crispiniano Lamorena, Jr. as counsel de parte for Ancheta, while Atty. Andres Pangilinan entered his appearance as private prosecutor.

After trial, the RTC rendered judgment on November 12, 1999, finding Ancheta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The RTC sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of two years and four months of prision correccional in its minimum period as minimum to six years of prision correccional in its maximum period as maximum. It also ordered Ancheta to indemnify the heirs of Eduardo Mangawang P28,600.00 as actual or compensatory damages and P1,436,466.30 representing loss of earning capacity, and to pay P50,000.00 as indemnification for Mangawang's death and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.

Ancheta appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. On November 10, 2000, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal because Ancheta failed to file his brief as accused-appellant. The resolution became final and executory, and entry of judgment was made of record on December 7, 2000. After the records were transmitted to the RTC, the RTC issued an Order on June 5, 2001 for Ancheta's arrest.

On June 29, 2001, PRBLI, as Ancheta's employer, filed a Notice of Appeal of the RTC decision. The RTC initially denied due course to the notice on July 18, 2001, finding that it was filed long after the judgment had become final and executory; it denied PRBLI's motion for reconsideration on August 1, 2001 and its urgent motion for clarification on August 31, 2001. PRBLI then filed a manifestation with motion citing Ozoa vs. Vda. de Madula. On October 17, 2001, the RTC granted the motion and gave due course to PRBLI's appeal, ordering the records transmitted to the CA.

The CA rendered judgment on October 10, 2003, affirming with modification the RTC decision, correcting the actual damages to P5,000.00. The CA dismissed PRBLI's appeal on the ground that the RTC decision had long become final and executory when PRBLI appealed, and that PRBLI was bound by the decision against the accused, but it nevertheless resolved the appeal on its merits. PRBLI then filed the present petition for review on certiorari.

• Finality and Standing: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in holding that the conviction of the accused had attained finality as against it, and that it must be afforded standing and the opportunity to question the accused's conviction.
• Inapplicability of Pajarito and Miranda: Petitioner maintained that the rulings in Pajarito vs. Seneris and Miranda vs. Malate Garage & Taxicab, Inc. — that the trial court's decision convicting the employee is binding and conclusive on the employer as to the civil liability and its amount — should not apply because in those cases the accused's counsel had ample opportunity to defend the accused during trial and on appeal.
• Gross Negligence of Counsel and Due Process: Petitioner averred that the counsel it provided to Ancheta was remiss in his duties and failed to notify it of the RTC decision, the CA Resolution dated November 10, 2000, and the RTC Order dated June 5, 2001, thereby depriving it of its right to due process and of notice of its civil liability.
• Notice and Accrual of Period: Petitioner posited that it was not furnished copies of the CA Resolution and the RTC Arrest Order, and that until it was furnished such copies, the period within which to assail the RTC decision on its civil liability had not commenced to run.
• Unjust Deprivation: Petitioner submitted that it was unjust and unreasonable for the CA to deprive it of the right to question its civil liability to the heirs of the deceased considering the gross negligence of the counsel it had provided to the accused.

• Finality and Conclusiveness: Respondent People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, contended that the RTC decision convicting Ancheta had become final and executory following the dismissal of his appeal before the CA, and that the decision was conclusive on PRBLI as to its civil liability and the amount thereof, absent any collusion between the accused-employee and the private complainant.
• No Party Status; No Right to Notice or Appeal: The OSG argued that PRBLI was not a direct party in the criminal case, was not entitled to a copy of the RTC decision or to appeal therefrom, and was likewise not entitled to be furnished a copy of the CA Resolution dated November 10, 2000 and the RTC Order dated June 5, 2001; hence, it could not complain of denial of its right to due process.
• Prematurity: The OSG asserted that the petition was premature because no writ of execution had yet been issued by the RTC, citing Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People.

