26. Calang vs.

People
Facts: At around 2:00 pm of April 22, 1989, Calang was driving Philtranco Bus ownd by Philtranco
Corp. when its rear left side hit front left portion of Sarao jeep coming from the opposite direction. As a
result of the collision, Cresensio, the jeepney driver, lost control of the vehicle and bumped and killed
Mabansag, a bystanter who was standing along the highways shoulder. Two of the jeeps passenger, Nablo
and an unidentified woman, were instantly killed, while the other passengers sustained serious physical
injury.
The prosecution charge Calang with multiple homicide, multiple serious physical injuries and
damage to property thru reckless imprudence before the RTC. The RTC found Calang guilty of the said
charges, it also orderd Philtranco to pay for the damages as they were Jointly and Severally. Upon appeal
to the CA, the CA affirmed the decision in toto. Hence, this Motion for Reconsideration.
The petitioners claims that the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC because there was
no basis to hold Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang for the reason that the former was not
a party in the criminal case filed against Calang.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC and CA erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with
Calang.
Held: Yes. The SC emphasize that Calang was charged criminally before the RTC and since the action
against Calang was based on delict, the provisions of the Civil Code pertaining to the vicarious liability of
an employer for quasi delict does not apply to civil liability arising from delict. If at all, Philtrancos
liability may only be subsidiary.
Book Note!!
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, 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.