Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 147703, April 14, 2004; per Panganiban, J.

Facts

On July 27, 1994, accused [Napoleon Roman y Macadangdang], driver/employee of Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc of 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.

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. On appeal, accused had jumped bail and remained at-large. Rules of Court authorizes the dismissal of appeal when appellant jumps bail. Simultaneously, on August 6, 1994, petitioner filed its notice of appeal from the judgment of the trial court. The motion was however denied. Court of Appeals likewise denied the notice of appeal

Issue

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

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that while employers 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. Moreover, only the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime charged is deemed impliedly instituted in a 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.

Undisputedly, petitioner is not a direct party to the criminal case, which was filed solely against Napoleon M. Roman, its employee. 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, they have an interest therein, this fact should be viewed in the light of their subsidiary liability.