• Finality of Conviction Against Employer: Whether the conviction of Ernesto Ancheta became final and executory as against petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., his employer.
• Employer's Right to Appeal and Receive Copies: Whether PRBLI, as the employer subsidiarily liable for the civil liability of its convicted employee, had the right to appeal the RTC decision convicting Ancheta and to be furnished copies of the RTC decision, the CA Resolution, and the RTC Order.
• Due Process and Counsel's Negligence: Whether PRBLI was deprived of its right to due process by the failure of the counsel it provided to Ancheta to notify it of the RTC decision, the CA Resolution, and the RTC Order.
• Modification of Final Judgment: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the RTC decision after it had become final and executory.
• Subsidiary Liability and Execution Stage: Whether PRBLI may contest its subsidiary liability and the amount thereof, and at what stage its right to due process is available.

• Finality of Conviction Against Employer: Yes. The RTC decision convicting Ancheta became final and executory after the CA dismissed his appeal, and it is conclusive on PRBLI as employer as to the civil liability and its amount.
• Employer's Right to Appeal and Receive Copies: No. PRBLI was not a party to the criminal case; although subsidiary liability may render it a party in substance and effect, it had no right to appeal the RTC decision or to be furnished copies of the RTC decision, CA resolution, and RTC order.
• Due Process and Counsel's Negligence: No. The failure of the counsel PRBLI provided to notify it of the proceedings did not amount to denial of due process; the employer must take actual participation in the defense of its employee.
• Modification of Final Judgment: Yes, the CA erred. A final and executory decision, even if erroneous, can no longer be modified.
• Subsidiary Liability and Execution Stage: The employer's due process is afforded at the hearing of the motion for issuance of an alias writ of execution, where the prosecution must prove employment, industry, commission of the crime in the discharge of duties, and unsatisfied execution; the sheriff's return is prima facie evidence of insolvency.

• Finality of Conviction Against Employer: The CA dismissed Ancheta's appeal for failure to file his brief, and that dismissal became final and executory, with entry of judgment made on December 7, 2000. Under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code, an employer is subsidiarily answerable for the adjudicated civil liability ex delicto of his employee in the event of the latter's insolvency. As explained in Ozoa vs. Vda. de Madula, the judgment in the criminal action pronouncing the employee civilly liable is conclusive on the employer not only as to the actuality of that liability but also as to its amount. Martinez vs. Barredo further explained that the employer is not deprived of its day in court because the situation is not one of primary liability under Article 1903 of the Civil Code, but of subsidiary civil liability incident to and dependent upon the driver's criminal negligence, which is properly tried and decided in the criminal action. The employer becomes ipso facto subsidiarily liable upon the driver's conviction and proof of insolvency. Thus, the final conviction of Ancheta bound PRBLI as to the civil liability and its amount.
• Employer's Right to Appeal and Receive Copies: PRBLI had no right to appeal the RTC decision because it was not a party in the criminal case. While subsidiary liability may render it a party in substance and in effect, it is not for that reason entitled to be furnished a copy of the RTC decision, the CA resolution, or the CA decision. The employer is entitled to protect its interest by taking actual participation in the defense of its employee, such as by providing counsel; it cannot leave its employee to his own fate because his failure is its failure. Through that counsel, the employer would be apprised of the progress and outcome of the case. The failure of such counsel to apprise the employer is not equivalent to lack of due process. Moreover, PRBLI's appeal sought the reversal of the RTC decision and the acquittal of its employee. Under Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People, an appeal from the sentence of the trial court implies a waiver of the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to review by the appellate court, which may render judgment favorable or unfavorable to the appellant and may increase or reduce the penalty. Allowing the employer to dispute its civil liability via an appeal from the RTC decision would annul, nullify, or defeat a final judgment rendered by a competent court.
• Due Process and Counsel's Negligence: The employer's right to due process occurs during the hearing of the motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution, on the basis of the sheriff's return that the writ of execution issued for the enforcement of the decision on the civil liability of the accused was not satisfied because of the latter's insolvency, the sheriff being unable to locate any property in the accused's name. Such return is prima facie evidence of the accused's insolvency. During that hearing, the prosecution must prove that (a) PRBLI was the employer of the accused; (b) it was engaged in some kind of industry; (c) the crime was committed by the employee in the discharge of his duties; and (d) execution against the employee was unsatisfied. The prosecution may offer the sheriff's return as prima facie evidence of insolvency. PRBLI may adduce evidence on questions involved in the execution because the trial court which rendered the decision has general supervisory control over the process of execution. From an adverse ruling, it may appeal by writ of error on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law, or by certiorari on questions of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the failure of its counsel to notify it earlier did not deny it due process. The Court could not second guess whether Ancheta's failure to file his brief was through the negligence of his counsel or because of the belief that he was guilty and it was purposeless to file such brief.
• Modification of Final Judgment: The RTC decision had long become final and executory when the CA modified it. A final and executory decision, even if erroneous, can no longer be modified. The CA therefore erred in modifying the RTC decision by reducing the actual damages to P5,000.00.
• Subsidiary Liability and Execution Stage: The employer's subsidiary liability is not conclusively determined in the criminal case in the sense of being non-reviewable by higher judicial authority. The determination of the employer's subsidiary civil liability may be appealed to a higher court by the aggrieved party—either the offended party or the employer—by writ of error seeking review of questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law, or through a petition for review on certiorari limited to questions of law, or by a special civil action of certiorari on the theory that the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. This review, however, occurs in the execution stage, not through a direct appeal from the employee's conviction.

