RUFO MAURICIO CONSTRUCTION CORP. vs.

INTRERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
Illustre Cabiliza was charged with homicide and damage to property through reckless imprudence
due to the death of Judge Arsenio Solidum. On September 20, 1979, Cabila drove the Izusu
dumptruck (with plate number WD-224) owned by Rufo Mauricio Constructions in the city of
Legaspi. He sideswiped and hit the Colt Gallant (with plate number AC-206) driven by Judge
Arsenio Solidum. the Accident caused the untimely death of Judge.
RTC convicted Cabiliza. Cabiliza filed Notice of Appeal but he did not live to pursue his appeal.
Atty. Eustaquio Beltran (Cabaliza's counsel) sent a notice of death. in that notice. Atty. Beltran
manifested the intention of Rufo Mauricio, as employer who is subsidiarily liable, to pursue the
appeal.
RTC ordered that the heirs of Cabiliza appear and substitute him on appeal with respect to the
civil aspect of the case against Cabiliza. On Motion of the heirs of the victim, the court issued a
writ of execution. However, it was returned unsatisfied because Cabiliza was insolvent.
MRS. Solidum filed a motion for the issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution to be enforced
against Rufo Mauricio/ Rufo Mauricio Constructions. Said writ was issued by the clerk.
IAC Affirmed RTC but modified the grant of damages. MR denied.
Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the criminal case against the accused wipes out not only
the employee's primary civil liability but also the employer's subsidiary liability.
Held: Because accused died before the judgment of conviction became final, his criminal liability
was extinguished but not his civil liability.
His civil liability or obligation did not arise from a crime since he was not convicted by a final
judgment and therefore still regarded as innocent, but rather from a quasi delict. In this case, te
employer's liability is not subsidiary but solidary unless the employer would be able to prove that
there was no negligence on his part at all, that is, if he can prove due diligence in the selection
and supervision of his driver.
Since employer was not a party to the criminal case and to grant him his day in court for the
purpose of cross examining the prosecution witnesses and to introduce evidence, the hearing on
the motion to quash the writ of execution must be reopened . REMANDED TO TRIAL COURT.