manalo vs robles.doc

8/14/2019 manalo vs robles.doc

1/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-8171 August 16, 1956

EMILIO MANALO an CARLA SAL!A"OR,plaintiffs-appellees,vs.RO#LES TRANSPORTATION COMPAN$, INC.,defendant-appellant.

Cornelio S. Ruperto and Lazaro Pormarejo for appellant.San Juan, Africa, Yiguez and Benedicto for appellees.

MONTEMA$OR,J.

%

Robles Transportation Compan, !nc., later referred to as the Compan, isappealin" from the decision of the Court of #irst !nstance of Ri$al, civil case No.%&'(, orderin" it to pa plaintiffs Emilio Manalo and his )ife, Clara *alvador, thesum of P(,&&& )ith interest at '% per cent per annum from November '+, '%plus the amount of P&& for attorne/s fee and e0penses of liti"ation, )ith cost.

The facts involved in this case are simple and )ithout dispute. 1n Au"ust ,'+2, a ta0icab o)ned and operated b defendant appellant Compan anddriven b Ed"ardo 3ernande$ its driver, collided )ith a passen"er truc4 at

Para5a6ue, Ri$al. !n the course of and a result of the accident, the ta0icab ranover Armando Manalo, an eleven ear old, causin" him phsical in7uries )hichresulted in his death several das later. Ed"ardo 3ernande$ )as prosecuted forhomicide throu"h rec4less imprudence and after trial )as found "uilt of thechar"e and sentenced to one earprision correccional, to indemnif the heirs ofthe deceased in the amount of P(,&&&, in the case of insolvenc to suffersubsidiar imprisonment, and to pa costs. Ed"ardo 3ernande$ served out hissentence but failed to pa the indemnit. T)o )rits of e0ecution )ere issueda"ainst him to satisf the amount of the indemnit, but both )rits )ere returnedunsatisfied b the sheriff )ho certified that propert, real or personal in

3ernande$8 name could be found.

1n #ebruar '2, '(, plaintiffs Emilio Manalo and his )ife Clara *alvador,father and mother respectivel of Armando filed the present action a"ainst theCompan to enforce its subsidiar liabilit, pursuant to Articles '&% and '&( ofthe Revised Penal Code. The Compan filed its appearance and ans)er andlater an amended ans)er )ith special defenses and counterclaim. !t also filed a


2/4

motion to dismiss the complaint unless and until the convicted driver 3ernande$)as included as a part defendant, the Compan considerin" him anindispensable part. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, holdin" that3ernande$ )as not an indispensable part defendant. 9issatisfied )ith thisrulin", the Compan filed certiorari proceedin"s )ith the Court of Appeals, but

said appellate court held that 3ernande$ )as not an indispensable partdefendant, and conse6uentl, the trial court in denin" the motion to dismissacted )ithin the proper limits of its discretion. Eventuall, the trial court rendered

7ud"ment sentencin" the defendant Compan to pa to plaintiffs dama"es in theamount P(,&&& )ith interest at '% per cent per annum from November '+, '%,plus P&& for attorne/s fee and e0penses for liti"ation, )ith cost. As aforesaid,the Compan is appealin" from this decision.

To prove their case a"ainst the defendant Compan, the plaintiffs introduced acop of the decision in the criminal case convictin" 3ernande$ of homicide

throu"h rec4less imprudence, the )rits of e0ecution to enforce the civil liabilit,and the returns of the sheriff sho)in" that the t)o )rits of e0ecution )ere notsatisfied because of the insolvenc of 3ernande$, the sheriff bein" unable tolocate an propert in his name. 1ver the ob7ections of the Compan, the trialcourt admitted this evidence and based its decision in the present case on thesame.

9efendant-appellant no) contends that this 4ind of evidence is inadmissible andcities in support of its contention the cases of Cit of !anila "s. !anila #lectricCompan :% Phil., ;


3/4

of certain public officials. The courts and the le"islature have reco"ni$edthe valid reason for such an e0ception. The liti"ation is unlimited in )hichtestimon b officials is dail needed, the occasion in )hich the officials)ould be summoned from his ordinar duties to declare as a )itness arenumberless. The public officers are fe) in )hose dail )or4 somethin" is

not done in )hich testimon is not needed from official statements, host ofofficial )ould be found devotin" the "reater part of their time to attendin"as )itness in court or deliverin" their depositions before an officer. The)or4 of Administration of "overnment and the interest of the public havin"business )ith officials )ould ali4e suffer in conse6uence.

And this Court added>

The la) reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumesthe )ill dischar"e their several trust )ith accurac and fidelit? and

therefore, )hatever acts the do in dischar"e of their public dut ma be"iven in evidence and shall be ta4en of their public dut ma be "iven inevidence and shall be ta4en to be true under such a de"ree of caution asthe nature and circumstances of each a case ma appear to re6uire.

The appellant also contends that Article '&% and '&( of the Revised Penal Code)ere repealed b the Ne) Civil Code, promul"ated in '&, particularl, b therepealin" clause under )hich comes Article %%2& of the said code. =e find thecontention untenable. Article %'22 of the Ne) Civil Code e0pressl reco"ni$escivil liabilities arisin" from ne"li"ence under the Penal Code, onl that it provides

that plaintiff cannot recover dama"es t)ice for the same act of omission of thedefendant.

ART. %'22. Responsibilit for fault or ne"li"ence under the precedin"article is entirel separate and distinct from the civil liabilit arisin" fromne"li"ence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recoverdama"es t)ice for the same act of omission of the defendant.

!nvo4in" prescription, appellant claims that the present action is barred b the*tatute of @imitations for the reason that it is an action either upon a 6uasi delict,and that accordin" to Article ''+ of the Ne) Civil Code, such action must be

instituted )ithin four ears. =e a"ree )ith the appellee that the present action isbased upon a 7ud"ement, namel, that in the criminal case, findin" 3ernande$"uilt of homicide throu"h rec4less imprudence and sentencin" him to indemnifthe heirs of the deceased in the sum of P(,&&&, and, conse6uentl ma beinstituted )ithin ten ears.


4/4

As re"ards the other errors assi"ned b appellant, )e find it unnecessar todiscuss and rule upon them.

#indin" the decision appealed from to be in accordance )ith la), the same ishereb affirmed, )ith costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Rees, A., Bautista Angelo, La$rador,Concepcion, Rees, J. B. L., and #ndencia, JJ.,concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

manalo vs robles.doc

Documents