• Subsidiary Liability of Employer under Articles 102 and 103, Revised Penal Code — An employer is subsidiarily answerable for the adjudicated civil liability ex delicto of an employee convicted of a crime committed in the discharge of his duties, in the event of the employee's insolvency. The judgment in the criminal action pronouncing the employee civilly liable is conclusive on the employer not only as to the actuality of that liability but also as to its amount. This principle was applied to bind PRBLI to the RTC decision convicting Ancheta and awarding civil damages.
• Employer as Party in Substance and Duty to Participate in Employee's Defense — Although an employer is not strictly a party to the criminal case against its employee, it is a party in substance and in effect because of the subsidiary liability imposed by law. It must protect its interest by taking virtual participation in the defense of its employee, such as by providing counsel; it cannot leave the employee to his own fate because the employee's failure is also its failure. This principle was applied to reject PRBLI's due process claim based on its counsel's failure to notify it.
• Finality of Judgment; No Modification — A final and executory decision, even if erroneous, can no longer be modified. This principle was applied to set aside the CA's modification of the RTC decision reducing actual damages to P5,000.00.
• Double Jeopardy and Employer's Appeal — An appeal from a sentence of conviction implies a waiver of the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to review by the appellate court, which may reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment and increase or reduce the penalty. An employer's appeal from its employee's conviction is therefore impermissible because it would violate the employee's right against double jeopardy. This principle was applied to PRBLI's attempted appeal.
• Due Process at the Execution Stage for Subsidiary Liability — The employer's right to due process in the enforcement of subsidiary liability is available at the hearing of the motion for issuance of an alias writ of execution. The prosecution must prove: (a) the employer was the employer of the accused; (b) it was engaged in some kind of industry; (c) the crime was committed by the employee in the discharge of his duties; and (d) execution against the employee is unsatisfied. The sheriff's return is prima facie evidence of the accused's insolvency. The employer may adduce evidence, and an adverse ruling may be reviewed by writ of error or certiorari. This principle was applied to identify the proper forum and procedure for PRBLI's objections.

