GREGORIA VDA. DE PAMAN V. HON.

ALBERTO SENERIS
July 30, 1982 | Guerrero, J.
Civil Liability Arising from a Felony > Subsidiary Liability of Other Persons

CASE SUMMARY/DOCTRINE: De Los Santos was convicted with the crime of Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence when he
cause Paman to fall off the cargo truck he was driving. He was ordered to pay P12,000 to indemnify Vda. De Paman. But, the sheriff
found out that no properties were registered under his name. Vda. De Paman then filed a motion for execution on subsidiary liability
against WMLC, which was not granted by CFI. However, SC held that subsidiary civil liability should be heard and decided in the
same proceeding.

FACTS:
Teodoro De Los Santos was a driver of a cargo truck, owned and operated by Western Mindanao Lumber Co. (WMLC). He
was charged with Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence, because he caused, thru recklessness and lack of foresight, Victoriano
Paman to fall while De Los Santos was driving the truck. He pleaded guilty.
CFI Zamboanga, through District Judge Alberto Seneris, convicted him of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer
imprisonment of arresto mayor because of 2 MC (plead of guilt. The other one was not mentioned) He was also ordered to
pay P12,000 as indemnity to Gregoria and her 3 children.
Upon the issuance of the motion for execution of judgment where WMLC was duly notified, the sheriff discovered that no
property was registered under De Los Santos. Gregoria filed a motion for execution on subsidiary liability for employer
WMLC under Art 103 of RPC. But, Judge Seneris refused to grant the motion because he opined that the alleged employer
was not notified that its driver was facing criminal charge and that a separate civil action must be filed.

ISSUE: W/N the subsidiary liability established in Art. 103 of RPC may be enforeced in the same criminal case where the award was
made? YES

RULING:
The apparent drawback in the enforcement of the subsidiary liability in the same criminal proceeding is the lack of due
process to the alleged employer, as the employer as to whether he is indeed the employer. It should also be shown (1) that the
employer, etc. is engaged in any kind of industry, (2) that the employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties,
and (2) that he is insolvent.
However, Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides, however, that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil
action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless
the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately. It means that the civil
action may be tried and prosecuted, with all the ancillary processes provided by law. Said provision will be rendered
meaningless if the subsidiary civil liability is not allowed to be enforced in the same proceeding.
In Pajarito v. Seneris, SC ordered the trial court to hear and decide in the same proceeding the subsidiary liability of the
alleged owner and operator of the passenger bus to remedy the situation and thereby afford due process to the alleged
employer.
Moreover, it has been invariably held that a judgment of conviction sentencing a defendant employer to pay an indemnity in
the absence of any collusion between the defendant and the offended party, is conclusive upon the employer in an action for
the enforcement of the latters subsidiary liability not only with regard to the civil liability, but also with regard to its amount.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the order dated September 8, 1973 of respondent Judge is hereby SET ASIDE. The Court a quo is
hereby directed to conduct further proceedings in the same case on whether the requisite facts to impose subsidiary civil liability on
the alleged employer of Teodoro de los Santos are present. Costs against private respondents.

NOTES: