REYNALDO DE GUZMAN BAYLON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. ROLANDO RELUCIO AND RJ EXPRESS, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Baylon versus Relucio

The Case

This is the case of Baylon versus Relucio, an appeal brought by Reynaldo De Guzman Baylon against Rolando Relucio and RJ Express, Incorporated. Baylon sued for damages after a collision between his ten-wheeler truck and a bus owned by RJ Express, Incorporated, and the trial court dismissed his complaint on the ground that a pending criminal action for reckless imprudence already covered the same incident. The case matters because it draws the line between the civil liability that is deemed instituted with a criminal action and the independent civil action based on quasi-delict, and it tells us whether an injured party may sue the employer directly, separately, and simultaneously with the criminal case against the driver.

Procedural History

Baylon filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 46. The defendants answered and moved to dismiss, and the trial court denied the motion to dismiss in an order dated 09 January 2012. RJ Express, Incorporated then moved for reconsideration, arguing that a criminal complaint precludes the filing of a separate action for damages. The trial court granted the motion and, in its order dated 13 April 2012, dismissed the civil case for damages. Baylon appealed that dismissal directly to the Supreme Court, and the appeal was granted. No brief was filed by the defendants.

Facts

On 12 February 2011, a ten-wheeler truck owned by Baylon and driven by Arsenio De Guzman Pangilinan figured in an accident with a bus owned by RJ Express, Incorporated. Baylon went to the scene and saw his driver shackled in front of the truck's steering wheel. The other passengers of his truck sustained physical injuries. After the driver's body was removed, he was rushed to the hospital but was declared dead on arrival.

A criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, slight physical injuries, and damage to property was filed against Rolando Relucio, the bus driver, before the Office of the Public Prosecutor, and the corresponding information was filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Santa Ana and Candaba, Pampanga.

Baylon then filed a separate complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, not only against Relucio but also against RJ Express, Incorporated, for its failure to exercise the required diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee. He conceded that by filing the separate civil action he was precluded from asking for damages in the criminal action, but he insisted that if the separate action were barred, there would be no way of proving the liability of the employer.

Issues

• Whether or not the plaintiff is barred from filing a civil action for damages because of the pending criminal action for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, physical injuries, and damage to property.
• Whether or not the employer, RJ Express, Incorporated, may be sued directly in a separate civil action based on quasi-delict for the negligent conduct of its employee.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

This fixes what is deemed carried into the criminal case, namely the civil liability arising from the offense, and it is the starting point for asking what is left outside.

Section 3 of Rule 111 provides:

In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.

This is the provision that allows the independent civil action to proceed on its own, on a mere preponderance of evidence, subject only to the bar against double recovery.

Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides:

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

This is the source of the quasi-delictual liability that Baylon sought to enforce against the employer.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by the plaintiff is proper, and that the order dismissing the civil case for damages is erroneous. An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender: civil liability arising from the crime, and independent civil liabilities, such as culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. What is deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime. The civil action under Article 2176 is no longer deemed instituted and may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. The offended party is therefore not proscribed from filing a simultaneous action.

On the second issue, the Court held that an action predicated on quasi-delict may be instituted by the injured party against the employer for an act or omission of the employee, and it requires only a preponderance of evidence. The liability of the employer for the negligent conduct of the subordinate is direct and primary, subject to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee. Enforcement of the judgment against the employer does not require the employee to be insolvent, because the liability of the employer is solidary with that of the employee, the two being statutorily considered joint tortfeasors.

The Court met the trial court's reasoning that the employer's liability could be determined in the criminal action. That liability is the subsidiary civil liability of an employer for a felony committed by his employee in the discharge of his duty, which attaches only when the employee is convicted and is insolvent. It is different from the liability under Article 2176, where the obligation is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

Doctrine

First, when a criminal action is instituted, only the civil liability arising from the offense is deemed instituted with it; the independent civil action under Article 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted and may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without reservation in the criminal action.

Second, the injured party may sue the employer directly on quasi-delict for the negligence of its employee; the employer's liability is direct and primary, subject to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, and it is solidary with that of the employee, so insolvency of the employee need not be shown.

Third, the subsidiary civil liability of an employer under the Revised Penal Code, which arises only upon conviction of the employee and his insolvency, is distinct from the direct and primary liability under Article 2176.

Fourth, the only safeguard is the caveat in Section 3 of Rule 111: the offended party may not recover damages twice for the same act or omission.

Disposition

The appeal was granted; the order of dismissal was reversed and set aside, and the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 46 was ordered to proceed with the trial of the civil case for damages.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that what is deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the civil liability arising from the crime, while the quasi-delict action under Article 2176 may proceed independently, even without reservation. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between the employer's subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code and its direct, primary, and solidary liability under Article 2176, and the rule against double recovery.