G.R. No. L-4057; March 31, 1952
CONNEL BROS. COMPANY (PHIL.), ESTHER P. BOOMER and MYRNA NICHOL, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. FRANCISCO ADUNA and EX-MERALCO EMPLOYEES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, defendants; EX-MERALCO EMPLOYEES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On September 10, 1949, defendant Francisco Aduna, a chauffeur employed by the Ex-Meralco Employees Transportation Company, drove his employer’s passenger bus on F.B. Harrison Street, Rizal City, in a careless and negligent manner, causing it to bump and hit an Oldsmobile car owned by plaintiff Connel Bros. Company (Phil.). The collision caused the automobile to fall into a canal, resulting in P1,000 in damages. Passengers Esther P. Boomer and Myrna Nichol sustained physical injuries, incurring hospital and medical expenses and loss of earnings amounting to P1,681.80 and P648.46, respectively. Aduna was prosecuted, convicted of damage to property and serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, and served his sentence. The plaintiffs reserved their right to file a civil suit for damages, leading to the present action. The parties submitted the case on a stipulation of facts, which included Aduna’s conviction, his employment status, and that the defendant company had exercised due diligence in hiring and supervising its employees, including Aduna, by scrutinizing his prior records and carefully supervising field work. The accident was the first involving the company’s bus or employee. The plaintiffs also noted that Aduna’s driver’s license had three entries of penalties and warnings.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant Ex-Meralco Employees Transportation Company is primarily liable under Articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code (culpa aquiliana) or subsidiarily liable under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code, given that the civil action for damages arose from a criminal conviction for reckless imprudence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision but modified the nature of the liability. The Court held that the plaintiffs chose to base their action on the provisions of the Penal Code, relying on the result of the criminal case against Francisco Aduna, as no evidence of Aduna’s negligence was submitted except his conviction. Consequently, the civil obligation arose from the crime or misdemeanor, governed by Article 1092 of the Civil Code and the relevant provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the liability of the employer, Ex-Meralco Employees Transportation Company, is only subsidiary, not primary, under Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The defense of having exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage, available under Article 1903 of the Civil Code, is not applicable in this case because the suit was based on the criminal conviction. The decision of the lower court was affirmed with the modification that the appellant company’s liability is merely subsidiary.