ESTANISLAWA CANLAS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CHAN LIN PO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Canlas versus Chan Lin Po

The Case

This is the case of Canlas versus Chan Lin Po, decided by the Supreme Court in July 1961. Estanislawa Canlas, the widow of a man killed by a truck, sued the owners and operators of the truck and its driver for damages. The driver had already been convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence in a criminal case, and the trial court dismissed her civil action on the ground that the criminal judgment barred it. The case matters because it draws the boundary between the civil liability that a criminal judgment settles and the separate civil liability of persons who were never parties to the criminal case — the employer and the parents of the driver — and because it shows how strictly the Court requires proof of the facts that create that liability.

Procedural History

Juanito Chan was charged with homicide through reckless imprudence before the Court of First Instance of Manila. At the start of the trial, the private prosecutor, representing the widow, reserved the right to file a separate civil action, and that action was in fact later filed. The criminal case nevertheless proceeded to judgment, and the trial court convicted the driver, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with a modification of the penalty, even though its attention had been called to the reservation.

In the separate civil action, the trial court, on the ground that the judgment in the criminal case was res judicata, absolved the defendants and dismissed their counterclaim. The widow moved for reconsideration, was denied, and appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the ruling on res judicata and the finding that she had presented no evidence against the other defendants. The Supreme Court resolved the appeal and modified the judgment below.

Facts

On June 11, 1951, a truck with plate number T-5713-1951, driven by Juanito Chan y Diala along Rizal Avenue Extension in Manila, hit Nicolas Paras, a man of sixty-five years, and ran over his head, causing instantaneous death. The truck was registered in the name of Lin Koo. The widow, Estanislawa Canlas, was left with five legitimate children.

In the criminal case for homicide through reckless imprudence, the widow's counsel reserved the right to file a separate civil action, and the criminal case nonetheless ran to judgment. The trial court convicted the driver and ordered him to indemnify the heirs in the amount of 5,000 pesos. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, modifying only the penalty. The widow then filed the separate civil action against Chan Lim Po, Remedios Diala, and Lin Koo, alleging that they were the operators and owners of the truck, and that they had employed the driver knowing that his license had been confiscated for traffic violations and that he was insolvent, and that he was employed only because he was the son of Chan Lim Po and Remedios Diala.

The defendants denied ownership and operation at the time of the mishap and denied that the driver was their employee. The civil case was twice ordered dismissed and sent to the archives for failure of the widow to prosecute, but was reinstated upon her motion, on the ground that she had been waiting for the outcome of the criminal case. At the hearing, she presented as her only witness her daughter, who identified the decisions in the criminal case and testified on the victim's earning capacity as a carpenter. The defendants did not cross-examine the witness. The trial court absolved the defendants, holding that the criminal judgment was res judicata and that no evidence had been presented against the co-defendants of the driver.

Issues

• Whether or not the judgment in the criminal case is res judicata and bars the separate civil action against the defendants who were not parties to the criminal case.
• Whether or not the defendants may be held liable, whether primarily or subsidiarily, for the death caused by the driver, in the absence of proof of the facts that create such liability.

Applicable Provisions

Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article also apply to employers, engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their employees, in the discharge of their duties.

This is the provision under which the widow sought to hold Lin Koo subsidiarily liable as the employer of the convicted driver.

Paragraph 5 of Article 2180 of the New Civil Code provides:

Employers shall also be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

This is the provision under which the widow sought to hold Lin Koo primarily liable as employer.

Paragraph 2 of Article 2180 of the New Civil Code provides:

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.

This is the provision under which the widow sought to hold the parents of the driver liable.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the judgment in the criminal case, except as to the fact of commission by the accused of the act charged, cannot be considered res judicata constituting a bar to the present action, whether it be to enforce the subsidiary or the primary liability of defendants who were not parties to the criminal case. The two cases are different in nature and purpose, and they affect different parties. To the extent that the decision appealed from held that the present action is barred by the adjudication of indemnity in the criminal case, the Court reversed it.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appeal had no merit. There was no proof that the driver was an employee of Lin Koo at the time of the mishap, or that Lin Koo was then engaged in a business or industry. The decisions in the criminal case did not categorically state that the driver was, at the time of the mishap, an employee of Lin Koo. Hence Lin Koo could not be held subsidiarily liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Neither could he be held primarily responsible under paragraph 5 of Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, there being no evidence of the driver's relationship to him, and no showing that the driver, even as employee, acted within the scope of his assigned task at the time of the mishap.

The parents of the driver, Chan Lim Po and Remedios Diala, could not be held answerable under paragraph 2 of Article 2180, there being no proof that the driver was, at the time of the mishap, a minor living in the company of his parents. In fact, the Court of Appeals had found that he was already a married man at the time of the mishap. The Court distinguished the Buyayao case, where the employer's subsidiary liability was affirmed because the fact that the employee acted in the performance of a duty appeared in the judgment and in the stipulation of facts, a circumstance not present here.

Doctrine

The judgment in a criminal case is not res judicata against persons who were not parties to it, and it does not bar a separate civil action to enforce their primary or subsidiary liability; it settles only the fact of commission of the act charged. To hold an employer subsidiarily liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, the plaintiff must prove the employment and that the employer was engaged in a kind of industry, and that the employee committed the felony in the discharge of his duties. To hold an employer primarily liable under paragraph 5 of Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, the plaintiff must prove the employment relationship and that the employee acted within the scope of his assigned tasks. To hold parents liable under paragraph 2 of Article 2180, the plaintiff must prove that the child was a minor living in their company at the time of the act.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court only insofar as it held the action barred by res judicata, but affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the defendants for lack of proof, without costs.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a criminal judgment is res judicata only as to the fact of commission of the act charged, and never bars a civil action against persons who were not parties to the criminal case. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between primary liability under Article 2180 and subsidiary liability under Article 103, and the strict proof required for each.