Carpio vs. Doroja, 180 SCRA 1 (1989) (Digest)

Subsidiary Liability of Other Persons

43. Carpio vs. Doroja, 180 SCRA 1 (1989)

Facts:

                The accused-respondent Edwin Ramirez, was convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Less Serious Physical Injuries under an amended information punishable under Article 365 of the RPC. 

A writ of execution dated March 10, 1988 was duly served upon the accused but was returned unsatisfied due to the insolvency of the accused as shown by the sheriff's return.  Thus, complainant moved for a subsidiary writ of execution against the subsidiary liability of the owner-operator of the vehicle.  The same was denied by the trial court on two grounds, namely, the decision of the appellate court made no mention of the subsidiary liability of Eduardo Toribio, and the nature of the accident falls under "culpa-aquiliana" and not "culpa-contractual." A motion for reconsideration of the said order was disallowed for the reason that complainant having failed to raise the matter of subsidiary liability with the appellate court, said court rendered its decision which has become final and executory and the trial court has no power to alter or modify such decision.

Issue:

                WON the owner-operator DionisioCarpio is subsidiarily liable due to insolvency of Edwin Ramirez.

Held:

                YES

Ratio:

                In order that an employer may be held subsidiarily liable for the employee's civil liability in the criminal action, it should 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 (3) that he is insolvent.

Considering the subsidiary liability imposed upon the employer by law, he is in substance and in effect a party to the criminal case.  Ergo, the employer's subsidiary liability may be determined and enforced in the criminal case as part of the execution proceedings against the employee.