8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

*
G.R. No. 147703. April 14, 2004.

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. PEOPLE

OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Double Jeopardy;

Parties; Both the accused and the prosecution may appeal a criminal case,
but the government may do so only if the accused would not thereby be
placed in double jeopardy; The offended parties may also appeal the
judgment with respect to their right to civil liability.—Section 1 of Rule 122
of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states thus: “Any party
may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed
in double jeopardy.” Clearly, both the accused and the prosecution may
appeal a criminal case, but the government may do so only if the accused
would not thereby be placed in double jeopardy. Furthermore, the
prosecution cannot appeal on the ground that the accused should have been
given a more severe penalty. On the other hand, the offended parties may
also appeal the judgment with respect to their right to civil liability. If the
accused has the right to appeal the judgment of conviction, the offended
parties should have the same right to appeal as much of the judgment as is
prejudicial to them.
Same; Same; Same; Well-established is the principle that the appellate
court may, upon motion or motu proprio, dismiss an appeal during its
pendency if the accused jumps bail, on the rationale that the appellant loses
his standing in court when he absconds.—Well-established in our
jurisdiction is the principle that the appellate court may, upon motion or
motu proprio, dismiss an appeal during its pendency if the accused jumps
bail. The second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 124 of the 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: “The Court of Appeals may also,
upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the
appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a
foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.” This rule is based on
the rationale that appellants lose their standing in court when they abscond.
Unless they surrender or submit to the court’s jurisdiction, they are deemed
to have waived their right to seek judicial relief. Moreover, this doctrine
applies not only to the accused who jumps bail during the appeal, but also to
one who does so during the trial. Justice Florenz D. Regalado succinctly

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

explains the principle in this wise: “x x x. When, as in this case, the accused
escaped after his arraignment and during the trial, but the trial in absentia
proceeded resulting in the promulgation of a judgment against him and his
counsel appealed, since he nonetheless remained at large his

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

457

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 457

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

appeal must be dismissed by analogy with the aforesaid provision of this

Rule [Rule 124, §8 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure]. x x x”
Same; Same; Same; An accused who has escaped and refused to
surrender to the proper authorities is deemed to have abandoned his appeal
rendering the judgment against him final and executory.—As to when a
judgment of conviction attains finality is explained in Section 7 of Rule 120
of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which we quote: “A judgment of
conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before
it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death
penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period
for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally
satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to
appeal, or has applied for probation.” In the case before us, the accused-
employee has escaped and refused to surrender to the proper authorities;
thus, he is deemed to have abandoned his appeal. Consequently, the
judgment against him has become final and executory.
Same; Same; Independent Civil Actions; The 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure has clarified what civil actions are deemed instituted in a
criminal prosecution—it is only the civil liability of the accused arising from
the crime charged that is deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal action.—
At the outset, we must explain that the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure
has clarified what civil actions are deemed instituted in a criminal
prosecution. x x x Only the civil liability of the accused arising from the
crime charged is deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal action; that is,
unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to
institute it separately, or institutes it prior to the criminal action. Hence, the
subsidiary civil liability of the employer under Article 103 of the Revised
Penal Code may be enforced by execution on the basis of the judgment of
conviction meted out to the employee.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

Same; Same; Same; The 2000 Rules deleted the requirement of

reserving independent civil actions and allowed these to proceed separately
from criminal actions—what is deemed instituted in every criminal
prosecution is the civil liability arising from the crime or delict per se (civil
liability ex delicto), but not those liabilities arising from quasi-delicts,
contracts or quasi-contracts.—It is clear that the 2000 Rules deleted the
requirement of reserving independent civil actions and allowed these to
proceed separately from criminal actions. Thus, the civil actions referred to
in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code shall remain “separate,
distinct and independent” of any criminal prosecution based on the same
act. Here are some direct consequences of such revision and omission: 1.
The right to bring the foregoing actions based on the Civil Code need not be
reserved in the criminal prosecution, since they are not deemed included
therein. 2.

458

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

The institution or the waiver of the right to file a separate civil action arising
from the crime charged does not extinguish the right to bring such action. 3.
The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover more than once
for the same act or omission. What is deemed instituted in every criminal
prosecution is the civil liability arising from the crime or delict per se (civil
liability ex delicto), but not those liabilities arising from quasi-delicts,
contracts or quasi-contracts. In fact, even if a civil action is filed separately,
the ex delicto civil liability in the criminal prosecution remains, and the
offended party may—subject to the control of the prosecutor—still
intervene in the criminal action, in order to protect the remaining civil
interest therein.
Same; Same; Subsidiary Civil Liability; Parties; The cases dealing
with the subsidiary liability of employers uniformly declare that, strictly
speaking, the employers are not parties to the criminal cases instituted
against their employees; While employers may assist their employees to the
extent of supplying the latter’s lawyers, the former cannot act independently
on their own behalf, but can only defend the accused.—In its Memorandum,
petitioner cited a comprehensive list of cases dealing with the subsidiary
liability of employers. Thereafter, it noted that none can be applied to it,
because “in all th[o]se cases, the accused’s employer did not interpose an
appeal.” Indeed, petitioner cannot cite any single case in which the
employer appealed, precisely because an appeal in such circumstances is not
possible. The cases dealing with the subsidiary liability of employers
uniformly declare that, strictly speaking, they are not parties to the criminal
cases instituted against their employees. Although in substance and in effect,

