FACTS:

In the case, the spouses Florentino Vallejera and Theresa Vallejera filed a civil case against the petitioners, owners of a Ford Fiera van and employers of their son, who was involved in a vehicular accident resulting in the death of the Vallejeras' 7-year old son. The driver of the van, Vincent Norman Yeneza, was charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide but committed suicide before the trial's conclusion, leading to the dismissal of the criminal case. The Vallejeras then filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners, claiming that they failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint is a claim for subsidiary liability and that there must be a judgment of conviction against the driver to hold them liable. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, ruling that the complaint is not a claim for subsidiary liability but a separate civil action based on negligence under the Civil Code. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the cause of action in Civil Case No. 99-10845 is founded on Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, as maintained by the petitioners.

2. Whether the cause of action in Civil Case No. 99-10845 is derived from Article 2180 of the Civil Code, as ruled by the two courts below.

RULING:

1. The cause of action in Civil Case No. 99-10845 is derived from Article 2180 of the Civil Code, as ruled by the two courts below. The Court of Appeals held that the complaint did not allege the basic elements for the petitioner's subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, such as the conviction of the accused employee and his insolvency. The court further explained that the liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code is direct and immediate, and not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee or prior showing of the latter's insolvency. Therefore, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the complaint for damages.

PRINCIPLES:

• Civil liability arising from negligence under the Revised Penal Code is separate and distinct from the civil liability under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. (Based on the ruling of the Court of Appeals)

• Liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code is direct and immediate, and not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee or prior showing of the latter's insolvency. (Based on the ruling of the Court of Appeals)