Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    Case 065 Articles 2176, 2180 - Veloso, Ralph Nino

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Veloso
    Rolito Calang, a bus driver for PHILTRANCO Service Enterprises, was criminally charged for a vehicular accident that killed three people. The trial court ruled Calang and PHILTRANCO jointly and severally liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed this. However, the Supreme Court ruled that PHILTRANCO could not be jointly liable because the case involved a delict by the employee, not a quasi-delict. PHILTRANCO could only be subsidiarily liable if certain conditions were met, such as the employee being insolvent, the crime occurring in the employee's duties, and PHILTRANCO being the employer in an industry.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case 065 Articles 2176, 2180 - Veloso, Ralph Nino

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Veloso
    42 views1 page
    Rolito Calang, a bus driver for PHILTRANCO Service Enterprises, was criminally charged for a vehicular accident that killed three people. The trial court ruled Calang and PHILTRANCO jointly and severally liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed this. However, the Supreme Court ruled that PHILTRANCO could not be jointly liable because the case involved a delict by the employee, not a quasi-delict. PHILTRANCO could only be subsidiarily liable if certain conditions were met, such as the employee being insolvent, the crime occurring in the employee's duties, and PHILTRANCO being the employer in an industry.

    Original Title

    CASE 065 ARTICLES 2176, 2180 - VELOSO, RALPH NINO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rolito Calang, a bus driver for PHILTRANCO Service Enterprises, was criminally charged for a vehicular accident that killed three people. The trial court ruled Calang and PHILTRANCO jointly and severally liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed this. However, the Supreme Court ruled that PHILTRANCO could not be jointly liable because the case involved a delict by the employee, not a quasi-delict. PHILTRANCO could only be subsidiarily liable if certain conditions were met, such as the employee being insolvent, the crime occurring in the employee's duties, and PHILTRANCO being the employer in an industry.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views1 page

    Case 065 Articles 2176, 2180 - Veloso, Ralph Nino

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Veloso
    Rolito Calang, a bus driver for PHILTRANCO Service Enterprises, was criminally charged for a vehicular accident that killed three people. The trial court ruled Calang and PHILTRANCO jointly and severally liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed this. However, the Supreme Court ruled that PHILTRANCO could not be jointly liable because the case involved a delict by the employee, not a quasi-delict. PHILTRANCO could only be subsidiarily liable if certain conditions were met, such as the employee being insolvent, the crime occurring in the employee's duties, and PHILTRANCO being the employer in an industry.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ROLITO CALANG and PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC.

    , Petitioners,
    vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
    G.R. No. 190696              
    August 3, 2010
    FACTS:
    Rolito Calang, an employee and a bus driver of PHILTRANCO Bus Co. was involved in
    a vehicular accident which killed three (3) people. A criminal case was filed against Calang
    and PHILTRANCO Bus Co. The RTC ruled finding Calang and PHILTRANCO to be jointly and
    severally liable for the crime and ordered to pay indemnity to the victims. After its Motion
    for Reconsideration was denied, PHILTRANCO appealed to the Court of Appeals which in
    turn affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court. When the Court of Appeals
    denied its Motion for Reconsideration, PHILTRANCO went to the SC to appeal the CA’s
    decision.
    ISSUE:
    Whether the Liability of the Employer is jointly and severally liable in a civil liability
    arising from delict committed by its employee?
    RULING:
    No. 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[1] and 2180[2] 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.
    PHILTRANCO is only subsidiarily liable. Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code states
    the subsidiary civil liabilities of innkeepers, tavern keepers and proprietors of
    establishments. 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 employer's 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 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.

    You might also like