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

they have an interest therein, this fact should be viewed in the light of their
subsidiary liability. While they may assist their employees to the extent of
supplying the latter’s lawyers, as in the present case, the former cannot act
independently on their own behalf, but can only defend the accused.
Same; Same; Same; Same; An employer’s appeal would violate the
employee’s right against double jeopardy since the judgment against the
latter could become subject to modification without his consent.—An appeal
from the sentence of the trial court implies a waiver of the constitutional
safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to a
review by the appellate court. The latter is then called upon to render
judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the,
appellant. This is the risk involved when the accused decides to appeal a
sentence of conviction. Indeed, appellate courts have the power to reverse,
affirm or modify the judgment of the lower court and to increase or reduce
the penalty it imposed. If the present appeal is given course, the whole case
against the accused-employee becomes open to review. It thus follows that a
penalty higher than that which has already been imposed by

459

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 459

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

the trial court may be meted out to him. Petitioner’s appeal would thus
violate his right against double jeopardy, since the judgment against him
could become subject to modification without his consent. We are not in a
position to second-guess the reason why the accused effectively waived his
right to appeal by jumping bail. It is clear, though, that petitioner may not
appeal without violating his right against double jeopardy.
Same; Same; Same; An accused, by fleeing, exhibits contempt of the
authority of the court and places himself in a position to speculate on his
chances for a reversal.—By fleeing, the herein accused exhibited contempt
of the authority of the court and placed himself in a position to speculate on
his chances for a reversal. In the process, he kept himself out of the reach of
justice, but hoped to render the judgment nugatory at his option. Such
conduct is intolerable and does not invite leniency on the part of the
appellate court. Consequently, the judgment against an appellant who
escapes and who refuses to surrender to the proper authorities becomes final
and executory.
Same; Same; Same; The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
subsidiary liability—Articles 102 and 103—are deemed written into the
judgments in the cases to which they are applicable.—Under Article 103 of
the Revised Penal Code, employers are subsidiarily liable for the
adjudicated civil liabilities of their employees in the event of the latter’s
insolvency. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

—Articles 102 and 103—are deemed written into the judgments in the 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.
Same; Same; Same; To allow employers to dispute the civil liability
fixed in a criminal case would enable them to amend, nullify or defeat a
final judgment rendered by a competent court; The decision convicting an
employee in a criminal case is binding and conclusive upon the employer
not only with regard to the former’s civil liability, but also with regard to its
amount.—In the absence of any collusion between the accused-employee
and the offended party, the judgment of conviction should bind the person
who is subsidiarily liable. In effect and implication, the stigma of a criminal
conviction surpasses mere civil liability. To allow employers to dispute the
civil liability fixed in a criminal case would enable them to amend, nullify
or defeat a final judgment rendered by a competent court. By the same
token, to allow them to appeal the final criminal conviction of their
employees without the latter’s consent would also result in improperly
amending, nullifying or defeating the judgment. The decision convicting an
employee in a criminal case is binding and conclusive upon the employer
not only with regard to the former’s civil liability, but also with

460

460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

regard to its amount. The liability of an employer cannot be separated from

that of the employee.
Same; Same; Same; Requisites.—Before the employers’ subsidiary
liability is exacted, however, there must be adequate evidence establishing
that (1) they are indeed the employers of the convicted employees; (2) that
the former are engaged in some kind of industry; (3) that the crime was
committed by the employees in the discharge of their duties; and (4) that the
execution against the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency. The
resolution of these issues need not be done in a separate civil action. But the
determination must be based on the evidence that the offended party and the
employer may fully and freely present. Such determination may be done in
the same criminal action in which the employee’s liability, criminal and
civil, has been pronounced; and 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.
Same; Same; Same; There is only one criminal case against the
accused-employee, and a finding of guilt has both criminal and civil aspects
—it is the height of absurdity for this single case to be final as to the
accused who jumped bail, but not as to an entity whose liability is
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

