Joaquin vs. Anecito

PILAR JOAQUIN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FELIX ANICETO, ET AL., defendants-appellee.
October 31, 1964

FACTS
This case is about Pilar Joaquin who was bumbed by a taxicab owned by Felix
Anecito and owned by RupertoRodelas.
Anecito was charged with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence in
the Municipal Court (now the City Court) of Manila. He was subsequently found guilty
and sentenced to imprisonment. However, no ruling was made on his civil liability to
the offended party in view of the latter's reservation to file a separate civil action for
damages for the injuries suffered by her.
Aniceto appealed the judgment of conviction to the Court of First Instance of Manila.
While the criminal case was thus pending appeal, Pilar Joaquin, the injured party,
filed this case for damages in the Court of First Instance of Manila, in accordance with
the reservation which she had earlier made. Felix Aniceto and RupertoRodelas, driver
and owner, respectively, of the taxicab were made party defendants.
The lower court dismissed the case on the ground that in the absence of a final
judgment of conviction against the driver in the criminal case, any action to enforce
the employer's subsidiary civil liability would be premature. Such liability, the trial court
added, may only be enforced on proof of the insolvency of the employee. Hence, this
appeal.
ISSUE
May an employee's primary civil liability for crime
and his employer's subsidiary liability therefor be
proved in a separate civil action even while the
criminal case against the employee is still
pending?
RULING
As to the liability of the employer, it depends upon the conviction of the employee.[Go to number (3) three for better
answer]
1.
Without the conviction of the employee, the employer cannot be subsidiarily liable It is now settled that for
an employer to be subsidiarily liable, the following requisites must be present: (1) That an employee has
committed a crime in the discharge of his duties; (2) that said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his
civil liability; (3) that the employer is engaged in some kind of industry. Without the conviction of the
employee, the employer cannot be subsidiarily liable. (In this case, there is no final conviction yet for Anecita
(employee).
2.
Action for damages (Art. 33) is against the employees primary civil liability, not to the employers subsidiary
liability 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.
3.
In an action for quasi-delict, an employer can be held liable for negligent act, but not in an action based on
Art. 100 of the RPC where an employer be held subsidiarily liable only upon prior conviction of the employee
In cases of negligence, the injured party or his heirs has the choice, between an action to enforce the civil
liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi-delict under
Articles 2176-2194 of the Civil 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. (Art. 2180, Civil Code). On the other hand, should he choose to prosecute his
action under Article 100 of the Penal Code, he can hold the employer subsidiarily liable only upon prior
conviction of the employee. While a separate and independent civil action for damages may be brought
against the employee under Article 33 of the Civil Code, no such action may be filed against the employer on
the latter's subsidiary civil liability because such liability is governed not by the Civil Code but by the Penal
Code, under which conviction of the employee is a condition sine qua non for the employer's subsidiary
liability. If the court trying the employee's liability adjudges the employee liable, but the court trying the
criminal action acquits the employee, the subsequent insolvency of the employee cannot make the employer
subsidiary liable to the offended party or to the latter's heirs.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
(The Revised Penal Code provides in turn that

"every person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable" and that in default of the persons
criminally liable, employers, teachers persons and
corporations engaged in any kind of industry shall
be civilly liable for felonies committed by their
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices or
employees in the discharge of their duties.)
(Article 33 of the Civil Code authorizes a civil
action that is "entirely separate, and distinct from
the criminal action,")
Note: In this case, the action for civil liability is based on Art. 100 of RPC
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Joaquin vs. Anecito

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joaquin vs. Anecito

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joaquin vs. Anecito

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PILAR JOAQUIN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FELIX ANICETO, ET AL., defendants-appellee.

October 31, 1964

(The Revised Penal Code provides in turn that

You might also like