• "It is true that an employer, strictly speaking, is not a party to the criminal case instituted against his employee but in substance and, in effect, he is considering the subsidiary liability imposed upon him by law. It is his concern, as well as of his employee, to see to it that his interest be protected in the criminal case by taking virtual participation in the defense of his employee. He cannot leave him to his own fate because his failure is also his. And if because of his indifference or inaction the employee is convicted and damages are awarded against him, he cannot later be heard to complain, if brought to court for the enforcement of his subsidiary liability, that he was not given his day in court." — This passage, quoted from Miranda vs. Malate Garage & Taxicab, Inc., defines the employer's substantive position and duty in the employee's criminal case and explains why the employer's failure to participate in the defense bars a later due process objection.
• "The employer is subsidiarily answerable for the adjudicated civil liability ex delicto of his employee in the event of the latter's insolvency; and the judgment in the criminal action pronouncing the employee to be also civilly liable is conclusive on the employer not only as to the actuality of that liability but also as to its amount." — This passage from Ozoa vs. Vda. de Madula states the core rule on the conclusiveness of the criminal judgment against the employer and was central to the holding that PRBLI was bound by the RTC decision.
• "An appeal from the sentence of the trial court implies a waiver of the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to a review by the appellate court. The latter is then called upon to render judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant. This is the risk involved when the accused decides to appeal a sentence of conviction. Indeed, appellate courts have the power to reverse, affirm or modify the judgment of the lower court and to increase or reduce the penalty it imposed." — This passage, quoted from Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People, explains why an employer cannot appeal its employee's conviction: the appeal would waive the employee's double jeopardy protection and expose the entire case to modification.
• "During the hearing of the motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution, the prosecution must prove that (a) the petitioner PRBLI was the employer of the accused; (b) it was engaged in some kind of industry; (c) the crime was committed by the employee in the discharge of his duties; and (d) execution against the employee is unsatisfied." — This passage sets out the requisites the prosecution must establish at the execution stage, where the employer's due process is afforded, and defines the proper procedure for enforcing subsidiary liability.

• Miranda vs. Malate Garage & Taxicab, Inc., 99 Phil. 670 (1956) — Relied upon for the rule that an employer, though not strictly a party, is a party in substance and effect due to subsidiary liability and must take virtual participation in the defense of its employee; failure to do so bars a later due process complaint.
• Ozoa vs. Vda. de Madula, G.R. No. L-62955, 22 December 1987, 156 SCRA 779 — Explained that the employer is subsidiarily answerable for the employee's adjudicated civil liability ex delicto and that the criminal judgment is conclusive on the employer as to the actuality and amount of that liability; also cited for the execution-stage requisites.
• Martinez vs. Barredo, 81 Phil. 1 (1948) — Explained that the employer is not deprived of its day in court because the liability enforced is subsidiary civil liability incident to the employee's criminal negligence, not primary liability under Article 1903 of the Civil Code; the employer becomes ipso facto liable upon conviction and proof of insolvency.
• Pajarito vs. Seneris, G.R. No. 44627, 14 December 1978, 87 SCRA 275 — Cited in relation to the employer's subsidiary liability and the rule that allowing an employer to dispute its civil liability via appeal would annul a final judgment; also cited for the execution-stage procedure.
• Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People, G.R. No. 147703, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 456 — Held that an employer's appeal from its employee's conviction is impermissible because it would waive the employee's double jeopardy protection and open the whole case to review, possibly increasing the penalty.
• Manalo and Salvador vs. Robles Transportation Co., Inc., 99 Phil. 729 (1956) — Cited for the rule that the sheriff's return is prima facie evidence of the accused's insolvency in the enforcement of subsidiary liability.

• Articles 102 and 103, Revised Penal Code — Provide the subsidiary liability of employers for the civil liability of their employees in case of insolvency. These provisions were applied to hold PRBLI subsidiarily liable for the civil liability adjudged against Ancheta and bound by the final criminal judgment.
• Article 1903, Civil Code — Mentioned in Martinez vs. Barredo to distinguish the employer's primary liability under the Civil Code from the subsidiary liability incident to the employee's criminal negligence. The Court noted that the case involved the latter, so the employer was not deprived of its day in court.
• Constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy — Cited in the discussion of why an employer's appeal from the employee's conviction is impermissible; the text does not specify a constitutional article. The Court explained that an appeal from a sentence implies a waiver of this safeguard and opens the whole case to review.

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.