dependent upon the conviction of the former; Where the civil liability of the
accused-employee has become final and enforceable by reason of his flight,
then his employer’s subsidiary civil liability has also become immediately
enforceable.—According to the argument of petitioner, fairness dictates that
while the finality of conviction could be the proper sanction to be imposed
upon the accused for jumping bail, the same sanction should not affect it. In
effect, petitioner-employer splits this case into two: first, for itself; and
second, for its accused-employee. The untenability of this argument is
clearly evident. There is only one criminal case against the accused-
employee. A finding of guilt has both criminal and civil aspects. It is the
height of absurdity for this single case to be final as to the accused who
jumped bail, but not as to an entity whose liability is dependent upon the
conviction of the former. The subsidiary liability of petitioner is incidental
to and dependent on the pecuniary civil liability of the accused-employee.
Since the civil liability of the latter has become final and enforceable by
reason of his flight, then the former’s subsidiary civil liability has also
become immediately enforceable. Respondent is correct in arguing that the
concept of subsidiary liability is highly contingent on the imposition of the
primary civil liability.
Same; Same; Same; Appeals; The right to appeal is neither a natural
right nor a part of due process.—As to the argument that petitioner was
deprived of due process, we reiterate that what is sought to be enforced is
the subsidiary civil liability incident to and dependent upon the employee’s

461

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 461

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

criminal negligence. In other words, the employer becomes ipso facto

subsidiarily liable upon the conviction of the employee and upon proof of
the latter’s insolvency, in the same way that acquittal wipes out not only his
primary civil liability, but also his employer’s subsidiary liability for his
criminal negligence. It should be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a
natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of
statutory origin, a remedy that may be exercised only in the manner
prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing such exercise. Hence, the
legal requirements must be strictly complied with.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Due Process; It can be said that by jumping
bail, the accused-employee, not the court, deprived the employer of the right
to appeal.—After a judgment has become final, vested rights are acquired
by the winning party. If the proper losing party has the right to file an appeal
within the prescribed period, then the former has the correlative right to
enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case. In fact, petitioner admits that
by helping the accused-employee, it participated in the proceedings before

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

the RTC; thus, it cannot be said that the employer was deprived of due
process. It might have lost its right to appeal, but it was not denied its day in
court. In fact, it can be said that by jumping bail, the accused-employee, not
the court, deprived petitioner of the right to appeal.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the Court of

Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Peter H. Santiago for petitioner.
     Ramon M. Nisce collaborating counsel for petitioner.
     The Solicitor General for the people.
          Romulo Rivera and Benjamin Z. De Leon, Jr. private
prosecutors.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

When the accused-employee absconds or jumps bail, the judgment

meted out becomes final and executory. The employer cannot defeat
the finality of the judgment by filing a notice of appeal on its own
behalf in the guise of asking for a review of its subsidiary civil
liability. Both the primary civil liability of the accused-employee
and the subsidiary civil liability of the employer are carried in one
single decision that has become final and executory.

462

462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

The Case
1
Before this Court is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the
2
Rules of Court, assailing the March 29, 2000 and the March 27,
3
2001 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
59390. Petitioner’s appeal from the judgment of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of San Fernando, La Union in Criminal Case No. 2535
was dismissed in the first Resolution as follows:

“WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED

4
and the appeal is ordered DISMISSED.”

The second 5Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for

Reconsideration.

The Facts

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

The facts of the case are summarized by the CA in this wise:

“On July 27, 1994, accused [Napoleon Roman y Macadangdang] was found
guilty and convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to triple
homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage to property and was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven
(11) days to six (6) years, and to pay damages as follows:

‘a. to pay the heirs of JUSTINO TORRES the sum of P50,000.00 as

indemnity for his death, plus the sum of P25,383.00, for funeral
expenses, his unearned income for one year at P2,500.00 a month,
P50,000.00 as indemnity for the support of Renato Torres, and the
further sum of P300,000.00 as moral damages;
‘b. to the heirs of ESTRELLA VELERO, the sum of P50,000.00 as
indemnity for her death, the sum of P237,323.75 for funeral
expenses, her unearned income for three years at P45,000.00 per
annum, and the further sum of P1,000,000.00 as moral damages
and P200,000.00 as attorney’s fees[;]

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 9-28.

2 Id., pp. 30-34. Penned by Justice Mariano M. Umali and concurred in by Justices
Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. (Division chair) and Edgardo P. Cruz (member).
3 Id., pp. 36-37.
4 CA Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 34.
5 Annex “G” of the Petition; Rollo, pp. 115-124.

