G.R. NO.

113433 MARCH 17, 2000

LUISITO P. BASILIO

VS

COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

A crime of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with double homicide and
double physical injuries was charged to simplicio pronebo. The court found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Reckless Imprudence resulting in the death of Danito Advincula. Pertinently, the
trial court found that at the time of the vehicular accident accused Simplicio Pronebo was employed as
the driver of the dump truck owned by petitioner Luisito Basilio.Petitioner Luisito Basilio filed with the
trial court a Motion for Reconsideration praying that the judgment be reconsideredand set aside insofar
as it affected him and subjected him to a subsidiary liability for the civil aspect of the criminal case.The
motion was denied for lack of merit . Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Revised Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals,alleging that respondent judge acted without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Before the appellate court,petitioner claimed he was not
afforded due process when he was found subsidiarily liable for the civil liability of theaccused Pronebo in
the criminal case. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner has subsidiary liability

RULING:

YES. The statutory basis for an employer’s subsidiary liability is found in Article 103 of the
Revised Penal Code. This liability is enforceable in the same criminal proceeding where the award is
made. However, before execution against an employer ensues, there must be a determination, in a
hearing set for the purpose of 1) the existence of an employer-employee relationship; 2) that the
employer is engaged in some kind of industry; 3) 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 4) that said employee is insolvent.