Case Digest: Article 32 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

PAULINO PADUA and LUCENA BEBIN PADUA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. GREGORIO N. ROBLES and BAY TAXI CAB, defendants-appellees.

G.R. No. L-40486 August 29, 1975

CASTRO, J.:

FACTS: Paulino Padua and Lucena Bebin Padua filed a case against the driver, Romeo N. Punzalan and the Bay Taxicab owner, Gregorio N. Robles for the death of their son, Normandy Padua, 10 years old, who was run over by a taxi operated by the said company. Based on the information filed with the Court of First Instance of Zambales, the fiscal charged the driver with homicide through reckless imprudence.

In civil case, the court ruled against the driver to pay the actual, moral and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs, and dismissed the complaint insofar as the company was concerned.

In criminal case, the accused Romeo Punzalan y Narciso found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence, as defined and penalized under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The civil liability of the accused has already been determined and assessed in the prior civil case.

Due to the insolvency of the accused, plaintiffs instituted an action in the same court against the owner of the taxicab company to enforce the latter’s subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not the employer should be held liable.

HELD: Yes. The sufficiency and efficacy of a judgment must be tested by its substance rather than its form; that even if the decretal portion of the judgment in the criminal case were reasonably susceptible of two of more interpretations, that which achieves moral justice should be adopted, avoiding the other interpretations which in effect would negate moral justice; and that therefore, the Plaintiffs’ subsequent complaint stated a cause of action against the owner whose concomitant subsidiary responsibility per judgment in the criminal case, subsists.