463

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 463

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

‘c. to the heirs of LORNA ANCHETA, the sum of P50,000.00 as

indemnity for her death, the sum of P22,838.00 as funeral
expenses, the sum of P20,544.94 as medical expenses and her loss
of income for 30 years at P1,000.00 per month, and the further sum
of P100,000.00 for moral damages;
‘d. to MAUREEN BRENNAN, the sum of P229,654.00 as hospital
expenses, doctor’s fees of P170,000.00 for the orthopedic surgeon,
P22,500.00 for the [n]eurologist, an additional indemnity [of] at
least P150,000.00 to cover future correction of deformity of her
limbs, and moral damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00;
‘e. to ROSIE BALAJO, the sum of P3,561.46 as medical expenses,
P2,000.00 as loss of income, and P25,000.00 as moral damages;
‘f. to TERESITA TAMONDONG, the sum of P19,800.47 as medical
expenses, P800.00 for loss of income, and P25,000.00 as moral
damages;
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

‘g. to JULIANA TABTAB, the amount of P580.81 as medical

expenses, P4,600.00 as actual damages and her loss earnings of
P1,400.00 as well as moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00;
‘h. to MIGUEL ARQUITOLA, the sum of P12,473.82 as hospital
expenses, P14,530.00 as doctor’s fees, P1,000.00 for medicines and
P50,000.00 as moral damages;
‘i. to CLARITA CABANBAN, the sum of P155.00 for medical
expenses, P87.00 for medicines, P1,710.00 as actual damages and
P5,000.00 as moral damages;
‘j. to MARIANO CABANBAN, the sum of P1,395.00 for hospital
bills, P500.00 for medicine, P2,100.00 as actual damages,
P1,200.00 for loss of income and P5,000.00 as moral damages;
‘k. to La Union Electric Company as the registered owner of the
Toyota Hi-Ace Van, the amount of P250,000.00 as actual damages
for the cost of the totally wrecked vehicle; to the owner of the
jeepney, the amount of P22,698.38 as actual damages’;

“The court further ruled that [petitioner], in the event of the insolvency of
accused, shall be liable for the civil liabilities of the accused. Evidently, the
judgment against accused had become final and executory.
“Admittedly, accused had jumped bail and remained at-large. It is worth
mention[ing] that Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court authorizes the
dismissal of appeal when appellant jumps bail. Counsel for accused, also
admittedly hired and provided by [petitioner], filed a notice of appeal which
was denied by the trial court. We affirmed the denial of the notice of appeal
filed in behalf of accused.

464

464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

“Simultaneously, on August 6, 1994, [petitioner] filed its notice of appeal

from the judgment of the trial court. On April 29, 1997, the trial court gave
due course to [petitioner’s] notice of appeal. On December 8, 1998,
[petitioner] filed its brief. On December 9, 1998, the Office of the Solicitor
General received [a] copy of [petitioner’s] brief. On January 8, 1999, the
OSG moved to be excused from filing [respondents’] brief on the ground
that the OSG’s authority to represent People is confined to criminal cases on
appeal. The motion was however denied per Our resolution of May 31,
1999. On March 2, 1999, [respondent]/private prosecutor filed the instant
6
motion to dismiss.” (Citations omitted)

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

The CA ruled that the institution of a criminal case implied the

institution also of the civil action arising from the offense. Thus,
once determined in the criminal case against the accused-employee,
the employer’s subsidiary civil liability as set forth in Article 103 of
the Revised Penal Code becomes conclusive and enforceable.
The appellate court further held that to allow an employer to
dispute independently the civil liability fixed in the criminal case
against the accused-employee would be to amend, nullify or defeat a
final judgment. Since the notice of appeal filed by the accused had
already been dismissed by the CA, then the judgment of conviction
and the award of civil liability became final and executory. Included
in the civil liability of the accused was the employer’s subsidiary
liability.
7
Hence, this Petition.

The Issues

Petitioner states the issues of this case as follows:

_______________

6 CA Decision, pp. 2-4; Rollo, pp. 31-33.

7 The case was deemed submitted for resolution on April 24, 2002, upon this
Court’s receipt of respondent’s Memorandum signed by Assistant Solicitors General
Carlos N. Ortega and Roman G. del Rosario and Associate Solicitor Elizabeth
Victoria L. Medina. Petitioner’s Memorandum, signed by Atty. Ramon M. Nisce, was
received by the Court on April 9, 2002.

465

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 465

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

“A. Whether or not an employer, who dutifully participated in

the defense of its accused-employee, may appeal the
judgment of conviction independently of the accused.
“B. Whether or not the doctrines of Alvarez v. Court of Appeals
(158 SCRA 57) and 8
Yusay v. Adil (164 SCRA 494) apply to
the instant case.”

There is really only one issue. Item B above is merely an adjunct to

Item A.

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition has no merit.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

Main Issue:
Propriety of Appeal by the Employer

Pointing out that it had seasonably filed a notice of appeal from the
RTC Decision, petitioner contends that the judgment of conviction
against the accused-employee has not attained finality. The former
insists that its appeal stayed the finality, notwithstanding the fact that
the latter had jumped bail. In effect, petitioner argues that its appeal
takes the place of that of the accused-employee.
We are not persuaded.

