G.R. No. 190696. August 3, 2010.

ROLITO CALANG and PHILTRANCO SERVICE

ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Criminal Law; Civil Liability; Quasi-Delicts; Torts; Vicarious

Liability; Where the cause of action against the driver was based
on delict, it is error to hold the employer jointly and severally
liable with him, based on quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and
2180 of the Civil Code—these legal provisions pertain to the
vicarious liability of an employer for quasi-delicts that an
employee has committed and do not apply to civil liability arising
from delict; If at all, the employer’s liability may only be
subsidiary.—The RTC and the CA both erred in holding
Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang. We emphasize
that Calang was charged criminally before the RTC.
Undisputedly, Philtranco was not a direct party in this case. Since
the cause of action against Calang was based on delict, both the
RTC and the CA erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally
liable with Calang, based on quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and
2180 of the Civil Code. Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code
pertain to the vicarious liability of an employer for quasi-delicts
that an employee has committed. Such provision of law does not
apply to civil liability arising from delict. If at all, Philtranco’s
liability may only be subsidiary. Article 102 of the Revised Penal
Code states the subsidiary civil liabilities of innkeepers,
tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments.
Same; Same; Same; Subsidiary Liability; Requisites; The
provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability—
Articles 102 and 103—are deemed written into the judgments in
cases to which they are applicable, and the trial court need not
expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer in the
dispositive portion of its decision.—The provisions of the Revised
Penal Code on subsidiary liability—Articles 102 and 103—are
deemed written into the judgments in cases to which they are
applicable. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial
court need not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the
employer. Nonetheless,
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

680

680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Calang vs. People

before the employers’ subsidiary liability is enforced, adequate

evidence must exist establishing that (1) they are indeed the
employers of the convicted employees; (2) they are engaged in
some kind of industry; (3) the crime was committed by the
employees in the discharge of their duties; and (4) the execution
against the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency. The
determination of these conditions may be done in the same
criminal action in which the employee’s liability, criminal and
civil, has been pronounced, in a hearing set for that precise
purpose, with due notice to the employer, as part of the
proceedings for the execution of the judgment.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the

Supreme Court.
   The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
  Eduardo P. Tibo for petitioners.
  Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.

                        R E S O L U T I O N
BRION, J.:
We resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by the
petitioners, Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc.
(Philtranco) and Rolito Calang, to challenge our Resolution
of February 17, 2010. Our assailed Resolution denied the
petition for review on certiorari for failure to show any
reversible error sufficient to warrant the exercise of this
Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Antecedent Facts
At around 2:00 p.m. of April 22, 1989, Rolito Calang was
driving Philtranco Bus No. 7001, owned by Philtranco
along Daang Maharlika Highway in Barangay Lambao,
Sta. Margarita, Samar when its rear left side hit the front
left portion of a Sarao jeep coming from the opposite
direction. As a result of the collision, Cresencio
Pinohermoso, the jeep’s driver, lost control of the vehicle,
and bumped and killed Jose Mabansag,
681
 VOL. 626, AUGUST 3, 2010 681
Calang vs. People

a bystander who was standing along the highway’s

shoulder. The jeep turned turtle three (3) times before
finally stopping at about 25 meters from the point of
impact. Two of the jeep’s passengers, Armando Nablo and
an unidentified woman, were instantly killed, while the
other passengers sustained serious physical injuries.
The prosecution charged Calang with multiple homicide,
multiple serious physical injuries and damage to property
thru reckless imprudence before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 31, Calbayog City. The RTC, in its decision
dated May 21, 2001, found Calang guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting to
multiple homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage
to property, and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of thirty days of arresto menor, as minimum, to
four years and two months of prision correccional, as
maximum. The RTC ordered Calang and Philtranco,
jointly and severally, to pay P50,000.00 as death
indemnity to the heirs of Armando; P50,000.00 as death
indemnity to the heirs of Mabansag; and P90,083.93 as
actual damages to the private complainants.
The petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the Court
of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 25522. The
CA, in its decision dated November 20, 2009, affirmed the
RTC decision in toto. The CA ruled that petitioner Calang
failed to exercise due care and precaution in driving the
Philtranco bus. According to the CA, various eyewitnesses
testified that the bus was traveling fast and encroached
into the opposite lane when it evaded a pushcart that was
on the side of the road. In addition, he failed to slacken his
speed, despite admitting that he had already seen the jeep
coming from the opposite direction when it was still half a
kilometer away. The CA further ruled that Calang
demonstrated a reckless attitude when he drove the bus,
despite knowing that it was suffering from loose
compression, hence, not roadworthy.
The CA added that the RTC correctly held Philtranco
jointly and severally liable with petitioner Calang, for
failing

