27. City of Manila vs. Manila Electric, Co.

(52 Phil 586)

FACTS
On June 8, 1925, a collision occurred between a car which was owned by Meralco but
which was driven by one Sixto Eustaquio, and a truck which belonged to the City of Manila.
Eustaquio, the driver of the Meralco-owned car, was found guilty of damage to property as well
as light injuries resulting from reckless imprudence. He was thus sentenced to pay P1788.27 with
a fine of P900, together with subsidiary imprisonment. As the city of Manila was unable to
collect from Eustaquio, however, it proceeded against Meralco on the grounds of its subsidiary
liability. Meralco, however, in its defense, averred that it used the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent the damage suffered by the plaintiff. .

ISSUE
Whether or not Meralco can be held liable.
Whether the case would be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code or the Penal
Code.

HELD
YES. Meralco can be held liable as the master of the driver.

The Penal Code authorizes the imposition of subsidiary liability in default of the persons
criminally liable. Article 20 of the Penal Code provides that this subsidiary liability shall "apply
to masters, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies and
misdemeanors committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the
discharge of their duties." It is under this provision that the City of Manila is attempting to
collect damages from the Manila Electric Company.

In connection with the Penal Code, there must be taken into view certain provisions of
the Civil Code. Book IV, Title XVI, Chapter II, of the Civil Code concerns obligations which
arise from fault or negligence. It is provided in article 1903 that the obligation imposed for the
damage to another caused by fault or negligence is enforcible against those persons for whom
another is responsible. But it is added that "The liability imposed by this article shall cease in
case the persons subject thereto prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent the damage."

There is no escaping the conclusion that the provisions of the Penal Code govern. The
Penal Code in easily understandable language authorizes the determination of subsidiary
liability. The Civil Code negatives its application by providing that civil obligations arising from
crimes or misdemeanors shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal Code. The conviction
of the motorman was a misdemeanor falling under article 604 of the Penal Code. The act of the
motorman was not a wrongful or negligent act or ommision not punishable by law. Accordingly,
the civil obligation connected up with Penal Code and not with article 1903 of the Civil Code. In
other words, the Penal Code affirms its jurisdiction while the Civil Code negatives its
jurisdiction. This is a case of criminal negligence out of which civil liability arises and not a case
of civil negligence.

However, the Court ruled that this case relates to the Penal Code and not to the Civil
Code. Any different ruling would permit the master to escape scot-free by alleging and proving
that the master had exercised all diligence in the selection and training of its servants to prevent
damage. That would be a good defense to a strictly civil action, but might or might not be to a
civil action or misdemeanor.
28. Fernando vs. Franco (L-27786, January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 311)

FACTS
The defendant, Anastacio Franco, was authorized to operate units of trucks and buses for
public convenience within Ilocos Norte. On January 11, 1958, one of his buses which was driven
by Leonardo Cabaron, ran over a child, Nonito Andres, which resulted to the latters death. On
many 23, 1958, Cabaron was accused in a criminal case for homicide through reckless
imprudence and was convicted thereof. Later, in a complaint filed on December 12, 1963, the
plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking in addition to the amount of P6,000 given as indemnity,
moral damages, attorneys fees, and exemplary damages as well.

ISSUE
Whether or not the employer can be held subsidiarily liable for the acts committed by the
driver.

HELD
YES. It is beyond dispute that a judgment of conviction in the case of a driver accused of
homicide through reckless imprudence, there being no collusion between the accused and the
offended party, conclusively binds the employer to answer subsidiarily for the damages awarded.
So has it been since the leading case of Martinez vs. Barredo. Anastacio Franco, as employer,
liable for the indemnity awarded, would only be able to avoid responsibility if he is able to
present a legal defense sufficient in law to defeat such a claim. In this case, he invoked
prescription. However, the court ruled that on its face, such a defense is without merit. As of the
time of the second complaint, there was no more question as to the subsidiary liability of Franco
as employer. The judgment against him had become final and conclusive.