Appeals in Criminal Cases

Section 1 of Rule 122 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure states thus:

“Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused
will be placed in double jeopardy.”

Clearly, both the accused and the prosecution may appeal a criminal
case, but the government may do so 9only if the accused would not
thereby be placed in double jeopardy. Furthermore, the prosecution
cannot appeal on the ground that the accused should have been
10
given a more severe penalty. On the other hand, the

_______________

8 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 8; Rollo, p. 200.

9 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II (2001, 9th revised edition), p.
502.
10 Ibid.

466

466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

offended parties may also appeal the judgment with respect to their
right to civil liability. If the accused has the right to appeal the
judgment of conviction, the offended parties should have the same
11
right to appeal as much of the judgment as is prejudicial to them.

Appeal by the Accused

Who Jumps Bail

Well-established in our jurisdiction is the principle that the appellate

court may, upon motion or motu proprio, dismiss an appeal during
its pendency if the accused jumps bail. The second paragraph of

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

Section 8 of Rule 124 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure provides:

“The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu
proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or
confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of
12
the appeal.”

This rule is based on the rationale that appellants lose their standing
in court when they abscond. Unless they surrender or submit to the
court’s jurisdiction, they are deemed to have waived their right to
13
seek judicial relief.
Moreover, this doctrine applies not only to the accused who
jumps bail during the appeal, but also to one who does so during the
trial. Justice Florenz D. Regalado succinctly explains the principle in
this wise:

“x x x. When, as in this case, the accused escaped after his arraignment and
during the trial, but the trial in absentia proceeded resulting in the
promulgation of a judgment against him and his counsel appealed, since he
nonetheless remained at large his appeal must be dismissed by analogy with
the aforesaid provision of this Rule [Rule 124, §8 of the Rules on Criminal
14
Procedure]. x x x”

_______________

11 People v. Ursua, 60 Phil. 252, August 1, 1934.

12 This is substantially the same as the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
13 People v. Del Rosario, 348 SCRA 603, December 19, 2000.
14 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, supra, p. 540.

467

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 467

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless they

voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the court or are otherwise
15
arrested within 15 days from notice of the judgment against them.
While at large, they cannot seek relief from the court, as they are
16
deemed to have waived the appeal.

Finality of a Decision
in a Criminal Case

As to when a judgment of conviction attains finality is explained in

Section 7 of Rule 120 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure,
which we quote:

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

“A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or

set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where
the death penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the
period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or
totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his
right to appeal, or has applied for probation.”

In the case before us, the accused-employee has escaped and refused
to surrender to the proper authorities; thus, he is deemed to have
abandoned his appeal. Consequently, the judgment against him has
17
become final and executory.

Liability of an Employer
in a Finding of Guilt

Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code states the subsidiary civil
liabilities of innkeepers, as follows:

“In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and

any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes
committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of
municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have
been committed by them or their employees.
“Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for restitution of goods taken by
robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for

_______________

15 Ibid.
16 Ibid., citing People v. Mapalao, 274 Phil. 354; 197 SCRA 79, May 14, 1991.
17 People v. Enoja, 378 Phil. 623; 321 SCRA 7, December 17, 1999.

468

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

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 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.”

Moreover, the foregoing subsidiary liability applies to employers,

according to Article 103 which reads:

“The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also
apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,

apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.”

Having laid all these basic rules and principles, we now address the
main issue raised by petitioner.

Civil Liability Deemed Instituted

in the Criminal Prosecution

At the outset, we must explain that the 2000 Rules of Criminal

Procedure has clarified what civil actions are deemed instituted in a
criminal prosecution.
Section 1 of Rule 111 of the current Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides:

“When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted
with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior
to the criminal action.
“x x x      x x x      x x x”

Only the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime charged
is deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal action; that is, unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute
18
it separately, or institutes it prior to the criminal action. Hence, the
subsidiary civil liability of the employer under

_______________

18 Panganiban, Transparency, Unanimity & Diversity (2000 ed.), pp. 211-212.

469

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 469

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced by

execution on 19the basis of the judgment of conviction meted out to
the employee.
It is clear that the 2000 Rules deleted the requirement of
reserving independent civil actions and allowed these to proceed
separately from criminal actions. Thus, the civil actions referred to
20
in Articles 32,

_______________

19 Id., p. 212.
20 “ART. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who
directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter
for damages:

“(1) Freedom of religion;

“(2) Freedom of speech;
“(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
“(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
“(5) Freedom of suffrage;
“(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
“(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public
use;
“(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
“(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures;
“(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
“(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
“(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not
contrary to law;
“(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for
redress of grievances;
“(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
“(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
“(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
“(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one’s self, or from
being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced

470

470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

21 22 23
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code shall remain “separate,
distinct and independent” of any criminal prosecution based on the
same act. Here are some direct consequences of such revision and
omission:

1. The right to bring the foregoing actions based on the Civil

Code need not be reserved in the criminal prosecution, since they
are not deemed included therein.

