Rotea v. Halili

DOCTRINE:

Subsidiary liability of employer – In enforcing the subsidiary liability of the employer, the court has no other function than to render decision based upon the indemnity awarded in the criminal case. It has no power to amend or modify it even if in its opinion an error has been committed in the decision.

Exemplary Damages; extent to employer – The rule is that exemplary damages are imposed primarily upon the wrongdoer as a deterrent in the commission of similar acts in the future. Such punitive damages cannot be applied to his master or employer except only to the extent of his participation or ratification of the act because they are penal in character. Moreover, exemplary damages may only be imposed when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances (Article 2230, new Civil Code).

FACTS:

On August 17, 1952, a bus owned by Respondent Halili crashed and Jose Rotea was injured in the accident. The driver Angel Bascon was charged with reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries. Bascon was found guilty and ordered him to pay P513, P3,000.00 as liquidated damages and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Because Bascon was insolvent, the liability fell upon the employer, the Respondent Halili. Rotea made demands, but Halili ignored him so he was forced to file a case against him paying for P13,513.00 as liquidated and exemplary damages, as well as P2,000.00 as attorney's fees.

The trial court ruled in favor of Rotea and ordered Halili to pay:

P3,513.00 – Liquidated damages

P500 – attorney's fees

The trial court did not allow the collection of exemplary damages.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Employer is subsidiarily liable for exemplary damages that were adjudged against his employee.

HELD:

No. The trial court was justified in not requiring appellee to pay exemplary damages there being no evidence whatever that he had any participation in the wrongful act committed by his employee. The rule is that exemplary damages are imposed primarily upon the wrongdoer as a deterrent in the commission of similar acts in the future. Such punitive damages cannot be applied to his master or employer except only to the extent of his participation or ratification of the act because they are penal in character. Moreover, in this jurisdiction, exemplary damages may only be imposed when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances,