Il. Givi Labilty Arising from Crime ules of Court | B. Prejucicial Question Art. 36, CC; R11, Sec. 6, AOC). YONAHA v. CA GR 112846 | Mar. 29, 1996 FACTS: In a criminal case, Elmer Quano (Ouano) was charged with the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide in an information wihich averred: “that on April 14, 1990, at or about 11:45 A.M., in Basak, Lapulapu ity....theaccused Quano], while driving a Toyota Tamaraw, duly registered in the name of Raul Cabahug and ‘owned by EK SEA Products, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously maneuver and operate it in a negligent and reckless manner, without taking the necessary precaution to avoid injuries to person and damage to property, as a result thereof the motor vehicle he was then driving bumped and hit Hector Caete (Caete), which caused the latter's instantaneous death, due to the multiple severe traumatic injuries at different parts, of his body.” When arraigned, the accused pleaded guilty and subsequently, the tril court pronounced its judgment: Finding therefore the accused quity beyond reasonable doubt ofthe offense charged against him and taking into account the mitigating ctcumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guly which the prosecuting fiscal ready accepted, the Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer and undergo an imprisonment of 1 year and 1 day to 1 year and 8 months and to pay the heirs ofthe victim the sum of PSOk for the death ofthe victim; PAOk for actual damages incurred in connection with the burialand the nightly prayer of the deceased victim andP10kas attomey/s fees, Eventually, a writ of execution was issued for the satistaction of the monetary award. However, in the MTCC sherif's Return of Service, it stated that he had served the writ on accused Ouano but that the latter had manifested his inabilty to pay the money obligation. Forthwith, the Heirs of Caete presented a motion for ‘subsidiary execution with neither a notice of hearing nor notice to petitioner Evelyn Yonaha (Yonaha}, Ouano’s ‘employer. Acting on the motion, nevertheless, the ATC issued an order, directing the issuance of a writ of subsidiary execution. The sheriff went to Yonaha's residence to enforce the writ, and it was then, allegedly for the fist time, that Yonahawas informed of Quano’s conviction. Yonaha filed a motion to stay and to recall the subsidiary wrt of execution principally anchored on the lack of prior notice to her and on the fact that the ‘employers liability had yet to be established. The Heirs of Caete opposed the motion, ‘Subsequently, the RTC denied Yonahe’s motion. Likewise, Yonaha’s MR of the denial was likewise rejected. Hence, Yonahapromptly elevated the matter to the CA for review. The CA initially restrained the implementation of the assailed orders and issued a writ of preiminary injunction upon the filing of a P10k bond. Ultimately, however, the CA. in its decision of 28 Sept. 1993, dismissed the petition for lack of merit and thereby lifted the ‘nit of preliminary injunction. The CA ratiocinated We are not unmindful of the ruling in the aforecited case of Lucia Pajarito vs. Seneris, supra, - that enforcement of the secondary or subsiciary lability of employer may be done by motion in the same criminal case, a recourse which presupposes a hearing, But even assuming that issuance of writ of subsidiary execution requires notion and hearing, we believe a hearing in the present case would be sheer rigmarole, an unnecessary formality, because, as employer, [Peltioner Yonahal became subsidiary lable upon the conviction of her accused driver, Eimer uano, and proof ofthe laters insolvency. Andif she had any defense to free herself rom such subsidiary liblity, she could have ventilated and substantiated the same in connection with her (Yonaha's) motion to stay ‘and recall the wrt of subsiiary execution in question. But from her said motion it can be gleaned that except for the protsaton of vation of due proces, and absence of oe oho the maton er esuanoe of wrt of subsidiary execution, Yonaha Bramisas Then, too, afer the dna of her ‘rotor 10 9 stay and rec siect wr Yona a In the instant appeal, petitioner Yonaha additionally reminds the Court that Quano's conviction was not the result of a finding of proof beyond reasonable doubt but from his spontaneous plea of guilt.Vil, Gv Labilty Arising from Grime ules of Court |B. Prejudicial Question (rt. 96, CO: R11, See, 6, ROC). ISSUE: WIN the CA erred in finding that Yonaha, YES HELD: 1) YES. We find mertin the petition, The statutory basis for an employer's subsidiary liability is found in Article 103 of the RPC, This Court has since sanctioned the enforcement of this subsidiary liability in the same criminal proceedings in which the employee is adjudged guity, on the thesis that it really is @ part of, and merely an indent the executon process o the judge. Bu. execulion agnns the employer must nl ssue.as isa matter of couse 2° i theemplove’'lablity. Tre requitement is MANDA TORY even when iLappears oma facie that execution against the convicted employee cannot be satisfied The court must convince tset (1) that the convicted ‘employee is in truth in the employ of the employer; (2) that the latter is engaged in an industry of some kind (3) that the employee has committed the crime to which civil liability attaches while in the performance of his duties as such; and (4) that execution against the employee is unsuccessful by reason of insolvency. the accused's employer, is subsidiatily liable. ~ ‘The assumption that, since Yonaha, in this case, did NOT aver any exculpatory facts in her motion to stay and. ‘ccal 5 wal a nex mio recordation, which cou! save her fom Habit, sang would be a {fulile and a sheer rigmarole is UNACCEPTABLE. The employer must be given his full day in court. To repeat, thes (@) the existence of an employer-employee relationship; (b) that the employer is engaged in some kind of industry; (c) that the employee is adjudged guilty of the wrongful act and found to have committed the offense in the discharge of his duties (not necessarily any offense he commits while in the discharge of such duties); and (@) that said employee is insolvent. ‘The judament of conviction of the employee, of course, concludes the empioyerand the subsidiary liability may be enforced in the same criminal case, but to afford the employer due process, the court should hear and ‘ i WHEREFORE, finding the order, dated 29 May 1992, as well as the order of 24 August 1992 to have been imroienty issued, said orders are hereby SET ASIDE. Batiionar Yonaha shal-be given the right toa Hairs of Gaole-and tho foregoing opinion. No costs. 180 is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings conformably with our