_______________

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when

the person confessing becomes a State witness;
“(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the
same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been
judicially declared unconstitutional; and
“(19) Freedom of access to the courts.

“In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant’s act or
omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence
an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such
civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be
instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence:
“The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be
adjudicated.
“The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act
or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.”
21 “ART. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for
damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by
the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.”
22 “ART. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to
render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace
officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be
subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be
independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall
suffice to support such action.”
23 “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. (1902a)”

471

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 471

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

2. The institution or the waiver of the right to file a separate

civil action arising from the crime charged does not
extinguish the right to bring such action.
3. The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover
24
more than once for the same act or omission.

What is deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is the civil

liability arising from the crime or delict per se (civil liability ex
delicto), but not those liabilities arising from quasi-delicts, contracts
or quasi-contracts. In fact, even if a civil action is filed separately,
the ex delicto civil liability in the criminal prosecution remains, and
the offended party may—subject to the control of the prosecutor—
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

still intervene in the criminal action, in order to protect the

25
remaining civil interest therein.
This discussion is completely in accord with the Revised Penal
Code, which states that “[e]very person criminally liable for a felony
26
is also civilly liable.”
Petitioner argues that, as an employer, it is considered a party to
the criminal case and is conclusively bound by the outcome thereof.
Consequently, petitioner must be accorded the right to pursue the
case to its logical conclusion—including the appeal.
The argument has no merit. Undisputedly, petitioner is not a
direct party to the criminal case, which was filed solely against
Napoleon M. Roman, its employee.
In its Memorandum, petitioner cited a comprehensive list of
cases dealing with the subsidiary liability of employers. Thereafter,
it noted that none can be applied to it, because “in all th[o]se cases,
27
the accused’s employer did not interpose an appeal.” Indeed,
petitioner cannot cite any single case in which the employer
appealed, precisely because an appeal in such circumstances is not
possible.
The cases dealing with the subsidiary liability of employers
uniformly declare that, strictly speaking, they are not parties to the
28
criminal cases instituted against their employees. Although in
substance and in effect, they have an interest therein, this fact

_______________

24 Panganiban, Transparency, Unanimity & Diversity, supra, p. 214.

25 Id., pp. 214-215.
26 Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code.
27 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 13; Rollo, p. 205.
28 Miranda v. Malate Garage & Taxicab, Inc., 99 Phil. 670, July 31, 1956.

472

472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

should be viewed in the light of their subsidiary liability. While they

may assist their employees to the extent of supplying the latter’s
lawyers, as in the present case, the former cannot act independently
on their own behalf, but can only defend the accused.

Waiver of Constitutional Safeguard

Against Double Jeopardy

Petitioner’s appeal obviously aims to have the accused-employee

absolved of his criminal responsibility and the judgment reviewed as
29
a whole. These intentions are apparent from its Appellant’s Brief
30
filed with the CA and from its Petition before us, both of which
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

claim that the trial court’s finding of guilt “is not supported by
31
competent evidence.”
An appeal from the sentence of the trial court implies a waiver of
the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the
whole case open to a review by the appellate court. The latter is then
called upon to render judgment as law and justice dictate, whether
32
favorable or unfavorable to the, appellant. This is the risk involved
33
when the accused decides to appeal a sentence of conviction.
Indeed, appellate courts have the power to reverse, affirm or modify
the judgment of the lower court and to increase or reduce the penalty
34
it imposed.
If the present appeal is given course, the whole case against the
accused-employee becomes open to review. It thus follows that a
penalty higher than that which has already been imposed by the trial
court may be meted out to him. Petitioner’s appeal would thus
violate his right against double jeopardy, since the judgment against
him could become subject to modification without his consent.
We are not in a position to second-guess the reason why the
accused effectively waived his right to appeal by jumping bail. It is

_______________

29 CA Rollo, pp. 66-108.

30 Rollo, pp. 9-28.
31 Appellant’s Brief, p. 14; CA Rollo, p. 84.
32 Lontoc v. People, 74 Phil. 513, December 29, 1943.
33 People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383, December 9, 1999.
34 Lontoc v. People, supra; United States v. Abijan, 1 Phil. 83, January 7, 1902.
See also §11 of Rule 124 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

473

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 473

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

clear, though, that petitioner may not appeal without violating his
right against double jeopardy.