682

682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Calang vs. People
to prove that it had exercised the diligence of a good father
of the family to prevent the accident.
The petitioners filed with this Court a petition for
review on certiorari. In our Resolution dated February 17,
2010, we denied the petition for failure to sufficiently show
any reversible error in the assailed decision to warrant the
exercise of this Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The Motion for Reconsideration
In the present motion for reconsideration, the
petitioners claim that there was no basis to hold Philtranco
jointly and severally liable with Calang because the former
was not a party in the criminal case (for multiple homicide
with multiple serious physical injuries and damage to
property thru reckless imprudence) before the RTC.
The petitioners likewise maintain that the courts below
overlooked several relevant facts, supported by
documentary exhibits, which, if considered, would have
shown that Calang was not negligent, such as the affidavit
and testimony of witness Celestina Cabriga; the testimony
of witness Rodrigo Bocaycay; the traffic accident sketch
and report; and the jeepney’s registration receipt. The
petitioners also insist that the jeep’s driver had the last
clear chance to avoid the collision.
We partly grant the motion.
Liability of Calang
We see no reason to overturn the lower courts’ finding
on Calang’s culpability. The finding of negligence on his
part by the trial court, affirmed by the CA, is a question of
fact that we cannot pass upon without going into factual
matters touching on the finding of negligence. In petitions
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules
of Court, this Court is limited to reviewing only errors of
law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of
are devoid of sup-
683

VOL. 626, AUGUST 3, 2010 683

Calang vs. People

port by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is

based on a misapprehension of facts.
Liability of Philtranco
We, however, hold that the RTC and the CA both erred
in holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with
Calang. We emphasize that Calang was charged criminally
before the RTC. Undisputedly, Philtranco was not a direct
party in this case. Since the cause of action against Calang
was based on delict, both the RTC and the CA erred in
holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang,
based on quasi-delict under Articles 21761 and 21802 of the
Civil Code. Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code pertain
to the vicarious liability of an employer for quasi-delicts
that an employee has committed. Such provision of law
does not apply to civil liability arising from delict.
If at all, Philtranco’s liability may only be subsidiary.
Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code states the subsidiary
civil liabilities of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and
proprietors of establishments, as follows:

“In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers,

tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be
civilly

_______________

1  Art. 2176. 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.
2 Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only
for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
x x x x
Employers shall 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.

684

684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Calang vs. People

liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases

where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or
special police regulations shall have been committed by them or
their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiary liable for the restitution of
goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests
lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided
that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper
himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such
goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the
directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have
given them with respect to the care of and vigilance over such
goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the
innkeeper’s employees.”

The foregoing subsidiary liability applies to

employers, according to Article 103 of the Revised Penal
Code, which reads:

“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.”

The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary

liability—Articles 102 and 103—are deemed written into
the judgments in cases to which they are applicable. Thus,
in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need
not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the
employer.3 Nonetheless, before the employers’ subsidiary
liability is enforced, adequate evidence must exist
establishing that (1) they are indeed the employers of the
convicted employees; (2) they are engaged in some kind of
industry; (3) the crime was committed by the employees in
the discharge of their duties; and (4) the execution against
the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency. The
determination of these conditions may

_______________

3 Pangonorom v. People, 495 Phil. 195; 455 SCRA 211 (2005).

685

VOL. 626, AUGUST 3, 2010 685

Calang vs. People

be done in the same criminal action in which the

employee’s liability, criminal and civil, has been
pronounced, in a hearing set for that precise purpose, with
due notice to the employer, as part of the proceedings for
the execution of the judgment.4
WHEREFORE, we PARTLY GRANT the present
motion. The Court of Appeals decision that affirmed in toto
the RTC decision, finding Rolito Calang guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in
multiple homicide, multiple serious physical injuries and
damage to property, is AFFIRMED, with the
MODIFICATION that Philtranco’s liability should only be
subsidiary. No costs.
 SO ORDERED.

Carpio-Morales (Chairperson), Bersamin, Abad**  and

Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Motion for Reconsideration partly granted, judgment

affirmed with modification.

Note.—The employer is subsidiarily answerable for the

adjudicated civil liability ex delicto of his employee in the
event of the latter’s insolvency, and the judgment in the
criminal action pronouncing the employee to be also civilly
liable is conclusive on the employer not only as to the
actuality of that liability but also as to its amount.
(Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Heirs of Eduardo
Mangawang, 458 SCRA 684 [2005])
——o0o—— 

_______________

4 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People, G.R. No. 147703, April 14,
2004, 427 SCRA 456.
**  Designated additional Member of the Third Division, in view of the
retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, per Special Order No. 843
dated May 17, 2010.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.