VICENTE BANTOTO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. SALVADOR BOBIS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, CRISPIN VALLEJO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Bantoto versus Bobis

The Case

This is an action for damages brought by the parents of a three-year-old girl killed by a negligently driven jeepney against the driver and against the registered owner who operated the vehicle. The parents sued to enforce the owner's subsidiary civil liability arising from the driver's criminal conviction for homicide through reckless imprudence. The case matters because it fixes when that subsidiary liability may be made the subject of a judgment against the employer, and it draws the outer limits of what the employer may be made to pay.

Procedural History

The driver, Salvador Bobis, was charged before the City Fiscal of Bacolod with homicide through reckless imprudence. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased girl in the sum of 3,000 pesos. The parents then filed a separate civil action in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros against the driver, against Juan Maceda, and against the owner, Crispin Vallejo. Vallejo moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint did not allege the driver's insolvency. The trial court overruled the motion. After trial, the court absolved Maceda and rendered judgment against Vallejo for the civil indemnity of 3,000 pesos, exemplary damages of 1,000 pesos, and attorneys' fees of 500 pesos. Vallejo appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Crispin Vallejo was the registered owner of a jeepney named Jovil 11, which he operated in Bacolod City through his driver, Salvador Bobis. On 24 October 1948, through the driver's negligence, the jeepney struck Damiana Bantoto, a three-year-old daughter of Vicente Bantoto and Florita Lanceta, inflicting injuries that caused her death a few days later.

Bobis was charged with homicide through reckless imprudence, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to arresto mayor and to pay the girl's heirs an indemnity of 3,000 pesos. A writ of execution issued against Bobis in the criminal case, and the sheriff returned it unsatisfied, with no property found.

The parents then brought this separate civil action, seeking to hold the driver and the owner solidarily liable for the indemnity, plus moral and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. At trial, over Vallejo's objection, the court admitted the writ of execution against Bobis and the sheriff's return showing that he had no leviable property. Vallejo presented no evidence. The trial court held him liable for the indemnity, exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees.

Issues

• Whether or not the complaint stated a cause of action against the owner despite its failure to allege the driver's insolvency.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting the writ of execution and the sheriff's return from the criminal case.
• Whether or not the owner may be held liable for exemplary damages and attorneys' fees when the criminal judgment imposed no exemplary damages on the driver.

Applicable Provisions

Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.

This is the source of the owner's liability, and the Court reads it as not requiring the employee's insolvency as a condition for judgment against the employer.

Article 1060 of the Civil Code provides:

A guarantor may not demand prior exhaustion of the properties of the principal debtor if the latter can not point out to the creditor available property of the debtor within Philippine territory, sufficient to cover the amount of the debt.

The Court uses this by analogy: the employer, like a guarantor, cannot insist on exhaustion of the employee's property when none sufficient can be pointed out.

Article 2064 of the Civil Code provides:

A guarantor can not be held responsible for more than what the principal debtor is liable for.

This caps the employer's liability at what the convicted driver was ordered to pay.

Article 2208, paragraph 9, of the Civil Code provides:

In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, can not be recovered, except in a separate civil action to recover the civil liability arising from a crime.

This authorizes the award of counsel fees in this separate civil action.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the employer's subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code is not predicated on the employee's insolvency. Insolvency is required only when the liability is being made effective by execution against the employer, not for the rendition of judgment against him. The subsidiary character of the responsibility means only that the employer's property is not to be seized without first exhausting that of the servant. By analogy to a guarantor, the employer may not demand prior exhaustion if he cannot point out sufficient property of the employee. The Court explained that between the offended party and the employer, it is the employer who is in a better position to know the resources of his servant. The passage relied upon from Marquez versus Castillo was declared mere obiter, because the ratio of that case was that the accident did not occur in the performance of the driver's duties.

On the second issue, the Court held that any error in admitting the writ of execution and the sheriff's return was not prejudicial. Those documents would be material and admissible when execution of the judgment is demanded. The Court also noted that, absent collusion, the judgment convicting the servant is conclusive in an action to enforce the employer's subsidiary liability. Since the driver was himself a defendant, the writ and its unsatisfied return were relevant evidence against him and his employer.

On the third issue, the Court agreed that the award of exemplary damages was improper. The case rested on the criminal conviction, no exemplary damages were imposed on the driver, and the employer, as one subsidiarily liable, cannot incur a greater civil liability than his convicted employee, any more than a guarantor can be held for more than the principal debtor. The Court, however, sustained the award of attorneys' fees, since the owner had reason to know the driver could not pay the indemnity, and the law authorizes counsel fees in a separate civil action to recover the civil liability arising from a crime. Because the trial court could not have foreseen the appeal, the Court doubled the counsel fees.

Doctrine

First, the employer's subsidiary civil liability for a felony committed by an employee in the discharge of his duties does not require, as a condition for judgment against the employer, an allegation or proof of the employee's insolvency. Insolvency matters only at the stage of execution, where the employee's property must first be exhausted.

Second, the employer, like a guarantor, cannot demand prior exhaustion of the employee's property if he cannot point out sufficient property of the employee within the Philippines.

Third, absent collusion, the judgment of conviction against the employee is conclusive in the action to enforce the employer's subsidiary liability.

Fourth, the employer's liability cannot exceed that of the convicted employee, so no exemplary damages may be awarded against the employer when none were imposed on the employee.

Fifth, attorneys' fees may be awarded in a separate civil action to recover the civil liability arising from a crime.

Disposition

The Court modified the judgment by eliminating the 1,000 pesos in exemplary damages and doubling the attorneys' fees, so that Vallejo pays the 3,000 pesos indemnity with interest at six percent from the filing of the complaint, plus 1,000 pesos in attorneys' fees, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the employer's subsidiary liability does not await proof of the employee's insolvency, which is required only at execution. Examiners use this case to test the nature of subsidiary liability under Article 103 and the rule that the employer can never owe more than the convicted employee.