Effect of Absconding
on the Appeal Process

Moreover, within the meaning of the principles governing the

prevailing criminal procedure, the accused impliedly withdrew his
appeal by jumping bail and thereby made the judgment of the court
35
below final. Having been a fugitive from justice for a long period
of time, he is deemed to have waived his right to appeal. Thus, his
conviction is now final and executory. The Court in People v. Ang
36
Gioc ruled:

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

“There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be waived even by the
accused himself, but the right of appeal is not one of them. This right is
granted solely for the benefit of the accused. He may avail of it or not, as he
pleases. He may waive it either expressly or by implication. When the
accused flees after the case has been submitted to the court for decision, he
will be deemed to have waived his right to appeal from the judgment
37
rendered against him. x x x.”

By fleeing, the herein accused exhibited contempt of the authority of

the court and placed himself in a position to speculate on his chances
for a reversal. In the process, he kept himself out of the reach of
38
justice, but hoped to render the judgment nugatory at his option.
Such conduct is intolerable and does not invite leniency on the part
39
of the appellate court.
Consequently, the judgment against an appellant who escapes
and who refuses to surrender to the proper authorities becomes final
40
and executory.
Thus far, we have clarified that petitioner has no right to appeal
the criminal case against the accused-employee; that by jumping
bail, he has waived his right to appeal; and that the judgment in the
criminal case against him is now final.

_______________

35 Francisco, Criminal Procedure (1996, 3rd ed.), p. 520.

36 73 Phil. 366, October 31, 1941.
37 Id., p. 369, per Abad Santos, J.
38 Francisco, Criminal Procedure, supra, p. 520.
39 Ibid.
40 People v. Enoja, supra.

474

474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

Subsidiary Liability

Upon Finality of Judgment

As a matter of law, the subsidiary liability of petitioner now accrues.
Petitioner argues that the rulings of this Court in Miranda v. Malate
41 42 43
Garage & Taxicab, Inc., Alvarez v. CA and Yusay v. Adil do not
apply to the present case, because it has followed the Court’s
directive to the employers in these cases to take part in the criminal
cases against their employees. By participating in the defense of its
employee, herein petitioner tries to shield itself from the undisputed
rulings laid down in these leading cases.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

Such posturing is untenable. In dissecting these cases on

subsidiary liability, petitioner lost track of the most basic tenet they
have laid down—that an employer’s liability in a finding of guilt
against its accused-employee is subsidiary.
Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, employers are
subsidiarily liable for the adjudicated civil liabilities of their
44
employees in the event of the latter’s insolvency. The provisions of
the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability—Articles 102 and
103—are deemed written into the judgments in the cases to which
45
they are applicable. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision,
the trial court need not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability
of the employer.
In the absence of any collusion between the accused-employee
and the offended party, the judgment of conviction should bind the
46
person who is subsidiarily liable. In effect and implication, the
47
stigma of a criminal conviction surpasses mere civil liability.
To allow employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in a
criminal case would enable them to amend, nullify or defeat a final
48
judgment rendered by a competent court. By the same token, to
allow them to appeal the final criminal conviction of their employ-

_______________

41 Supra at note 28.

42 158 SCRA 57, February 23, 1988.
43 164 SCRA 494, August 18, 1988.
44 Lagazon v. Reyes, 166 SCRA 386, October 18, 1988.
45 Alvarez v. Court of Appeals, supra.
46 Martinez v. Barredo, 81 Phil. 1, May 13, 1948.
47 Ibid.
48 Yusay v. Adil, supra; Pajarito v. Señeris, 87 SCRA 275, December 14, 1978.

475

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 475

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

ees without the latter’s consent would also result in improperly

amending, nullifying or defeating the judgment.
The decision convicting an employee in a criminal case is
binding and conclusive upon the employer not only with regard to
the former’s civil liability, but also with regard to its amount. The
liability of49 an employer cannot be separated from that of the
employee.
Before the employers’ subsidiary liability is exacted, however,
there must be adequate evidence establishing that (1) they are indeed
the employers of the convicted employees; (2) that the former are
engaged in some kind of industry; (3) that the crime was committed
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

by the employees in the discharge of their duties; and (4) that the
50
execution against the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency.
The resolution of these issues need not be done in a separate civil
action. But the determination must be based on the evidence that the
offended party and the employer may fully and freely present. Such
determination may be done in the same criminal action in which the
51
employee’s liability, criminal and civil, has been pronounced; and
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.
Just because the present petitioner participated in the defense of
its accused-employee does not mean that its liability has transformed
its nature; its liability remains subsidiary. Neither will its
participation erase its subsidiary liability. The fact remains that since
the accused-employee’s conviction has attained finality, then the
subsidiary liability of the employer ipso facto attaches.
According to the argument of petitioner, fairness dictates that
while the finality of conviction could be the proper sanction to be
imposed upon the accused for jumping bail, the same sanction
should not affect it. In effect, petitioner-employer splits this case into
two: first, for itself; and second, for its accused-employee.

_______________

49 Lagazon v. Reyes, supra; Miranda P. Malate Garage & Taxicab, Inc., supra.
50 Ozoa v. Vda. de Madula, 156 SCRA 779, December 22, 1987.
51 Ibid.

476

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

The untenability of this argument is clearly evident. There is only

one criminal case against the accused-employee. A finding of guilt
has both criminal and civil aspects. It is the height of absurdity for
this single case to be final as to the accused who jumped bail, but not
as to an entity whose liability is dependent upon the conviction of
the former.
The subsidiary liability of petitioner is incidental to and
dependent on the pecuniary civil liability of the accused-employee.
Since the civil liability of the latter has become final and enforceable
by reason of his flight, then the former’s subsidiary civil liability has
also become immediately enforceable. Respondent is correct in
arguing that the concept of subsidiary liability is highly contingent
on the imposition of the primary civil liability.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

No Deprivation
of Due Process
As to the argument that petitioner was deprived of due process, we
reiterate that what is sought to be enforced is the subsidiary civil
liability incident to and dependent upon the employee’s criminal
negligence. In other words, the employer becomes ipso facto
subsidiarily liable upon the conviction of the employee and upon
proof of the latter’s insolvency, in the same way that acquittal wipes
out not only his primary civil liability, but also his employer’s
52
subsidiary liability for his criminal negligence.
It should be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a natural
53
right nor a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of
statutory origin, a remedy that may be exercised only in the manner
54
prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing such exercise.
55
Hence, the legal requirements must be strictly complied with.

_______________

52 Alvarez v. Court of Appeals, supra; Martinez v. Barredo, supra.

53 Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, 384 SCRA 466, July 11, 2002.
54 Oro v. Judge Diaz, 361 SCRA 108, July 11, 2001; Mercury Drug Corp. v. Court
of Appeals, 390 Phil. 902; 335 SCRA 567, July 13, 2000; Ortiz v. Court of Appeals,
299 SCRA 708, December 4, 1998.
55 Pedrosa v. Hill, 257 SCRA 373, June 14, 1996; Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals,
241 SCRA 553, February 22, 1995.

477

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 477

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

It would be incorrect to consider the requirements of the rules on

appeal as merely harmless and trivial technicalities that can be
56 57
discarded. Indeed, deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated.
In these times when court dockets are clogged with numerous
litigations, such rules have to be followed by parties with greater
58
fidelity, so as to facilitate the orderly disposition of those cases.
After a judgment has become final, vested rights are acquired by
the winning party. If the proper losing party has the right to file an
appeal within the prescribed period, then the former has the
59
correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case.
In fact, petitioner admits that by helping the accused-employee, it
participated in the proceedings before the RTC; thus, it cannot be
said that the employer was deprived of due process. It might have
60
lost its right to appeal, but it was not denied its day in court. In fact,
it can be said that by jumping bail, the accused-employee, not the
court, deprived petitioner of the right to appeal.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

All told, what is left to be done is to execute the RTC Decision

against the accused. It should be clear that only after proof of his
insolvency may the subsidiary liability of petitioner be enforced. It
has been sufficiently proven that there exists an employer-employee
relationship; that the employer is engaged in some kind of industry;
and that the employee has been adjudged guilty of the wrongful act
and found to have committed the offense in the discharge of his
duties. The proof is clear from the admissions of petitioner that “[o]n
26 August 1990, while on its regular trip from Laoag to Manila, a
passenger bus owned by petitioner, being then operated by
petitioner’s driver, Napoleon Roman, figured in an accident in San
61
Juan, La Union x x x.” Neither does petitioner dispute that there
was already a finding of guilt against the accused while he was in
the discharge of his duties.

_______________

56 Casim v. Flordeliza, 374 SCRA 386, January 23, 2002.

57 People v. Marong, 119 SCRA 430, December 27, 1982.
58 Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals, supra.
59 Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 50, November 28,
1996.
60 Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, supra.
61 Petition for Review, p. 2; Rollo, p. 10; Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 2; Rollo,
p. 194.

478

478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Litonjua vs. Fernandez

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED, and the assailed

Resolutions AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

     Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and

Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, assailed resolutions affirmed.

Notes.—While the Supreme Court has sanctioned the

enforcement of the employer’s subsidiary liability in the same
criminal proceedings in which the employee is adjudged guilty,
execution against the employer must not issue as just a matter of
course—it behooves the court, as a measure of due process to the
employer, to determine and resolve a priori, in a hearing set for the
purpose, the legal applicability and propriety of the employer’s
liability. (Yonaha vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 397 [1996])

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 23/24
8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

A final judgment rendered in a civil case absolving the defendant

from civil liability is no bar to a criminal action. (Bordador vs. Luz,
283 SCRA 374 [1997])

——o0o——

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

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b589fb0fcaf617711000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 24/24